MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ dispute reaches the UN: Ban Ki-Moon’s praises peaceful attitude
Argentina’s Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana as had been anticipated on Wednesday formally asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to interfere in the “unilateral decisions” Britain has made regarding the Falklands/Malvinas Islands issue and highlighted that “from now on” everyone has to wait until Ban acts within a “good-solicitor” framework. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBritish goverment: We broke international law, but who cares, we control security council hahahha, who is going to say something?? those latam countries??? we don't care, we sing all day ”rule britania, rule britania, rule the waves and bla bla bla bla bla.........We are the british and we do whatever we want!
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Curious, can anyone actually name and quote this mythical resolution that requires the UK to interfere with the FIG exploiting mineral resources in the Falklands?
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what happened to taking this to the Hague, Jorge?
Ok you may now continue with the racist bigotry.
Please look at some other news sources to get a more academic view
Feb 25th, 2010 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bloomberg 25/2
{“It is illegal, against international law and contrary to the desire of the United Nations” Taiana said regarding the drilling. (now the best bit) He didn't reply when asked which UN resolutions were violated by the oil drilling or whether his coutry would seek a resolution against exploration in the UN General Assembly or Security Coucil.}
That is a major own goal by Taiana I am afriad. He says the drilling is illegal but is unable to refer directly to any law which has actually been broken.
Conclusions:
If they were cetain that interantional law had been broken they would refer the matter to the ICJ at The Hague. They are not doing this so clearly no law has been broken.
Taiana couldn't play poker as he would play all of his cards very early into the game and expose his weakness.
The Argentine leadership are playing their own citizens like a banjo and trying to bolster internal support by shouting “Malvinas, Malvinas, Malvinas” because their approval ratings are down 20%. This is a very cynical and disrespectful move by the Argentine government. If I was Argentine I would be very offended that my own government trreats me with so much contempt.
If ou do not agree with me then request that your leadership refer this matter to the ICJ. If they don't do this then wake up and smell the coffee. You are being used by your leadership yet again. Get rid of them and elect someone who actually respects the citizens they are supposed to serve.
Trade and collaboration is a much more rational route to take.
.....“If I was Argentine I would be very offended that my own government trreats me with so much contempt.”....
Feb 25th, 2010 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well you are not. You know a sh*t about being an argentine.
I cannot understand how many ignorants talk about Argentina without knowing a thing.!!!!
UN resolution 31/49
<<<<Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;>>>>
The same UN ask Iran to respect UN resolutions and UK always complain about iranian refusal to do that. HIPOCRYTE!!!!
Jorge
Feb 25th, 2010 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for that highly constructive post. Nice to see you are advertising your academic capability .
The point still stands; if one is going to suggest that action is “illegal” under international law then the individual needs to be able to refer to the actual laws in question. Taiana refused to do this because he either doesn't know or this is an admission that no law has been broken and all the shouting is “hot air” going into an election in 2011. Taiana has shown his incompetance on this matter clearly, for all to see.
It was Argentina that “unilaterally” tore up the agreement to collaborate on oil exploration, so by your reasoning this makes Argentina the inital protagonist with regard to the resolution your refer to.
This debate is not about Iran. I have plenty of Iranian friends and students (along with Argentines) and I find that most people I deal with are rational and want the best solution for all parties invovled. Clearly you are unable to engage in these kinds of discussions.
The UK governement has indicated it is willing to talk of the matter of oil exploraton as there was an agreemtn already in place. I stand by my conclusion that all parties have more to gain through collaboration on oil exploration which would give some much needed support to the Argentine economy.
The exploration will continue and given the price of oil it is still commercially viable to move unrefined oil to Africa, US or even to the UK for full refinement. The Argentine leadership are therefore failing to reduce unemployment and provide its citizens with a great opportunity for economic stability through collaboration with the Islands. By any measure this is poor leadership.
UN Resolutions
Feb 25th, 2010 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 31/49
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
1 December 1976
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Recalling its resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965 and 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,
Bearing in mind the paragraphs related to this question contained in the Political Declaration adopted by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, and in the Political Declaration adopted by the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo from 16 to 19 August 1976,
Having regard to the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory,
1. Approves the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory;
2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;
3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII);
4. Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;
56. Requests both Governments to report to the Secretary-General and to the General Assembly as soon as possible on the results of the negotiations.
==========================
Above is the resolution in full. Now Britain and Argentina reached agreement about oil exploration, which Argentina chose uniltaerally to withdraw from.
So the only country who actually introduced a unilateral modification is Argentina. The FIG has merely pressed ahead with measures agreed in advance with Argentina. And now you're bitching about it, having CHOSEN not to continue to take part.
So clearly the UN resolution you refer to, doesn't actually prohibit what the FIG is doing. So under what International Law is this illegal, again which UN resolution forbids it?
JustinKuntz
Feb 25th, 2010 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good to see there are some of us with objectivity in the world. Have a good day.
And the sabre rattling starts with the ARA Drummond entering Falklands' waters in a “navigational error”.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Latin American states became independent during the 19th century, putting an end to rule by Spain and Portugal in America, but not to the rule of America by Spaniards and Portuguese. It was only in 2006 that Evo Morales, at his inauguration, was able to say that 500 years of colonialism was now at an end. If these states had become independent forty years ago, the United Nations would have declared them as illegal as Rhodesia, and for the same reason: white-settler Conquistador republics artificially created to perpetuate the colonial subjugation, domination and exploitation of the indigenous Americans by means of a regime of apartheid.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JUSTIN, i answered you one if you comentarys, but it was eliminated, i will writte it again.<br /><br />
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, if such a huge nation like argentina claims for the islands, it's not because we are paranoid, we claim them because we consider that they are one more integral part of our territory.<br /><br />
Ther are many reasons to hold that argentina has right s on the malvinas -falklands, i will tell them in my next commentary, beside i repeat that i want to debate deeply about it, with you and much more falklands islanders.<br /><br />
On the other hand, about your comments for argentina, i think they are honest, but you are ignorant, because there are many important facts that you dont know, because you dont live here, you only know one side of the story, you should objetive, beause you are talking about a country that is not yours, beside if you think that you can find free press in the foreign, let me tell you that you are not only ignorant, you are inocent too.<br /><br />
I heard since 2003 from that soposed free press that you deffend, that my country will have a new economic desaster soon, were you aware about any economic catastrophe in argentina?, i wasen't, so, can i believe in that soposed free press?, i dont think so, i dont beleive in the politicians eather, nor in the media, i only believe in the reality, on the other hand, when i inform my self, i do it with those chanels that sopport the goverment, and those that are against it, the media corporations are as corrupters and speculators as the goverments, they omit and lie all the time, that's why i need different opinions with different lines.<br /><br />
The press in the whole world, is only funtional to it's economic interests, in my country, the 83% of our information is in the hands of just 4 corporations, clarin and la nacion (the most powerfull corporations of the media), have allways pushed the presidents, because they want them to be the guards of their economic inerests, they are making now the dirtyest campain against a president that i ever seen in these 26 years of democracy, anyway the k made important mistakes, but no one can denay that we had a great progress in many aspects in the last 7 years, your hate for the k, doesen't let you see more aspects of our reality, the media wants cristina to renounce tomorrow, i understand that as a falkland islander, you have enough reasons to be ungry with them, but like them or not, you should recognize them all the achievements that we had, i am totally sure that you dont dont know not even the half of the good measures took since 2003, anyway i dont want another k goverment, i want the 2011 to come the soonest possible, and choose another authority.<br /><br />
On the other hand, you say that you feel affection for argentina bla bla bla, however, you say that we blame everyone else for our problems, but you are not taking into account that this the tipical phrase used by our shamefull politicians, we are not so idiot to beleive their lies, that's why most our ex authoritys are so rejected betwen most us, your view only shows your ignorance about argentina, and how hipocryte you are.
Not a decision for the UN, the UK, Argentina, Brazil or anyone else. The decision of those resident is to be respected, and despite the argentinian charm offence of the late 90's they aren't interested.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see Bolivia has re kindled it's sovereignty claim with Chile, and why has baboon chavez been so silent about his countries claim to 2/3 of Guyana.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why the silence over French Guyana, and the fact that Belize's head of state is the Queen.
So much Hypocrisy in the ranks of latin America!
