MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina recalls events of 1833 and reiterates Malvinas claim
On the 177th anniversary of the “illegitimate occupation” by the United Kingdom of the Malvinas Islands, Argentina “repudiates” events of 3 January 1833 and calls on the UK to comply with the mandate of the international community and find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“British troops in an act of force invaded”
Jan 05th, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which didn't happen.
“an action which Argentina protested immediately and was never consented”
Apart from the 1850 Convention of Settlement when Argentina and the UK settled all existing differences and Argentina ceased protesting. Then later revived the claim.
“anachronic colonial situation incompatible with the evolution of the modern world”
Imposing an Argentine regime, would impose an alien culture, subjugating and dominating the islanders, that would be an “anachronic colonial situation”
Whine and whinge all you like, the way Argentina carries on it becomes ever more irrelevant.
Oh Justin, then you say it's Argentine propaganda. Brain washing on your part, it's so obvious. And even if Argentine “carries on”, it doesn't seem to become “ever more irrelevant” among you on the islands!
Jan 05th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islanders aren't but a bundle of British subjects who may descend -today- from the original British settlers brought by the Crown to populate the islands. This fact doesn't turn islanders into the international subject which is necessary to exercise self-determination. This is an objective fact the same as the continued protest of Argentine Governments ever since the act of force of 1833, which did exist despite islanders' (only islanders') views
Jan 05th, 2010 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentines are just a bunch of European immigrants who mainly arrived in the late 1880s, after the Falkland Islanders, living in a land ripped by the Spanish from its indigenous peoples. I guess were we to apply Argentina's racist attitude toward themselves, they're just a bunch of squatters with no rights whatsoever.
Jan 05th, 2010 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina also signed the Convention of Settlement in 1850 settling existing differences, Argentina did not continuously protest, that is an invention.
And again no force was used in 1833.
Brain washing on my part? Argentina brain washes its children, with a Government defined agenda and a mendacious version of history. My views were formed by my own research, where I found most of what Argentina claims is either blatant lies or half-truths. I started out assuming one thing, through research concluded something radically different. Don't project your own failings onto others.
Does Argentina really believe that they get these islands back? At best, the island becomes independent. Anyway, the name comes from France, the first to occupy where brits.. and argentina? what the hell do they expect after loosing the war? that they get it through complaining? so dumb. Well; maybe with brazil in between stuff will go forward but the islanders decide for themselves. ITs stupid to beleive a decolonisation committee will give this island to argentina. The whole idea of decolonisation is the independence of the occupied nations !!!!!
Jan 05th, 2010 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My brain has not been washed by any Government propaganda, as you insist so heavily to justify your lack of arguments. By the way, the 1850 Convention had NOTHING to do with the islands but specifically referred to its purpose, which is completely different from the 1825 bilateral treaty with such a general scope! As to Philip's comment, decolonisation does not amount to independence in all cases; the UN has been clear on that for many years now! And besides the Malvinas issue is a differnt one, special and particular as it involves sovereignty
Jan 05th, 2010 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1850 Convention of Settlement is very specific, it settles existing differences between Britain and Argentina. It doesn't make any exceptions and that interpretation is not unique to British authors, there are several Argentine authors who would support it.
Jan 05th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina frequently brings up the bilateral treaty of Friendship from 1825, claiming that Britain (one of the few nations at the time to recognise Argentine independence) somehow recognised Argentine sovereignty, at a time when there was no presence whatsoever in the islands.
Also conveniently forgotten is that Vernet sought British permission to establish his settlement. Odd isn't it, how inconvenient facts get missed out.
Decolonisation can take many forms but the primary consideration is the self-determination rights of the islanders. In spite of an attempt by Argentina and Spain to lobby the UN to install a limit on the right in the event of a sovereignty dispute, the UN totally rejected it, insisting on self-determination as a fundamental and inalienable right.
I made no accusation of brain washing, that was made by your colleague George. It is no attempt to hide a lack of argument, funnily enough I'm the only one supplying arguments as opposed to arm waving generalities and misrepresenting the UN position. What it was, was the usual Argentine practise of double think, every time their claims are shot down in flames.
GUYS, i respect your opinion, but i dont agree on some of your assertions, i will always keep on studing the conflict, taking into account the arguments of the islanders, and talking to some expert on this issue.
Jan 06th, 2010 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0About what happened in 1833, i think it was illigal, because if bretain justifys it's invation supported by the san lorenzo treaty, it actually didnt recognize the islands as british or spanish, it didnt discuss about the sovereigty issue, it only allowed british sailors to stablish in the islands and building huts, the true motive of that was the hunting, and avoiding a war betwen both nations.
Bretain had the right to stablish in the islands, but they had no right to low the argentine flag, and force vernet to leave the islands, that was totally illigal, because the treaty didnt allow any british sovereignty.
On the other hand, may be its true the fact that argentina didnt claim for many years, i must find out about it yet because i am not sure, anyway you should take into account that argentina wasent in conditions to clame to bretain, we had a very big economic dependence with the u.k during more than 80 years, that was because of the loan got by rivadavia's goverment, the british managed our economy for a lot of years, beside there was not any international court to clame territorys.
Beside the british left port egmont in 1774, during so much time there was not any resident population, there was a spanish garrison and only after 1810, there were just esporadic setlements of american and english setlers, i think that leaving the islands was a very big mistake by bretain.
With this arguments and more i hold the both nations have solid rights on the islands, beside that islanders must be part of the negotiation, and the solution to the conflict must benefits the 3 parts.
To finish my comentary, if in the islands there are 5 generations or even more of falkland islanders, that was because the u.k. have always refused to talk about the sovereignty since the beginig of the conflict, if they keep on their posture, there will be 20 generations of falkland islanders.
I can understand that it's very dificult to be objetive when we are talking about some thing that involts our felings , but we must do it, because this is the only one way to find a solution, specially we should debate about it.
Axel,
Jan 06th, 2010 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain has never accepted that the Nootka Convention aka the Treaty of San Lorenzo applies to the Falkland Islands. Further its relevance to the Falkland Islands was first invented by Paul Groussac nearly a century after the treaty was signed. Neither Britain nor Spain, the original signatories of that treaty ever applied it to the Falkland Islands.
Further, even if the treaty were to apply, which it doesn't, the terms of the treaty make it invalid immediately upon the intervention of a 3rd party. Argentina's own intervention in the islands freed Britain of any obligations under that treaty.
