MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Eleven candidates expected for Falklands General Election
Eleven candidates are predicted will compete for the eight available seats at the Falkland Islands General Election on November 5. Read full article
Eleven candidates are predicted will compete for the eight available seats at the Falkland Islands General Election on November 5. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDra.Clausen, what´s the meaning of “tough decisions”??
Oct 13th, 2009 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mike summers, are you really pressing for your right of selfdetermination? It doesn't seem like that. There are more countries supporting our claim now than before, all latinamerica, almost all arabian countries and we are working with african countries now and some asian countries also. The only thing you care is your fishing company.
Oct 14th, 2009 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dr clausen, “bullying tactics” have not failed. It's been only 27 years from the war and only 6 from this government in argentina. We are about to turn 200 years old, we can wait, time is on our side. About charter flights, it is only a problem when families have to fly. The rest of the year it isn't, but for you is an every day problem. Accept it and do not lie to your people.
Cheers.
Jorge, I see no sign where “bullyboy tactics” have worked? It would be nice to have openskies -but we continue to grow without as well. Yes its only 6 years of Kirschener Govt - and in those 6 years here opinion - mostly from the young people has hardened so much against you that it would take at least 27years of cooperation to change now - so dont worry we dont either. it just so uneccessary- but so be it.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0As many say - countries vote in the UN for a variety of reasons - mostly to do with trade and business relations - not the issue on the agenda. And dont forget they vote - asking for a resumption of open negotiations between Arg and Britain with no prefixed solution- VERY different from what Arg only wants - a negotiation to result in Argentine takeover and Colonialisation of the Islands.
Ah yes, Argentina sides with pariah states like Iran, and then claims it has Middle East support. And bribing African states to mouth sympathetic platitudes doesn't mean they support you. You can continue to grand stand as much as you like, doesn't change the facts on the ground.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“About charter flights, it is only a problem when families have to fly.”
Really, so much sympathy for the plight of families who lost loved ones in the Falklands. Not only did the Argentine Government ignore their feelings to refuse the repatriation of bodies after the war but now it seems their feelings remain unimportant. Thankfully the Falkland Islanders you despise so much have a greater sense of humanity.
Justin, I think you are a racist. Why do you say arabian countries are pariah states, all of them or just iran? What do you have against african countries? I see you hatred goes beyond argentina. Tell of how many countries support british side and who they are. About families flight, the government paid for everything so what you said make no sense. Finally, I see now you are a complete ignorant. I tell you why, do you know what the word “repatriation” mean? It means bring something to your country from another one and this is not the case, our soldiers rest in peace in their land, the land of the argentine people. Summarizing, justin you had better go back to elementary school.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers.
kuntz, the ignorant is like the blind that can´t see, it´s not your fault. Ít´s funny to read that Iran supports Argentina when we have a very hard conflict with them, use google and search AMIA.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forget african or middleast or commonwelth or asian countries that support argentina, perhaps is true that we are so powewrfull to bribe all the world in our support. You only need to look the region where your falklanders friends have to live, that´s important. Brazil opinion is important, Chile & Uruguay opinion are important, the other south american countries are important. That´s the community were your friends lives.
It´s a choice, you can give your back to Argentina and the region and you live a perpetual conflict; or you can talk and interact to live in community like a normal society.
Please don´t lie about argentine deads, no one is asking for a return to the continent of the bodies, that´s a lie; if you ask the NOK they will say you that they are happy where their relatives are, for us they are in Argentina.
Is better to be an ignorant than a lier.
You know if there was a prize for sheer chutzpah, hubris and outright hypocrisy, Argentina would win the Gold medal every time.
Oct 16th, 2009 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain offered to repatriate the dead out of compassion, did anyone ask the families whether they would like the opportunity of giving their son a christian burial? No, they left the bodies in the Falklands to create a situation for future conflict knowing that the British would inter the bodies with respect, and it would create a permanent presence in the islands for the forseeable future. It was a political decision, that had no thought for the feelings of the bereaved. And on every occasion since the Argentine Government has sought to make political capital from its presence, even to the point of frustrating the families visits to the islands to make cheap political points. The recent visits only took place because the FIG took the iniative to find a way out of the impasse caused by Argentina and even then your president used it for cheap propaganda purposes.
So Jorge/welkin for all you grand words, you don't actually give a tinker's toss for the feelings of the bereaved it is simply another opportunity for you to blow the nationalist trumpet. Speaking of nationalist, remarkably in 1982 after the British victory, Archbiship Runcie preached a message of reconciliation rather than triumphalism, he said: “People on both sides of this conflict are mourning.” He called for prayers for mothers in both Britain and Argentina who had lost sons. And he criticised nationalism as coming close to idolatry.
He said: “Those who dare to interpret God’s will must never claim Him as an asset for one nation or group rather than another. War springs from the love and loyalty which should be offered to God being applied to some God substitute, one of the most dangerous being nationalism.”
So for your claim that families are happy their relatives are interred in a foreign field that they can rarely visit, with every visit subject to the whim of an Argentine president's poll rating, quite frankly you're full of crap.
And racist. Coming from a nation that decries 9th generation Falklanders as untermenschen and invents ludicrous Spanish names for places that have never had them, not to mention persisting with offensive toponymy from its failed invasion long after it promised to cease doing so.
And lets look at what actually happened in the Middle East. Kirschner toured the Middle East making the right noises about criticising Israel and in reciprocacy they “supported” Argentina's claim. Equally third world African countries have received cheap food from Argentina, in return they mouth sympathetic platitudes.
And no I don't hate Argentina but I do despise the people like you who spout racist bile about the Falklanders, refuse to listen and are actually in utter ignorance of the facts.
Lies? You wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you on the arse.
Jorge,
Oct 16th, 2009 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It will be very interesting to see how much “support” Argentina gets from all its Latin American, African and Middle Eastern friends when issues like their trade with the UK is on the table. I think you'll notice all your “support” melting away. That's how the real world works...
Justin, I'm not gonna waist my time answering all the crap you said. you've shown me you are an ignorant, arrogant, disrecpectfull and disgusting person.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can't discuss with someone like you.
If there was a prize for the most ignorant and disgusting person in the world, the winner would be you.
I hope you get your heas out of your ass once for all.
I can discuss with other islander but you. have a question. Are you so ignorant or you are just so stupid and idiot?
finaly, justin, sos un pedazo de imbecil.
from now on you are not justin any more. from now on you are a WORM!!!
I'll address you that way. Stupid!!!!!
mrs. j.a robertson, you are right, the world works that way. those countries support argentine side in exchange of something. I don't know what. The reality is they are supporting argentine side not british. May be relations with argentina are more profitable, I don't know. Tell me who are supporting british side???