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No pasaran Argentina
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 012 Rhaurie-Craughwell - How can I not suppot Bolivia's claim to Chilean territory? Bolivia has a mejority-indigenous population and an indigenous head of state with origins in the Inca Empire (Tawantinsuyu). Both Chile and Argentina are in colonial occupation of Qollasuyu province (which includes Santiago), so maybe it's time the Conquistadors went home and the Chileans found themselves a new capital
Feb 25th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to congratulate Justin. He has managed to continuously keep his cool when faced with rambling, non-sensical drones, when others, including myself, have rised to some comments from some serial Argentine commentors. The more I read these stories and comments on MercoPress the more conficence I have that Argentina will never successfully turn the Falklands into a colony. I have to agree with Justin, Argentina had an agreement with the UK on hydrocarbons, and withdrew, so they have no ground in which to stand on when they object to the Falklands pursing the exploration of hydrocarbons.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And refering to one of the resolutions....
2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;
When have Argentina ever promoted the well-being of the popluation of the Falkland Islands?? They haven't, and it appears to me that the are the ones breaking their beloved UN Resolutions.
It is clear that the UN and Mr Ban do not wish to give this issue much of their time. The story of the meeting was given a total of 13 lines on the last page of the UN daily news briefing. It wasn't even mentioned on the front page under “In The Headlines”. This is clear evidence that the UN and especially Mr Ban see the Argentine protests as a minor irritation that will simply go away and they will be right.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now can we all get talking about making some serious money please. ££££££££££££
You can check this out yourself at:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/pdf/english/2010/24022010.pdf
The solution is easy. Ignore Argentina.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklanders have legal right to do as they please withing their own territorial waters. Falklanders should now make claim for all waters east from the Falklands to the continental shelf and westwards up to mid-way bewtween Falklands and Argentina.
JUSTIN, this is evident that bretain cleans it 's ass with our protests, powerfull nation have allways done whatever they want, and they will allways do it, just because they are powerfull, in fact, those nations are so serious that they are the guiltys of this great economic crisis.<br />
Feb 25th, 2010 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as your side dont recognize our rights on the islands, we will have more of these problems, and my goverment once and for all must talk to the f.i.g.<br />
It's obvious that the u.k. wont never talk to argentina about the sovereign dispute, the solution is in your hands, and ours, dont you realise that with all the prosperity that the islands have, you should be independent now, it's the most prosperous place in the whole world, as long as your side keeps on avoiding to talk about the dispute, it wont never give you neather the chance of becoming into independent, the dispute with argentina is a limitation for your independence, that's why, your side and mine must sit and talk about the conflict, recognize the rights of both and find a fair solution for both.<br />
May be it's true the fact that my country didn't claim for many years, which is a very big mistake, but bretain also made mistakes too, it's very hipocrye to say that our arguments are false, because any nation can't claim a territory with false arguments.<br />
If we wouden't have any right on the islands, so why the u.n. still calls both sides to resolve pacefully this problematic, if argentina wouden't have any rights on the islands, the u.n. only would recognize the rights of bretain, beside we can't recognize your right to self determination, because if we do it, we will loss our rights, you will allways choose to be british, it's your culture, it would be unfair too to pretend that the islanders accept only the argentine sovereignty.<br />
The u.k. have allways refused to talk about the sovereignty, in these way, you will have even 30 generations of falkland islanders.<br />
What happened in 1833, in some aspects was illigal, the british only had right to stablish on the islands, because they were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, beside when the british left their garrison in port egmont in 1774, during 59 years they didn't exercise any sovereign right on the islands, since 1774 untill 1833 there were just esporadic settlements of british and american sailors, but it doesen't give any sovereign rigt to the u.k., the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why when we got the independence, thanks to our effort, we had right to excercise our sovereignty in the malvinas-falklands too, they were just one more part of our territory.<br />
It's true that vicerroalty was joined by uruguay, paraguay, and part of bolivia too, but those nations decided to separate and became into independent, for different reasons, so they lost their rights on the islands, if i would take what you and ja. robert say about a soposed right by these nations, then they should claim also all the rest of the argentines provinces, because the islands were one more integral part of our territory like cordoba, santa fe, catamarca, tucuman etc etc, so what you say is really rediculous.<br />
Bretain didn't have any right to force the argentine authoritys to leave the malvinas, that was a true abuse of power, how could an incipient nation like mine, to fight against the most powerfull colonial nation in the world?, this si the reason why i hold that in some aspects, what happened in 1833 was illigal, it would be totally unfair and hipocryte to ignore these facts from 19 centenary, because for those events, we are having a conflict with u.k. since 177 years, there is nothing more i can say, the solution is in our hands, i will do what i can, i will take your arguments and my ideas for a solution to the conflict to mr taiana, i will tell him what i think about the policy of both sides, and he will have to give me sustainable reasons to my questions, in your case, what will you do?, i have another commentary for you it's number 10.
19 axel arg - When Captain Onslow arrived at Port Louis on 10 January 1833, he had no orders to establish an administration, but only to assert the British claim by an annual ship visit. He was specifically ordered to leave the civilians alone to go about their lawful business. Captain Mestivier had arrived on 6 October 1832, but 55 days later his second-in-command encouraged nine soldiers of the 26-man garrison to mutiny. They did so, and murdered Mestivier in front of his 22-year-old wife. When they had been rounded up they were put in chains on board the British schooner 'Rapid' and taken to Buenos Aires for trial. Seven were shot, two were sentenced to further military service, and Mestivier's second-in-command was reduced to half-pay and banished from Buenos Aires. Captain Pinedo of the Sarandí was forced to remove the rest of his soldiers, and he reported to Port Captain Patricio Linch on his return to Buenos Aires what Onslow had told him: '… those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before.' There were 33 civilians on the islands. 22 chose to stay, 12 of them Argentines. Eleven had the option to stay, but chose to leave: Joaquín Acuña and his wife Juana; Mateo González and his wife Marica (both men were gauchos); José Viel, Juan Quedy and Francisco Ferreyra (all single men); Máximo Warnes (a prisoner); a British seaman, Charles Brasier, and an American seaman, William Drake; lastly, Vernet’s American settlement manager, Henry Metcalf. During the intervening year to 10 January 1834 there was no administration of any kind, only Vernet's private undertaking which he continued to manage from the mainland. The population of Port Louis increased to 29, of whom three were British, two were German, one French, and the remaining 23 were Spanish-speaking (18 of them from Buenos Aires). On 26 August 1833, eight of the gauchos, led by Antonio Rivero, murdered five of the leading inhabitants: Mathew Brisbane, William Dickson, Anton Vaihinger (a German labourer), Jean Simon, and Ventura Pasos from Buenos Aires. All these were employees of Louis Vernet. On 10 January 1834 Lieutenant Henry Smith had to establish authority to restore order. Take out Rivero and the eight murderers and their five victims, that reduces the population to fifteen. “How could an incipient nation like mine, fight against the most powerfull colonial nation in the world.” The answer's simple. It did. In the 1840s the British and the French invaded the River Plate and General Manuel de Rosas fought and defeated them. A peace treaty was signed with Britain called the Convention of Settlement. The introduction and the ratification document of the Convention speak of “putting an end to the existing differences” and to “the settlement of existing differences” between Britain and Argentina, and the title and Article VII say that “perfect friendship” or “perfect relations of friendship” between Britain and Argentina are restored by the Convention (fig. 7). So, once the Convention had been ratified, “the existing differences” between Argentina and Britain had been settled and “perfect friendship” between the two countries had been restored. The Falklands were not mentioned once, neither during the negotiations on the Convention, nor in the text of the treaty itself. The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s annual protests over the Falklands. After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, what makes you think that Argentina is the only heir to the Viceroyalty and that Uruguay, Bolivia etc decided to leave? One could just as easily argue that Uruguay is the heir to the Viceroyalty and that it was Argentina who decided to leave, especially since at the time of independence the Viceroyalty was governed from Montevideo and not BsAs...
Feb 25th, 2010 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is useless to try to reason with unreasonable people. It doesn't matter how many facts one presents or how logical and congruent one's argument can be, nationalistic and irrate argies will not pay attention to these arguments. Therefore, what I suggest doing is to piss them off: YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FALKLANDS BACK!!!! Argentines should concentrate on making their country prosper, you need to reduce corruption, you need to stop robing your own people (Mrs. President), and most of all, you need to take responsibility for your country's failures, instead of blaming it on something or someone else. In short, you are part of the third world because of your own failed policies and practices. The British are a world power because they have been more intelligent, more honest, and more dilligent in how they conduct their business, and that makes you jealous. The British did not become a world power for free, it has cost them blood, toil, and sacrifice to be where they are. So there, you can cry all you want but the fact is, you will never get the Falklands back. God bless the UK and their queen. Comprende????
