MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK proposal turns south of South Orkney Islands a Marine Protected Area
The British Government announced on Tuesday an ambitious plan at enhancing environmental protection of the world’s oceans and the Antarctic and including the designation of the world first “high seas” marine protected area south of the South Orkney Islands (once a Falklands dependency). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleskeep polluting UK, your carbons are here. jajajajaja
Nov 11th, 2009 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0hello copenaghe, I do my homework; Argentina payed my debt in Orkeys. Britain you are a farse.
No doubt: the islands are part of Argentina's province of Tierra del Fuego, Antartida & South Atlantic Island. I live in its capital: UShuaia , not in London (that dont have anything to do in the South Atlantic. The Argentine Navy has maintained a permanent base there since 1904, being the first base in Antarctica. Is UK afraid for anything?
Nov 12th, 2009 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Best part of your navy was sunk in 82. [Belgrano]
Nov 12th, 2009 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes khh... and another part of the Royal Navy: HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry , HMS Glamorgan, HMS Ardent, HMS Argonaut... in the same year.
Nov 12th, 2009 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nitrojuan, Neither HMS Glamorgan nor Argonaut ever sank in 1982.Only 4, the other on was Antelope.
Nov 17th, 2009 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funny though that Arg also claims Islands that all the world accepts as being discovered by british explorers, What is the claim based on for South Georgia and South Orkneys and South Sandwich etc?
Funny also on environmental issues - the Falklands are among world leaders in reduction of seabird mortality during fishing- albatrosses in particular - yet Arg complains and does its best to keep us out of every international meeting on fisheries conservation in the south Atlantic.
come on! are you saying that only for sailing you can have territories in another continent??
Nov 21st, 2009 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0britan doesn´t discover anything. You can only discover missing things and things that don´t exist. Islands are there, and had been there much before british exists.
Please, read britain history, britain is a threat for peace and prosperity. Read british India history, why gandhi, caribean history, why jamaica is in a revisionist period; today irak and afghanistan.
You are a toy for them in their perverse machine. They celebrate your isolation, your underpopulation, your lack of modern political system, your lack of media, your lack of debate and university influence, your fear and mentality, your insignificance and your diet. (Do you have children?? Please, let them have a good diet.)
I think that kelper society is the worst british colony in britain history, according to your resources. Kelper have everything to be the south american NZ, you know that, as you know that is impossible without peace, tolerance, trade, interaction, and eventually, in long future, friends.
Please, don´t talk about fishing & enviroment; do you remenber that years when kelpers sold 180 fishing licenses per year. Now you sell...30?? Kelper depredate south atlantic, you know that, look your budget; ask Summers for example, and please, don´t talk about corruption neither.
Billy, funnily enough they sell what the fishery can support and reduced the number of licenses. Summers was kicked out at the last election.
Nov 21st, 2009 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Continue will you ill-informed racist opinions, you merely re-inforce the negative stereotypes of Argentina.
Billy, I have no idea what claptrap fantasy you have read! Our Offshore fisheries in internationally recognised as on of the worlds best managed and controlled. Catch and escape levels are constantly monitored and if they look not so good then zones are closed early - and fair percentages of license fees are returned to the companies. We are world leaders in methods of reducing albatross and other sea bird mortality - it is now basically 0% deaths for albatrosses on Falklands registered longline vessels because of the controls we insist on. Of course income goes up and down according to season - just like it does in Argentine zone!
Nov 22nd, 2009 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for all the rest of your claptrap- we have students at universities we have many Islanders here working who have university degrees, we have a balanced and varied healthy foods available, much grown locally and some imported because of the climate - just like south of Argentina and Chile. We clearly have a more open system of democarcy than you - no corruption here. We are NOT under UK control within the Islands at all! WEe give UK responsibility for foreign affairs and defence for the simple reason that she will defend us against Argentina,s continual war of agression.- economic and political terrorism - that is what Arg preaches and practisies to us at the moment.
But we ignore it and continue to develop and grow our economy and population. Yes it would be better in harmony with Argentina - but we can do it without as well. Those ny friend are the simple facts.
SO UK is such atthreat to world peace and all the countries you list - funny can you tell me why then is it that they are all still members of the British Commonwealth- of their own free choice?
Yes one day hopefully we can be like a S American NZ - but that will also take a gradual change in attitude to us from Argentina as well.
Islander, you said:
Nov 22nd, 2009 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”Yes one day hopefully we can be like a S American NZ - but that will also take a gradual change in attitude to us from Argentina as well. “”
very nice words, but to be a southamerican NZ, you should have southamericans in it. If you have inmigrants that came mostly from other nation in the north hemisphere, you will have even less integration with southamerica. In any case you will be more british than southamericans.