Further, Spain never exercised control over the islands. It maintained a penal settlement at Puerto Soledad and that is all. It never attempted to colonise the islands, to control the waters around the islands, exploit the natural resources of the islands or the seas around it. At the same time that Spain maintained that settlement, the British were using the islands for whaling, sealing, provisioning; the Spanish Governor is on record complaining that the British were swarming around the islands. In the period of supposed Spanish control, the British were present (contrary to Argentine assertions). Ask yourself how would Jewett get the wrecked Heroina into port without the assistance of Weddell who was already there, not to mention the 40-50 British ships that were already there.
You're also wrong that Britain has always refused to negotiate, Britain was prepared to negotiate. Two things stymied any agreement.
1. The islanders did not want to become Argentine, they saw that as the imposition of an unstable Government that was hostile to their way of life, an alien culture in terms of heritage and language and one that it was patently obvious that had no respect whatsoever for them.
2. Argentina has never been prepared to negotiate in the slightest, it has only ever insisted on absolute British capitulation and immediate transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. Further its attitude toward the islanders has been counter productive and its confrontational approach has merely alienated the islanders further.
On the latter part, the Kirschners have blatantly exploited the islands for internal Argentine political reasons, before Nestor Kirschner came to power there was a generation of Falkland Islanders who'd slowly began to trust Argentina again, now another generation is lost.
Its a fact that no negotiation can hope to succeed whilst one party is demanding more than the other party can compromise. Argentina has also trapped itself in inventing its Malvinas Myths that merely self-reinforce its own delusions. Axel, whilst I appreciate your views are more enlightened than many of your own countrymen, there won't be significant movement unless your Government accepts that the islanders do have a say in this.
JUSTIN, i agree on including the islanders into the negotiation, any way it's very dificult to trust betwen both sides, because be dont even have a fluent transit, i wonder why our national airlane can't do direct flys to the islands like before 1982, why can't we have the same good relation that we had before the conflict, there is no any danger of invasion, that's i totally imposible, we are a democratic nation now, we are never going to allow such a terrible act.
Jan 06th, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The hurts of the war are still in the minds of all of us, i was a baby in that time, but for what i have always heard, what happened in 1982, is still very dificult to asssimilate in spite of all these years, and i can imagen that it exactly happens to the islanders, on the other hand i never loss the hope that both sides can unlesss to debate about the conflict.
Finally it's very sad and hard for me to recognize it but, i know perfectly that in spite that we clame for houndred of years, the islands are never going to be argentine again, or unless to share the sovereignty with u.k., anyway what really makes feel better is that many islanders answer my comentarys, i answer many of their's too, unless we have a small debate.
Beside dont think that most us think like some argentines in this forum, there are plenty of peole who are openminder, and want a better relation with the islands, and there are others who say that they dont care about the malvinas issue, anyway i dont beleive in them, , it's some thing really painfull to ignore.
Axel,
Jan 06th, 2010 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0There wasn't a good relationship before the war. The communications agreement was imposed on the islanders by the British and Argentine Governments, without consultation. The people made the best of it, there were some good relations but there are many examples of it being problematic. The islanders didn't want to be pushed onto Argentina, which was the policy of the British Government, no one listened to them.
Were you aware for example that in the early 1970s, the FIG was persuaded to visit Argentina, where following a campaign in Clarin, they were subjected to a very hostile reception and left early.
Are you also aware that the reason Argentine airlines can't fly there is down to the Argentine Government? The FIG proposed an open skies policy, any carrier could fly there, Argentina insisted on only an Argentine carrier.
The islanders are open to better relations with Argentina, it seems that Governments only get in the way of people getting on.
None country in the world give up its terretorie and its people unless you administrate a terretorie that does not belong to you. This is the case of malvinas. UK was prepared to give them up because they knew/know that is not their terretorie and it is proved given the fact that until 1983 islanders were subjects without state. They were like a third class citizen. Thet were denied the British citizenship and that's because they never care a sh*t about islanders. They didn't consider islanders as its citizens.
Jan 06th, 2010 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you justin, you are just a liar. You can't keep your arguments in a serious forum about this issue. you were invited many times to disscuss it in forums with people who studied the issue during many years and just refused to do it as usual accusing the forums of propaganda. LIAR!
And yes Britain recognized argentine independence without making reference to the Effective and legal argentine occupation of the islands in 1825. That's true you PIRATES!
Jan 06th, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gentlemen, I reiterate our legal claim!!!
Jan 06th, 2010 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah Jorge, without any reasonable arguments you resort to abuse. Tell me again why has Argentina conspicuously avoided any forum able to give a definitive judgement in its claims. There was no effective and legal occupation in 1825, you weren't there.
Jan 06th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, how about rebutting Justin's comments with some reasoned argument backed up by facts. Shouting LIAR, LIAR just makes you look like an idiot.
Jan 06th, 2010 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, are you talking about ICJ?. You many times said the UK had offered to take the case Malvinas to ICJ. You can't deny that.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now, that's a lie, because UK was talking about Malvinas dependencies and not Malvinas islands. If you tell a lie many times you are a LIAR!
You said once that you made your own research! LOL. You are funny.
Roberts, there you have why I say he is a LIAR.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0P.S. You are the idiot here
Duque de Wellington (1834):...........“I haven't found out yet that we ever had any rights over those islands”
Jan 07th, 2010 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0R. Campbell (foreign office, 1911):......“Who had the best rights over the islands when we took them? I think the goverment of Buenos Aires.......We can't make a good claim and we've been avoiding to disscuss with Argentina”
M. Robertson (UK embassador in B.A.,1828):......“Argentine claims over Malvinas are not without fundaments”
There are many arguments, but I'm not a law student, I'm studing engineering so good bye!!!!! See you soon.
ooooops! I forgot to mention, if you Justin had made a good research about Malvinas, Why don't you argue with argentines who have studied about Malvinas?
Jan 07th, 2010 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you afraid of being humiliated?
in any legal case, a after ten maybe 20 years at most, its considered to old to be still viable and justifiable. SO argentina thinks they can recall 1833 .. thats 170 years ago.... they dont seem to understand the difference between international reality and national dreams..
Jan 07th, 2010 - 04:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its silly they continue with this, they only make fools of themselves. No United nations body will get the islanders out by force and the decolonization comittee is ,at the best, declaring the independence of the islands. You cant seriously expect the EU territory of the falklans will be given to a pain in the ass country just jealous to get it back withouht any susbtance. There are no argentines living there, they started a war and lost it. They have bollied the islanders... so nothing apart from greed is underlying there motivation. ARgentina is already one of the biggest countries in the world and they run it very mediocre. Reclaiming the falklands its a sign of serious stupidity.