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding comments made by Hugo Chavez saying that Argentina “would not be alone” if it were attacked. I would just like to say that the Brits would not be alone. I'm American and I faught alongside the British in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, they are my brothers in arms and I would not hessitate to go and fight alongside them again if necessary... So bring it on Aegentina, golpe a golpe che.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm confused. I had been under the mistaken impression that the UN resolution which the Argentines continually harp on about was introduced during or immediately after the conflict in 82 and not some 6 years before Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. If that invasion wasn't a unilateral act, I don't know what is.! So Argentina lose the conflict and then a few years later start trying to rely on a resolution about which only refers to negotiations to resolve the dispute introduced way before the conflict - surely this is some kind of joke?
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if it is somehow still applicable (and as a matter of law I have some doubts given that it was completely abrogated by Argentina by the 1982 invasion) can someone please explain to me why Menem's amendment to the Argentine constitution re the Falklands in the late 1990s is not a unilateral act.
Uncle sam:
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a well known fact at the Foreign Office here in the UK that the great Baboon (chavez) is all word and no action! Even the Russians and Chinese are embarrased to sell weapons to him!
he knows at heart that if he was to try and attempt to put his tin pot navy to use, some of our cousins to the north and their friends to the west of Venezuela would have a thing or two to say! ;)
24StevieP - The invasion was definitely a unilateral act, specifically an act of aggression which gives rise to criminal responsibility. Britain should demand reparations from Argentina to pay for the war and for the clearance of the 14,000 land mines they left lying about. Air Brigadier Lami Dozo is the only surviving member of the military dictatorship that launched the war, and so he should be indicted as a criminal.
Feb 25th, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UNCLE SAM, glad to have your backing. With our to armys we could clean up for good. wipe argentina of the face of the earth & Re name it the Falkland sea. Thats if they keep pushing for it!!!!!!!!
Feb 25th, 2010 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 024Stevie:
Feb 26th, 2010 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0”3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII); “
That´s the reason: UN specificly ask both governments to ”expedite negociations concerning the dispute over SOVEREIGNTY” (not resources, not oil, not administration, not falklenders, but SOVEREIGNITY, and UK always refused to do that.
The 1982 argentine military capture was only an attempt (a silly and unprepared one) to recovery its own territory, all the rights to do that.
to 23Unclesam
The British WERE a world power because they have been the more THIEVES...
I mean as a nation... some of them are nice people. At least my british friends are so... of course, they all know that Malvinas are ours.
Ilen at 28 - oh dear.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have a look at section 4 of the resolution and explain why the invasion of the Islands by Argentina wasn't a fundamental breach of that section of the resolution.
The point I was making still stands - i had thought, mistakenly, that this resolution was introduced during the conflict, not before it. I'm simply questioning whether the resolution is still applicable given Argentina's invasion, and subsequent military defeat, in 82. My view is that it isn't applicable any more, but I'm interested in the thoughts of others.
LLen. Where in any UN resolution does it say that the only outcome to the SOVEREIGNTY dispute is a handover of the islands to Argentina with no strings attached? Where? WHERE? Argentina must get it into its collective skull that self determination is paramount and that transfer to Argentina is just one of several options. When you finally understand that, then there might be progress. Until then you can expect stalemate...
Feb 26th, 2010 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually its a mattter of public record that the British Government did negotiate on sovereignty and tried to come up with several formulas to satisfy all parties unsuccessfully and even though it was confident in its sovereignty claim was prepared to consider a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina if it was in the interests of the islanders. Even worse the FCO tried to manipulate the situation in the islanders to make the islands dependent upon Argentina to facilitate a future sovereignty transfer in pursuit of narrow selfish UK interests over and above the interests of teh islanders. So to claim that the UK has never been prepared to negotiate on sovereignty is utter crap.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, Argentina never once came up with any ideas or budged one iota in its demands, if anyone wasn't willing to negotiate on sovereignty it was Argentina.
And as Stevie P and J.A.Roberts has pointed out negotiations on sovereignty DO NOT require the British Government to capitulate on Argentine demands.
Well... let´s see. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about anything before talking about sovereignity (except of course other subjects like football, music preferences, etc...) and then, after that, we can talk of everything you want to talk about. <br /><br />
Feb 26th, 2010 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we (Argentina) accept to talk about other things, this would weaks our strong and very well documented and supported claim... and UK might say that it was a tacit admitance of their occupation.<br /><br />
Besides all that... and I repet this for ... what time?... We are not in this for oil, fish, water, mineral resources, etc... We have plenty of all that without Malvinas... And personally; well, I know that what I´m going to say now is not as unanimous feeling here as it is our ownership of Malvinas... But many of us think that oil must remain just were it is: underground. Enough contamination in the world, it´s time to develop better sources of energy...
MICHAEL, J.A. ROBERT, AND JUSTIN.<br />
Feb 26th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
MICHAEL, maybe what you say is true, and my country finally didn't claim for 91 years, if is it true, then maybe we have no more to claim, i know about the arguments of your side, and that's why i really hold that both nations made big mistakes, answer me what right had the u.k. to force the argentine authoritys to leave the islands?, i think they had lost them before, because since 1774, untill 1833, they didn't exercise any sovereign right on the islands, they only had a prior claim, but when they arrived in 1833, the islands were allready ocupated by argentina.<br />
<br />
<br />
J.A ROBERT:<br />
<br />
I know perfectly that argentina wasen't the only heir of the vicerroalty, i know about my history, but those nations separated part from the provincias unidas, if they would have any claim on the islands, like you say, then they should claim also all the rest of the argentines provinces, because the malvinas were just one more part of our territory, beside i recognize that it's a mistake to say that we inherited the islands from spain, because spain didn't cede us anything, in fact all that we could get, was thanks to our effort, QUE SUPIMOS CONSEGUIR (it's part of our national amsong, it means, all that we could get), beside spain recognized our independence more tham 30 years later, it's true what you say that we dind't inherate the islands from spain, it's just a social construction to hold the fact of inherance from spain, and i realised now , jaja, i respect your opinion but i dont agree, i hope i can find this year and expert in international law, and i will give him or her your arguments, i will debate with that persons, and them i will tell you and all the rest of the islanders about my conclutions, i am objetive, it's difficult, but i can do it.<br />
<br />
Justin.<br />
<br />
You know that it's a joke to say that bretain was prepared to transfer the falklands to argentina if it was the interets of the islanders, we all know perfectly that the islanders were never interested on being argentine, and they are never going to be, so, holding that is just a hipocryte assertion, it's just one more way to justify their ocupation, they are never going to recognize that their invation from 1833 , in some aspects was illigal, i have two comments for you in this page, they are number 10 and 19.
axlarg said: “You know that it's a joke to say that bretain was prepared to transfer the falklands to argentina if it was the interets of the islanders, we all know perfectly that the islanders were never interested on being argentine, ...”
Feb 26th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That´s rigth... but over all, the matter is that UK was never interested in the islander´s opinion... they are just an excuse foor them. They didn´t ask anybody`s opinion... they didn´t ask people living in hong kong before restore it, many of them didn´t want their living place beoing under chinese rules...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A<br />
Feb 26th, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ireland Thanks for the support. Mixed feelings against the pirates.
All right, seems you'll believe whatever you want to, the truth of what actually happens seems to matter not one jot.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A closed mind is a terrible waste.
No Britain didn't give it up in 1774, it was actually 1776 when the garrison left, amazing how you always pick the date that minimises the British presence. Argentine claims of the British absence are a myth, there is material in your own archives that show this to be true but you believe what you want to and aren't prepared to think about it critically. And no in 1833, the islands weren't occupied by Argentina, the truth is less clear cut than you make out. The Argentine case is fundamentally flawed in that you failed to exercise effective control and further the settlement was established with the knowledge and consent of the British.
Not only was Britain prepared to transfer sovereignty, the FCO conspired with the Argentine Government to persuade the islanders to accept it. As usual, you managed to undermine that yourselves. But if you choose not to believe the truth of the matter then really there is no hope for the brain washed.
The Hong Kong case is very different, the territory was leased in a written agreement that the British honoured, they withdrew at the end of it.
But then you just ignore whatever gets in the way of justifying your prejudice against the British don't you.