Until these days, your southamericanism lack of it. May be some day your government choose to open their frontiers to southamerica.
Cheers
Ah yes Argentina, a nation of European immigrants, Luis, you can't stop being an utter hypocrite can you.
Nov 22nd, 2009 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0justin justin, did you see us rejecting bolivians, paraguayans, uruguayans, chileans, etc. from our frontiers?.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are a nation of inmigrants and proud of it. most of europeans came escaping from poverty and war, and we took them as we take many inmigrants from our Neighboring countrys, with our arms open.
Luis, It's a shame these very same 'open arms' were closed and using rifles in 1982.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You make a good point that people can be good neighbours with Argentina and more might just join in if you stop trying to bully and be aggressive. We also have all the nationalities you mention, plus about fifty more nationalities, but who is counting. So long as Argentina behaves in such a childish way towards the Falklands (OOoops, unless they just bully little countries) you might as well fold those arms up.
Thank goodness we all know some very good Argentine people as some of you are giving your nation a bad name by following the same bullying and aggressive path as your Government are trotting out. Shame on you.
How interesting! QUOTE: “In 1908, the UK declared sovereignty over all Antarctic and South American territories south of their colony in the 50° parallel, including the South Orkney Islands” (END OF QUOTE)
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, the UK proclaimed sovereignty on South American territories south of Lat 50S (roughly south of Santa Cruz river), including mainland teritories of Chile and Argentina. ¿Any right to do that? No... As there was no right about Antarctica. Now they pretend to create a protection area where we have been establishes peacefully and continually since 1904 (oldest permanent base in antarctica by any country). Sounds like Argentina establishing a marine sanctuary in Scotland...
Ooops! Forgot to mentio HMG “corrected” the claim in 1917. It is interesting to note that Antarcticas was claimed as a dependency of the islands. So, if theUK has no right to the isands it has no right to Antarctica. By those years, they had still not issued the Field Report.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Foreign Office Field Report dated 29th February 1928 (by John W. Field) recognizes that:
“The believe that a secret compromise was carried out has been stated with decision both by British and Spanish historians, who had made a description of those transactions ”
and states as follows:
“On 28th October 1790 a convention was signed between this country and Spain which article 6th established that none of the parts should establish in the future any settlement in the eastern or western coast of South America or adjacent islands to the south of those coasts and islands then occupied by Spain (...). By this article IT IS EVIDENT THAT GREAT BRITAIN WAS EXCLUDED OF OCCUPYING ANY PART OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. This treaty was abolished in October 1795 when Spain declared war against Great Britain BUT IT BECAME IN FORCE AGAIN by article 1 of the additional articles of the friendship and Alliance Treaty between Great Britain and Spain dated 5th July 1814, that was signed at Madrid on 18th july 1814”
Ah the Nootka Convention, just out of curiousity could you tell me why it took someone from Argentina a century to contrive that argument.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Nootka Convention applied to the South American mainland and “adjacent” islands, i.e. islands in close proximity or coastal islands. The Falklands are 300+ miles out in the South Atlantic. It does not and never has applied to the Falklands. There are precadents already at the ICJ that would recognise that, for instance the ICJ ruled that islands only 100 miles off the coast were not adjacent.
And if you're going to quote from the flawed book produced by Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez, let me add that he ignores the FCO officials who have no doubt in the British case and he also conveniently ignores the Argentine officials who acknowledge the British case as “exceedingly strong”.
Notice also the Nootka Convention was signed between Spain and the UK, Argentina was not a party and cannot benefit in international law from its provisions. Neither Britain nor Spain the original signatories have ever applied it to Argentina.
Don't also forget the secret article that releases both nations from any obligations the moment a third party intervenes; like Argentina.
