MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Cristina “Malvinera” Kirchner promises no respite in struggle for Falklands
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner claimed she is “profoundly malvinera” and promised to continue struggling at all international forums for what is unrenounceable for Argentina: “the claim over our Malvinas”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesclaiming OUR malvinas... do they really believe that after a war was fought that the UN will just vote and say : well, here you have it... all the brits out, ... you have to be really dumb to beleive it that possibility after a war wiht a thousand deaths. Argentina tried to take it by force, by war,.... it's the most UNPEACEFULL way possible. And now suddenly they claim justice. They ve made war, lost it, so be a good loser at least. Or should Chile make war and claim parts of Patagonia back because the ruling of the pope was unfair? As history shows it: ARgentina goes backwards in any way. Who cares about an island with 3000 People? let them live in peace.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine has always made things the wrong way. May be if Peron and Evita hadn't existed and we had had responsible politician from then instead, Argentine would have been today one of a most powerful countries of America, which is far not the case today. Thus, territorial claims could have been made in a responsible way. I agree to philip that there is not much to do now specially since 1982…
Oct 10th, 2009 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, I would appreciate very much that the concerned countries leave their proud behind and try to find a solution to this issue once at all.
Who was going to think that g-20 were going to replace g-8 as the main meeting where countries decide what the best economic rules are for the world. Who was going to think that third countries were going to have a strong voice in IMF. These things happened thanks to economic downturn and were unimaginable 5 years ago. Now, many countries claim a more democratic security council and there are some members like russia, china and france who are considering seriously. Things started changing in the world. Things on the chess board are moving and noone knows how things are going to be. Imagine brazil in the international scene, a clearly ally of argentina. Guess who was the idea of unasur defense council from. As I said before noone knows what could happen in this world, remember that israel gave back all the land they stolen to its owner egypt, and that was after a bloody war. So, philip or sony, panasonic, sanyo, hitachi or whatever you name is, do not write nonsenses! Nonsenses like chile claiming patagonia. They can't claim our patagonia. They just have their own patagonia and they never been here. Even more, they have no claim on patagonia. We solved all the 30 remaining sovereignty disputes with chile in 90's in a peacefull way. And who cares those islands with 3000 people? Well, almost 40000000 people cares about that.
Oct 11th, 2009 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers.
Jorge, I think you will find that Argentina did force Chile to surrender some parts of Patagonia to Argentina during the Pacific War - Chile was fighting off the attack in the north from peru and bolivia and they had to give way to Argentina in the south as Chile could not have a military operation north and south together. You may also not know that in 1982 Pinochet called Mrs Thatcher and offerred to assist by sending Chilean forces into patagonia and across to the Atlantic to close off your southern airbases - and get back what he felt was Chile,s territory - luckily Mrs Thatcher did not want to start WW3 so she said no thanks. As for ou 3000people - sorry but any people of a territory no matter how few have their rights and freedoms under UN conventions.
Oct 11th, 2009 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0of course your President makes the claim, thats understandable, but it would not have hurt her to at least acknowledge the help and assistance the families have received and will continue to receive on visits here. Thats not politics - just good manners.
Islander, you are wrong in one thing and right in another. Chile did not surrender any part of patagonia. They had no presence here at the time. I say here because I live in santa cruz, right in front of you. Chile asked argentina not to intervene in the pacific war and in exchange argentina asked chile not to intervene in the so called desert campaign where general roca sadly killed many of the mapuches because they had good relations with santiago. Anyway, all was done on this side of los andes, That's why chile has its own part of patagonia. About pinochet's offer, I don't believe that. Our forces were bigger than theirs at the time and our best forces didn't fight in malvinas. They were in the border with chile. That was a good strategy of chilean because the main obsession of galtieri was chile not malvinas. Of course, after losing the war we couldn't get into another one. Well, now you are right saying that our president should thank the good will of islanders facilitating the visit of families of malvinas. She did not do that because she is arrogant and disrespectfull. I say this because the kirchners governed my province, but that doesn't mean the claim is not valid. I didn't vote her, I don't like her, but she is my president because the majority voted her and I have to respect that. Truly I think malvinas will come back one day because we have learnt of our mistakes, that means being patients and coherent. All the governments, the right or the left couldn't agree more on this matter. I know you don't agree with me and I understand that. You persue your rights and That's ok, but you must understand that we persue ours. I think we have all the time in the world, our economy doesn't depend on fisheries or tourism unlike yours. So, what could I tell you, time will speak.
Oct 11th, 2009 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers
Jorge you are so right.The Islanders must understand that they will never see the future if they keep holding onto the past.Europe's power has gone now. The British especially can see this from their weakness in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oct 11th, 2009 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The future belongs to China,South America,India and all those nations that were once forced to submit to European Imperial power.
All the British have left to them is their arrogance and the delusion that their natural superiority still gives them any influence in world affairs.
Neil,
Oct 11th, 2009 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny to see an Arghentine write about “arrogance and the delusion about someone else's natural superiority” Isn't that what Argentines suffer from most?
Neil, if UK is/was so arrogant etc how come her ex territories have stayed as members of the Commonwealth, many with the Queen still as their head of stae - and just what % of ex british places are politically stable and sound as compared to ex French and Spanish places independent in the last 60 years? What has Iraq and Afghanistan got to do with it? We probably agree that UK should not have gone into Iraq - but having done so UK stayed the course and has left a relatively stable south behind - the rest is up to the Iraquis.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oddly enough only a very small number here would want to turn the clock back - we have come a long way since 1982 and we continue to develop and evolve our economy and political system. We have internal selfgovernment and are no longer the old fashioned sort of “colony” we were before 1982. We get no finacial aid from UK - only defence costs - and ours are a minute part of the UK overall defence cost - and they are only here in force for ONE reason - Argentina,s current aggressive stance against us.
Jorge - I agree with you - time will tell - we will continue to evolve and develop-Ok we could do it faster if relations were better, but we will still do it. In time that will naturally lead towards more and more political independence from UK - and eventual Independence itself - IF Argentine Govt would recognise it. If not, then we have no option but to stay with a British Defence guarantee. In time- a generation maybe -a solution can be found - but only if both sides are prepared to think “outside the box”. Tyranny and forcefull takeover of a people against their expressed wishes is not applicable in the 21st Century.
Somehow a means needs to be found where Argentia can become less agressive in her policy towards us(without loosing anything she claims) - we need to find a way to get back to talking to each other direct - under the “sovereignty umbrella”- Argentines one one side and Islanders(with I guess a few lawers from UK Govt) on the other side. To look at things like joint fisheries environment management and resource sharing, oil development co-operation - you maybe the logical site as you already have infrastucture and people, tourism co-operation etc etc - all this could be achieved in time with patience and commonsense- but it takes “two to tango”.