JustinKuntz:<br />
Feb 26th, 2010 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
“A closed mind is a terrible waste”... I totally agree; it doesn´t seem to me that we are the closed-minded here...<br />
<br />
And pre-judice, as the word says, is a previous judgment or opinion , that is to say a judgement formed before having witness of the facts. This is not the case, Justin... my opinion and judgement has been formed after all I´ve seen about UK policy trough history.<br />
I don´t have bad feelings against the British, as you say... I actually do think that they have many good things, but piracy and to steal foreign lands and resources as they did, weren´t one of them. <br />
In addition, I admit that almost every britisher I know personally (may be they are not a lot, but I know them well) is a good and nice person.<br />
Axel, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was simply rebutting to your assertion that “the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why when we got the independence, thanks to our effort, we had right to excercise our sovereignty in the malvinas-falklands too...”
Argentina derived then and derives today no special rights to the Falklands simply because they were once part of the Viceroyalty. You NOW have the right to exercise your sovereignty on the bits of land you managed to take and hold onto, sometimes by agreement (the Chileno bits of Patagonia for example) and sometimes by force (the Conquista del Desierto). You never managed to hold onto the Falklands though...
And llen, no you express an opinion in spite of and contrary to your experience of the British; thats prejudice.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge and others. All this rubbish from K and Lady T about Brtish unilaterism.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some facts:
Anyone wanting tp prrospect or survey or drillwithing the 200mile limit has to apply to and get a permit from Falkland islands Govt - not the British one.
An Agreement was reached between UK and Arg in 1995 over offshore oil, Arg recognised the legitimacy of the drilling phase that went on in todays area in 1998 as being in waters under our control. She had areas to the west under her control, and there was an area in the middle under JOINT control. Falklands Govt issued the prospectus for further study and drilling under this AGREEMENT in 2002-2205 and by 2005 it was all taken up and all notified to Arg Government and discussed at the meetings. Then in 2007 - 2 YEARS AFTER they knew about it and had accepted it in the Agreement - Arg decided to UNILATERALLY walk out, get into a huff and pretend it was all somebody elses fault.
Same stories with Fisheries Conservation.
So you see it is Arg that refuses to talk about OIL etc!
no, no islander,how do you think that sovereignity could be in another way of “the exploration of resourses”... first we have to find a solution of the first question forever, then all the another things will come inmediatly....
Feb 27th, 2010 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 033axelarg You ask what right did the British have to remove the Argentine authorities. When Captain Onslow arrived in January 1833, there were no Argentine authorities. Captain Mestivier, the administrator, had been murdered in front of his wife by ten of his twenty-six soldiers. They were removed, and the ten murderers were taken to Buenos Aires and put on trial. Seven were shot, two sentenced to further military service, and the ringleader put on half-pay and banished from Buenos Aires. No British authorities were left on the islands until 1834, and there was nothing to stop Argentina from re-establishing an administration in the meantime. Even so, the Argentine administration had been established on Spanish territory which comprised only Port Louis but not much else - certainly not the whole of the islands. http://www.falklandshistory.org
Feb 27th, 2010 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0MICHAEL, i rode many times te arguments from that page, and let me tell you that you are wrong, i know that captain mestivier was killed, but in the islands there was an small argentine garrison, and they were despoiled by onslow in 1833, even your arguments hold it, beside captain pinedo was satblished on the islands, on the other hand, you didn't answer me what right had bretain to lower the argentine flag, and remove our garrison in the islands, the british only had right to stablish on the islands, because they were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, i know that it was signed betwen spain and the u.k., but the sovereignty was not on discussion in that treaty, if the islands were allready ocupated by the garrison of another nation, bretain didn't have any right to despoil the argentines, if it is not an abuse of power by a powerfull nation to a poor one, i dont know how to call it, beside i would like to discuss with you about the invation to bs as by bretain during rosas's goverment, i know that we can say that argentine made front to them, but there are many aspects of that event that you are ignoring, you made a very superfitial analysisi of that, on monday i will writte again, i can't do it before, regards.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 043axel - The Argentine garrison consisted of 26 soldiers, some of whom, were criminals who had been sentenced to military service. Ten of them were responsible for the murder of Mestivier, and there was no effective authority on the Islands. Pinedo had returned to Port Louis only three days before the British arrived, and found all in chaos. Onslow was ordered to remove the garrison, but to leave the civilians alone. Some chose of their own free will to leave. Mrs Mestivier of course had to leave, as she was a widow without means of support. She had to go to Buenos Aires to give evidence against the men who had murdered her husband, and presumably the other soldiers, and Pinedo, had to go for the same reason. Port Louis and the immediate local area had been effectively administered by Spain and so was still Spanish territory, therefore Argentina was in adverse possession of the territory of another state and not of its own. All the territory on the Islands not already reduced to Spanish sovereignty became British with the lapse of time, as Britain progressively spread her acts of government across the whole territory.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The right to self-determination of the islanders – long the obstacle to any deal with Argentina – has to be qualified. Intransigent in their response to the Ridley negotiations and backed by neo-imperialist rightwingers in the House of Commons, the islanders demanded and got their rescue by the 1982 task force and extravagant support ever since. They have rebuffed all efforts by later Buenos Aires mediators to re-establish contact” <br />
Feb 27th, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
Simon Jenkins<br />
<br />
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance<br />
...........“Jorge
Feb 28th, 2010 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for that highly constructive post. Nice to see you are advertising your academic capability .”.................
Thank you and yo can F.....O.....
..........”This debate is not about Iran. I have plenty of Iranian friends and students (along with Argentines) and I find that most people I deal with are rational and want the best solution for all parties invovled.“..........
Yes, it is in some way because bratain fill its mouth talking that Iran must respect UN resolutions and everyone in the world can see this is ”DO WHAT I SAY, BUT NOT WHAT I DO“.
..........”Clearly you are unable to engage in these kinds of discussions.“.......
eeeerrr yeah, ok. Again you can F......O......
.......”I stand by my conclusion that all parties have more to gain through collaboration on oil exploration which would give some much needed support to the Argentine economy.“.........
Argentine economy does not need anything of Malvinas to grow. This is about sovereignty, any other businesses are just complementary things.
.......”The Argentine leadership are therefore failing to reduce unemployment [THAT'S NOT TRUE] and provide its citizens with a great opportunity for economic stability through collaboration with the Islands. [ NONE BUSINESSES IN MALVINAS COULD PROVIDE STABILITY TO ARGENTINE ECONOMY. YOU ARE JUST GIVING YOURSELF THE IMPORTANCE YOU DON'T HAVE].
........“By any measure this is poor leadership.”........
Look at your own leadership gíl de goma!
.........“Above is the resolution in full. Now Britain and Argentina reached agreement about oil exploration, which Argentina chose uniltaerally to withdraw from.”.........
Feb 28th, 2010 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0.........“So clearly the UN resolution you refer to, doesn't actually prohibit what the FIG is doing. So under what International Law is this illegal, again which UN resolution forbids it?”...........
Argentina withdraw from the agreement so that there is no more agreement since a while. You are illegally there. Punto!
...........“It is useless to try to reason with unreasonable people. It doesn't matter how many facts one presents or how logical and congruent one's argument can be, nationalistic and irrate argies will not pay attention to these arguments. Therefore, what I suggest doing is to piss them off: YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FALKLANDS BACK!!!!”...........
You can't piss anyone Gíl de cuarta!.
.........“The British are a world power because they have been more intelligent, more honest, and more dilligent in how they conduct their business, and that makes you jealous.”............
LMFAO. Priceless comedy.
..........“can someone please explain to me why Menem's amendment to the Argentine constitution re the Falklands in the late 1990s is not a unilateral act.”.........
It is not an act that modify anything on the islands. Very simple.
........”It's a well known fact at the Foreign Office here in the UK that the great Baboon (chavez) is all word and no action! Even the Russians and Chinese are embarrased to sell weapons to him!”.........
Do you really think so????? lol. They are just doing businesses. You, anglo countries are losing theses markets (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and even Brazil, Colombia and Perú are buying Russian weapons), that's why you believe that fantasy of “Russian and China embarrased”. It is expected you to see more Russian and Chinese weapons here. Chavez buy them weapons since USA denied to replace parts of F-16's. They lost that market because they (USA) are stupids.
..........“Britain should demand reparations from Argentina to pay for the war and for the clearance of the 14,000 land mines they left lying about.”.........
lol. Sit down and wait!.