And Javier I think you'll find that South Georgia etc were claimed in the 18th and 19th Century, before Argentina even existed. They were administered from the Falkland Islands. The Letters Patent of 1908 established the legal framework for the administration not a claim.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Two British ships were captured by the Spaniards at Nootka Sound (Vancouver, Canada) for entering in what was at that time their jurisdiction. That information arrived to the Spanish Court at the end of 1789. As it has happened with Malvinas (giving place to the “secret clause” recognising the Spanish sovereignty of the archipelagos I have written about in my “Chronology of Malvinas/Falklands” postings), the British considered their honour was at stake and demanded a reparation. William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister at those times and he began war preparatives (Spain too). The Spanish Real Armada was in no position at those times to fight a war alone against the Royal Navy as this later had twice it's size. Spain looked for support to the France of Louis XVI, which was in fact ruled by the National Assembly at those times, being Mirabeau one of it's leading representatives.France was once again reticent with her ally. There were negotiations between Spain and Britain in wich the latter obtained many adventages.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Convention of Nootka Sound was signed on October 28th, 1790, at San
Lorenzo, ceding Spain, in spite of Floridablanca's attempts. The ships
captured were returned to the British; no reparation should be paid, but
subjects of both powers were not to be disturbed when fishing or sailing
alongside the Pacific Ocean or the South Atlantic Seas, either landing in
coast by those waters - in unsettled lands - , trading with the naturals,
or even stablishing settlements. All that could be done, with the
following limitations only:
Article 4th stated that the English activities must not be useful as “pretext to an ilicit trade with the Spanish Settlements and with that aim in mind it has been expressely stablished that British subjects will not sail nor fish in those seas at a distance of less than ten sea leagues of any part of land already occupied by Spain”.
Article 5th made reference to free trade in northwestern North América north of the zone then occupied by Spain: where none of those sea powers had settlements, the other would be free to trade.
Article 6th stablished that either in the eastern as in the western coasts and adyacent island of South América no new settlement was going to be stablished in the future by either power south of those already occupied by Spain. In spite of this, the subjects of both powers could go ashore for things related with fishing and even build “lodges and other temporary buildings useful for that aim only.”
Article 7th stablished that in case of any violation of any clause, the Offitials of both sides -without going to hands- should made a clear statement of facts and send them to their respective authorities.
The English obtained nearly everything they had asked for, but British settlements in what are now Argentinian coasts (including Malvinas/Falkland) had been avoided (exept those temporary for sealers and whalers).
The agreement not to establish new settlements either in the eastern as in the western coasts and adyacent island of South América already occupied by Spain (as per article 6th), recognizes Spanish sovereignty over Carmen de Patagones, San José, Deseado y PUERTO SOLEDAD (MALVINAS Is). This Treaty was disadventagious for Spain, BUT IT IS A BRITISH RECOGNIZEMENT to the SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY of MALVINAS. At those times, Spain had been for 16 years the only stablished country in Malvinas, after the English abandoned them in 1774.
Except no it doesn't. This was a creative interpretation of a single word, “adjacent”, and as an argument it emerged neary a century later. The British never renounced sovereignty over the Falklands, they were not abandoned in 1774 either, the Royal Navy left Port Egmont in 1776, but the British were never absent from the islands. Your own archives contain contemporary records where the Governor of the Penal Settlement of Puerto Soledad complains loudly about the British whalers around the islands.
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nor is it an argument that appears in any way logical, the Falklands are in the middle of the South Atlantic and in no way could be considered adjacent, ie in close proximity to.
It was not recognition of Spanish sovereignty, neither Britain nor Spain the signatories to that treaty EVER applied it to the Falklands.
Its like the Argentine argument is so weak, they feel the need to throw in more wearker arguments to pad the claim out.
Dear Justin, I'm afraid I have not read the Oliveri López book (so, I cannot comment whether is flawed or not) . I include my sources:
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Paul Groussac: Les Isles Malouins (there is a Spanish translation dated in Bs As, 1936)
- Historia Marítima Argentina (10 Vol, Bs As: it was available in last “Feria del Libro”)
- Camilo Barcia Trelles: El problema de las Islas Malvinas, Edit Nacional de Alcalá de Henares, 1943.
- Ernesto Basilístico: El tercer viaje de Américo Vespuccio y Leviller, Instituto de Publicaciones Navales, Bs As, 1970.
- Martín Fernández de Navarrete: Colección de los viajes y descubrimientos que por mar hicieron los españoles, Imprenta Nacional, Madrid,1837.
- Julius Goebel Jr , The Struggle for the Falkland Islands, Yale University Press, New Haven, London, 1927. There is a Spanish version dated in Bs As, 1950.
- Samuel Eliot: The European discovery of América. The southern voyages, AD 1492-1616, Oxford University Press, New York, 1974
- V.F. Boyson, The Falkland Islands with notes on the natural history by Rupert Valentin, Clarendon Press, Oxford University, 1924.
- James Burney: a cronological history of the voyages an discoverys in the South Sea.
- Ricardo Caillet Bois: Una tierra argentina: las Islas Malvinas, Bs As, Peuser 1952
- Laurio H Destefani: Las Malvinas en la época hispana (1600-1811), Corregidor, Bs As, 1981.