Jorge - OK you will know your history better than me - but yes - when the No 10 Cabinet papers are made public from 1982 they will show that Pinochet phoned Mrs Thatcher and made that offer.
A simple example to try and put things into perspective for you Jorge, not that for one second I imagine you'll listen.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Suppose there was a country, lets call it Elbonia, that decided to revive a long dormant claim to Argentina. Lets suppose there are 400,000,000 Elbonians. Now does the rights of 400,000,000 Elbonians outweigh the self-determination rights of Argentines.
So why do you assert that the invented claims of Argentina have any value, simply because there are more Argentines?
And you still don't get it, threats will get you precisely nowhere.
Justin, you just described Israel.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I await your response eagerly......
Cooperation, talks, share resources. Easy to talk about that but let me tell you, when you ask something you must be willing to give something. We allowed flights of lan and lifted the ban on argentine passport holders. That was mutual benefit because you wanted flights and we wanted to flight there. Now, you want chapters flights, and That's very important for you, ok we want to flight via aerolineas argentinas, deal? You want cooperation on fisheries, ok we want a signal that you are sit one day to talk about sovereignty, deal? Those are negotiations, you interested in something and you ask for it.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0About aggressiveness. The political and economical measures taken by argentine government are aggressive for you, but do you any idea how aggressive for us is having to present our passport to enter in our own islands? I can't describe that feeling. About tatcher and pinochet, this guy wanted to invade patagonia in 1978 but their forces were smaller than ours and he knew that so he had an amazing idea, poisoning the river of la plata just in case argentina invade chilean patagonia. In 1982 he knew that he could't invade because the president of peru francisco belaunde terry publicly said “if chileans invade the south of argentina, we'll invade the north of chile” and peru's forces were bigger than chile's. About independence of malvinas, I really don't think argentina will recognise that without having sovereignty rights before. Just being honest.
Finally, if you read my comments here, you'll see that I'm reluctant to talk about history facts. I think it is pointless. If the conflict is solved, it will have nothing to do with history, it will have to do with future. Discussions about history never ends, therefore it's boring.
Cheers.
Justin, you didn't understand. When I write 40000000 argentines I mean that we're united on malvinas issue, just that. About the “invented claim of argentina”, you know that is not true. We have solid arguments. Many of you recognise it. Read this article of telegraph and you'll see, “south atlantic dreamers”.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0cheers
Jorge, Charterflights- we offerred open skys as first move to start a confidence and trust build - Arg said no ,only Arg flights. Aerolineas - as they are Govt ownership would they actually recognise us? - you see to fly here any airline has to communicate with Falkland Islands Dept of Civil Aviation for permits etc(not London). The main reason we said no to Aerolineas from BA was simple - we know what Arg wants- total control over us - if Aerolineas came then it would have big subsidies (paid by your taxes) to make fares very cheap - then Lan would withdraw as they would loose business - and then you would have us - no we have been there before in 1982.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is the point of sitting down to talk sovereignty - when your side has a prefixed agenda outcome - you are to get it all no matter what people here want? That is not a basis for open negotiation - that would be imposed colonialism of the worst old fashioned type.
Fisheries - those were talks about conservation and management of stocks - of straight benefit to both sides irrelevant of politics.
I agree with you on history - who did what to who centuries ago does not really matter - today and the future are about peoples. In the long term I see an agreed (between Islands,Argentina and UK)Independence as the best answer - I think that we both know that neither side will get what it claims at the moment,I dont expect you to suddenly drop the claim - same time you must realise we will not accept it.
Passport stamp - it does not seem to bother thousands of Spanish who go into Gibraltar All it does is state the reality - even if you do claim us, at the moment you do not own us, it does not prevent you from still claiming.
Many Argentines feel as you do - but not all 40 million - I know and talk to several who say - we have this claim - but you are clearly not Argentine in anything that you do now nor in the past - but “how do we get out of this” - meaning without loosing face in public.
islander, your speech is ok, but it´s a 10 years old one; umbrella is dead; it was a failure.
Oct 12th, 2009 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Umbrella make our claim symbolic. The claim is a fact that generate consequences. That´s the only way we have to achieve negotiations.
We are not so powerfull to make the british fell the consequences of our claim; sorry. We are a regional power; not a global power.
Neil Rogers, which planet are you on?
Oct 12th, 2009 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge,
Oct 12th, 2009 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The custom and practise of presenting a passport in no way compares to an officially endorsed overt Government policy of intimidation and actively seeking to damage economically a small island community. Equally a British citizen visiting the Falkland Islands is required to present a passport.
And if we really want to discuss it, it is an invented claim. Its been dropped and resurrected several times. In its current form it was re-invented in the 1930s. Did you in fact realise that before then, the official text books of the Argentine education system in fact referred to Las Islas Falklands? It happens to be true but then we can expect you to deny it - almost by reflex.
Equally, why does Argentina claim that Britain expelled Vernet's settlement in 1833? It didn't, the settlers remained and formed the mainstay of the settlement till the British Government decision to colonise the islands in 1841. Again that happens to be true but I confidently expect it to be denied. So if a claim depends on lies, is it really a claim.
Equally, why does Argentina forget to mention that Vernet sought British permission for his venture and urged the British to install a permanent garrison?
Justin you said: ''Suppose there was a country, lets call it Elbonia, that decided to revive a long dormant claim to Argentina. Lets suppose there are 400,000,000 Elbonians. Now does the rights of 400,000,000 Elbonians outweigh the self-determination rights of Argentines.''
Oct 13th, 2009 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The answer Justin is YES, it can do because what you described is precisely how modern Israel was created and its creation was sanctioned by the United Nations. In your opinion Israel's claim to the Holy land would be entirely ''irredentist'' - to use one of your favorite terms - but the fact is that modern Israel was created largely from the claim that Jews had their own country in that region thousands of years ago.
Justin you keep claiming that Vernet sought permission from the British Consul in Buenos Aires to establish a settlement on the Falklands.
The British Consul could not possibly have given Vernet permission of any sort because at that time, Britain had no jurisdiction over the Islands, so the Consul did not have given a written formal mandate.
Vernet's permission came from the government of the Provinces del rio de la Plata and this permission was given in writing and carefully recorded. The original documents are still in existance today.
Show me any documentary proof that the British government gave Vernet their permission to build a settlement in the Falklands.