Argentina will not pay for trying to recover its own terretorie.
...........“Argentina must get it into its collective skull that self determination is paramount and that transfer to Argentina is just one of several options. When you finally understand that, then there might be progress. Until then you can expect stalemate...”...........
Feb 28th, 2010 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0To negotiate about something means both parts should cede something. What part should we cede or what part do you cede???? We only know when you sit down to talk. Sitting down to talk does not mean you are capitulating, just talking, but as we all know, you are not willing to talk. You are just perpetuting this colonial situation in century XXI.
.........“Actually its a mattter of public record that the British Government did negotiate on sovereignty and tried to come up with several formulas to satisfy all parties unsuccessfully and even though it was confident in its sovereignty claim was prepared to consider a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina if it was in the interests of the islanders.”........
None country confident on its sovereignty give it up just like that. UK knows they are illegally there just because the force of weapons in 1833 and 1982 and islander's interests are just an excuse. Everyone knows that population of british origin will always want to remain british. This has been pointed out by Axel arg and Llen.
.....“Argentine claims of the British absence are a myth, there is material in your own archives that show this to be true but you believe what you want to and aren't prepared to think about it critically.”.......
OH this guy seems to have worked in “Archivo General de la Nación”. lol
What a joke!
.........“And no in 1833, the islands weren't occupied by Argentina, the truth is less clear cut than you make out. The Argentine case is fundamentally flawed in that you failed to exercise effective control and further the settlement was established with the knowledge and consent of the British.”.........
What could one disscuss with someone who believes what he wants to believe as he says!
.........“But if you choose not to believe the truth of the matter then really there is no hope for the brain washed.”.....
The truth's owner has spoken!
.........“Jorge and others. All this rubbish from K and Lady T about Brtish unilaterism.
Some facts:
Anyone wanting tp prrospect or survey or drillwithing the 200mile limit has to apply to and get a permit from Falkland islands Govt - not the British one.”.........
No. FIG are just british puppets. A local “goverment” which it is not elected under argentine sovereignty due to british piracy is not a goverment for us. For argentine goverments, everything there is done by the british and its local clowns. When UK finally sits down to negotiate (which will occur some day) Argentina surely will recognize local authorities elected by local people.
48jorge - Your last point that FIG are british puppets. The regime in Buenos Aires is no better. It is the puppet of white settlers, consquistadors who decided to steal a continent from its indigenous inhabitants first in the Inca Empire in the 16th century and then in Patagonia in the 19th century. The 'Conquest of the Desert' by Roca was the dirtiest Dirty War of them all. Besides, Buesnos Aires recognised British sovereignty by the Convention of Settlement, ratified on 15 May 1850. http://www.falklandshistory.org/
Feb 28th, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, you don't seem to get the difference between “talks without preconditions” and “talks about the transfer of sovereignty”. Argentina is only prepared to engage in the latter, the UK has always been prepared to engage in the former. And now please don't suggest the Falklander self determination is a British pre-condition. We all know their self determination is a right under international law and even the British government cannot ignore this right - it tried once before (leaseback) and failed.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A formula has been suggested in these forums where the UK transfer sovereignty to Argentina and in the the same instrument or document Argentina immediately grants recognition and full independence to the Falkland Islands. Provided the Islanders agree, this could easily be the outcome of “talks without preconditions”. An imaginative solution which means Argentina “recovers” the Falklands, albeit briefly, and the Islander's right to self-determination is respected.<br />
Like I said. Until Argentina drops it's pre conditions there will be stalemate.
50 J.A. Roberts - An imaginative solution would be to pay attention to the Convention Settlement ratified 15 May 1850, in which Argentina recognised British sovereignty in the Falklands.
Feb 28th, 2010 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MICHAEL, you didn't answer my question, i asked you what right had bretain to remove the small argentine garrison from the islands, and give me unless one evidence that shows that the u.k. exercised it's sovereign rights on the islands since 1774 untill 1833, they never should have retired it's garrison from port egmont, during all those years they didn't exercised any right on the islands, there were only sporadic settlements of american and british sailors, soported by the san lorenzo treaty, but it doesen't give any sovereign right to bretain, so, bretain had lost the islands many years before argentina, on the other hand when i finish my survey, to know if is it true that argentina did'nt claim for the islands during 91 years, i will tell you, and i will recognize if my country doesen't have more rights on the malvinas-falklands, ayway, you must take into account that argentina wasen't in conditions to claim to bretain during many years, we had a very big economic dependence with the u.k. because of the loan that we got during rivadavia's goverment, we all know perfectly tha economic conditions are absolutly relevant, i am not a closed mind, i just want to know the truth about the cause of my country, i allready new about everything you told me in your last comment, i rode many times the pepper pascoe document.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the invation by bretain to bs as before and during rosas's goverment, it's true that those events were true gests of heroism,and patriotism of our people (los criollos), to defend our self from brutal abuse of power from the most important country in the whole world, wich tryed to subdue us, but if bretain decided to give up, it wasent because we were better prepared tham they were, actually they felt humilliated, they couden't believe how could a couple of people with obsolet guns, produced so many deathes in the british side, i think they felt mercy for us, if they wanted, they could have destroyed all of us, and we all would be spaking english now.
Axel,
Mar 01st, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain protested repeatedly to the Argentine Government about their proclamations over the Falkland Islands. Those protests were ignored, Vernet also had acted unilaterally in seizing American ships leading to the Lexington raid and the very real fear of the British that the Americans were about to seize the Falklands.
Trying looking at things from the British perspective.
They gave Vernet permission to set up a settlement, he supplies regular reports, he requests a garrison, then the United Provinces proclaims him “Governor”, the British protests are ignored, Vernet claims his interest is purely commercial, then Vernet interferes with American shipping, further protests are ignored, then we have the Lexington raid, then Mestiviers appointment, more protests are ignored, then a garrison is sent and the islands shortly are in uproar when the garrison mutinies.
In their position what would you do?
J.A. ROBERT, i told you that i dont agree with you, but i respect your opinion, about te viceroalty, maybe i am wrong about my assertions, i am not the owner of the truth, and i can be wrong, what i really hold is that it's very stupid to say that all those countrys that joined the viceroalty would have rights on the islands too, because uruguay, bolivia, paraguay decided to became into independent nations, they separated part from the (provincias unidas de sudamerica), they should claim also all the rest of our provinces if i take what you say, if they had some right on the silands, they lost it, because in 177 of british ocupation, they didn't say a word about their soposed rights on the malvinas-falklands, in fact, they have allways soported our claim, notwithstanding bretain cleans it's ass with our protests as usuall.<br />
Mar 01st, 2010 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Powerfull nation have allways done whatever they want, and they will allways do it, just because they are powerfull, we are not jelaous of the u.k , like one of your idiot compatriots said, the only one thing we want from the u.k., is a solution to the malvinas-falklands conflict, we have so many prouved reserves of oil and gold in many parts of our submarine bassins ,we dont even need the islands to have more progress in argentina, but if they are ours, we must claim for them, and find fair solution for both sides, the same ignorance that many argentines have about the arguments of the islanders, is the same ignorance that many of your compatriots have when they talk about argentina, they think that they can find only corruption and unstable goverments, this is evident that the dont know a shit about my country, they dont have not even one line of obejetivity, they only felt ungry because they are ignored by our goverment, but if they want to make a comment about country they should be objetive, and my side should know more about your arguments, anyway it's not our fault, since we are children we are told that the malvinas are argentine, and we know so little about the history of the islands, regards.
JUSTIN, i dont know who has false arguments, if bretain was so sure about it's rights on the islands, why did it retire it's garrison from port egmont?, the british could claim all they want, but if they didn't exercise any sovereign right on the malvinas-falklands during all those years, they lost them, and you know it very well, if i were bretain, i would have never retired my garrison from the islands, bretain can't leave a territory and after many years, if the islands were allready ocupated, it has no right to despoil the garrison and pretend to own it, it is just an abuse of power from a powerfull nation, to a poor one, with much less capacity of fire, i am not a closed mind, i just dont know who to believe in, when i find an expert in international law, i will know who is not saying the truth, i am sure that i will find him or her this year, and if my country doesen't have more rights on the malvinas-falklands, i will recognize it.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The withdrawal of the garrison from Port Egmont was one of a series of meausre that resulted from the pressures of the unrest in the 13 colonies that resulted in the American War of Independence. And Axel, the British didn't withdraw from the islands, they continued to use them. Some very basic research in the Argentine national archives of Buenos Aires will confirm that, as an academic that should easily be within your reach.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0BTW Spain withdrew its garrison, if you're saying by withdrawing its garrison the British claim collapses, then so does the Spanish claim and from that any Argentine claim to have inherited it. Just to point out the contradiction there nothing more.