- Laurio Destéfani: El descubrimiento de las Islas Malvinas. Aporte para un estudio crítico, Comodoro Rivadavia,1979; Bs As, 1981
- Ernesto Fitte: La disputa con Gran Bretaña por las Islas del Atlántico Sur, Bs As, Emece, 1968.
- Ernesto Fitte: Crónicas del Atlántico Sur, Bs As Emecé,1974
- A Gómez Langenheim: Elementos para la historia de nuestras Malvinas, Bs As, El Ateneo, 1939.
- Manuel Nieto Hidalgo: La cuestión de las Malvinas, Madrid, 1947.
- Roger Woodes: A cruising voyage around the world, Cornell Company Ltd, London, Melbourne & Sidney.
- Enrique Ruiz Guiñazú: Proas de España en el mar magallánico, Peuser, Bs As, 1945.
- Ian Strange: The Falkland Islands, David& Charles Newton Abbot Stackespole Books, Harrisburg, England,1972.
- Laurio Destefani: Las Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur ante el conflicto con Gran Bretaña, Buenos Aires, 1982
- Félix F Outes: Cartas y planos inéditos de los Siglos XVII y XVIII y primer decenio del XIX, Peuser, Bs As, 1930.
- Héctor Ratto: Actividades marítimas en la Patagonia durante los siglos XVII y XVIII, Bs As, 1930.
- Academia Nacional de la Historia: Los derechos argentinos sobre las Islas Malvinas, Bs As, 1964
- José Arce: Las Malvinas, Madrid, 1968.
- Colección de documentos relativos a la historia de las Malvinas. Compilado bajo la dirección de Ricardo Caillet Bois, Bs As, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1961.
- Laurio Destefani: La evacuación española de las Malvinas, Investigaciones y Ensayos nro 4, 1968, Academia Nacional de la Historia.
- Laurio Destéfani: Jacinto de Altolaguirre, primer Governador criollo de las Islas Malvinas, Investigaciones y Ensayos no 14, Academia Nacional de la Historia, Bs As, 1973.
- Julio Guillen: Independencia de América (índice de los papeles de Expediciones de Indias, Instituto Histórico de Marina, Madrid, 1953.
- Héctor R Ratto: La expedición Malaspina en el Virreynato del Río de la Plata, Bs As, 1936
- Academia Nacional de la Historia: Los derechos sobre las Islas Malvinas, Bs As, 1964.
- Jose Antonio Da Fonseca Figueira: David Jewet, una biografía para la historiade las Malvinas
- Antonio Montarce Lastra: Redención de la soberanía; las Malvinas y el diario de Doña María Sáez de Vernet, Bs As, Padilla, 1946.
- W.A. Parker Snow: Two years cruise off Tierra del Fuego, the Falkland Islands, Patagonia and the River Plate, London, 1857.
- Mario D. Texler: Expedición de David Jewet a las Islas Malvinas 1820-21, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fé, 1968.
- Ernesto Fitte: La agresión americana a las islas Malvinas, Bs As, 1966
- Jorge Fraga: Las islas Malvinas. Síntesis del problema, Bs As, 1980.
- José Torre Revelo: Como EEUU provocó la usurpación inglesa, Bs As, Galerna,
Justin, I include a bibliography about the British Invations of 1806 & 1807 (I include only those I think easier to be available in English or in US Library of Congress) as a related topic (this island conflict is part of the much bigger scenario of British imperial ambitions that still have to be put to rest):
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-- Roberts, Carlos: “Las Invasiones inglesas del Río de la Plata,
1806-1807” (The English invations to the River Plate), Peuser, Buenos
Aires, 1938
-- Mitre, Bartolomé: “Historia de Belgrano y de la emancipación americana”
(History of Belgrano and América's [meaning South América]
emancipation),
Buenos Aires, 1942, 1949, etc.
-- Ricardo Levene: “Historia de la Nación Argentina” (History of the
Argentinian Nation), El Ateneo, 1940/63, etc.
--“The trial at large Lieut. Gen. Whitelocke by a General Court Martial
held at Chelsea Hospital. Taken byBlanchard and Ransay”, London, 1808.
-- “The Proceeding of a General Court Martial held at Chelsea Hospital for
the Trial of Lieutenant General Whitelock”. Edit. J.C. Mothley,
Portsmouth
(England), 1808
SECRET ARTICLE
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.
Notice that the secret article comes into force, the moment a 3rd party intervenes, absolving Britain of all restrictions the moment Argentine intervened.