Neil Rogers,
Oct 13th, 2009 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I recently read an excellent historic review in the Latin American Times, which does provide a lot of the facts and references these to historic sources elsewhere, including the whole story of Vernet and co. Unfortunately you will need to subscribe to this journal to be able to read it. You can also wait for when Peter Pepper produces his book on the topic with Dr. Graham Pascoe, which should be out later this year. When reading either, you will realise that the Agentine claim over the islands based on historic facts is really very thin indeed. Below copied extract from the internet, with reference to the publication itself. Happy reading!
8) THE LATIN AMERICAN TIMES, Volume 20, Numbers 7-8:
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FALKLANDS: A comprehensive historical debunking of the fraudulent Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands, by the two foremost British historians and experts in this subject, Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper. This report does not address the US attempt to gain control of the territory by proxy, a George Bush Sr. operation channelled through the Argentine junta du jour. The appearance of Sr. Christina de Kirchner, the Argentine President, at a ceremony in London on 2nd April 2009 when she was in the British capital to attend the G-20 jamboree, was intended to remind everyone that Buenos Aires continues with its false claim. This double issue of The Latin American Times definitively destroys the arguments supposedly supporting that claim.
Dear All,
Oct 13th, 2009 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0In fact I have found similar document by same authors posted on the internet as http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Very interesting reading, well referenced for anyone wishing to check historic facts.
Happy reading again.
Well Neil Rogers, I suggest you check the Vernet papers in the Argentine national archive. It was something of an embarassment to discover that Vernet did in fact seek British permission, his own papers confirm it; ie the original documents still exist today.
Oct 13th, 2009 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Vernet also sought permission from the so-called Republic of Buenos Aires, who owed him a great deal of money. They give him something that didn't belong to them in the first place.
As to the rest, well, you are a very weird person.
Welkin, If Arg will not accept the sovereignty umbrella anymore - then how do both sides ever sit down and talk - as it is Arg policy is that our existance is not recogised, so the only way we could sit and talk will be if you do recognise our existence? That will be very good indeed. The umbrella is a means that both sides could get together without either side loosing or making points.
Oct 13th, 2009 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, now is britain who controls your foreign affairs, they say that under your requests. During umbrella we talk to the british about you. There is a situation between you and the british here; that´s your problem.
Oct 13th, 2009 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I told you umbrella is dead; is dead because it was an unfair situation; we talked what you want to talk about (fisheries, oil, turism, etc.) but the only thing we want to talk about was out of the table, our claim. That´s unfair my friend; that´s not sustainable. Talk and negotiation is a double way situation, umbrella was a single way situation.
If you want to talk, as umbrella is dead and your british masters controls your affairs with the outside world; perhaps you might go to London and told them.....
-Hey british; we are seing that umbrella is dead, we are seing that we need to talk to Argentina for the best of our interests and because if we don´t talk selfdetermination is a joke. Please talk to them and tell them that you will discuss in our name about fisheries, oil, turism, trade, etc as our topics; and for exchange we accept you to talk about their claim.
welkin, the Falkland Islanders are willing to talk to Argentina, the British Government is happy for them to do so, only the Argentine Government refuses to talk to the Falkland Islanders.
Oct 14th, 2009 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You criticise the Falkland Islanders for not talking to Argentina, when its Argentina that refuses to talk to them. You blame everyone except the people responsible.
Neither does Britain control the foreign affairs of the Falkland Islands. In many cases they represent themselves such as at the annual farce at the UN decolonisation committee, or at the fisheries conference in Spain. And at every opportunity its Argentina that kicks up a fuss about their presence.
And as always talking for Argentina, means discussions about how Argentina gets its own way, completely ignoring the wishes of the people born there.
justin kuntz you live in world of fantasy.Do you really believe that Britain is going to keep spending $300 million a year in the defence of the Falklands forever?
Oct 15th, 2009 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 020 years from now Justin the British population wont even know where the Falklands are and certainly wont care if they remain British.
The present British government embarked upon a Liberal-Leftist agenda to socially re-engineer Britain, beginning with an open-door immigration policy that, in 50 years; will produce a society within which 45% of the population will not have British ancestry.Will they care about the Falklands? Will they even know where they are? Will they have any sense of patriotism or even pride in being British?
Your government is doing its best to erase any sense of national identity or sense of patriotism. It wants to re-write British history to the point where schools will not actually teach British history.
Do you really believe that such a dumbed-down population would line the docks at Southampton to cheer the departure of the Royal Navy as it rushes to the aid of the Falklands?
No Justin, your living in a dream world of fading glory. You must take the opportunity now to consider your only option of Indendence for your Falklands.
Let them once more become a part of South America.Restore your links with Argentina and take advantage of a new world where the balance of power will not lay within the palaces of Europe and the White House but rather with the new world !
Neil, Not sure wether you are more anti UK or anti Falklands- or both! Seems a bit odd about balancing what you say with the increasing number of young men and women of non“UK” ancestry as you say - that put on the Queen,s uniform and fight (and sometimes die) for their country. The cost of our defence is less than 1% of the overall UK defence spend. If they withdrew from here they would save a bit of transport fuel - thats all as there would be no reduction in people in uniform on the payroll. At the same time they loose a place where they can do real live active training with all 3 services together - and with the locals dont mind about it. Yes politically internationally UK would rather not have them here - but here they will stay for as long as there is an aggressive threat. Welkin, we agree that Independence is the possible solution in the end- for that we would need a prior statement from Argentina that they would recognise it Then perhaps we could all sit down together and start to work it out - how to get there and achieve it.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0To get there is needed a table of talks with no restrictions; where all subjetcs can be treated. Talking about everything the most probable consequence would be independence.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps a posibility.
2018 Switzlerland.-
UK in the name of justice recognice Argentina´s sovereignity over Falklands/Malvinas.
Instantly falklanders ask Argentina for their independence in the mane of selfdetermination.
In the name of her republican and democratic values, Argentina grant Falklands/Malvinas with their independence.
Don´t waste money in arms; buy a futbol team and play to go to de world cup. In Europe they have Faroe Is., Malta, etc. Why not you. Futbol is great.
islander, what you say about a prior statement from argentina recognising your independence is the same nonsense as if I say that to talk argentina request britain a prior statement of recognition of our sovereignity. talk must be free, with no preconditions and no prior statements.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, you are so right. If there are talks there should be no preconditions or prior statements.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only problem is Argentina has made it abundantly clear that they will only talk with the UK directly about a transfer of control and will discuss nothing else. So much for no preconditions...
welkin, at what point will you acknowledge that its Argentina that refuses to talk, there is no obstacle from either the FIG or British Government. Nor are there any pre-conditions on talks or negotiations but Argentina seeks to impose the condition that any talks are about the transfer of control and nothing else.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neil Rogers, I don't suppose for one second it will get through your thick skull but the British Government is not interested in retaining the Falklands. As to the rest, think what you like but the British people do care about the armed forces, whilst the support for Blair's wars has never been high, the support for British troops has never wavered. Also it was Argentina that has cut links to the Falklands not the other way around.