Now I asked a simply honest question for your personal opinion to consider something from another's perspective back in 1833. Your personal opinion nothing else.
JUSTIN, if the british continued using the malvinas-falklands, that was because the were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, that's why there were sporadic settlements of british and american sailors, but it didn't give any sovereign right to bretain, in fact, the sovereignty wasen't on discution in that treaty, if you say that one territory belongs to you, so, you must have presence (authoritys, your own flag, laws, etc), the settlements dont give any sovereign right, beside i have been locking for in the archivo general de la nacion, and i didn't find any evidence of an excersice of british sovereignty on the islands during 1774 untill 1833.<br />
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0About spain, saying that argentina inherated the islands from spain, is just a social construction, our mother land didn't cede us anything, we decided to declare independent, and spain took more tham 30 years to recognice our independence.<br />
On the other hand, dont you realise that this dispute with argentina is a limitation to get your own independence, as long as you keep on avoiding to discuss with argentina about the conflict, it wont never give you the chance of becoming into independent, the islands are the most prosperous place in the world, you should be independent now, so, be smart, and talk to my goverment once and for all to find a fair solution for both sides, obviously my side should include you in the negociation firstly, you know that in some aspects , i dont like the policy of both.<br />
When i can know all the truth about the history of the malvinas-falklands, i will recognize if my country doesen't have more rights on the islands, i want the truth, and nothing but the truth, i dont want to defend a territory if it really doesen't belong to us, i dont want to spend the rest of my life telling false arguments to my piupirls, ALL THIS IS MY PERSONAL AND HONEST OPINION, beside i want to discuss with you about others issues, i have 2 more comments for you in this page, they are number 10 and 19, regards.
.........“Your last point that FIG are british puppets. The regime in Buenos Aires is no better. It is the puppet of white settlers, consquistadors who decided to steal a continent from its indigenous inhabitants first in the Inca Empire in the 16th century and then in Patagonia in the 19th century. The 'Conquest of the Desert' by Roca was the dirtiest Dirty War of them all. Besides, Buesnos Aires recognised British sovereignty by the Convention of Settlement, ratified on 15 May 1850. http://www.falklandshistory.org/”.........
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0-First of all, I don't know wether or not Buenos Aires is better, but something is for sure, Buenos Aires would never deny citizenship to its citizens like london did with Kelpers.
-Second of all, UK recognized argentine independence in 1825 without mention a word about argentine sovereignty claim on Malvinas made in 1820. UK did not say a thing after Argentina appointed Luis Vernet as a governor.
P.S.: Don't suggest me your dirty link wich I've already read.
http://www.falklandshistory.org/”......... ENJOY!
...........”Jorge, you don't seem to get the difference between “talks without preconditions” and “talks about the transfer of sovereignty”. Argentina is only prepared to engage in the latter, the UK has always been prepared to engage in the former. And now please don't suggest the Falklander self determination is a British pre-condition. We all know their self determination is a right under international law and even the British government cannot ignore this right - it tried once before (leaseback) and failed.“...........
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 05:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, islander wishes is a precondition because we all know that they strongly feel british and everyone in the world who feels as part of a nation would never give their nationality up.
Self-determination is under international law as much as terretorial integrity and self-determination does not apply to islanders since they belong to the ocupying power.
...........”A formula has been suggested in these forums where the UK transfer sovereignty to Argentina and in the the same instrument or document Argentina immediately grants recognition and full independence to the Falkland Islands. Provided the Islanders agree, this could easily be the outcome of “talks without preconditions”. An imaginative solution which means Argentina “recovers” the Falklands, albeit briefly, and the Islander's right to self-determination is respected.”..............
-Are you out of your mind???
What would Argentina gain from doing that???
We want sovereignty, if we gained it and gave it up to the islanders would mean we are here in a stupid discussion. We were not claiming to gain sovereignty and give it up overnight. That's ridiculous.
You talked about formulas. Well, taking into acount that we are not the ones who are gonna solve this, I suggest UK sit down to negotiate the terms of the transfer with islander interests in mind, that would mean some kind of leaseback and when it finishes, Argentina grant autonomy to Malvinas, but always under argentine flag and without treating argentines as foreigners. Other would be the case of Puerto Rico.
...........“For this who don't know who Carlos Escudé is, he is an Argentine historian and academic who originally wrote much of what the Argentine Government puts forward as its sovereignty claim, he later grew to realise what a pile of crap it was and how successive generations had fooled themselves into believing it. At least he had the intellectual honesty to say as much and was promptly fired.”.........
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Talking about intelectual honesty Justin??????
Oh! I see, so, everyone who is against the argentine claim has intelectual honesty and the ones in favor are liar pigs.
That's your logic, that's your way of reasoning, very intresting.
With regard to Carlos Escudé, as I said before, he is just a racist who hates peruvian, paraguayan and bolivian inmigration.
He is also a well-know anti-muslam who supported and praised George W. Bush regarding his invations of Irak and Afghanistan. [EN BOCA DE UN MENTIROSO, HASTA LO CIERTO SE HACE DUDOSO].
Not a surprise you admire him since you are a fascist from the killer catholic church!
You're not doing well to your anti-argentine cause every time you praise Carlos Escudé, my little and arrogant friend Justin.
I realize now why you praise Guido Di Tella all the time.
Carlos Escudé was his adviser. Justin praise Carlos Escudé, Carlos escudé always praised Guido Di Tella and this one was a well-know traitor also praised by Justin.
This is a kind of circle, the circle of facism and betrayal.
P.S.: This comment is posted in several articles for everyone to know what kind of person Carlos Escudé is. A person praised by Justin.
Axel,
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who met Jewett in the Falklands in 1820?
Suggest you read up on the Isabella incident.
Have a perusal of Google books and you'll find a number of accounts of voyages to the Falklands in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.
Look in your own National Archive, there is plenty of evidence there.
Then come back and tell me there is no evidence the British were there from 1774 till 1833.
Jorge
I merely commented that Carlos Escude was pilloried from his job for expressing doubts about the Argentine sovereignty claim. Judging by your hysterical condemnation of Guido di Tella and Carlos Escude, two men who said Argentina could achieve more with dialogue and co-operation than conflict and confronatation, clearly you have proven my case far better than I ever could.
The analogies with the Argentine habit of cutting of noses to spite faces is compelling.
And a further plea to the moderator, could you please remove the personal attacks and multiple spamming across several articles.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, If I understand you correctly you are saying it is stupid for all of the countries which previously formed part of the viceroyalty to all have rights in the Islands? Well, exactly, but by the same logic it is just as stupid to say that any individual country (i.e. Argentina) could have rights. Even if the islands were “inherited”, which is impossible because the countries were not granted independence, then the identity of the heir would always be in question.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0You often mention that the Britain took the Islands in 1833 because it was powerful and Argentina was weak, yet there were times when Argentina did exactly the same thing. Forcing Chile out of Patagonia when Chile was weakened by the Pacific War against Bolivia and Peru for example. This argument does not strengthen Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands today. Whatever happened 150 years ago is history. Today it is the Falkland Islanders' self determination which is paramount and that is all.
No, you fascist from the catholic church. Dialogue brought nothing to argentina during 70's or 90's.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0You ask for me to be removed, ahhh that's the democracy you always talked about. Hypocrite!
..........“Forcing Chile out of Patagonia when Chile was weakened by the Pacific War against Bolivia and Peru for example.”.......
chile had no possesions on patagonia at the time. Julio A. Roca killed mapuches, not chileans and Chile agreed with argentine actions on patagonia as long as not getting involved in Pacific War.
I think Punta Arenas and Fuerto Bulnes might have been Chileno possessions in Patagonia Jorge?
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point I was making still stands. Argentina took advantage of her relative strength to keep Chile out of Patagonia.
No Jorge, I asked for the multiple spamming of the same message to be deleted, I tend to presume the moderator has the sense to leave the comment I replied to.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one Mr Roberts.