Seeing as you like Conventions, I'll just mention the Convention of Settlement 1850. Where Britain and Argentina agreed to “Settle exisiting differences” and to “establish a perfect peace”. Argentina gave up its claim in 1850.
And funnily enough the same Argentine maps that derailed the claim to the Beagle Channel Islands by showing them as Chilean. Do you want to guess who they show the Falklands as belonging to....it ain't Argentina.
Javier,
Nov 23rd, 2009 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are nothing to do with the invasions of 1806 and 1807. They took place in the context of the Anglo-Spanish war, its irrelevant. The only link is Argentina's sense of persecution.
Javier,
Nov 24th, 2009 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you are back after many years with the same old arguments and some few doubtful references.
By the way all the all treaties with Spain were abrogated when Spain allied with France as you say. Some treaties were reinstated after the Napoleonic
Wars but only those of commercial importance required to reinstate trade with Spain. The remaining abrogations were never specifically lifted.
In any event for this treaty to apply to Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is complete nonsense even by your own flawed logic. Spain no longer occupied the Falklands in 1814 (or the lands opposite) and indeed its prison camp at Port Louis, a male only affair, was hardly a colonial settlement in real terms and never at any time controlled the comings and goings of the various nations that came and went from the islands.
In addition as you know Argentina fought a war of independence from Spain which precludes any “inheritance of territory” argument. Nations that emerge through a process of force/war against the metropolitan power end up legally only with the territory they manage to ultimately hold by force.
Do stop crying over spilt milk e.g. 1806/7 etc. just a ripple in a teacup. Do get over it.
We had a war with the USA 1812 - 1815 and burnt down their White House and Washington. We even inspired their National Anthem through their defence of Baltimore.
Does the USA whinge about it as you do over our history with you? No they don’t act like a bunch of cry babies but get on with it and are our best friends and allies with whom we sensibly settled our differences many years ago.
Get a life Javier!
Justin: do you believe we have a sense of persecution?
Nov 24th, 2009 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0For most of our history Britain ( anon neighbour state) has been (and still is) our enemy. Please note that since 1810 till now, we had no conflict with them only during 23 years!!! The cause of this enmity has been and still is British ambition of dominance and empire in our territory. We never invaded Britain, forced the Thames river with our navy, blockaded her ports, or invaded -say- Wright Island and proceeded to their ethnic cleansing.
We suffered plain invasions to our mainland, naval blockades, occupation of Martin García, the forcing of our rivers, the take over of our southern archipelagos, the expulsion of our population and the take over of their personal properties and real state, the British claim of sovereignty to our mainland Patagonia south of Latitude 50º and to Antártida Argentina. Is that just a “sense”?
Clearly you do, if you're still whinging about the events of 200 years ago.
Nov 24th, 2009 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're talking about the 19th Century, we're living in the 21st. Let us not forget in the age of the United Nations it was Argentina that launched an act of aggression in 1982, the blood of a 1000 young men is on your hands.
Oh and by “the take over of our southern archipelagos, the expulsion of our population and the take over of their personal properties and real state”
Nov 24th, 2009 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I presume you're referring to the Falklands.
The Falklands were not and never have been Argentine.
Contrary to what Argentina claims the settlement established by Vernet was not expelled. The settlement effectively collapsed following the murder of the senior members of the settlement in August 1833. Their personal properties were not taken over and Vernet received full financial compensation for assets left in the Falklands.
if these are 200 years old events...why don´t you leave malvinas now??
Nov 24th, 2009 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yes, we are living in 21century but malvinas is living in a 19century situation with colonial masters threating and trying to dominate a non-british region, british region is in europe not here in south america. shame on you pirates!!
Oh grow up.
Nov 25th, 2009 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are not a colony, they are a self-governing BOT, have been for years. Its Argentina who wants to live in the 19th Century and impose a colonial administration. They run themselves, they like it that way.
Nor does the British have any desire to dominate the region, we have 4 fighter jets and a survey ship in the area.
The people living there have been there for 9 or more generations. Most Argentines can't say the same.
What is shameful is a supposedly democractic nation with no respect for the wishes of a small island community, that behaves like the regional bully.
And pirates, what are you like 12 years old? I realise you intend it as an insult, newsflash, its just childish and foolish in English.
just curiosity....why do you always answer all posts with the same crap??...do you have some kind of obsession about malvinas and argentina?? it seems so when we see your hyperactivity here...i recommend you a good psicoterapist or perhaps a girlfriend....bye bye
Nov 25th, 2009 - 04:09 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!