Oct 17th, 2009 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pd: I hope you answer me in a respectfull way and not like your friend above.
cheers.
jorge:
Oct 17th, 2009 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see Justin got you totally rattled by telling the truth. Ah well sometimes the truth hurts. C'est la vie.
roberts; arg don´t ask anybody to affects its relations with britain to support our claim, not even arg affects her relations with UK, we are good economic partners. Trade with UK is out of the table; Malvinas don´t affects that, not for us, not for britain, not for anybody.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina is supported worldwide is because we deploy a political activity to achieve that. In the other hand, Britain don´t move a inch her political muscle to support you, they don´t care, Malvinas are not in their FO agenda. You are alone, they are saying you that.
Jorge, my name is actually Roberts and not Robertson and I'm definitely not a Mrs! If all those countries supported Argentina so much, why are the Falklands still British?
Oct 17th, 2009 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, Britain does not have to move a finger, that's why they do not. There is no need for the UK to go on any kind of diplomatic offensive, as they are secure in their knowledge that the Falkland islander's democratic wish is to remain British (for the time being).
roberts, aren´t we talking about international support? they don´t move a finger, of course, and because of that malvinas are internationally isolated.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0malvinas are still british because britain is still a world power and we still are an emerging power; but no one knows the future. I don´t remember UK consulting Hong Kong people.
Welkin, the Falklands internationally isolated? Geographically maybe, but not internationally - unless of course you consider Argentina to equal the rest of the world. The Falkland islanders go to international conferences, the represent themselves at the UN, they take part in the Island and Commonwealth games. Hardly international isolation...
Oct 17th, 2009 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas are still British because the Islanders want it that way. They have repeatedly voted, democratically, to remain British (for the time being). They are free to cut ties with the UK at any time. The UK would never stop them if that was their wish, in exactly the same way that every other former colony has become independent...
As for HK, you might like to study it's history a bit. It was leased from China except for a small bit which was British (Victoria island and a small bit of Kowloon). There was no question that the New Territories would be give back to China.
Anyway, did you see anyone in HK protesting the handover? It's what the HK people wanted, that was pretty clear so no need for the UK government to consult. I regularly see Falkland islanders saying they DO NOT want to become Argentine though...
Expat kelper, show me You're not as ignorant and arrogant as the worm. The truth word is not in his dictionary. Is in yours?
Oct 17th, 2009 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. Roberts, I apologize for changing your name. Let's get down to business, the reason for malvinas to be still under british rule is because they stubborn and disrespectfull with UN resolutions. I forgot, military power led to arrogance and that's another reason.
By the way, you totally isolated because you live in south america wheter you like it or not and no country here recognize you. You have only one flight with the region. That is isolation, unless you have a second interpretation.
Cheers.
Isolated by Argentina maybe, but not international isolation. Falkland Islanders are free to travel anywhere in South America - Argentina included. Just because Argentina restricts access to the Islands from the mainland does not mean they are internationally isolated.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the UK being disrespectful of UN resolutions regarding the Falkland Islands, it's in very good company with Argentina...
Oh, and another thing Jorge, you talk about military power leading to arrogance. We you Argies showed us how to do it. When the Falklands were virtually unprotected YOU invaded militarily!!!! Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
Oct 17th, 2009 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are in the past roberts! Democratic Argentina has nothing to do with the dictatorship. Democratic Argentina respect all the international forums and the world recognize that wheter you like it or not. Uk is the opposite, democracy rules there and that democracy has on respect for the rest of the world. Irak and afghanistan are just examples. Shame on you britain! Take a look round the world, and tell how popular britain is!
Oct 18th, 2009 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers.
Yes Jorge, the same past as your Falklands claim.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina really was democratic then you would understand and recognise the Falkland Islanders democratic choice to remain British, and also their democratic right to change their status at any time, but you don't, so you obviously are not that clued up on democracy as you like to make out.
Once again Iraq and Afghanistan become a justification for Argentine aggression towards the Falkland Islands. How ironic! Please don't forget that the UK was part of a coalition in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so all those other countries involved must be about as popular as Britain?
Some of them, like Spain, are even “friends and supporters” in your Falklands claim and apparently the same countries who keep the Falklands internationally isolated...
Well played Justin and J A Roberts.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - suggest you get an early night tonight what with school on Monday morning and all that.
Jorge:
Oct 18th, 2009 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It does not seem to matter which article we post under, the debate remains the same.
From my point to view you have a totally wrong interpretation of Justin. In my experience he never publishes any fact about the history of the Falklands that he has not thoroughly researched and confirmed as correct as far as it is possible to do so with the support of documentary evidence.
The fact that you denigrate him here so viciously leads me to believe that that you know in reality that what he says is the historical truth and you are afraid that it will be disseminated to a wider public in Argentina exploding the lying myths your people are subject to by their successive governments with a political agenda to pick up a few votes by chanting the right phrases.
The fact that there is only one regular flight to South America is a restriction imposed by Argentina. No Falkland Islander in my estimation is ever going to allow Argentina to have the monopoly of communications with South America. They made that mistake once. Not again.
This situation does not prevent Islanders from engaging in widespread travel on the mainland. Yesterday’s Penguin News carried an advertisement for holidays in Chile and I have seen others for holidays in Brazil etc..
Of course air travel is not the only means of communication and commerce.
If Argentina is really sincere about rapprochement with the Falklands (though here of course we are dealing with stray individuals proposals) the first thing it would do would be to normalise communications with travel and commerce with no stupid restrictions.
No such gesture is likely to be forthcoming in my opinion. But then as you know, no wheels turn in Argentina without the appropriate <<considerations>>.
expat, you said:
Oct 19th, 2009 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”From my point to view you have a totally wrong interpretation of Justin. In my experience he never publishes any fact about the history of the Falklands that he has not thoroughly researched and confirmed as correct as far as it is possible to do so with the support of documentary evidence. “”
Are you totally nuts?, are you Justin's wife or something?. show me all documentary work he gave. bulls...t. He thought argentine independence was in the year 1856. He claimed malvinas was taken by britain in 1833 and that Argentina was not recognized as an independ nation at that year, ignoring the fact britain recognized Argentina in 1825. He wanted to convince us all that the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ and that on each occasion it was Argentina that refused. And then denied that he ever sugested that. And Many more i cant remember right now.
Links:
Justin claiming that the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ ( comment Nº15)
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-has-only-shown-aggression-towards-the-falklands-says-summers
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-has-only-shown-aggression-towards-the-falklands-says-summers
In the link above it is me explaining justin that the dispute in the icj was not about malvinas dispute, that it was about antartica.(comment 56) and justin refusing to admit he said that malvinas was in the icj dispute.(comment Nº57). I suggest you expat to read all of those comments to see what links or documentary evidence Justin gave us.