JUSTIN, i want you to ask me some thing, if the islanders have solid arguments to hold that the islands are not argentine, why your goverment doesnt explain them to the our's, i know that argentine administration refused to talk to the islanders, but bretain can talk to the our goverment and explain them the arguments of your side, this is the main reason i still can't believe in your assertions.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the posture of our goverment i was never agree on it, i told it to you many times.
No, you ass. You are the fools and the pirates.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You started the war, we just recovered what is our.
Victory does not give you any right.
The way we run our country is not of your business.
sign of serious stupidity? ....Time is showing you are the stupids.
Read the book called, The Falklands War Then & Now edited by Gordon Ramsey. In it you will all find the truth. page 14 would be a good start as it describes the Argentines as the Pirates.haha.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is about £50.00 so some of you may have to borrow some more money from Brazil. LOL
MERCOPRESS LIARS!!
Jan 07th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am posting this excerpt from a previous article which is now “closed” for comment. The aerticle It BOASTS that
“Highlanders stationed in Falklands triumph in Chilean war game competition” , well it goes on to say in brief
”An elite team of British soldiers beat Special Forces from around the world to win a grueling competition in the driest place on Earth, repots Daily Record.co.uk. The eight-man unit from the Highlanders (4 Scots) picked up the gold medal in the Chilean Patrol Competition before their recent deployment to the Falkland Islands.”
Here is the real story (Gold medal was won by Argentina, Canada, Chile, US, and UK, Silver went to Ecuador and Paraguay).
El domingo 20 de septiembre, en el Museo Histórico y Militar del Ejército de Chile, se llevó a cabo la ceremonia de premiación y reconocimiento a los siete equipos que participaron en la primera Competencia Internacional de Patrullas Militares “Desierto de Atacama 2009”. Los equipos de Argentina, Canadá, Chile, Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña fueron distinguidos con la medalla de oro, mientras que Ecuador y Paraguay recibieron la medalla de plata.
Has visto exocet82! Estos cayeron mas bajos que clarin!
Jan 07th, 2010 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Khh, I can recomend you several books with the truth and against all your arguments. It is pointless!
Jan 07th, 2010 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 018 jorge (#) Jan. 6, 2010 - 6:43 pm: “Roberts, there you have why I say he is a LIAR...”
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here you are Jorge:
12 jorge (#) Jan. 6, 2010 - 4:36 am: “And you justin, you are just a liar... ...LIAR!”
Jorge, you should read JustinKnutz again.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is asked WHY you have not taken your Falklands claim to the ICJ? Why have you not done this if your case is so strong? I have also asked this question in the past. Please answer this. Why do you not get a ruling from the ICJ. If it was in your favour it would strengthen your claim...
@Axel Arg, the UK has made the case on behalf of the Falkland Islands many, many times in front of Argentine government representatives. Starting in the 1960's when Argentina first bought their claim before the UN and continuously since then. The Falkland islanders themselves have also made their position very clear in front of Argentine representatives in the C24 committee.
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge,
Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all I said that Britain offered to take the issue of the Falkland Islands dependencies to the ICJ. It did, in 1947 and 1948. In 1955 it unilaterally referred the case to the ICJ, the ICJ accepted the case and did some preliminary work but abandoned it when the Argentine Government refused to accept its judgement.
Secondly, if Argentina is so confident of its case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop Argentina referring to the ICJ to ask it to present a judgement. Any nation can unilaterally refer a case to the ICJ for an opinion. Opinions are not binding but its clear why Argentina wouldn't go down that route; a negative would pull the rug from under their feet and in reality the Argentine Government knows it doesn't have a case.
So again no I did not lie, find me where I said the UK Government referred the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. In 1982 the UK Government suggested to the Argentine Government that they submit the dispute to arbitration at the ICJ in 1983 but some drunken idiot decided to invade the islands instead.
I see you're referring to Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez's book, even if you're just quoting some internet source without realising it. The book is flawed, he only selects those individuals who express doubts and ignores the officials who are confident in the British case. The Falklands were a back water, there are few officials with any real expertise in the history, even fewer British historians who've studied it. As always its more interesting what is left out, such as the Argentine foreign minister who conceded that the British case was “exceedingly strong”.
Axel,
In answer to your question, the British position has been explained to the Argentine Government many times. However, you have to realise the Argentine assertions are as much for internal political reasons as anything else. Peron once remarked to Bill Hunter-Christie that he didn't really believe in the Argentine claim to the Falklands but it was useful to “unite the people”. You might also care to read the later writings of the Argentine historian Carlos Escude on the Falklands and the Argentine myths around the “Malvinas”. Its very sobering to compare them with his early writings.
Here is the real story (Gold medal was won by Argentina, Canada, Chile, US, and UK, Silver went to Ecuador and Paraguay).
Jan 07th, 2010 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That may be the case but the UK troops pulled in the most points out of all the teams. they had the edge on all other teams.
khh, apparently just because you beat the score of the Argentine team doesn't count as a win in Argentine eyes....
Jan 07th, 2010 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JUSTIN, ok may be you are right, i will find out about your assertions, some times i am confused, because i talk to experts on the malvinas issue, and they even accepted that some arguments of the islanders are true, but they gave me also enough reasons to hold that the islands are argentine too, and these are not only geographyc aspects, i only hope that before i dea we can debate about it, and finish with stupid status quo, you know that i dont agree with the posture of our goverment, but in some aspects i dont like your's eather, i heart many times from your councellors, that they want to discuss important issues with argentina, however the sovereignty is not on discution, i think that if there is a problem we all must recognize it (argentines and islanders), and try to find a fair solution for both sides, if the f.i.g dont want to discuss about the conflict, that shows an idiot mentality, soported obviously most islanders too.
Jan 08th, 2010 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel,
Jan 08th, 2010 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure why you think the FIG has an idiot mentality for not discussing the conflict (I assume you mean the sovereignty dispute, or do you mean the 82 conflict)?
Why should FIG discuss anything when Argentina refuses to accept the Islanders right to self determination, enshrined in international law. Methinks it is the Argentina government which is displaying signs of idiocy. Until Argentina accepts that the Islanders have rights there will only be deadlock.
ROBERT , of course i mean the sovereignty dispute, about the posture of our goverment, i said 1000 times that i dont agree on it, they should include that islanders in the negociation, and your side must talk about the sovereignty issue, obviously when two parts negociate, each part has to cede a litle on what they pretend, it would be unfair to pretend the total argentine sovereignty on the islands, or to drop the argentine sovereign claim.