Argentina wants to impose itself over a smaller country, isnt that colonialism? isnt that what they want to “save” us from? they want to take a well governed and transparent country and impose its corrupt government onto it. and they consider this as correct?
Oct 15th, 2009 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the only thing that matters is what the people of the falklands want, and that is final.
thats the impression i get from argentines. but they know little about the islands they are arguing over. have they been here? have they met people here? i doubt it, ignorance is bliss, and argentina seem to have it in abundance.
The transfer of sovereignity is our max goal; not a precondition or a prior statement to start talking. Don´t lie please. Argentina is asking to talk about the claim, britain refuse to talk; read both sides declarations and please and don´t fabricate lies. You don´t need to lie to sustain your argument.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway; forget what Argentina says; if you want to talk do what international community asks for; the international & regional community is asking for talks about the claim. If britain is sincere organize a negotiation table in Switzerland, for example, and call Argentina with a free agenda; and then you will see if she attends.
In the ´90 we tried that and we failed, britain refused a free agenda and imposed the umbrella. Perhaps now it´s your turn if you say that you want to talk.
Welkin, so what is your min goal then?
Oct 15th, 2009 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0roberts, you will see in the table the min goal.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Everybody in any talk or negotiation have a max goal, that´s normal. In this case all parts have max goals, Argentina the sovereignity, perhaps falklanders to remain british or the independence, and perhaps britain to sustain the status quo. A max goal is not a precondition, a precondition is a necessary goal to start talking, that´s not the case with Argentina.
My opinion is that the min goal for Argentina would be the Falklands/Malvinas Republic, a Malvinas with no political and military links with britain.
Welkin,
Oct 16th, 2009 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I really think you are getting a bit muddled up with semantics.
The fact is: what Argentina wants, before it starts talks, is for the outcome to be predetermined. They want to know the result before talks can start. Such talks would simply be a farce.
Argentina has stated many times that it will not talk unless the outcome is eventual Argentine control over the islands, so ignoring the Islanders right, enshrined in international law, to choose their own destiny. You have to remember, the Islanders are perfectly and legally entitled to choose an association with Britain and frankly that is Argentina's business.
Correction: ...that is none of Argentina's business.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are lying; that´s not Argentina´s position; that´s your fabricated idea to justify your country´s position of not talking.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, let´s supose that what you are saying is correct. The solution is simple. Let´s call for negotiation in UN terms as many world and regional forums request and then you will see if Argentina attends to the talks or stays at home.
If you are correct Argentina will stay at home or the talks will be a failure and for sure the conflict will be over. Perhaps if british politics see reality as you do they would have called for negotiations long time ago.
Welkin, the British will never allow the UN to decide this issue because the UN is opposed to Colonialism which is why the British constantly try to undermine the credibility of the UN de-colonisation committee.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dont forget Welkin that regardless of what is said in this forum, the Falklands is still a Colony and until the British withdraw the Governor of the Falklands and give the Islanders complete autonomy, the Falklands will remain a colony.
“You are lying; that´s not Argentina´s position”
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, if you truly believe that you're either deluding yourself or being deliberately misleading. That is indeed Argentina's position. Argentina's ideas of talks on sovereignty are solely about transfer of control to Argentina.
And I don't need to suggest talks along the lines you suggest, its already happened. Britain arranged for talks without preconditions in Berne, the Argentine delegation arrived, demanded talks on sovereignty and by talks on sovereignty how to transfer it to Argentina. They then walked out.
Its Argentina that has enshrined an irredentist sovereignty claim in its constitution.
So instead of being so obnoxious, try checking your facts for a change. You might find it illuminating and you won't look like a plonker.
Berna talks objetive was to normalize diplomatic relations between Argentina & UK after the war. The failure was because UK ask Argentina to drop her claim as a pre condition to reestablish relations & Argentina ask to talk soveregnty as a precondition too. Berna is a clear example to illustrate my point.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Years later umbrella was born to avoid another failure like Berna and to reestablish relations. Sadly umbrella was a failure too.
neil, yes of course, they don´t want the UN route, that´s the cause they don´t want to talk and they create this parallel reality. It´s sadly to see this happen because South Atlantic now should be a region of peace and prosperity; and not a region of patience and pockets war.
Welkin, If Argentina were to state - we will sit down with the Islands Government-with no preconditions on any outcomes - and talk about the future - then yes that would be a big step forward and both sides can then start to find out each others bottom lines or minimum positions as some say, and in time perhaps find an acceptable answer that all can be happy with. It would put the ball firmly into our court to make the next move. Neil UK has a problem with the fixation of the UN Committee on “decolonization”- regardless of the wishes of the populations. The members or Administration of that Committee are the problem - not Uk nor us. As it is the Un it seems odd to me that they have never made any effort to send a team here on an independent fact-finding mission?
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody really trusts votes at the UN - Countries always vote as suits their national interests or blocs - rarely on the principles.
And Neil - can you please grasp that this is 2009 - not 1969 and the Islands are not a Colony as such by your idea of the word. A lot has changed since in our practical and effective relationship with the UK- we are an overseas territory with a great deal of internal autonomy and self government- this we did not have in 1969.
No that is an outright lie. Britain did not impose and preconditions on talks, Argentina insisted that sovereignty was put on the agenda and by that transfer of sovereignty. Having failed to dictate its precondition, Argentina walked out.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Umbrella was not a failure until Nestor Kirschner tore up the agreements and returned once more to a failed policy of confrontation. Just about the time the latest generation of Falkland Islanders had gotten used to co-operation with Argentina, you've now alienated another generation.
And Britain doesn't avoid the UN route as you put it. It simply won't have the outcome pre-determined by Argentina. As I pointed out above, we've had past experience of that.
Peace and prosperity, with a South Atlantic nation that likes to behave like the neighbourhood bully. That there is confrontation over the islands is entirely down to the fact that Argentina created the conflict and sustains it. People are just tired of Argentina's constant whining about the Falklands.
Neil,
Oct 16th, 2009 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain doesn't need to undermine the credibility of the UN decolonisation committee, that it does for itself. It has never visited the Falklands or Gibraltar both of whom are a great deal more democratic than memebers of the committee, both of whom are self-governing like all BOT. Not only that but it goes to Bermuda to tell them how to govern themselves, ignoring the results of the referendum they pushed for when it came up with the result they were happy as they were.