Believe me expat, that guy dont need you, to make publicity for him, his reputation precedes him.
Luis,
Oct 19th, 2009 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin has published elsewhere with plenty of sources quoted, easily checkable.
If he is not always perfect in the heat of debate at least we can be sure he is much more accurate in his Faklands facts than any Argentine source I have ever seen put abroad here.
Many thanks for your concern but I already have a wonderful wife and a large extended family.
One fact that you can check out for yourself is that although the League of Nations came up with a solution to the Aaland dispute under the tutelage of an Argentine it completely failed even to mention the Falklands claim or seek a solution from that organisation and took another 30 or so years to mention it to the successor body the UN.
Couldn't have been quite so important then in years gone by don't you think.
Ah Luis, Luis, Luis.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do I frighten you so much? Really do you have to distort so much?
“Are you totally nuts?, are you Justin's wife or something?”
Tsk, naked insults, thats poor.
“show me all documentary work he gave. bulls...t. ”
OH I gave plenty, each and every time I quoted the origin of where I found material. Invited you to comment, you declined that invitation to simply resort to childish insults (oh you did that again tonight) and distortions of what I wrote.
“He thought argentine independence was in the year 1856.”
“He claimed malvinas was taken by britain in 1833 and that Argentina was not recognized as an independ nation at that year”
Those are lies, absolute bullshit. I never said any such thing.
“He wanted to convince us all that the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ and that on each occasion it was Argentina that refused. ”
Ah that is simply a distortion, I said it was the Falkland Islands dependencies. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may have misunderstood the first comment but I subsequently made it plain. Thanks for the links, saves me looking for them.
And Jorge, I see your standards are slipping. Let me see, Argentina respect International forums, apart from the UN Convention on Human Rights that confers the right to self-determination upon the Falkland Islanders.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge/Luis - Cut Off? Isloated? - we are only 3000 people so a flight every 7 days is all that is really economically justified to S.America. On top of that we have 2 flights a week direct to Europe as well. Also we have a shipping connection every 14 days with S American ports and the rest of the world. and every 6 weeks with Europe direct.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0The simple fact is the more Argentina attacks our economy and communications - the harder and more determined we get, Up until 2003 there was agrowing number of people here who were starting to get a bit more relaxed and open minded in our thinking towards you - another 5-10 years of that policy and who knows what it could have led to? But since 2003 all has been changed - by Argentina - and now from here we see you just as the nasty big spitefull bully - exactly as you were in 1982 , elected or miltary - we see no difference - all this was caused by the Kirscheners - not Islanders.
Britain does not need to say much about us in world politics, as she is right. Also if she did try to say anything to defend our case then countries would just say“well UK would say that as they are a nasty old european colnial power”. The real world of day to day politics is all about trade and who you need to be seen supporting - that is the only reason why many countries vote for Arg at the UN - it is not that they are anti us nor anti british - but in economic trade, bloc/continental politics, it is easier for them to pay lipservice to Arg and “support it” rather than loose trade or cause other problems elsewhere. And that is all those votes are worth! Dont forget - why did so many countries either support the British in the UN in 1982 or if not, they stayed neutral - even communist Russia stayed neutral then!!
Instead of your constant rhetoric - try and look for a middle way.
Justin, you are a childish little man, im not afraid of you, and definitely i dont want to be at your level. If you say you gave many links and documentary evidence why dont you give the links of your quotes so we can check it.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Expat you said: “”“”“Justin has published elsewhere with plenty of sources quoted, easily checkable”“”“ , i would like to check all the ”documentary evidence” that Justin gave us throuth the years but google does not find ANYTHING of him, so i wonder how can i find that easily checkable sources you are talking about.
Justin and all, In 1816 Argentina formally claim its independence and claim sovereignty over malvinas taking posession of the islands and Continuing the spanish rule there. In 1825 England recognize Argentine independence in a treaty of friendship and commerce without mention the total control of the islands by Argentina.
So for those who build the theory that british invation of malvinas in 1833 happened before Argentina ever existed this proves them wrong.
Islander, i think you are wrong, we are not the nasty big spitefull bully as you see us. If you came to mainland you should know we are an open society, we dont discriminate islanders, i remember an islander who became mayor of a cordoba city, another islander who was proved to play soccer with Boca Junior, a painter who married with an argentinian.
We can accept you as Argentinian or as british subjects on Argentine territorie with no bully, but definitely we will not recognize a colony mantained by force in our territorie.
I remind you that malvinas islands remains on the colony list of the UN.
I remind you that your constitution was made on 5 November 2008 by Her Majesty the Queen in the Privy Council.
I remind you that legislative assembly can only advise (not order) the governor, who is still apointed from the foreign office of the uk.
I remind you that almost all legislative assembly members are people that came from england, scotland or from a common wealth nation but the “falkands”.
“Once again Iraq and Afghanistan become a justification for Argentine aggression towards the Falkland Islands.”
Oct 19th, 2009 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Roberts,
We don't need Irak or Afghanistan as a justification. Your invasion in 1833 is our justification.
Stevie P,
I don't undestand what you meant. Please explain it (only if it is worth reading).
Expat Kelper,
You said “From my point of view........”. Never forget that. You write from YOUR point of view.
Another thing, studing and distorsion argentine history is not “thoroughly researched”. If J.K. has good documentary and evidence why don't he go to UN and present it?
you said,
“The fact that you denigrate him here so viciously leads me to believe that that you know in reality that what he says is the historical truth and you are afraid that it will be disseminated to a wider public in Argentina exploding the lying myths your people are subject to by their successive governments with a political agenda to pick up a few votes by chanting the right phrases.”
First of all, I don't denigrate him.
Second of all, historical thruth??? Please!!!
Finaly, I'm not afraid you diseminate your myths in Argentina. People here know well what you think, but don't agree.
you can post in argentine media (if you know spanish) as much as you post here. Common, do it and wait for feedback.
“The fact that there is only one regular flight to South America is a restriction imposed by Argentina.”
you don't have to repeat that all the time because everyone knows that. We have that power.
“No Falkland Islander in my estimation is ever going to allow Argentina to have the monopoly of communications with South America. They made that mistake once. Not again.”
Don't you have a monopoly of communications with south america right now???
when lan flights stopped, it was because of a chilean desicion. Remember???
J.K. said,
“And Jorge, I see your standards are slipping. Let me see, Argentina respect International forums, apart from the UN Convention on Human Rights that confers the right to self-determination upon the Falkland Islanders.”