JUSTIN, i repeat once and again, that i know perfectly that bretain continued using the islands, there were sporadic settlements of british and amercican sailors since 1774 untill 1833, soported by the san lorenzo treaty, they had plain right to keep on using the islands, but this treaty didn't give any sovereign right to the british, if they retired it's garrison from port egmont, it means thay didn't have any british sovereign authority, there was only an spanish garrison , if there are not british sovereign authoritys in that territory, it doesen't belong to the u.k., you can't leave a territory for plenty of years, and one day you come back, and pretend that it's still yours, you dont have to be so smart to realise of that.<br />
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About vernet., if he asked bretain to set up a settlement, that was because surelly it was convenient for hes economic interests that the islands are under british goverment, in fact i rode in the pepper pascoe document that bretain paid him so much for hes economic losts, as you can see he was just a traitor speculator, but hes economic ambitions dont give any sovereign right to bretain, if the islands were so british, they never should have retired it's garrison from port egmont.<br />
I repeat two that i have allready rode about the conflict from the british perspective, and i tell you again that i dont know who to believe in, this is evident that one of the two parts is lieing.<br />
<br />
J.A. ROBERT, maybe what you say about the viceroalty is true, but those nations never claimed for the islands in 177 years of british ocupation, in fact they have allways soported our claim, so, if they had any soposed right on the islands, they lost it planty of years ago.
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, i have to verifficate if what you say about that argentina forced chile out of the patagonia, because for being honest, i dont remember, anyway if this is true, they never claimed neather, so, they lost their right, and it does not strengthen neather the british posture on the islands.
About the right to self determination, it's very hipocrite to say that bretain is prepared to discuss the sovereignty with argentina, if it recognize the right to self determination of the population, because the islanders will allways prefer to cut their balls before having an argentine passport in their hands, the feel british, so, we will allway loss all our rights in that way, this is evident that most you wont never recognize that we must find a fair solution for both sides, both will have to cede in our pretentions, you dont realise that avoiding to discuss the dispute with argentina, wont never give you the chance of becoming into independent, with people who think like most you, the conflict will never finish, and i repeat too thta mi goverment must change in some aspects it's policy for the malvinas-falklands cause.
Right, just so I understand this.
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British are there and have been for a number of years but because there isn't a “garrison” it doesn't count. But a commercial settlement formed by an Argentine businessman with British permission does?
And because the British withdrew their garrison they lose their rights, when the Spanish withdrew the garrison in 1807 did they lose their rights as well, and so Argentina can't inherit any Spanish rights. Or is that somehow different.
If the islands were Spanish, then they shouldn't have withdrawn their garrison as they lost their sovereign rights and by implication the Argentine rights you claim derived from the Spanish.
So many contradictions. Are you aware of the Orwellian concept of Doublethink ?
And Axel, Argentina has shown no sign of preparing to relax its demands, whereas the UK did try and find ways to accommodate Argentina. To be blunt, Argentina defeats itself with its insistence on talks only on its terms.
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, just because the other former parts of the Viceroyalty don't claim the Falklands does not make Argentina's claim any more valid.
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll think you'll find once you have done some research that Argentina did force Chile to give up her claims to Patagonia during the War of the Pacific. It's a bit cheap to plead weakness as a reason for not securing the Falklands for yourselves when in that era Argentina was just as capable of bullying someone else out of their territory. <br />
<br />
I think you misunderstand. The UK cannot talk about sovereignty without permission of the Islanders. The UK has always been prepared to talk about resolving the dispute Argentina has and has engaged in talks before, even to the point of trying to ignore the Islanders rights to self determination (the leaseback proposal). Nothing hypocritical there, in fact in the past the UK has bent over backwards to please Argentina. But 1982 changed everything. The UK will never get away with ignoring the Islanders' self determination again. The UK is obliged to respect that self determination under international law anyway - and so is Argentina.
JUSTIN, you are understanding just what you want, anyway if it makes you happy, keep on thinking that i have a doblethink or any other idiot concept, it's just your problem.<br />
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was perfectly clear of what i think about vernet's settlement, dont make me repeat it, or reed one more time my comment.<br />
Beside spain retired it's garrison in 1811, after the may revolution started, not in 1807, we declared independent from spain in 1816, 9 years later, may be that's not enough time to loss it's right on the islands, the u.k. retired it's garrison in 1774 , 59 years before 1833, maybe that's enough time to loss it's rights.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if is it true finally that bretain didnt lost it's rights on the islands, what bretain should have done, was to share the sovereignty with the provincias unidas, because during many years there was also an spanish garrison , and the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, when we got the independence (by our own), remember that spain didn't cede us anthing, we had plain right to exercise our sovereignty on the malvinas, those islands were just one more part of the provincias unidas territory like any other.<br />
However onslow had orders to remove the argentine garrison, despoiling the rights of the provincias unidas, we had much less capacity of fire to make front to them, and finally the dispute for the mavinas-falklands territory started, if is not an abuse of power, i dont know how to call it.<br />
Anyway , i know perfectly that the islands wont never be argentine again, celebrate all you want, i only have one hope, when the convemar expeds it's self about the amplification of the miles of our cost, i think that both parts will have to sit and arrive to an agreement about the resorcies of that area, it does not mean that sovereignty is going to be on discution, i think it wont, but unless we will have to discuss about the resorcies.
J.A. ROBERT, i confirm one more time that some of your assertions are really hipocrite, what is cheap from you, is to aplead that argentina wasen'r week to make front to the u.k. in 1833, if argentina would have been powerfull, we would have avoid the remotion of our garrison from the islands, and the history of this conflict, would have been different, dont you think?.<br />
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beside, maybe it's true that argentina forced chile to give up it's claim on the patagonia, i will find out about it, but i repeat that they could have claim too, however they didn't do it, so, they lost their rights, on the other hand it does not make neather stronger the british rights on the islands, nor makes weaker our rights on the mavinas-falklands.<br />
If bretain was really prepared many times to resolve the dispute with argentina, they would have made an agreement with my country about it, however it didn't happen, i know that the islanders were manipulated to accept the argentine sovereignty, but they rejected it, i dont know what kind of solution the u.k. wanted to find, if it asked the islanders about the transference of sovereignty to my country, it was absolutly obvious that they were not going to accep it, so, it's very hipocryte to say that the u.k. was prepared to find a solution to the dispute, bretain was totally sure about the result of that soposed solution.<br />
Beside, i want you to answer me something, i saw an interview made in the islands in 2007, called, malvinas so far so close, there was an islander called john fawler, he said that nicholas readly gave three options to the islanders , to find a solution the sonflict, but he didn't explain everything, can you explain me about those three options please, you can find that interview in you tube.
Axel, “some of my assertions” are hypocritical? Which ones?<br />
Mar 04th, 2010 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
You make the point that the history of the conflict would be different if Argentina had been powerful in 1833. You imply that Argentina did not have a chance because it was weak. That is true, and that's how things worked in that era, but it also worked FOR Argentina and a good example of Argentina forcing Chile to drop it's claims to Patagonia during the War of the Pacific. Just because Chile no longer claims those bits of Patagonia, does not make your claim to the Falklands any more valid.<br />
<br />
What kind of solution? Well one has been suggested in these forums: A formula where the UK transfers sovereignty to Argentina and in the same act Argentina grants full independence to the Falklands. It could be a workable solution. Argentina “recovers” the Islands and the Falklanders have their self determination respected. The only problem is the UK government cannot negotiate something like that if Argentina is only prepared to negotiate the transfer of sovereignty and nothing else.<br />
<br />
I can't find the youtube video you mention. Perhaps you can provide a link?<br />
J.A. ROBERT, you are what we call in argentina, un vivo barbaro (very smart), you legitimate the despoiling of our rights on the islands, because we were weak, and the u.k. powerfull, dont you think we must claim for what we consider as part of our territory after that gest of total piracy?.<br />
Mar 04th, 2010 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About what argentina made to chile, i told you what i think about it, dont make repeat it, or reed again my comment.<br />
This is evident that you dont have not even one line of objetivity, like most your compatriots, and like some people from side too.<br />
Most you wont never understand that the solution to the conflict must benefits both sides, the solution that you suggest, is a real joke, we can't recover what we consider as our islands for only 5 minutes, because in the same act, you suggest that we have to grant full independence to the islanders, that measure only benefits your side, and we are going to reamain with our empty hands as usuall.<br />
I think that the best solution would be to share the sovereignty with the u.k., in that way it would be respected the wish of the islanders of being british, and we can excercise too our sovereign rights, or unless we should make an agreement with f.i.g. to explote part of the resorcies of the islands.<br />
About the video, you must writte, malvinas so far so close, or malvinas tan lejos tan cerca, in youtube, and please dont forget to explain me about those three options that readly gave to the islanders to find a solution to the conflict, do you still speek spanish?, because most that interview is spoken in spanish.