The Falklands are not a colony, to dismiss it as such is patronising in the extreme. Australia still has a governor, it has no factor in the Government of Australia, nor does it in the latest constitution of the islands.
islander, yes, I think it´s possible Argentina could sit down with a Falklands goverment and talk with a free agenda, but first you must have a goverment, a real goverment, not a municipal goverment. Real goverment means independence, you must be an equal to talk.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don´t you see that we are traped in a vicious circle?? I think that the only posibility to break that circle is to eliminate one factor: britain; and now it´s your task, don´t wait for us to do it please, clock is running.
Kuntz, Berna talks objectives were reestablish relations between UK and Argentina after the war not to solve the bottom of the conflict, and both put their conditions on the table and there was no agreement.
Welkin,
Oct 16th, 2009 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0We seem to back where we started but at least we both believe there can one day be a final agreement acceptable to both. Trouble is we cannot get rid of british defence guarantee unless we knew that Argentina would not threaten and simply walk in. As for Governmnet - we have a lot more than a municipal Govt. Ours makes all the Laws, all of them for everything, from currency notes to court laws,fisheries and oil legislation,aviation etc. of course the lawmakers take advice from proffesional experts in each area - same as yours would do. The only thing UK does is oversee and check out laws to make sure they are good and democratic laws of high standard and no corruption. That is good sense - it does not mean we are their servants. The Governor is appointed by the Queen - but he acts here with the permission of our elected chamber and does not vote. So we are about as far as we can go to Independence - without loosing the defence. If we were to ask for full Independence - britain would say Ok if that is what you want - fine it is your choice - and withdraw the forces - we think that within 14 days the argentine forces would then move in and our flag be replaced and we would be force to accept a government we did not choose. We know that the world and UN would do nothing to help.
Islander, in Argentina municipals goverments can make laws too.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK controlls you in the same way they controlled Turks & C; in the name of justice but without trial and against an elected goverment. UK can´t do that in Australia or Canada.
In Argentina federal goverments can´t do that against municipals gov.
If military is the problem we can share the cost of 300 regional blue helmets with british observers & training right. No argentine military in the islands. In 10 years you can vote if argentine troops could have trainig rights with their british mates. Impresive tourist call.
You need to benefiate from both sides, british law and argentine economics.
“Argentine economics”... are you having a laugh?
Oct 16th, 2009 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sorry, perhaps I should have said:
Oct 16th, 2009 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...british law, culture and stability and Argentina economics flows in the region (you know that now Malvinas is out of any economic flow).
sorry, I thought you were a good understander.
Welkin,
Oct 16th, 2009 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is not a very good example of a well run economy that's why I thought you were making a joke!
The Falklands have managed very well without “economic flow” from Argentina, they have a higher standard of living than Argentina.
you are right; but sorry, I´m not talking of Argentina economy, I´m talking of interaction; perhaps if you read what Í been writing during this weeks you can understand what´s the meaning of what I´m saying. Please, don´t ask me to write twice the same thing.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Higher standard of living than Argentina is not the question, the question is if they have the max living standard according their potential (health, education, infraestructure, transport, industry, comerce, communications, business, trade, etc), GDP per capita not always means good standard of living.
Yes of course, they have managed very well their economy in conflict context, but conflict means an economic roof for them and for development.
Well that's the irony Welkin. The Falklanders have managed to prosper despite the conflict you speak of, a conflict which was generated and sustained by Argentina.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think it´s possible Argentina could sit down with a Falklands goverment and talk with a free agenda” .... “but first”
Oct 17th, 2009 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Talks without a precondition, only if you can assert a precondition.
“ the only posibility to break that circle is to eliminate one factor: britain;”
Another precondition!
The FIG has offered talks without any preconditions, the British Government is happy for them to do so, the only obstacle is the Government of Argentina.
“and now it´s your task, don´t wait for us to do it please, clock is running.”
And another impotent threat, do as we say, or we will do it for you.
Oh and Welkin, Britain imposed no preconditions on talks in Berne, Argentina reneged on the agreement, imposed preconditions, then walked out. The Swiss facilitated the discussions and there is an independent verification of this. Those are documented, verifiable facts.
What the matter can't your nationalism accept that Argentina has both created and sustained this issue.
Britain has already committed itself to a grant of independence for any BOT that requests it. I suppose the only way realistically it can be achieved is to offer a defence guarantee like was done with Belize.
It has also devolved Government to the populated BOT, for instance the FI have been self-governing since 1985. The only thing frustrating greater autonomy prior to 1982 was to avoid upsetting Argentina. In fact so much was done to avoid upsetting an irrational Argentina that the economic development of the islands was stagnating.
Other than defence the islands are essentially self-reliant.
So Welkin either there are talks without preconditions, or the present status quo will perpetuate and Argentina will become ever more irrelevant in the question of island affairs. The islands need nothing from Argentina, it is fortunate that the islanders are more humane than the Argentine Government or even now the visit of the bereaved would be ever more delayed.
Welkin, Sorry I missed your comment about No 26 - yes you could well be right in the way forward as UK recognizing Arg sovereignty wherby Arg then at the same moment in time offers and recognises Islanders rights to selfdetermination and thus we can declare Independence - with perhaps a defence guarantee from both sides. It is something for the diplomats on both sides to perhaps quietly talk to each other about to see if it could be accepted. I do not forsee the Islands as a republic - but fully independent like Australia and Canada yes.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, I celebrate your words; I think that it would be a fine solution, a win win situation for both, for you prosperity and for us a sense of justice; and for both peace. The best guarantee for peace is interaction & business.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kuntz, I celebrate your words too, I celebrate them because they illustrate both extremes of the argument, both choices the islanders have in front of them.
In one hand a repetitive speech, with no new ideas, full of hate, fear, anger and militarism, that produces isolation, infradevelopment, limited population & minimal business with no economic scale. the choice of the perpetual conflict, the conservative way.
In the other hand we have innovative ideas, imagination, development, interaction, regionalism, globalization. The choice of peace, the progressive way.
I think that in the near future your way of thinking would be an obstacule for the next islander generations.
welkin, I say BS
Oct 17th, 2009 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you want talks there are no obstacles other than the ones Argentina puts in the way. There are no obstacles from the British or the islands. The only obstacle is macho Argentine pride. At least have the balls to acknowledge it.
Notice I suggest talking without preconditions, you're only prepared to accept talks with pre-conditions. If you want peace and prosperity and progress that is fine by me.
A sense of justice? How about Argentina dropping the aggressive and overt policy of confrontation. How about simply talking?
Welkin,
Oct 17th, 2009 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's all very well, but I really don't see how your innovative solution would work with the Argentines?