Keep studing argentine history and distorsion it. You are doing well!
Islander said,
“ The simple fact is the more Argentina attacks our economy and communications - the harder and more determined we get”
That has a limit!!!
you said,
“Up until 2003 there was agrowing number of people here who were starting to get a bit more relaxed and open minded in our thinking towards you - another 5-10 years of that policy and who knows what it could have led to?”
Let's do this: Spain is doing what you said regarding Gibraltar issue. We'll see in ten years what they(spanish) get. Remember they are looking for sovereignty like us. If they get something that way, I will apologize to you and from then on you'll be right in every talk. Done???
you said,
“But since 2003 all has been changed - by Argentina - and now from here we see you just as the nasty big spitefull bully - exactly as you were in 1982 , elected or miltary - we see no difference - all this was caused by the Kirscheners - not Islanders.”
How could you say that??? You seem to be intelligent. If Galtiere had had an atomic bomb, he would have launched it. A person like him has nothing to do with kirchner. You can't compare them!!! That is an extremist thought.
You said,
“The real world of day to day politics is all about trade and who you need to be seen supporting - that is the only reason why many countries vote for Arg at the UN - it is not that they are anti us nor anti british - but in economic trade, bloc/continental politics, it is easier for them to pay lipservice to Arg and ”support it“ rather than loose trade or cause other problems elsewhere.”
You are right!. That's why we need to grow more economically and have more influence in the world. Finally the sovereignty disscusions will come by itself.
you said,
“why did so many countries either support the British in the UN in 1982 or if not, they stayed neutral - even communist Russia stayed neutral then!!
Instead of your constant rhetoric - try and look for a middle way.”
Communist Russia said “a fight between two capitalist countries is not our problem”
For trying and looking for a middle way, a willing counterpart is needed.
We just don't see willingness in the british part.
Cheers.
Luis said,
Oct 19th, 2009 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“i remember an islander who became mayor of a cordoba city, another islander who was proved to play soccer with Boca Junior, a painter who married with an argentinian.”
I've heard that some islanders bullied those who they call “argie lovers”
I don't know if that is true but I've heard it.
cheers
In 1833 Argentina was a youg republic, like all others, like Australia, like Cánada. Malvinas the 1º january was a republican territory. We where what you want to be in the future. Malvinas have a political link with BA; that publicy known at the time and now, Vernet told UK some years before and there is no protest, there was prescription; and Malvinas were republican with no opposition, a future another new province.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 01833 was a surprise; there was no ultimatim, no previous negotiation, nothing; in Nwe Year UK disembarked; all were drunk; british and that islanders...what a surprise!!
And for worst that a that moment you were 1º world power; and we were a civil war; but we managed to mantain Ba-Malv political & economical link despite another previous and ferious attack; that islanders were recovering from that ferious attack, but US don´t treppas the line, they were a republic too. UK did it; is the worst way, that´s was treason. That what porteños of that time felt.
That´s the reason we claim, because Malvinas suffered a retrograde political movement, from republica to colony; that´s the reason that for UN´s opinion it is a special situation were selfdetermination without the previous situation cant´s be opposes to us.
Welkin, thanks for the history lesson, but what Vernet did or did not do is completely irrelevant. What is completely relevant though is current international law - UN security council and general assembly resolutions - and under that law the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination. It's really up to the Argentine political class to accept that and drop the artificial claim.
Oct 19th, 2009 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, if you don't need Iraq and Afghanistan as justification why do you mention them in the first place? Please answer me that at least...
“you are a childish little man”
Oct 20th, 2009 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tsk, childish insults yet again.
“im not afraid of you, and definitely i dont want to be at your level.”
My dear, you couldn't reach my level standing on a box.
“ how can i find that easily checkable sources you are talking about.”
Right, so among other the Darwin online archive, for which you've had a direct URL and you can't find it. None so blind as those that will not see.
“In 1816 Argentina formally claim its independence and claim sovereignty over malvinas taking posession of the islands”
No it didn't, it did no such thing.
“and Continuing the spanish rule there.”
Again no it didn't, the Spanish Governor was withdrawn in 1807
“In 1825 England recognize Argentine independence in a treaty of friendship and commerce without mention the total control of the islands by Argentina.”
No control whatsoever, Vernet didn't establish his settlement till 1828 (and don't forget he asked nicely first). The Treaty of Friendship had nothing to do with the Falklands
“So for those who build the theory that british invation of malvinas in 1833 happened before Argentina ever existed this proves them wrong.”
No it doesn't, Captain John Strong formally landed and claimed the islands in 1690, that is 126 years before Argentina existed.
“we are not the nasty big spitefull bully as you see us.”
That the islanders see Argentina as a big spiteful bully is entirely down to the way that Argentina approaches the islanders.
“but definitely we will not recognize a colony mantained by force in our territorie.”
The Falklands are not a colony and have not been so for some time, the British will not tolerate Argentina attempting to establish a colony by force. We let our guard down once, we won't do it again. Neither are the islands Argentine territory and they have never been and never will be.
“I remind you that malvinas islands remains on the colony list of the UN.”
It was only ever listed as a colony because Britain listed it with the UN, that it remains listed is entirely down to the fact that Argentina would spit its dummy out. It is in no way related to the status of the islands, more it is down to basic prejudice because theyre British.
“I remind you that your constitution was made on 5 November 2008 by Her Majesty the Queen in the Privy Council.”
So what
”I remind you that legislative assembly can only advise (not order) the governor, who is still apointed from the foreign office of the uk.“
Nope, thats not the way it works.
”I remind you that almost all legislative assembly members are people that came from england, scotland or from a common wealth nation but the “falkands”.”
I think you'll find that Mike Summers was born in Stanley, another was born in camp and one in Argentina. They were all elected.
Welkin,
Oct 20th, 2009 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why was it a surprise? Britain had protested at Argentine proclamations regarding the Falklands. Vernet didn't “tell” the British, he asked permission.
I've said it elsewhere but Vernet's duplicitous behaviour in playing of BA against London goes a long way to explaining the difference of opinion in 1833. There will never by any understanding whilst Argentina denies it happened.
Jorge,
Oct 20th, 2009 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only myths perpetuated about the Falklands are Argentine, we don't need to, Argentina has to justify its claim somehow. Unfortunately there are too many inconvenient facts to upset the apple cart. You're so blinded by nationalism you refuse to listen, you know its true but you can't admit it to yourself.
You don't see willingness? The only people creating obstacles to any settlement are Argentine.