Axel, you still have not told me which of my assertions is hypocritical.<br />
Mar 04th, 2010 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0<br />
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is the “Argentina was weak” argument is no basis for legitimising your current claim. Those were the standards of that era. They are not the standards of today. We do things differently and in the UN age self determination comes above anything else. I say “current claim” because don't forget, Argentina made no official mention of the claim from 1850 until 1941, so when you talk about the Argentine claim, it is a modern revival. Argentina has not continuously claimed the Falklands since 1833. <br />
<br />
What do you think Argentina would you do if Chile revived their claim to Patagonia, on the basis that the loss was not fair because Argentina forced them out 150 years ago, when they were weak? I know what Argentina's answer will be...<br />
<br />
You say the suggested solution is a joke. If you think that then you obviously don't believe international law, international treaties and self determination are very important. This is a problem, because there is no way of getting around the Islanders' right to self determination. That is something Argentina will eventually have to accept. The Islanders are entitled to their total independence if they want it. Are you going to deny them that? At least with the solution I write about it gets the UK out of the Falklands, but I guess you are too short-sighted to get that.<br />
<br />
How do two countries share sovereignty by the way? Who is responsible for what? And how could you exercise your sovereign rights if you only had half of the sovereignty? I think in practical and logical terms your solution looks more like a joke than mine.<br />
<br />
Why can't you just copy a link to the video in here?
Axel,
Mar 04th, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've found it eventually, perhaps next time you could include a link? From minute 6:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winDy_Yje-M
The three options he is speaking about were: Sovereignty freeze, condominium and leaseback.
More information here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winDy_Yje-Mo/history/history6.html
J.A. ROBERT, i say that some of your assertions are hipocritical ,because you hold that it's cheap to appeal to weakness by argentina, you know perfectly that it was true, if you dont want to recognize it, it's your problem, that's why i say that this assertion is hipocritical, if argentina was powerfull, it would have avoid the the remotion of our garrison, and the history of this conflict would have been diferent.<br />
Mar 05th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, i couldnot survey yet, if argentina didn't claim during 91 years, if is it true, then i will recognize that my country lost it's right on the islands, i am not idiot neather nor injudicious, that's why i need the soonest posible to find an expert in international law, i told it to many times, and i will know finally if argentina's claim is still legitimate, i am not even a lowyer, i'm a profesor of geography, i believe in international law, that's why i need an expert in that area, those people knows much more tham you and i.<br />
Beside jason, i think you have a problem, some times you understand just what you want, i told you more than once that i will recognize if my country lost it's rights on the islands, so , dont prejudgme about what i would say, if chile reavives it's soposed claims on the patagonia, they never claim, so, they lost their rights, y punto.<br />
About a posible solution, maybe sharing the sovereignty is not the best way, i heart that people suggested it many times, even different argentine ministers from our embassy of foreign affears, if this proposal doesent satisfied your ambitions, you have right to reject it, what i will allway hold is that the solution to the conflict must benefits both sides, not only you, or only us, it should be beneficial for both.<br />
About the video, it's simple, go to: www.youtube.com, and writte in the small space, malvinas so far so close, or malvinas tan lejos tan cerca, i think there are 8 parts for that documental, on the other hand, answer me some thing please, do you live in the islands, or in the u.k. are you a falkland islander, or you have allways been just british?.
Axel,
Mar 05th, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you know what “hypocrisy” means? It means you say something you don't believe in. I'm not sure how that could apply to my assertion that weakness at some point in your history does not justify your current claim. I am simply stating the obvious, but you don't seem to get it.
I gave an example of where the tables had been turned just to show how flawed your argument is: The conquest of Patagonia. You forced Chile to drop her claim when you were strong, and you subdued the native people by force, when you were strong. Patagonia became part of Argentina. In the same way, Britain was stronger than Argentina in the Falklands. The Falklands became British. Just like Chile lost its rights in Patagonia, you lost yours in the Falklands y punto!
One possible solution is to “park” the sovereignty issue and work together in the region. That was starting to happen but then fell apart when the Kirchners came to power. That way you and the Falkland Islanders get to know each other better and maybe you could convince them to join Argentina. Why could that not be a medium term solution?
I'm surprised you missed my comment above #77, re video and the three options you wanted to know about.
J.A. ROBERT, this is the last time i repeat one of my assertions, you said that it was cheap that argentina appeals to weakness about what happened in 1833, even you recognized that argentina was weaker tham bretain, that's why it lost the malvinas, so, when we said that it was an abuse of power by bretain, it's true, it's not cheap that my country appeals to weakness, like it or not.<br />
Mar 06th, 2010 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0About what happened to chile, maybe it's true what you say, and my country forced chile to leave the patagonia, they could have claim for their territorys, and they didn't do it, so they lost them y punto.<br />
About the rights of argentina, i told you many times, that i will recognize if my country lost it's rights on the islands, but firstly i must survey, what i want it's the truth, i am not going to spend my life as a profesor, telling false arguments to my piupirls, if our claim is not legitimate any more, i will recognize it to you, y punto.<br />
About a posible solution, what you propose could be usefull, anyway i dont think the islanders chosoe if argentina, not even if argentina becomes into the first power, it was the 5th reachest nation in the world 100 years ago, and however they didn't want to join our country, the islands wont never be argentine again, i only have one hope, when the convemar expeds it's self about the amplification of the miles of our cost, i think both sides will have to sit and arrive to an agreement about the resorcies of the islands, because both have pretentions, that's why i think that both will have to dialogue once and for all.<br />
About the video, i allready got into that page you suggested me, and rode the three options of readly.<br />
You still didn't answer me if you are a falkland islander, or if you were born in the u.k., i am 100% argentine, and live in buenos aires, but in side of the province.
OK Axel, I don't think “weakness” can be used as an argument for a territorial claim, especially when Argentina has used strength in the past to gain territory, which would classify as an “abuse” according to you. The “weakness” argument is simply inconsistent and why you can't see that I don't understand. Let's just agree to disagree.
Mar 06th, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you get on and survey then. Many times myself and others have pointed out exactly where Argentina's claim goes dead, yet you keep repeating that you “need to find an expert or professor in international law” and that you need to survey or whatever. Get on with it!
When Argentina was the 5th richest nation on earth it was not claiming the Falklands. The claim was reactivated officially in 1941 when Argentina was heading downhill. The Islands won't be Argentine because the Falkland Islanders don't want to be Argentine. It's as simple as that. With your history since the 1940s it's not exactly surprising.
Both sides have already sat down and arrived at agreements over resources, the fisheries and hydrocarbons agreements. Argentina tore them up!
I'm not sure why it is relevant where I come from but for what it's worth I was born in Zimbabwe, I lived for 5 years in Argentina when I was young and now I live in Spain.
JA. ROBERT, if i could not start my survey yet, is because i have no time now, but i will do it this year, i know how to handle my agenda.
Mar 06th, 2010 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the soposed downhill of argentina in 1941, this is evident that you so ignorant, i wish that argentina in some aspects, i would like to debate deeply about it.
Those agreements that you deffend, are just a joke, the british said firstly that they would explore 450 miles with argentina, and saddenly they decided they would explore with my country only 21 miles, so, they allways do whatever they want, anyway in some aspects i dont agree with the policys of both sides.
About where you come from, of course it's absolutly irrelevant, i just want to know a little about the people who i use to talk with, dont worry, i wont ask you anything else, i will debate again since on monday.
Ax,
Mar 06th, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you get some time perhaps you can go to the Archivo General de la Nación. You might find some interesting information there.
OK, so if I'm evidently so ignorant, perhaps you could let me know when Argentina started sinking from the 5th largest economy in the world. When did that start happening?
I don't think the Fisheries and Hydrocarbons agreements were a joke? Why exactly do you say that? It's not really clear what point you are trying to make. The irony is that the current drilling by Desire was all confirmed with Argentina years ago under the agreement. Why do Argentina protest now? Why did they no protest then. Why did they not protest when the rig left Scotland to make its way to the South Atlantic? Perhaps you have the answers?
Que tengas un buen finde!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!