Jan 09th, 2010 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have always recognize that the islanders are british, they have all the right to chose that nationality, and argentines must respect it, on the other hand the islanders must recognize too our rights on the islands.
I know that you think that we dont have any right on the malvinas-falklands, i dont agree on that, i will always study about the conflict, i talk to expert profesors on the malvinas cause, they even recognize that some arguments of the islanders are true, but thay also told me that we have rights on the islands, we have diferents points of vew, that's why i'll always hold that we must debate about it, any way with the posture of both sides, the conflict is not going to finish for such a long time, that's what i call an idiot mentality, i respect your vition, but i dont agree on it, this is what i really think and feel about the conflict, the posture of both sides makes really ungry, because it's never going to finish, i hope i am wrong.
Justin said......“First of all I said that Britain offered to take the issue of the Falkland Islands dependencies to the ICJ. It did, in 1947 and 1948. In 1955 it unilaterally referred the case to the ICJ, the ICJ accepted the case and did some preliminary work but abandoned it when the Argentine Government refused to accept its judgement.”
Jan 09th, 2010 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1955 you demanded separately Argentina and Chile, rejecting argentine and chilean activities over malvinas and all the land in the south of paralelo 58°.
Neither Argentina or Chile accepted the juridiction of ICJ.
Argentina was not involved in the juridiction of ICJ.
Justin said.....“if Argentina is so confident of its case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop Argentina referring to the ICJ to ask it to present a judgement. Any nation can unilaterally refer a case to the ICJ for an opinion. Opinions are not binding but its clear why Argentina wouldn't go down that route; a negative would pull the rug from under their feet and in reality the Argentine Government knows it doesn't have a case.”
You are right, nothing stops argentina referring to the ICJ to ask for a judgment. It is for argentine goverment to decide when to do it. Many academics say argentina should go to the ICJ because we have better arguments than you.
Justin said.....“So again no I did not lie, find me where I said the UK Government referred the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. In 1982 the UK Government suggested to the Argentine Government that they submit the dispute to arbitration at the ICJ in 1983 but some drunken idiot decided to invade the islands instead.”
well, the comment n°15 in the following link
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-has-only-shown-aggression-towards-the-falklands-says-summers
and those cases rejected by Argentina were in 1947, 1948 and 1955?
Justin said.....“I see you're referring to Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez's book, even if you're just quoting some internet source without realising it. The book is flawed, he only selects those individuals who express doubts and ignores the officials who are confident in the British case. The Falklands were a back water, there are few officials with any real expertise in the history, even fewer British historians who've studied it.”
Do you think those are JUST individuals?
Justin said.....“As always its more interesting what is left out, such as the Argentine foreign minister who conceded that the British case was ”exceedingly strong“.”
I gave you names. You should do the same.
You, justin, cannot be taken seriously.
You can't say anything about argentinian education while your schools say nothing to their children about malvinas.
I learnt just a bit about malvinas in schools. All I know now is because I have read something. I have read something of the british point of view too.
I would like to study more about that, but I don't study history but engineering and I don't like to look like a wannabe historian like you.
I hope you don't come up with another question to me. Until now, you are defeated and if you are so confident, why don't you reffer to the forums like “malvinense” or “zonamilitar”? There are there many people who know enough about this issue to disscuss it seriously. AHA! you are a coward who uses this uk/falklands webpage like a forum, but are intimidated by the people who knows.
If you are gonna answer me, do it alone, without the help of your dog (J.A. Roberts) who follows you evryday.
I will be posting here in a few days (2 o 3), so you have plenty of time. I won't be here for you tomorrow for you because I have a life, you know. I'm not obssesed with another country's history like you are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Lorenzo Treaty, Articles 4, 5 and 6.
Su Majestad Británica se compromete a tomar drásticas medidas para prevenir la navegación y pesca por parte de sus súbditos en los Océano Pacífico, o Mares del Sur, que puedan constituirse en pretexto para el comercio ilícito con los establecimientos españoles; y con esto en vista, se ha estipulado además expresamente, que los súbditos británicos no navegarán ni pescarán en los dichos mares a una distancia menor de diez leguas marítimas de alguna parte de las costas ya ocupadas por España .
El artículo 5° sostiene que los súbditos de cada potencia tendrán libre acceso y el derecho de comerciar en los lugares restituidos en las costas noroccidentales de América del Norte y en cualquier otro establecimiento surgido desde abril de 1789, o que pudieran surgir en el futuro. La tercera restricción contenida en el artículo 6° fue la más importante:
Se ha convenido también con respecto a las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de la Sudamérica y a las islas adyacentes, que los súbditos respectivos no formarán en lo venidero ningún establecimiento en las partes de estas costas, situadas al Sur de las partes de las mismas costas y de las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España. Queda entendido que los respectivos dichos súbditos conservarán la libertad de desembarcar en las costas e islas allí situadas, con el propósito de pesca, o de levantar cabañas u otras construcciones temporales que sirvan solamente para estos propósitos.
Este artículo fue limitado en duración por una provisión secreta que sólo entraría en vigor en tanto otra potencia no estableciera un asentamiento.
Por medio de este tratado, los británicos vieron satisfechos sus objetivos de comerciar con el Pacífico, navegar libremente por los mares del Sur y, pescar o cazar a más de diez leguas de las costas ya ocupadas por España. Asimismo, sólo podía instalarse temporalmente en las zonas deshabitadas de la Patagonia para facilitar la caza y la pesca. El tratado significó el fin del derecho exclusivo español de navegación en el Pacífico, y la concesión del derecho a pescar en ambas costas de Sudamérica, terminando también con el reclamo de mares cerrados en estas regiones. No obstante estas concesiones españolas, es importante destacar que el derecho británico a colonizar fue reconocido sólo en la costa noroccidental de Norteamérica y que en las restantes partes del Imperio Español sólo se admitió el derecho a pesca y navegación a partir de cierta distancia de la costa. Ambas partes se comprometieron a no establecer nuevas colonias en los océanos Pacífico Sur y Atlántico sur y aquello que ya estaba ocupado permanecería en status quo . De esta forma se afirma que los británicos, finalmente, reconocieron formalmente los derechos españoles a ocupar las Islas Malvinas, tierras en la que éstos estaban establecidos desde 1767. Además, los británicos se comprometieron a no establecer nuevas colonias en la región.
George Fitzmaurice, consejero legal de la cancillería inglesa en 1936: “Nuestro caso posee cierta fragilidad” y aconsejaba lo que finalmente se hizo: “Sentarse fuerte sobre las islas, evitando discutir, en una política para dejar caer el caso”.
