MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands voters send a clear message
The Falkland Islands election of 5 November presented a clear and stark message. The tiny electorate was fed up with those whom they felt represented them in a cavalier fashion over recent years, and they were being punished. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe question here will be if with the no negotiation situation this new council will succeded where the other, with Summers & co., failed. Fortunately the line is in the sand and not in stone.
Nov 07th, 2009 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, the FIG has offered talks, without preconditions a long time ago. Its Argentina that refuses to talk.
Nov 07th, 2009 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0they offered talks to negotiate the conflict?? they offered talks to negotiate sovereignty?? please give me some link or more information, I´m surprised and I´m applauding.
Nov 07th, 2009 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should refuse to talk, because they have to mind their own business, like fixing their own messed up economy. By the way, is there oil there in the Falklands?
Nov 07th, 2009 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wish islanders the best of luck! May wisdom prevail among new councillors and decide to sit down and tackle with the Argentines the only thing that will guarantee your future: sovereignty. The UK will not be able to keep this deaf stance forever!
Nov 07th, 2009 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0“sit down and tackle with the Argentines the only thing that will guarantee your future: sovereignty. ”
Nov 08th, 2009 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Newsflash, its the islanders who decide their own future, this is called self-determination. The UK is committed to respecting THEIR wishes.
The islanders have offered talks with Argentina. Talks do not have a pre-determined outcome. Argentina will only talk where the outcome is pre-determined in its favour. Something the islanders will not accept.
Open talks include EVERYTHING, even SOVEREIGNTY! but when Argentina says the magic word “sovereignty” Crown subjects run away inmediatly.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Open talks, with no pre-defined agenda.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you illustrate Argentina's agenda, talks will only be about one thing and that is everyone giving in to Argentina.
Argentina has always said it has no problem about talking. We could talk about everything but soverreignty at the same time.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has always had a problem with talking, every talks have been stymied by Argentina's insistence that the only perceivable outcome is for Britain to capitulate to its demands and transfer sovereignty to Argentina.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Caesar is dead. Long live the Republic!
Nov 09th, 2009 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is not the K people that is in command now. Argentina has always had a polite, patient and at times naive population and it is these character that had brought havoc to the way it is ruled. because of scoundrels that take advantage of ut in their own benefit.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sovereingty has been a stone in the shoe for the past 100 years. It must be recalled that it was not the British that pushed Argentina off the archipelago, but an act of sheer piracy by an US Captain, Silas Duncan, purportedly “in defence of US commercial interests” (those of the whalers and hunters of the local wolves for their skins), who used the cannon of USNavy Lexington to defeate the practically unarmen Argentinian government, destroyed all installations and declared the islands “Free for all”. Only a year after this, and while the mainland country was in the middle of one of its “normal” political strifes, the English dropped a number of families, whose descendants gave a stunning democratic boot to their LegAss people last thursday.
Argentine naiveté lost the golden opportunity when it was offered her and she rejected, in 1982, a coalition tripartite government under three flags (UK, UN & Argentine) with sovereingty to be discussed, and eventually ceded, in some not too distant future.
Perhaps, after these K people leave, and if reasonable substitutes are sworn in, a light may appear on the horizon. Not to jump into a clear-cut arrangement, but something that would give the two positions a reason to keep discussions, find common interests to seriously work on them and, after one or two generations, reach a healthy agreement for co-existence, patience and mutual respect which, why not, might one day consider a re-uniting policy. This is something which, unfortunately, I'm old enough to never see. Cheers.
Argie.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually the damage done by Silas Duncan was greatly exaggerated by Vernet for his own purposes. Duncan destroyed the powder store and spiked the guns but that was it. He did not as claimed raze the settlement to the ground. Nor did the British drop families off in 1833, the British didn't in fact send any settlers till 1841. The people living there were the remains of Vernet's settlers.
And to correct you, Britain didn't offer to cede sovereignty in 1982.
Other than that, to be honest all the Falkland Islanders want to reach a healthy agreement for co-existence, patience and mutual respect. Shame that after making progress the Kirschners have pissed away the good will of yet another generation of Falklanders.
Just in K... The UK had no voice on it; it was the UN which offered the tripartite government to stop the action with immediate effect. The sovereignty issue was a corollary of this and many previous orders issued by the UN's Decolonisation Special Comitee. Being a member of the UN, the UK had (and has) to abide to the decisions of the multinational organisation. Or else...