So what if the Islands Constitution was approved by the Queen and Privy Council- so is EVERY major law and costitution affair made by the Australian and Canadian Governments - is anybody going to say they are still colonies?? Its just that a lot of Commowealth territories and countries have a different system to S American republics - we have a monarch as titular head of state and an elected prime minister instead of an elected president
Oct 20th, 2009 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0yes our elected Govt can only advise the Governor on foreign affairs and those to do with the judiciary and police - that is to ensure good government - ie the UK can overule us stop us if we try to have undemocratic courts and police - that makes for good fair open free government of high moral standards. That is why UK recently intervened in Turks and Caicos - the local elected Govt was becoming corrupt.
Defence and Foreign Affairs - of course that is UK final decision - they are paying and taking responsibility worldwide for us - but at the same time they would not do something that was against our wishes.
Just because some nations have a different system does not mean they are worse that yours or “colonial”.
islander, is citizen task to say if their goverment is corrupt, not king´s task, in britain is not the king who says what is fine and what is wrong.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, So you say that the uk can overule you, and that they actually did overule recently Turks and Caicos becouse the local elected Govt was becoming corrupt?.And that the elected Govt can only advise the Governor on foreign affairs and those to do with the judiciary and police.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0So whats left for your “selfgovernment”?. Honestly islander whats the difference between that and a colony?. You administer the islands but dont govern them cause if you people who live there dont have control over defence, government, the judiciary system, the foreign office, you dont have nothing. And if we add that the candidates for elections became mostly from england, scotland or other common wealth members.....
Corruptions is everywhere, even in uk parliament, can you or the turks and caicos overule the uk for the govt becoming corrupt?.
Is Australia defense, foreign relations, judyciary systems and police managed by britain?.
Justin, you really makes me laugh, i saw in your post that you denie every thing i wrote with words like: “no it didnt”, “Again no it didn't”, “no it doesnt”, “Nope, thats not the way it works”. Not a single link or sources or explanation of any kind.
And when i asked how can i find that easily checkable sources you are talking about, you said and i quote: “”among other the Darwin online archive“” ha ha ha, among other?????, you gave one link of the diary of darwin in the entire existence of mercopress, and thats among other?????, i wonder wich other sources you gave of all your theories of argentine-british history? and please give me the links to that, so we can see your past posts.
“you couldn't reach my level standing on a box”
keep your arrogance and your level.
The rest of comments i can not debate if you put a phrase like “no it didnt” or “not it doesnt”. So if you substantiate i can continue debating.
I forgot to mention, Justin you said:
Oct 20th, 2009 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”The Falklands are not a colony and have not been so for some time“”
When, in your opinion or based on your “historical evidence”(among others”) did the falklands stoped beign a colony?.
Luis, the Falklands stopped being a colony when they were granted self-government.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the paradox here is that modern world enshrines selfdetermination as a way to finish all colonial situations, and here it is been used as an excuse to perpetuate it.
Oct 20th, 2009 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“hey, we have the right of selfdetermination....but britain determines most of our affairs...the essential ones” what´s the meaning of selfdetermination when other determines about your most crucial affairs of governance instead of you??
Welkin,
Oct 20th, 2009 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK does not determine most of the Falkland Islands affairs. That is simply untrue.
The UK acts on behalf other Falkland Islands in matters of Defence and Foreign Affairs and will never do anything the Falkland Islanders do not agree with. Can you not get your head around that?
Luis, The Governor can only exercise his authority in extreme circumstances - that are in the clear interests of democracy and freedom of the people here. Its a checkline against corrution - necessary in a small place very much so. Where is the system of checks and balances in your Govt to keep corruption our - take the inflation and economic idices official figures for a start shall we!
Oct 20th, 2009 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course we do not decide defence and foreign arrairs - we need a big power UK to look after them as as they are paying its quite normal for them to have the final say - again not that they would ever do anything against our wishes. We have to have a big power doing all this because of the continual threat from Argentina- remove the threat and you will also remove the european power military base here as it will have no purpose anymore.
We decide, immigration,education,health,all taxes and internal laws etc , it is quite normal in a decent democracy for control of the judiciary not to be just in the hands of politicians. It is in corrupt countries- there is the difference.
J.A. Roberts, admiting that malvinas was a colony its a great step for you people that has denied it from the very begining. Now when did the “falklands” got self-government J.A. Roberts and stoped being a colony?, just in your opinion.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, with all due respect, you are not well informed. When you said:
“”We decide, immigration,education,health,all taxes and internal laws etc “”. Those are only administrative powers. Its clear to me that you guys administer the islands.
In a corrupt country like mine( if you meant Argentina) the judiciary is not in the hand of politicians, neither they can be elected by the people. They represent a separate power independent of the executive power, and they are elected by the “Consejo de la Magistratura” .
Islander, who decide what is an extreme circumstance to call the uk to destroy your “constitution”? is it a common citizen like you?.
In Turks and Caicos, the report that left to uk intervention was an interim report by a Commission of Inquiry - led by a retired British judge - into allegations of corruption against members of the Turks' Cabinet and Assembly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7946636.stm
luis, good link but there is another history here, the other side history. Some people say that corruption was an excuse, that´s not the real reason why UK intervene without a previous trial and witouth hearing the “corrups”.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact was that the NATIONAL PROGRESSIVE PARTY won elections, 13 of 15 seats in assembly for them. Galmo Williams, their democratic leader, had some “subversive” ideas, he proposed a referendum where freedom and independence was a possibility and that was his doom...Galmo, you are a corrup!!!
Here is a link...there are more, but this is very illustrative for us.
http://www.noticiasyprotagonistas.com/noticias/22168-kelpers-turcos-y-caribenos/
Luis,
Oct 21st, 2009 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is not for me to decide when the Falkland Islands stopped being a colony, my opinion is of no relevance. According to UN resolutions the Falkland Islanders are the only people who can decided when they are no longer in a colonial situation.
For many years now the Falkland Islanders have been making representations before the C24 committee, asking for their country to be removed from the list of non self governing territories. It is the Falkland Islanders who no longer consider themselves to be in a colonial situation...
As for the Falkland Islands only having administrative powers, that is not true and you know it. It is well known that the Falkland Islanders also have legislative power. They are in control of their own affairs and have chosen, democratically, to entrust defence and foreign affairs to the UK. What other powers do they need to have to be self governing???
Galmo words...selfdetermination to the toilet.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.tcgov.tc/info--ID--460.html
I ask myself....islanders don´t talk about freedom beacause they are afraid of Argentina or because they are afraid of UK??
Oct 21st, 2009 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are not a colony, they were a colony but then Argentina was once a colony. Ooops, did logic get in the way again.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0They are self-governing, power is devolved to local Government, they govern themselves. That the British have a different system of Governance is up to them, its a system the islanders are content and it is their choice.