Jan 09th, 2010 - 05:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0John Troutbeck, alto funcionario del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores británico en 1936: “...nuestra toma de posesión de las islas Malvinas en 1833 fue tan arbitraria [...] que no es por tanto fácil de explicar nuestra posición sin mostrarnos a nosotros mismos como bandidos internacionales”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cualquier investigador medianamente informado sabe que el primer memorándum producido por la Cancillería inglesa que detallara serias debilidades en los hasta entonces infalibles fundamentos ingleses, fue él de 1910 que lleva la rúbrica de Gaston De Bernhardt. El año siguiente, 1911, se produce otro memorándum,él del Sr. Ronald H. Campbell en el cual expresó no tener dudas de que los mejores títulos los poseen las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata. En fecha 8 de diciembre de 1927, el funcionario C. J. Torr preparó un informe para el gabinete inglés, también negativo en sus conclusiones, sosteniendo el abandono absoluto inglés del territorio. Poco tiempo después, el 9 de agosto de 1928, sería el funcionario R. A. Hadow quien reiterara dudas sobre el título británico. El 25 de julio de 1935, le tocaría el turno de J. M. Vyvyan a explicar al gobierno británico que nunca se podrá someter la cuestión de las Islas al arbitraje internacional porque hay grandes dudas sobre el valor jurídico del título británico. El año siguiente el consejero legal del Foreign Office, Gerald Fitzmaurice sumo su voz disidente a la validez del los títulos británicos. Meses después en el mismo año, John Troutbeck tildó el apoderamiento británico de 1833 como “el accionar de bandidos internacionales”. Y, finalmente en 1946 el memorándum de William Beckett catalogó ese apoderamiento como ”una injustificable agresión”.
Ahora bien, estos dictámenes son muy valiosos y valerosos pero, todos fueron inmediatamente archivados bajo la categoría de “secreto” por un término de cincuenta hasta noventa y nueve años.¿Para qué? Para que el gobierno británico pudiera armar una política de estado que desvirtuara la disputa por carriles que no tienen nada que ver con la cuestión de fondo: tratar el tema de la soberanía. Con esa política el tema fue excluido de la opinión pública y se fabricó la versión probritánica de una “colonización oportunista y de piratía” por parte del Gobernador argentino, Luis Vernet, en 1829.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'M SO SORRY MERCOPRESS, I DID NOT HAVE TIME FOR THE TRASLATION. BESIDES I'M NOT PROFICIENT IN ENGLISH.
chauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Captain Edmund Philip Carlisle, 84 years old: ”We stole Malvinas from Argentina and we must give them back”.
Jan 09th, 2010 - 05:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelpers que les dan la razón a la Argentina:
Yolanda Bertrand, kelper, 67 años: Gran Bretaña se apoderó indebidamente de las islas Malvinas en un época en que esa potencia tomaba territorio en donde pudiesen.
Alex Reid, kelper, 38 años: Es razonable deducir que la apropiación violenta británica de las Malvinas en 1833 fue totalmente ilegal y sin el apoyo de ningún factor jurídico.
Jacobo Betts, Kelper, 60 años: En el momento del despojo inglés, la Argentina se encontraba en posesión efectiva y real de las Malvinas, y habían autoridades y colonos argentinos establecidos en ellas que fueron expulsados por Gran Bretaña. Es igualmente importante rescatar aquí que la ilegalidad de la invasión británica, al tomar las islas en 1833, ha sido reconocida por varios historiadores, académicos y asesores legales comisionados por el propio Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Gran Bretaña. Sin embargo, el eminente jurista internacional Emer de Vattel (Suiza 1714 – 1767), asentó jurisprudencia para estos casos cuando declaró que “...ninguna Nación tiene el derecho de expulsar a otra gente del país que habitan con el propósito de asentarse ella misma en él.”
SORRY AGAIN FOR THE LANGUAGE.
chauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!
I was going to respond to khh's stretching of the facts with regards to the Chilean War game story but I am overwhelmed with enthusiasm with Jorge's posting above.
Jan 09th, 2010 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to comment that the Chilean War game participation and peacekeeping missions such as that in Cyprus show that our forces have a pretty good professional relationship. It seems to me thatthe Islanders are the Monkey Wrench in the gearwork .
Jan 09th, 2010 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to comment that the Chilean War game participation and peacekeeping missions such as that in Cyprus show that our forces have a pretty good professional relationship.
Jan 09th, 2010 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes i know that exocet82, I was in the forces once. But the South Atlantic is a different ball game.!!!
Axel,
Jan 09th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd be very interested to know what rights you think Argentina has over the Falklands. You have a claim (and a very weak one at that), but that doesn't give you rights surely?
Nice of you to call me a dog Jorge. Since you are such an expert, what type of dog am I?
Jan 09th, 2010 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You still have not answered something I have been asking. Why does Argentina not go to the ICJ for a ruling? You say some Argentine academics think you should, so why have you not then? If your case is so strong, what do you have to lose?
Uff! Do you really need to copy and paste so much crap? Can't you do something more original? You say you have copied and pasted Articles 4,5 and 6 of the San Lorenzo Treaty, when actually you have done nothing of the sort. You just pasted someone's (who) opinion of these articles and despite the fact this treaty was between Britain and Spain, so has nothing to do with Argentina. You should have read your paste a bit more carefully because it contains a killer punch: “Este artículo fue limitado en duración por una provisión secreta que sólo entraría en vigor en tanto otra potencia no estableciera un asentamiento.” The secret article referred to article 6 by the way, although your cut and paste does not mention it. If the treaty was between Britain and Spain, then any thinking person can see that the Buenos Aires Junta is “una otra potencia”.
The rest of your copy and paste fest amounts to nothing more than personal opinion and conspiracy theory - who cares what George FitzMaurice, John Troutbeck, Edmund Carlisle, Yolanda Bertrand, Alex Reid and Jacobo Betts thought etc. Who cares! They did not represent anyone or anything except themselves.
“Cualquier investigador medianamente informado” knows that you don't cherry-pick your sources and cualquier investigador medianamente informado knows that all British government papers used to be and many still are “archivados bajo la categoría de “secreto” por un término de cincuenta hasta noventa y nueve años”.
Folks, All decent professional soldiers have respect for those from other countries- thats why British and Argentine troops serve alongside each other in places like Cyprus both wearing UN Helmets. I am sure all got along fine recently in Chile also. Thats why also the British Commander here has a “hotline” telephone to the Argentine southern area Commander - both are professional and in case of some form of accidental or one-man maverick air incursion or exercise they can check it out quickly before bullets fly.