What you are suggesting is an independent Falkland Islands yet Argentina has consistently said that the only outcome acceptable to them is an Argentine Falklands. As it is Argentina designate the Falklands as Argentine territory in their current Constitution. Do you really think any party in Argentina is going to push for a constitutional amendment?
good question Roberts.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine Cosntitution talks about the claim and about islanders´s interests, you know that, ok.
In my scenario, if britain recognises Argentina´s sovereignty over Malvinas in the name of justice and history our constitutional mandate would be accomplished. There would be an argentine Malvinas as our constitution orders. Remember that our Malvinas´s constitutional clause is transitory, once is accomplished is over, we don´t need a constitutional reform.
A moment later, when the islanders ask Argentina for their independence that mandate will be over we can give islanders their freedom as a national state without any problem because we are not seeking to dominate islanders, we only want a south atlantic with no britain.
Of course it would be a political challenge, conservative forces operates everywhere. I think that in Argentina rationality could beat them, they are not so powerfull here.
The challenge are your conservative forces, we can see them in this forum. I don´t think that now rational forces in the islands have the strengh to defeat the conservatives; but perhaps it´s a matter of time.
Here I´m only giving my idea, later is politics work to find the way.
Welkin,
Oct 17th, 2009 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The constitution does not talk about the Islanders interests. It only says it will respect their way of life, the exact words used are “respetando el modo de vida de sus habitantes”. A people's “interests” is a very different thing to their “way of live”, let alone their rights! The clause then goes on to say that this will be done “in accordance with International Law”. It's an irony that under International Law the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination and are under no obligation to become part of Argentina.
The main thrust of the Argentina consitutional clause is that sovereignty must be “recovered” (not that it was ever lost) so that those territories mentioned in the clause can become integral parts of the national territory.
Let's just say in theory that did happen. Do you REALLY think that Argentina would then allow the Falkland Islanders to secede and go their independent way?
Why can't the Islanders just become independent directly - without having to become part of Argentina first?
roberts, you are right about our constitution, but my confusion is beacuse our constitutional doctrine understands that way of life and interests are similar concepts. I correct you: “in accordance with international law” refers to the way argentina must claim.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I really think that you can secede; and I told you that as argentine, malvinero, peronist and kirchnerist. Anyway it would be a consequense of a previous agreement, ok?.Argentines don´t want conflict, don´t want another war, but please don´t push us, we only want a sense of justice and no britain territories in south atlantic. But if you doubt look history, we accepted uruguay independence, paraguay independence & tarija secesion; why not malvinas?? We are not a militarist society like britain, we only want peace and prosperity.
Of course you can became independent directly, you can do what you want, but here we are talking about a solution to argentina´s claim. I don´t know if an unilateral declaration of independence could solve the conflict, nobody knows, perhaps it makes worst for you. I think that for you independence should mean independence from britain and from argentina´s claim specially; and in my opinion the only way to achieve that is an independence consequense of a total agreement between all parts; and the previous transfer of sovereignty is one possibility. Perhaps we can think together another better possibility.
Welkin,
Oct 17th, 2009 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've tried to understand your response above, but it just leaves me confused.
In Spanish and in English “way of life/modo de vida” and “interests/intereses” are obviously very different things. It's not a matter of constitutional doctrine.
You really think the Falklanders would be able to secede from Argentina (if in theory the Islands become part of Argentina)? You must be the only Argentine, Malvinero, Peronista and Kircherista who thinks that...
Don't push you? Nobody is pushing you. You are pushing yourselves. This conflict was created by you in the 1930s and it is sustained by you today. You talk about your sense of justice, but what about justice for the Falkland Islanders? They also have rights - like the right to self determination...
You accepted the independence of Uruguay! Who gave you that right? You fail to understand is that it was not for you to accept Uruguay or anyone else's independence. Who made Argentina the judge? You don't have the right to accept or deny independence for the Falkland Islands either. It is their matter and nothing to do with you, in exactly the same way that Paraguay's independence is not your business.
You have not given me a coherent answer as to why the Falkland Islands cannot become independent directly, without becoming part of Argentina first. I suspect it is because there is absolutely no reason why the Falkland Islands can't become independent if they want to.
Another better possibility? What is wrong with the current possibility? The Falkland Islanders are happy with the current possibility - they don't want anything to change for the time being.
Oh and another thing Welkin, why does your constitution also claim South Georgia and South Sandwich?
Oct 17th, 2009 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again Islander you show the way to a permanent and peaceful solution to this issue.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0As Justin persistently states; the Islanders have the ultimate voice in choosing the correct resolution to this dispute which is Independence for the Falklands.
The Islanders can nominate the UN to broker a permanent and enforceable treaty between the Falklands,Britain and Argentina that would guarantee sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as an Independent nation.
Britain would sign a defence pact with the government and people of the Falklands and the UN guaranteeing diplomatic and if required military support in the event of the peace and security of the Falklands and its people being subject to any threat from a foreign aggressor.
Argentina would pledge its agreement to abandon any claim to sovereignty of the Falklands in perpetuity and enshrine in its constitution a ban on any future resurrection of such a claim or even discussion of it within its Parliament.
don´t worry roberts, south georgia & south sandwich to falklanders; as I said, no british territories in south atlantic.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neil, what a great idea, and it's one of the most sensible I've seen for ages.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Islanders are free to do that if they like, the UK will certainly not stop them in an initiative like the one you describe above.
But do you really believe Argentina will sit down at the same table as the FIG, even if it is a UN brokered discussion, when they take so many pains to deny their existence or rights?
J.A.Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When I say shared 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, british 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 business, the islanders will have the same rights as argentines in Argentina. People of the islands should also have delegates in the argentine parliament. We should think about these ideas, no more territory claims between people of both sides, no more history, everybody happy with cultural and sport exchanges and investors will see more reliable business in all activities of the islands.
JA Roberts. Argentina has two choices; to continue with its claim to sovereignty of the Islands and accomplishing it via a new, more aggressive strategy based entirely upon an economic embargo on the Islands. This would result in Argentina being further alienated within the world community and of course,such a policy would not work without full support of Argentina's neighbouring states in South America. And of course,the effectiveness of such an embargo is debatable.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or; abandon this original claim entirely via an accord with Britain and the Islanders that effectively makes the Falklands a sovereign nation.If this happened Argentina would also have to recognise the Islands of South Georgia as a dependency of the Falklands.
This would remove nearly all British interests in the region and at the same time greatly improve Argentina's relationship with Britain,Europe and North America and their allies.
Argentina's economy and political credibility could benefit enormously from such a conclusion to the Falkland's issue particularly now that the European Union is becoming a federalised 'superstate' with Britain as an integral part.