The islanders do have freedom, the British Government has committed itself to supporting their choice. Welkin you're being utterly ridiculous to claim the islanders are afraid of Britain, British troops were welcomed in 1982. On the other hand, the conscripts were surprised to find a hostile population.
I see that the situation in the Turks and Caicos islands is exploited by the Argentines for the most ridiculous propaganda. For information the British Government is publicly committed to providing independence for any BOT that requests it.
OH and Luis, moving the goal posts are we? You asked me to name an easily checkable reference and I did. Do we examine it, no, we resort to cheap snide remarks. What source did you provide? What links?
You made a series of assertion, that are in the main, utter bollocks. You're not interested in debate, every time something contradicts you, you resort to childish insults.
J.A. Roberts, you said: “”It is not for me to decide when the Falkland Islands stopped being a colony, my opinion is of no relevance. According to UN resolutions the Falkland Islanders are the only people who can decided when they are no longer in a colonial situation.“”
Oct 21st, 2009 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you suggesting they are in a colonial situation?.
Anyway i did not ask you to married me, i only asked you your opinion.
No they are not in a colonial situation, have not been for some time.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, I know it's difficult for you but if you read what I said above again you will see that I am saying (not suggesting) exactly the opposite. They are NOT in a colonial situation. By their own admission.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse 01. It's their decision to make (UN res). 2. They have made it and said so. Read all the C24 reports.
Don't worry Luis, there's no chance of you marrying me - even if you asked nicely!
Curiously i always find islanders here that claims to have selfgoverment in malvinas islands, but what they never clear it up is to when did it happened?, what year??????? when the colony was left behind to “selfgovernment”? . I repeat, i dont think they have selfgovernment, but if they claim that, they must know better than me when did it happened?. Its your own history for god sake dont be shy to express your own opinion about it.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, It would be hard to say which year we stopped being a Colony - it has been a gradual process over the last 10-20 years in particular, and it continues as a gradual process as we get more local based expertise, population, economy etc - although it is not a big public headline here - yes an appropriate form(appropriate for a small country that is threatened by a big neighbour) of Independence is the ultimate and natural objective.
Oct 21st, 2009 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do we feel we are a colony - definatley no longer. Are we afraid of UK - no why should we be?
The british system is I accept very difficult to yours og government in how it is made up and all works - many things with us are not written down in black and white - but they have been understood for years by all as what you do and what you do not do.Yes the Queen can still sack the British primeminister-and probably even the Australian one if she wanted - but clearly the head of State in a modern democracy no longer does things like that, even though it does not say that she cannot. We just have a strange system - but it works and some countries envy it - and many Commonwealth countries base their system on it. I am not saying it is better or worse than yours - just that it is different - but we are still just as democratic.
Hello robert, i rode all the documents that you told me, i must tell you for being honest, that in my 28 years i never heard many of the arguments of the document, i am really sorprised, i told you already but we learn at school and what i learnt when i studyed the malvinas history in my carear as a profesor of geography, anyway i willl take this document to my profesors, and i will find out if our clame is still legitim, i am thinking also on taking this document to the ministery of foreign affears to mr taiana, because if our clame is not legitime any more, i would like the goverment to tell it to the whole population, i know that i could seem inocent, but i wanna be in peace with my concience, i will do everything i can to colaborate with the cause, beside when my piupirls ask me why the malvinas are under british govermnet, i will tell them not only our oficial history, i will tell them many of the argumnets that i rode, i never wanted to heard just one voice, they will have their conclutions, thank you and i hope your answer.
Oct 22nd, 2009 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Islander, acording to you, may i say that you were a colony until 10-20 years ago, not now that you “self-govern” yourself isnt?.
Oct 22nd, 2009 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0So if you self-govern who would take action from your self-government of the “Falklands” in case for example that:
a) The uk test a nuclear bomb in the islands.
b) A british jugde make a preliminary report of corruption on the malvinas legislative assembly, and the governor ask the uk to block your “constitution”.
c) The governor increse taxes to P0.
d) The governor in extreme circumstances and the uk parliament authorise the expulsion of inhabitants of the “Falklands” to create a us military base in the islands sending inhabitants to St Helena islands.
e) The legislative assembly members have strong interests in fishing companys and act acordingly to the interest of that private industry.
I know they are very imaginative cases (or not) but if you prove me that you guys on the islands have the say on this matter to stop it, to condem it and to judge it, i will believe you have a self-government.
But you have no control over the military.
You depend on uk judiciary system but you have no representation on uk parliament.
The governor represent the uk government in malvinas but at the same time represent malvinas government in the uk. Something extremely dangerouse when it comes to protect interests.
Islander and all, the power to govern is bigger than administrate a territorie.
If you cant avoid acts committed by britain like the expulsion of inhabitants of Diego Garcia to create a military base, the exploitation and expulsion of banabans inhabitants, the violation of the Turks and Caicos “constitution”, your administrative powers are useless and your “self-government” inexistent.
Axel, thank you for reading the paper by Pascoe/Pepper. There are always two sides to every story and the Falkland Islanders have been trying for decades to tell theirs. I grew up in Argentina, living in Rio Gallegos during the Falklands War, so I know exactly how only one side of the story is told in Argentina...
Oct 22nd, 2009 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A Roberts said, “Jorge, if you don't need Iraq and Afghanistan as justification why do you mention them in the first place? Please answer me that at least...”
Oct 23rd, 2009 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was just reminding you roll UK plays in the world.
J.K. said, “You don't see willingness? The only people creating obstacles to any settlement are Argentine.”
NO!!! The thing is the sovereignty issue and YOU are refusing to discuss it.
“I was just reminding you roll UK plays in the world.”
Oct 23rd, 2009 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, read what you wrote above again. It's obvious you were trying to make out how isolated and unpopular the UK is in the world, how few friends we have and how much support Argentina apparently has for its weak and frankly unjustified claim to the Falkland Islands.
However you continually choose to ignore the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the UK was part of a coalition of countries - which even included some who apparently support you in your ridiculous Falklands claim. Countries like Spain for example.
J.A. Roberts, you looks smarter than that. You cant wash your hands saying that the uk was just a finger in a huge coalition force.
Oct 24th, 2009 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Uk wanted those two different wars, and prepared for it.
Its a kind of funny to think that you guys, supported Saddam Hussein for many years, then invaded Iraq (first war), then controled iraq's air space, and bloqueade Iraqs economy until you invade iraq again for the so called “weapons of mass destructions”, then you didnt find those wmd,
then you murder Saddam Hussein after murder its lawer, then you told the world that the war was for liberate iraq from a dictatorship (which you created).
You should write a novel about it called “we dont care nothing, we were just a finger in a huge coalition force”.