Nov 09th, 2009 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But let's leave past where it is.
Things are now what they are, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the victors & at the same time warn them about the ideas the losers may have in mind to make hell of their government. Bear in mind that the umbilical cord to too many personal interests and future prospects has been severed...
The declaration of the Decolonisation Committee do not require that sovereignty is transferred to Argentina. Nor was the offer in 1982 a binding decision by the UN, it was an attempt at a peaceful solution brokered first by Al Haig.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sad to see you revert to type and resorting to yet more empty threats, so much for a “healthy agreement for co-existence, patience and mutual respect”.
Never lasts long does it.
Actually Argie, it has only been a “stone in the shoe” since the 1940s when the fascist dictator Juan Peron revived the claim on very unsafe and frankly pathetically weak grounds. I make it about 70 years, not 100, that the stone has been in the shoe, and don't forget that Argentina put it there. Everyone had been co-existing peacefully before that.
Nov 09th, 2009 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should also take the time to review all UN SC and GA resolutions regarding the Falkland Islands. Not a single mention of Argentina's right to sovereignty is has ever been made or even implied. That's because it does not exist. The UK and Argentina are “invited to settle their differences”. Thing more and nothing less. The decolonisation of the Falklands is frankly no business of Argentina's and morally Argentina lost any right to comment when you invaded the islands militarily in 1982. You should mind your own business...
I will clarify now a couple of things and then will leave you alone for good.
Nov 10th, 2009 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0First comes Just in: Your second para on above message #15, beginning with 'Sad...' has no factual basis. It is either an unfortunate misconception, a veritable lie, or you simply have misunderstood me, perhaps because English is not my mother's tongue. I should think it is the latter. I'd never dare to threat the islanders because I've always admired their valour and resilience, to the point of being consider a 'traitor' to some of my co-nationals whose position is the opposite on all lines, whenever they read me on threads as this. To be the ham in the sandwich is nothing a vigorous community who needs help from no one, can stand for long before doing something. The islanders fought first with the merciless weather to create a perfect democratic community, then they had to fight for self determination which they've got albeit partially, and have recently written a Constitution. They are moving slowly to independence and, to my view, they're not far from it. Their only real, undecipherable, unfathomable problem lies, unfortunately, a few hundred miles to the West.
Then comes J.A Roberts. I may accept that you are partially right in what you meant; however not in the tone you use. I'm not of the hawkish type, and have never been, in respect of any rights that the islanders had or have or might have in future. That is why I'm afraid that when writing in these threads I'm minding my own business and, if you don't think so, I sincerely believe that you're nofleetingbody to tell me (or anyone else here) where those 'businesses' should fleeting begin, nor where they should fleeting end.
Take care and be happy. Life is short. A Dieu.
Argie,
Nov 10th, 2009 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well despite being an ''argie'', as you choose to all yourself, I have now ''known'' you for many years and can certainly vouch for your total honesty and good intentions. Of course you cannot help your beliefs and nor should you deny them and certainly not abandon the fight for the sake of a misunderstanding in this thread.
I understand 'Anglo' speak reasonably well (not at all to insult your near perfect grip of English technically) but the phraseology has clearly mystified one or two here. They probably only speak 'estuary English' vernacular!
<<Things are now what they are, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the victors & at the same time warn them about the ideas the losers may have in mind to make hell of their government. Bear in mind that the umbilical cord to too many personal interests and future prospects has been severed...>>
I understood perfectly to whom you were referring here and that it was not any sort of threat whatsoever, nor ever was intended to be......
Un abrazo,
It was quite clear to me that you
“Things are now what they are, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the victors & at the same time warn them about the ideas the losers may have in mind to make hell of their government. Bear in mind that the umbilical cord to too many personal interests and future prospects has been severed... ”
Nov 10th, 2009 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well if I misunderstood, then I apologise profusely. I can honestly say I totally misinterpreted the above paragraph.
Regards,
Justin
Many apologies Argie,
Nov 10th, 2009 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A poor choice of words on my part, and also change from the third person to the second person probably did not help. Nothing personal, I assure you.
Let me rephrase:
“...when it invaded...”
“Argentina should mind its own business!”
Thanks to all for their sportsmanship. I'll leave a short poem now.