Any Argentine government that adopted such an approach would probably have few problems selling the idea to its people if it was based on a nationalist principle of removing 'a foreign imperial power from the sacred soil of the Malvinas and giving the Malvineras their freedom as true south americans etc etc etc' (it sounds better in Spanish)
Neil, we have seen the first approach in the past, and it has not worked. I can't understand why Argentina can't just drop its claim and let the Islanders get on with their lives?
Oct 18th, 2009 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cossimo, I know what shared sovereignty means, but why is it necessary? It would be an imposition on the Islanders. Why can't they choose the status they want? It is their right.
J.A. Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What happens is that there is a sovereignty dispute recognized by UN, Argentina and S.American countries would not accept the self-determination principle, everybody knows that 90% of the islanders want to be british because they are british. We should find other ideas that satisfy both sides in benefit of all, otherwise we will continue discussing if Vernet had or not the permission of the british or not to go to the islands in 1828.
That's really interesting Cossimo.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0What also happens is that the Falklander's right to self determination is recognised by the UN in several General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. What you are saying is that Argentina and S. American countries can pick and choose which bits of international law they want to comply with.
You are right that the dispute is recognised by the UN, but the UN has never said Argentine sovereignty (joint or otherwise) is the only solution. Argentina dropping it's claim is one obvious solution, especially given the fact that the Falkland Islanders have a right, enshrined in international law, to self determination, which trumps the Argentina claim under any analysis.
J.A. Roberts,
Oct 19th, 2009 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Selfdetermination principle of people only applies to territories where there is no sovereignty dispute, in the Falklands/Malvinas issue UN never said that Malvinas are argentine but it will be interesting that new ideas of solution of the conflict show up with the agreement of the parts otherwise it will continue for ever. If you say that the only solution is the independence of the islanders will not be accepted by the argentinian/S.American side, if the solution is that the islands pass to the administration of Argentina will not be accepted by the british side so, I was trying to look something that make yield assumptions of both sides taking into account that interests of the islanders do not be affected. If we do not find something continue with Vernet story for ever.
A sovereignty dispute overriding self determination might be something that Argentina likes to believe, but it is against international law and the C24 had the common sense to vote down Argentina's attempts to bring this principle into force. The fact is the self determination of the Falkland Islanders (or any other people) far outweighs any sovereignty dispute and trumps any claim.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have to remember. The dispute is one-way. As far as the UK is concerned the Islands are British for as long as they choose to remain so. This is the case de facto and de jure. It is Argentina who disputes this, based on an artificial claim which Argentina started pressing in the 1940s.
I am not saying the only solution is independence for the Islands. What I am saying is the only solution must be what the Islanders choose - it has to be that way under international law. The Islanders can choose to remain British, become totally independent or associate themselves with another country, which could be Argentina but it does not necessarily have to be. If the Islanders want to become part of Argentina they are free to do so and the UK would never stop them. The UK repeatedly states and has done so for decades that they will support whatever solution the Islanders choose.
You don't seem to understand that it is what the Islanders want which is important but despite this Argentina sticks to its dogma that the Islanders have no rights and the only option is Argentine control. This is totally against international law and contrary to all UN resolutions concerning the Falkland Islands.
Frankly, Vernet is irrelevant in the face of current international law, so you can carry on talking about it if you want. It's not going to make any difference to the situation. The only real solution is for Argentina to grow up, drop the claim and start talking directly to the Falkland Islanders.
Vernet?
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0As it happens we do know that Vernet sought British permission. Twice actually. First in 1826 and again in 1828. Its well documented, the Vernet papers are in the Argentine national archive. Which may go some way to explain why Vernet was curiously absent from the Argentine pamphlet produced at the London conference some time ago.
But as Mr Roberts says it is really irrelevant in the 21st Century, what matters is the self-determination rights of the islanders.
Whether the Falkland Islands continue as they are, seek independence, or merge with Argentina is entirely down to them. And it would be nice to think that Argentina would accept their independence and speak to them directly. However, just recognise the obstacles are Argentine, the door is already open.
J.A.Roberts,
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0One thing I know is that argentinians will not drop the claim, opinion polls in young people in Argentina said that Malvinas is a national cause no matter what politic party rule the country. So, that was the reason I thought a shared sovereignty could be a solution to think about. But according to your statements the conflict will continue for decades.
I think the problem we have is that the option of us and UK tranferring sovereignty to Agrentina - who then simultaneosly recognises our right to self determination and we go Independent - as means of all sides being able to say “we got what we wanted and nobody has been let down” - is something that has never been considered before - that is why maybe the official writing in the Arg constitution says what it does - because nobody had envisaged this sort of solution. Both sides have become entrenched in a “we win you loose” answer - rather than as Welkin says a possible “win-win”.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain will do whichever the majority of people here decide, I do not think it impossible that people here will choose this type of option - but we would need to know that Argentina would grant it and approve it - hence the need for some quiet diplomacy by both sides - it is easier to modify your position in public once you have sorted out the detail and can then present to the public a balanced proposal - I am thinking here of the Argentine public who up to now tend only to think of sovereignty as permanent ownership one day. Here Independence (within the Commonwealth like a min Aust. or Canada)has often been talked about- and in a way we are gradually moving in that direction as we move all the time away from direct London rule inside the Islands- what has always stopped the idea has been the question of who will recognise it and who will defend us.
What we need to happen is look to the other way around and find the means of getting the recognition of it by Argentina quietly agreed first. Perhaps Welkin,s suggestion is a way or achieving it. We would need to know the opinion of a lot more Argentine people and leaders first.
The ball on talks with no precondtions really rests in Buenos Aires, so perhaps if they read this page they might suggest to us and London an initial meeting to discuss “all aspects of relations” with no fixed agenda - and take it from there.
islander, don´t expect anyting from Argentina not from UK, both are traped in their own words, the say the same speech from 180 years. In this time you have been an spectator of the conflict; your position should be the referee according your interests.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Arg talked in ´94 with her constitution reform. Arg said: we have a claim against UK, we chose the legal way to solve it, (that´s why international forums so it´s not a military conflict it´s a political conflict with economic consecuences), peace is a constitutional mandate, and we said that islanders way of life is a limit, is a limit to the claim. And perhaps way of life is more than interest, way of life represents political way of life.
What I told you in the previous days was my interpretation of our constitutional clause.
Argentina just talked in ´94 and then an era finished; you didn´t understand that clause in that special moment.
The situation I told you was discused in our memos expecting islands offer according the clause. The clause was a failure, english idiom and bad faith misinterpreted the clause.
But that posibility and the clause is not dead. I think that now is your time to discuss, for you is easier to discuss about your interest, there we have noting to say, you are 1600 voters to discuss and say something that could create an agreement situation. The referi I refer.