Jan 10th, 2010 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for all the history of who said/says what - we all know that both sides can make a case according to whom they quote and listen to. Islanders who now live in Argentina are not likley to publicly back ther islands view are they! Mr Betts has been well “looked-after” by Arg. Governments so its no surprise he says what he does!
History - again you can twist it either way to get the view you want. Facts - like wishes and rights of people who have been peaceably living in and developing the Islands (apart from 2 months in 1982) for 175 years - actually count in todays world.
Both sides have arguments in their favour depending on your approach to history,I would argue that we here have far stronger ones - but I am a realist and accept that any solution has to have something in it that Argentina can accept as well.
Jorge, like you I am not a historian, I have learned a lot since I started reading and participating in the mercopress sites and I think have a better understanding of where the main Arg bottom line is - not so much we Islanders should get out, but really that there should not be a British European “old world” prescence in the south west Atlantic. OK I can go along with that - we are steadily moving away with less and less “UK” prescence in our Government and towards independence even if not yet a formal thing. So maybe in time we can find an answer acceptable to all.
ROBERT, there are many reasons why we claim for the islands, firstly what happened in 1833 was illigal, it's true that bretain had right to stablish in the malvinas-falklands, soported by the san lorenzo treaty, but it didnt have any right to force the authoritys to leave the islands, because the san lorenzo treaty didnt recognize the islands as british, the sovereignty issue was not on discution on that treaty, it only allowed british sailors to stablish there and build huts, the motive was the hunting, and avoiding a war betwen spain and the u.k.
Jan 10th, 2010 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand may be it's true the fact that argentina didnt claim for many years, i must find out about it yet, but you should take into account that arentina wasen't in condition to claim to breatin, because during many years we had a very big economic dependence with bretain, beacuse of the loan got by rivadavia's goverment, the british managed our economy during more tham 80 years, beside if my country doesnt have any right on the islands, i wonder why, the u.n. still calls both sides to negociate the sovereignty, even after the war argentina didnt loss that chance, lest se what happens in the future, any way i dont think that we could find a solution neather in a long time, you already know what i think about the posture of both sides.
Axel, you have explained why Argentina thinks it has a claim, but not what rights Argentina has? Anyway, the San Lorenzo Treaty/Nootka Sound Convention had nothing to do with Argentina, it was a matter between Britain and Spain, so whether huts could be built is irrelevant to Argentina, and don't forget, there was a prior British claim. A country cannot derive rights from a treaty between two other powers.
Jan 10th, 2010 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain individuals and companies may have made loans to Argentina but they also made substantial investments - a loan can be viewed as a form of investment anyway. I really don't see how that is relevant to the Falkland situation today, or how that gives you any rights?
I recommend you read again the UN resolutions referring to the Falklands carefully. There is not a single document which calls on both sides to negotiate sovereignty.
Until Argentina realises that any solution to this problem must involve the Falkland Islanders (FIG) then we will continue with deadlock. The ball is in Argentina's court, and I don't think you can dismiss the 82 invasion and think that Argentina's position is unaffected.
axel arg,
Jan 11th, 2010 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander mentioned the twisting of history to suit the purposes of each side; this is not necessarily the case or even a fact in most instances. Yes of course there are those people who have an agenda which they know from the outset has a political purpose and they do not actually care whether their facts are correct or not. They simply have a purpose to achieve and whilst they try to present their point of view as fact they actually care very little if they are believed or not by the 'other side' and press their view of history as a means to achieving their ends.
You present yourself as a genuine seeker after truth based on fact. Naturally I have no idea if you are genuine or not as I have seen this approach more than once in the past which turned out not to be genuine at all but merely a confidence trick.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being and ask you to consider a few comments.
This year Argentina chooses to celebrate the 200th. Anniversary of its independence by its own counting. Of course it was a hard won independence of a war against the Spanish imperial forces and internal conflict that took many years to resolve the fragmented remnants of the vice-royalty into a fully formed and united country.
With the dissolution of the British Empire, at a later date, it was much more simple but also not always without strife at times; mostly independence was peacefully 'granted' to the many newly independent states within secure borders and with minimum of dispute because everything was agreed up front. The existing Treaties and alliances, obligations and debts of the Imperial power were cast off forthwith, except as otherwise agreed.
With Argentina the separation from the Imperial power (The Metropolitan Authority) was achieved by the use of force alone. There was no 'granting' of independence as with the UK and its former possessions wherein relevant treaties, obligations were specified. Argentina became independent with the clothes it stood up in nothing more nothing less.
San Lorenzo, Nootka Sound is completely irrelevant to Argentina as Argentina is not party to that agreement and Spain never granted such rights to Argentina. It did recognise Argentina's independence of course but not until 1859 but it did not grant to Argentina any succession to former treaties and merely recognised the existing 1859 provinces mentioned in the Federal Constitution and any other territories that rightfully belonged to Argentina or might hereafter belong to Argentina. (A meaningless statement if ever there was one) Nothing specific about the Falklands then which did not make it into your constitution until 1994, and certainly non specific about any particular territory other than the territories mentioned in the constitution.
Britain's intervention in 1833 was quite legitimate and was against Spain's claim not Argentina which was an intervening third party into a British/Spanish dispute. Once Argentina intervened all bets were off under the Nootka Convention and Britain's claim revived if you believe that Nootka (San Lorenzo) was still extant. Argentina (Buenos Aires) was warned in a protest at the time of the appointment of Vernet in 1829 that Britain did not recognise that Argentina had any rights in the Falklands. Argentina acknowledged receipt of this protest at the time but failed to make a substantive reply or assert to Britain that its claim was legitimate and on what basis. A gross error of omission.
Axel arg you are also confusing your time line and confusing events and consequences here please be consistent.
With regard to the UN, the UN does not recognise Argentina's claim to sovereignty as legitimate or otherwise it recognises that Argentina has made a sovereignty claim which is a subtle difference. It invites the British and the Argentines to discuss and reach a peaceful solution to the problem, in which Argentina's claim disputes British sovereignty, in the terms of the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions. Argentina's claim is recognised by the UN as an impediment to the progression of the Falklands to self-determination which could and has threatened the peace of the region. It is not a bar to the Falklands progressing to full self-determination however provided the islanders are aware of the threat that Argentina poses.
EXPAT KELPER, you can think what ever you want about if i am or not a genuine seeker or not, for being honest, i dont even care about everyone else opinion's about me.