Luis, The idea of UK testing a nuclear bomb here is silly- apart from anything else UK signed to treaty of tatleco(apelling?) which forbids the prescence of such weapons in this area, there is no way UK would be granted permission by our Govt to test here either.
Oct 24th, 2009 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0If we did end up with a corrupt Govt here who were starting to do things illegal and undemocratic against our constitution then I would hope that UK would indeed intervene- throgh them out and call fresh elections.
The Governor does not have the power to make or increase taxes - that power lies only with the elected legislature.
Neither can he nor UK order our expulsion as you say - it would be a breach of our right of constitutional self-determination and would thus be against the UN Charter so UK would be stopped by that.I know UK did it in DiegoGarcia over half a century ago - it was wrong - they would not get away with it in the 21st century.
All legislature members have to make a declaration of their inerests - they all know who is employed where and what company etc so if anyone tried it on they would be stopped. By tradition when say a fishing permit licence issue comes up then those involved “declare their interest” to the others and either leave the meeting - or sit there but do not vote. It is well established and works well.
We have control over the military withing the Islands through planning and environmental laws as to what they do and where same as I expect you have over yours. But in practice it would be a silly Govt anywhere if it did not allow the military to do something that was clearly of military defence importance.
We have control over the judiciary in so far as we make the laws and determine the broad outline of how breaks to the laws should be dealt with - but the actual carrying out of the legal system is independent of politics.
Through our Govt Office in London we have direct access to the Foreign Office Minister who has responsibility for our area, and also direct to all UK politicians - many of whom will ask questions in the UK Parliament that Ministers then have to answer. There is no way the UK Govt could do something that was openly against our wishes - the UK Parliament would stop it.
Yes we do have internal selfgovernment. Only the Arg agressive claim to our homes prevents us from having full selfgovernment and independence - we need someone we can trust like UK to defend us.
J.A. Roberts said,
Oct 24th, 2009 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“However you continually choose to ignore the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the UK was part of a coalition of countries - which even included some who apparently support you in your ridiculous Falklands claim. Countries like Spain for example.”
Are you suggesting that all latam countries are ridiculous becuase they support us???? Nice guy Roberts, nice guy!!!!
You are like those people who always think “I'm right and the others are wrong!!!”
Ridiculous claim! Please, get your head out of that box and meet the real world.
Cheers
Islander, what treaty are you talking about if britain came to war to the south atlantic in 1982 carrying nuclear weapons on its ships.
Oct 24th, 2009 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”If we did end up with a corrupt Govt here who were starting to do things illegal and undemocratic against our constitution then I would hope that UK would indeed intervene- throgh them out and call fresh elections.“”
Who decide that there is corruption in your government? a british jugde? that visits the islands once a year?.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Government.html
“”The Governor does not have the power to make or increase taxes - that power lies only with the elected legislature.“”
But the governor can create a new law aswell, or new taxes. Its in your constitution and acording to that, there is nothing the legislative assembly can do about it, they can only advise the governor, not overule him.
“”Neither can he nor UK order our expulsion as you say - it would be a breach of our right of constitutional self-determination and would thus be against the UN Charter so UK would be stopped by that.I know UK did it in DiegoGarcia over half a century ago - it was wrong - they would not get away with it in the 21st century.“”
Islander, in Turks and Caicos, it was the british Commissioner, Sir Robin Auld, that reported corruption on the government, and the uk government (his home) was who partially suspended Turks and Caicos constitution.
See the point?, someone who went from the uk to Turks and caicos is the one that “detected” corruption, and his own government who suspend the constitution.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Government.html
who can assure you that a british jugde accuse you of corruption and suspend your constitution?. Did the UN act against the Turks and Caicos constitutional suspention?.
About Diego Garcia, the british supreme court of apeill dictaminated that expulsion was illegal and authorised inhabitants to return but the governments of the uk and the USA refused to comply. it was in 2007, this century 21.
“”Through our Govt Office in London we have direct access to the Foreign Office Minister who has responsibility for our area, and also direct to all UK politicians - many of whom will ask questions in the UK Parliament that Ministers then have to answer. There is no way the UK Govt could do something that was openly against our wishes - the UK Parliament would stop it.“”
Islander, the uk parliament is as corrupt as mine, only with more money, its in the newspapers. And they have acted in the past against the wishes of Diego Garcia Inhabitants and until now they are not worry to return its inhabitants.
Islander , dont take me wrong, im not an anti but you give to the uk absolute power over you since the judiciary system (who decide if your constitution needs a suspention), or the governor (who is named by the foreign office), and they gives you only an office in the foreign office building. To me, it smell a lot like a colony, you just refuse to see it because you democratically elect the governor advisers.
Jorge, any country which supports your claim is ridiculous. What you in effect want to do is impose your will on a people, which goes against every democratic principle (yet you like to tell people what a modern democracy you are).
Oct 24th, 2009 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the best you can come up with is to tell me to get my head out of the box, that's fine. It means you have no real argument. Your claim was cooked up in the 1930s and 1940s after many decades of Argentina accepting that the Falklands were British. The claim pushed ahead by Juan Peron, because it was politically useful for him. Nothing more. It's been politically useful since, which is why you then subsequently included it in your constitution...
Jorge and Luis,
Oct 24th, 2009 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine claim to the Falklands is weak at best. Your president's use of the claim to whip up public support in difficult economic times is little different to that of the military junta in the early 80's. In the 21st century, there really is no reasonable argument against the inhabitants' right to self-determination. Because of what happened in 82, the islanders are never going to choose Argentina.
Hi Stevie P, just becouse you say so it does not means that our claim is weak or less valid. In any case substantiate more.
Oct 25th, 2009 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the 21 century there is a colony in those islands and to grant self-determination on them imply that we can invade someone else territory, expell its inhabitants, implanting our own and 150 years later, claim for selfdetermination avoiding talking about sovereignty with its real owner.
What did Argentina do in Patagonia?
Oct 25th, 2009 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the 1880s, it invaded someone else's territory, murdered its inhabitants, implanted its own people and now just over a century later claims it as Argentine territory. Ah but that will be different....
Just a little before that as part of the Triple Alliance it was responsible for the genocide of the male population of Paraguay, took a third of Paraguay's territory and now 150 years later claims it as Argentine territory. Ah but that will be different as well...
Whereas the Falklands were never Argentine, individual Argentines made a series of sporadic and ineffective attempts to establish a settlement, in the latter cases seeking permission from the British consulate before doing so. Argentine proclamations about the Falkland Islands were by a Government later declared illegal, the Argentine president Rosas couldn't be arsed to protest about British moves in 1833. And Argentina abandoned all claims in 1850.