I think that perhaps it´s time to talk about argentina 94 puzzle.c om ... in stanley pubs, in penguin, in electoral pamphlets, in the street, anywhere.
I have to ask you something, please....could you tell me what you know about Albert Clifton? or ask in stanley please, I´m researching. He was the founder of the Falklands Progresive Party. Albert Clifton was an islander from camp, his business was the milk. There is nothing in the web.
Welkin, the only thing the UK is trapped by is its obligation to the Falkland Islanders. This obligation arises out of international law. Argentina is trapped by politics and its past. The current Argentine claim is artificial, however it is a useful political tool for Argentina politicians but sadly decades of propaganda mean the Argentine public cannot see the wood from the trees.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The most responsible and correct (according to international law) thing Argentina can do is drop the claim and allow the Falkland Islanders to get on with their life.
I think the Argentinean President Christina “Malvinera” Kirchner is basically deluted in thinking that they'll will get the Falklands/Malvinas back. The best thing the Argentinean President could do is to recognize the Falklands government and its people, establish better economic ties with the Falklands and the UK and live in peace. The sending of four Typhoons to the Falklands is a clear message. But I think I am asking too much from a former “student activist” or I should say ”G.......a!
Oct 20th, 2009 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The clause was a failure, english idiom and bad faith misinterpreted the clause.”
Oct 20th, 2009 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, forgive me for being direct, but that is nonsense. The clause enshrines Argentina's irredentist claim into its constitution. Nothing more, it is not intended to be anything friendly to the islands.
Kunz; you are talking about only one part of the clause.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The clause has 3 parts.
The first part is the claim itself; it is said to be perpetual. That´s not a surprise, it´s the same claim as 180 ago; but here we are confirming its perpetuity so now you know what to expect for future. And the clause also says that it is imposible we drop it until a solution.
The second part talks about the way the must be exercised: according to international law; it´s similar to say that in a peacefull way, we are unilaterately saying that war is an imposible way to achieve our claim. We are saying that south atlantic is a region of peace instead the conflict.
The 3º part, perhaps the most important part says that our claim must respect islander´s way of living. In this part we are recognicing islanders entity and we are saying that islander´s way of life, islander´s interest, islander´s rights are paramount; is another self limitation that we imposses to our claim.
I think that Argentina gave in ´94 the ingredients; and now islanders have to find that alchemist formula that mix our claim with your rights to achieve a perpetual and succesfull agreement to end the conflict.
Kuntz, I don´t know if it is friendly, we are not tryng to be friendly, we are trying to be fair. Justice means to give each other what they diserve. I think that islanders and argentines don´t diserve this conflict for britain gain. We must turn the situation for islanders and argentines gain.
Welkin,
Oct 20th, 2009 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can you even suggest that your a claim could ever be implemented in accordance with international law? The claim itself is in conflict with international law because it undermines the Islander's right to self determination!
''INTERNATIONAL LAW'' ?? What international law? I have never heard of this ''International law''
Oct 20th, 2009 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you keep bringing up Luis Vernet.
Firstly there is no such thing as ''International law''
Secondly; there are NO documents on archive in Argentina that prove that Vernet obtained permission from the British.We have the original records of Vernet being granted licence from the former Argentine government but nothing from the British. Perhaps the British took all their records back to London with them?
If such documents exist THEN PROVE IT.
If the British had considered the Islands to be a Crown colony at the time Vernet applied to them for permission to go there they would have granted a licence to him and that licence would have had terms and conditions attached. But Britain had not established its jurisdiction over the islands at the time Vernet went there so of course they COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE GRANTED A LICENCE TO VERNET OR EVEN WRITTEN AUTHORISATION AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL UNDER BRITISH LAW !!!!!
Justin Kunts also keeps claiming that the Spanish never established jurisdiction over the islands prior to Vernet. In fact, there had been a Spanish governor appointed over the Islands nearly a century earlier after Bouganiville had been expelled.
Neil, I'll answer the international law bit. By the way, I do not keep bringing up Vernet although I frequently repeat, in reply to those who do, that Vernet is irrelevant.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, there is such a thing as International Law. Your Argentine constitution even refers to it in clauses relevant to the Falkland Islands.
International law 101:
“International law” is a term which refers to the the system which governs the legal relationships between states. Sources of this law can be custom, convention, treaties between two states or more, for example the Vienna Conventions, the UN charter etc.
UN GA and SC resolutions are considered by the vast majority of jurists to constitute a source of international law. The UK and Argentina certainly accept this to be the case.
UN resolutions give the Falkland Islanders an unlimited right to self determination.
UN resolutions invite the Argentina and UK governments to settle their differences with respect to the Argentine claim, however these resolutions at no point limit the Falkland Islanders right to self determination.
UN resolutions give the Falkland Islanders the choice of one of the following: Continued free association with the UK, total independence or free association with another power.
The Falkland Islanders have repeatedly and democratically expressed their wish to remain in free association with the UK.
Well I'll tackle the Vernet papers if you like, seeing as they were donated to the Argentine national archive and are readily available (somewhere I even have a scan of some of them). So now Neil Rogers even denies they exist. Sorry but they do, they're in part the reason why some Argentine historians choose to play down the significance of Vernet.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0But if you want an Argentine reference
El Gaucho Antonio Rivero, La Mentira en la Historiografía Académica, Mario Tesler, Published BA circa 1965
Nor would a license have been illegal under British law, seeing as you like to lay a challenge, please elucidate which law? For information, the rule of law was established by the letters patent of 1841 and prior to that it would have been the military code.
No welkin, you are not trying to be fair. You're pushing an illogical irredentist claim that is completely at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say you want justice and it is up to the islanders to provide a solution. There is no gain for Britain, Britain has no interest in the South Atlantic and would happily divest itself of the islands. I fail to see how a good faith solution can ever be established, whilst Argentina proceeds to make pronouncements in utter bad faith. Start by recognising there is nothing in it for Britain.
While we're at it, the Spanish maintained a penal settlement at Puerto Soledad and nothing else. They never establish dominion over the islands, they were used at will by American, British and French sailors. Spain at no point sought to establish control beyond the environs of the penal settlement, as a penal settlement it could never be self-sustaining as women were in fact banned.
Here Neil,
Oct 21st, 2009 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pascoe and Pepper's paper has all you need to know about Vernet (sections 11 through 16), but I suggest you read the whole document and the carefully referenced sources, many of them in the Argentine National Archives.
English
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Spanish
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
JOJO, thank you for the link, the rest of the crap between the link and my post is superfulous..
Oct 22nd, 2009 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!