Jan 12th, 2010 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am a furure profesor of geography, i will finish my carear this year, and i hope i can start to work the soonest posible, about your assertions, may be you are right, i said 1000 times that I WILL ALWAYS KEEP ON STUDING ABOUT THE CONFLICT, i think i'm clear righ?.
There are planty of questions that i still dont know, that's why i talk to expert profesors on the malvinas-falklands issue, i will keep on doing it because i have always cared about this, i have all the right to find out the history of my country, and to have a posture about the conflict, exactly like everyone has it.
On the other hand i think it's stupid and ignorant to beleive that my country is threat to peace of the islands, we are a democratic nation since 26 years ego, i think that people wont never allow any invation to the islands, and it would be such a huge politic coste to the ibecil authority that would decide to invade the malvinas-falklands.
axel arg,
Jan 12th, 2010 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't rattling your cage, merely putting to you some actual facts for rational consideration.
Beware of so called experts axel arg they have no claim to be above the facts.
I learn something new every day.
Just use your own brains to find the facts.
J.A. Roberts said...“Nice of you to call me a dog Jorge. Since you are such an expert, what type of dog am I?”...
Jan 13th, 2010 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You called me an idiot in a previous post. Don't victimize yourself!
J.A. Roberts said...“You still have not answered something I have been asking. Why does Argentina not go to the ICJ for a ruling? You say some Argentine academics think you should, so why have you not then? If your case is so strong, what do you have to lose?”...
I did answer that. If you have more questions about ICJ, then ask the goverment.
J.A. Roberts said...“Uff! Do you really need to copy and paste so much crap? Can't you do something more original?”...
This is not about being original or not. Crap? I don't think so.
J.A: Roberts said...“You should have read your paste a bit more carefully because it contains a killer punch: ”Este artículo fue limitado en duración por una provisión secreta que sólo entraría en vigor en tanto otra potencia no estableciera un asentamiento.“ The secret article referred to article 6 by the way, although your cut and paste does not mention it.”...
The “cut and paste” did mention it! Read again!
J.A. Roberts said...“If the treaty was between Britain and Spain, then any thinking person can see that the Buenos Aires Junta is ”una otra potencia“.”...
Argentina was the succeeding nation and not a third power.
J.A. Roberts said...“who cares what George FitzMaurice, John Troutbeck, Edmund Carlisle, Yolanda Bertrand, Alex Reid and Jacobo Betts thought etc. Who cares! They did not represent anyone or anything except themselves.”...
Is that the best you can do? Who cares! Really?
I could say, Who cares what islanders think!
Ah what about the british officials Gaston De Bernhardt (1910), Ronald H. Campbell (1911), C. J. Torr (1927), R. A. Hadow (1928) and J. M. Vyvyan (1935)?
Do they also speak for themselves?
I speak for myself, you speak for yourself, not the officials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islander, you said...“I am a realist and accept that any solution has to have something in it that Argentina can accept as well.”...and then you said...“we are steadily moving away with less and less ”UK“ prescence in our Government and towards independence even if not yet a formal thing.”...
That is the problem, Your independence is not acceptable for Argentina. May be you can have another idea!
Cheers
I was just thinking and I would like to make a point. I think it’s interesting.
Jan 13th, 2010 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read many times that San Lorenzo Treaty/Nootka Sound convention had nothing to do with Argentina and was between UK and Spain. We bring up the treaty because it shows that UK had no rights over Malvinas. The treaty says …“”British subjects will not settle down on the shores of South America neither on its adjacent islands to make a colony””…, if you think a little, you’ll see the treaty makes no difference between continental South America and its adjacent islands. Some of you justify Britain’s actions in 1833 saying that Spain did not grant any right to Argentina over Malvinas and that is right, now why they would have?.
Spain didn’t grant Argentina any right over Tucuman for instance, but this didn’t prevent Britain of recognizing argentine sovereignty over that former Spanish terretorie. Of course Spain did not grant any right to their former colonies. They were witnessing how all their power and possessions were going under.
If you consider Britain was free to take over the islands (former Spanish terretorie) because Argentina was the third power the treaty mentions, then why Britain didn’t take over Tucuman? Again, the treaty makes no difference between continental South America and Its adjacent islands. Britain could have disputed all those terretories and taken all former Spanish terretories like Chile, Peru, Colombia, etc. because Spain did not grant any right to those countries either. Sounds crazy, isn’t it?.
UK was willing to recognize new succeeding nations from the old Spanish empire and did it! Malvinas were part of that Spanish empire. Argentina claimed sovereignty over Malvinas in 1820 sending the “heroina” with its “chief” so to speak Daniel Jewett to the islands (although some of you say he reached the islands by chance because of a storm) and Britain recognized argentine independence in 1825 without making any reference to the argentine claim over Malvinas.
To sum up, Why UK says Argentina had no rights over Malvinas, but it had them over Tucuman for example? Spain hadn’t granted Argentina any right over that province nor Malvinas. Why did UK recognize argentine sovereignty over some province and not over some islands?. The treaty makes no difference between them.
If anyone of you could explain this with a cogent argument I’d be pleased!
P.S. Don’t come up with “The British had a prior claim”, because any right UK could have had until 1774 when it left were buried in 1790 and 1814.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y cuanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”
Saludos.
Jorge said: “You called me an idiot in a previous post. Don't victimize yourself!”
Jan 13th, 2010 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fair enough!
OK, I'll ask my ICJ question differently.
Jorge, why do YOU think Argentina does not go to the ICJ for a ruling?
Jorge said: “Argentina was the succeeding nation and not a third power.” As far as the Nootka Sound Conv./San Lorenzo Treaty is concerned Argentina did not succeed to anything. For that to be true Spain would have confirmed this with Britain's agreement, but that never happened. That's how international treaties work and always have. For the purposes of the treaty Argentina is a third power y punto!
Jorge said: “Is that the best you can do? Who cares! Really?”
Yes Jorge, who cares what a few (carefully selected by you) individuals think, it's not representative in the least. As for the British officials you mention, what you were quoting was their own personal opinions, not official British government policy.
Jorge said: “That is the problem, Your independence is not acceptable for Argentina.”
Yes, that is the problem. Argentina denies the Islanders rights under international law so we have stalemate.