A bunch of nazis, led by Palacios, decided to re-invent the claim in the 1930s, it was eagerly adopted by Peron for the sole reason of creating an anti-British sentiment in the country and crudely exploited for internal political reasons. It has been ever since.
The claim is so weak as to be non-existent, Luis, you know it to be so but you grand stand about seeking talks about sovereignty. You would happily ignore the rights of the people who hacked a life from a barren and cold wilderness, you would happily impose a colonial regime on those people; a regime that is utterly alien to their way of life. You effectively wish to dominate and subjugate them; that is colonialism.
The islands are self-governing, they are not a colony and they never will be again. Back in 1982, the islands were more democratic than the Argentina of the time. They are even more democratic now.
In the 21st Century there isn't a colony in the Falklands but a supposedly democratic nation seeks to establish one. The British see it differently.
Yes Justin i will respond your absurd examples , but next time put your feet on earth will you?, or at least learn about history.
Oct 25th, 2009 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”In the 1880s, it invaded someone else's territory, murdered its inhabitants, implanted its own people and now just over a century later claims it as Argentine territory. Ah but that will be different....“”
Justin, what nation existed in patagonia prior to argentine colonization? did britain, spain, france , etc. recognized some other nation prior to ours in patagonia?.
“”Just a little before that as part of the Triple Alliance it was responsible for the genocide of the male population of Paraguay, took a third of Paraguay's territory and now 150 years later claims it as Argentine territory. Ah but that will be different as well“”
Paraguay signed peace treaty with no reivindication of any territorie won on war. did you hear Paraguay claiming us anything?. Im not talking if the war was fair or not.
The malvinas were ocupied by individual argentines and with an effective ocupation. It did prospered but they were invaded by a foreign power.
Did you said Argentina abandoned all claims in 1850 and reinvented another in 1930s????
How did Argentina abandoned all claims? did they recognized the “falkland nation”? did they recognized british sovereignty in 1850? tell me justin how did Argentina to abandom all claims?. Did they signed a treaty or something?. And what is the other claim Argentina reinvented in 1930?.
No well the rest is incredible, you acussing us of colonialism? of domination???.
Good night Justin Sleep well. I have time to read sometimes you know?, but last time i lost it responding to your poor comparisons.
Luis, Actually Falkland Islands owns freehold our office building in Londo-not Foreign Ofice. I think it is the system of a constitutional monarchy that we have(the Governor represents the Queen) that makes it difficult for you to see the level of real internal self government we have. Under the systen yes all ultimate powers go to the Governor - just the same as they go to the Queen in UK - nothing the Primeminister wants is law until she signs it. But in todays world our system is that although those powers still remain with the Governor/Queen - in reality and practise they do not exercise them - without the approval of the elected government. For instance Britain could not send troops to Afghanistan - without the Queen first signing the documents.Australia could not send troops unless signed by their Governor General - and they are not an independent nation. Its a strange system compared with your clear written republic constitution.
Oct 26th, 2009 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I agree about UK politicians - and many of them will now loose their seats in the election next year never mind what party they are as it has caused outrage with the people there.
If there ever was serious political corruption here - i guess it would be local people who would appeal to the Governor - who would then get London to act. UK after all has a responsibilty to the UN to make sure that high standards of good governance happen here.
I only know the outlines of the Turks abd Caicos story but it was pretty bad and from people I know who have worked there before it has gone on for years at a lower level but this time got to serious to leave. So probably well done UK for stepping in, in the best interests long term of the population there.
Louis,
Oct 26th, 2009 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think recognition of the Islander's right to self-determination in the 21st century should or would give rise to any implication that it would subsequently be acceptable in the 21st century for a sovereign country to invade another sovereign country (or one of its territories), 'expel all of its inhabitants', import its own inhabitants into that territory and claim self-determination 150 years later, ignoring the claims of the 'real owner'.
Your premise is based on a number of assumptions which are flawed, namely that:
(a) Argentina is the 'real owner' of the Falklands Islands and that the territory was Argentinian in 1833/34; and
2. all of the inhabitants were expelled.
Justin's point above about the failed attempts by various Argentine individuals to occupy or form a permanent settlement on the Islands in the 1820s is one of several reasons which highlight the weakness of Argentina's claim. Prior to Vernet's second attempt, my understanding is that they all failed after a very short time - let me know if you disagree with this. Vernet eventually had some success but the fact that Vernet sought the permission of the British for his settlement means that you can't really use Vernet's settlement as a solid basis for any form of claim.
The only inhabitants that were expelled by the British were those comprising the 'Argentine garrison' which had only been on the Islands for 3 months (compared to say 150 years (180 now by the way)) the civilians were actively encouraged to remain (and quite a few did).
Of course you might have a stronger argument if Britain had waited until 150 years after the establishment of the Argentine garrison and uninterrupted administrative control of the Islands before turning up with a ship and asking the garrison to leave......
My absurd examples?
Oct 26th, 2009 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me see, apparently genocide and seizure of territory is OK when the territory Argentina invaded wasn't part of a “nation”.
And genocide and seizure of territory is OK when you invade a sovereign nation, exterminate the male population and force the survivors to sign a “peace” treaty that “legitimises” the action.
Who is being absurd?
That individual Argentines, sought British permission prior to establishing a settlement on British territory does not confer a sovereignty claim upon Argentina. Whether it prospered is arguable, that Vernet made grand claims of prosperity is true but the testimony of the American captain who found a miserable settlement, whose inhabitants were only too glad to grab the chance to escape he offered tells a different story. It would appear the raid of the USS Lexington merely offered a convenient excuse for the failure of the settlement.
Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement in 1850 and with that settled ALL existing differences with the UK. So yes Argentina signed a treaty.
But then Argentina has a habit of settling territorial disputes only to later revive them. The Beagle Channel dispute for example, where up to the late 19th Century Argentine maps show the disputed islands as Chilean territory; the same maps incidentally show the Falklands as foreign not Argentine territory.
And yes I am accusing Argentina of colonial ambitions. Argentina seeks to impose an alien culture and to dominate and subjugate the islanders, it tried it by force in 1982, in 2009 it denies they have any say in their own future. That is the antithesis of colonialism.
Whereas the British have devolved self-government on the islanders, it gives them the final say in matters that concern them. Small wonder then they choose to retain that relationship in preference to domination by a spiteful and recalcitrant Argentina.
Well said Islander, Steve and Justin.
Oct 26th, 2009 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A bit of sense, which Argies always find hard to argue against, so instead cue something in reply about how terrible and colonialist Britain (still) is, the usual Afghanistan and Iraq red herring and another pop at the terrible British because of Diego Garcia (when they actually mean the Chagossians).
Around we go...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!