Nov 11th, 2009 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0To the Legislative Assembly newbies
A new Summer's coming
with new faces and broad smiles.
Old Summers' now far back,
at least for a long while.
Argie, Buenos Ayres, 10-11-2009
Justin (racist) Kunts said, “But you illustrate Argentina's agenda, talks will only be about one thing and that is everyone giving in to Argentina.”
Nov 11th, 2009 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've just lied!! Did you read the article above???
The last line says “But when it comes to the sovereignty issue, the line in the sand remains clear: no negotiations.”
SO, OPEN TALKS????
J.A. Roberts said, “it has only been a ”stone in the shoe“ since the 1940s when the fascist dictator Juan Peron revived the claim on very unsafe and frankly pathetically weak grounds.”
To say that Peron was a dictator is like to say Churchill was a dictator.
Before Peron Argentina has never recognize British Sovereignty there, so it is not an invent and fortunaly each time more countries are getting that. So, Don't be riculous or at least hide it!!!
“The decolonisation of the Falklands is frankly no business of Argentina's and morally Argentina lost any right to comment when you invaded the islands militarily in 1982. You should mind your own business...”
It is our business and it will always be!!! We didn't lose any right and we will keep pressure and our claim will be harder than ever. Without weapons from us you'll see that you will not know peace until sit down to negotiate. It's a shame has to be that way, but it's your fault.
Jorge,
Nov 11th, 2009 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember the Beagle Channel dispute? That Argentina lost when Chile produced Argentine maps that showed the islands as part of Chile. Those same maps show the Falklands are not part of Argentina. Up till the 1930s Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falklands. Argentina did recognise British sovereignty, with the 1850 Convention of Settlement.
To describe Peron as a dictator is appropriate, he seized power in a coup and held on to it with populist measures that ruined Argentina. Churchill on the other hand was elected, then kicked out after the war. The comparsion is frankly ridiculous.
And Jorge, the offer was for open talks not to negotiate terms of capitulation.
“you will not know peace until sit down to negotiate”
As my granny used to say, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. You really just don't get it do you, the more that Argentina approaches the islanders in an overtly aggressive manner, the increasingly irrelevant Argentina becomes. One should never underestimate your ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Pls do continue with the bigoted racist taunts, can't say I'm impressed with the pathetic attempt to make a pun from my name. Nothing like being completely unoriginal is there.
jorge, if you think Peron was on the same level as Churchill, then you obviously don't have a clue what the difference between fascism and democracy is. Peron did not have democratic bone in his body!
Nov 11th, 2009 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's incredible how you just don't get how Argentina's violence and aggression in 1982 denies Argentina any moral right to comment on the Falkland Islands. And if you think that Argentina never acquiesced in British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands before the 1940s then you are sadly wrong. This happened many, many times...
May I remind you people that the issue here is neither sovereingnty nor the lives of Nobel Prized Mr. Churchill or Colonel Peron, but rather about the strong message that the islands' voters sent to their politicians, which I read as 'no life-terms admitted' and 'please pass the cruet'. Cheers.
Nov 12th, 2009 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0farewell summer
Nov 13th, 2009 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0hello autumm
beware of winter
WELCOME SPRING!!!
Argie, you should know by now that whatever the story up the top it almost always degenerates into a bunfight about sovereignty...
Nov 13th, 2009 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You animals! Peron was elected 3 times by people here. Not like your “governor” appointed by uk. Women vote here thanks to Peron goverment. Many of the school and hospital were built during his goverment. Average workers got their rights thank to him. About other things, We used to have the most modern air force in latin america thanks to him. And when it comes to nuclear energy, we are the most developed country in latin america, again thank to him.
Nov 15th, 2009 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Disgusting churchil believe Peron was a fascist. He was judging Peron with his own standarts. When you say Peron or argentines are fascist, you are actually looking at the mirror.
So, wash your dirty mouth when you talk about him or any internal affair!
Newsflash Jorge, Peron was a fascist, the economic policies he pursued were disastrous, the Kirschneers are of the same mould.
Nov 15th, 2009 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0jorge, I think any serious historian would disagree with you completely.
Nov 15th, 2009 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if british are so afraid of peron i´m more peronist.
Nov 20th, 2009 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't see anyone saying they were afraid of Peron. I think you flatter yourself!
Nov 20th, 2009 - 06:37 pm - 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!