Jorge, you asked why Britain did not take over Tucuman. The main reason is because Tucuman had not strategic importance to Britain at the time and I'm sure the fact that Britain had never laid claim to Tucuman also had an influence on this hypothetical decision not to take over Tucuman. Tucuman could just as easily ended up as part of a hypothetical Greater Chile, or Greater Bolivia or Greater Paraguay or even Greater Uruguay. It just happened to become part of Argentina. Why did Britain recognise Argentine control of Tucuman? Because it suited Britain at the time.
As for the Falklands, Britain had laid claim to the Islands long before Argentina existed. The fact is, whatever Pablo Guillen said there was a prior British claim, and once Britain was released from its obligations to Spain it exercised that claim - because it suited Britain at the time.
Ah, go away for a few days and Jorge goes mad.
Jan 14th, 2010 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Neither Argentina or Chile accepted the juridiction of ICJ.
Argentina was not involved in the juridiction of ICJ.”
Argentina was a member of the UN, one of the inaugural members, the ICJ is an UN institution open to all members. So yes Argentina was involved in the jurisdiction of the UN.
“You are right, nothing stops argentina referring to the ICJ to ask for a judgment.”
Theres a first....
“It is for argentine goverment to decide when to do it. Many academics say argentina should go to the ICJ because we have better arguments than you.”
Then why don't you, why do you Jorge think they haven't?
Because its interesting in the days of the UN and the ICJ that Argentina scrupulously avoids any forum where its case can be examined critically. Even more interesting that in the days of the League of Nations Argentina never raised the issue once; even when it chaired that institution.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-has-only-shown-aggression-towards-the-falklands-says-summers
Where I don't say that Britain referred the Falkland Islands dispute to the ICJ and clarify my comments to make 100% clear that I referred to the dependencies. No even a nice try and definitely no cigar.
So show me I did.
“Do you think those are JUST individuals?”
Yes they are individuals, Oliver-Lopez's book is flawed for that reason.
“You can't say anything about argentinian education while your schools say nothing to their children about malvinas.”
What utter drivel, of course I can when the Argentine state sponsored curriculum is lies and half-truths.
“I would like to study more about that, but I don't study history but engineering and I don't like to look like a wannabe historian like you.”
Well I am a a graduate engineer, a rocket scientist if you will with two degrees. I merely have an interest in history, I certainly speak from considered research rather than repeating half-baked second-hand opinions.
“Until now, you are defeated and if you are so confident, why don't you reffer to the forums like ”malvinense“ or ”zonamilitar“?”
Defeated? Pray tell how exactly?
I don't frequent El Malvinense's forum because the guy is an idiot but I used to frequent the Falklands/Malvinas forum run by Nora Fermina. Who had to ban El Malvinense and his cohorts for their abuse of her forum.
“AHA! you are a coward”
More gratuitous insults, do you think this makes you look clever or a fool?
Jorge,
Jan 14th, 2010 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look up the word adjacent in the dictionary, it certainly doesn't describe a set of islands in the middle of the South Atlantic. Tell me how come it took nearly a century for someone to contrive an argument based upon a rather distorted intepretation of a single word?
And its David Jewett not Daniel Jewett, that was Vernet's mistake because he couldn't read Jewett's signature. It is a fact that he ended up in the Falklands by mistake, you wouldn't even be aware of his “declaration” were it not published in the foreign press by Weddell.
And Britain recognising Argentina in 1825 has nothing to do with the Falklands, there was no Argentine representation in the Falklands whatsoever. Only Argentina would attempt to pervert a treaty by one of the few nations that recognised Argentina to mean something it never did.
In this thread our Argentine friends seem to be living in a world of fiction and fantasy.
Jan 14th, 2010 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are expected to believe that this new and third party country somehow is still an extension of old Spain which legitimately succeeded to all Spain's treaties and obligations in 1810 or 1816, 1852 or whatever applicable date, when Spain only reluctantly recognised Argentina in 1859 with no such grace and favour interpretations included in the treaty.
Not only that we have also to accept that Spanish colonialist expansion in South America was a legitimate action, legalised by a Spanish Pope and a bilateral treaty which the world was expected to adhere to without a by your leave, along with the rape and pillage of the continent, but that any subsequent or parallell British colonial act is illegitimate and illegal. What twisted so-called rule of law, education systems and thinking processes are they adhering to that allows such strange and outlandish conclusions to be reached?
This is total 'caca de toro' and no intelligent person could even begin to believe such nonsense.
Among many other latin countries Argentina is indeed a sucessor state to Spain, though not exclusively so, in the sense that collectively they have inherited Spanish culture and practices. However they cannot all have succeeded to all the treaties Spain signed prior to 1810 without so much as a consultation with the signatories. What a mess that would be.
Indeed if 1810 is the date of Argentine independence then at that time the Nootka Sound Convention was abrogated (No longer in force) as a result of the UK being at war with Spain. (Napoeonic Wars) Some say it was reinstated after 1814, but if it was what has this to do with Argentina in any event? As a separate independent country Argentina would have had to be a party to the reinstatement between Spain and the UK. I believe the reality was that only the commercial treaties were reinstated in order to legitimise trade with Spain and the UK after the wars. Nootka was never specifically mentioned as far as I can see.
So if I interpret the view of jorge, et al, Nootka is still in force. So how would it be with Argentina if the Brits began building huts in Patagonia and began fishing in the Mar Argentino. What's good for ther goose is good for the gander surely?
Oh what? Don't tell me you have changed the law to prevent this. That's OK then but you won't mind if we change a few things without consulting you also?
Justin, you wrote:
Jan 15th, 2010 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Secondly, if Argentina is so confident of its case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop Argentina referring to the ICJ to ask it to present a judgement. Any nation can unilaterally refer a case to the ICJ for an opinion. Opinions are not binding but its clear why Argentina wouldn't go down that route; a negative would pull the rug from under their feet and in reality the Argentine Government knows it doesn't have a case.”
Actually, no. Only 5 UN organs and 16 specialized agencies can solicit advisory opinions from the ICJ. States cannot. They can ask a UN organ to seek an opinion, though.
To David,
Jan 15th, 2010 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you I was misinformed but thanks for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that any nation can unilaterally refer a case but both sides have to agree for it to proceed.
Justin, it's all here:
Jan 15th, 2010 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1
“The Court can only deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its jurisdiction. No State can therefore be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it has in some manner or other consented thereto.”
The ICJ needs the consent of the states involved in contentious cases, but does it mean consent for each individual case a state is involved in, or is consent deemed as given once a state signs a statement recognising the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction? (save exceptions noted in the declaration)
Jan 16th, 2010 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ doesn't need the consent of the states invoved in advisory cases, but these are not binding, not even on the UN body that sought the advisory opinion from the ICJ.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!