MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine Coast Guard to Monitor Vessels Travelling to and from Falklands
Argentina made official this week the planned monitoring of vessels sailing between the mainland and the disputed Falkland Islands, the Coast Guard agency PNA said. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh dear!!! The plastic princess is losing the plot, again.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1Pitiful, laughable and pointless.…but it’s entertaining to see Christine throwing her toys from her pram.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1Are ships obliged to give their destination under international law? If they sail “for Cape Town” and then suddenly do a right turn and head for Stanley then surely there's nothing the Princesa de Plastica can do other than stamp her Jimmy Choos?
Apr 28th, 2010 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1(#1) +(#2)+(#3) please gentleboys !
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse -1Cristina is the President of Independent Republic of Argentina !!
please be “ sabio” not “ ignorante” !
yu think all countries has Kingdom in the World !!
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1of course this is not true !!
This is of course illegal under International Law which confers the right of free transit. ICJ here we come, another case for Argentina to lose.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse +1You are quite wrong Justin .. Argentina can do as it pleases withing its territorial waters .... all 12 nautical miles of it !
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1Anything else will get the Royal Navy involved :-)
Merchandise they say, could be slightly problematic if its just tourists! Which I imagine is the only form of cargo that comes between the islands and Argentina.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0But what is the sinker in this unworkable decree is that South Georgia and other territories don't actually have ports, wonder how that one is going to work?
But no bother ships will just go to Montevideo like they always did I highly doubt Argentina has the capacity to monitor every ship passing through it's waters, especially when under international law, a ship's captain is not obliged to tell any authority his destination, and no state has the right to applies laws to ships holding innocent passage through territorial waters, unless related to environmental and maritime safety oops!
All thunder no lightning Argentina!
GDR, please give it to us in welsh, it is hard to understand your ramblings otherwise, tis Christina that is ignorante ;-)
Apr 28th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1You still have the right of free passsage in territorial waters, what is proposed is illegal under UNCLOS.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
Apr 28th, 2010 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage
See Article 11, Article 22 for example. You cannot make or define laws that discriminate on racial or national grounds under the UN Charter, neither can an embargo be enforced without a UN resolution to legitimise it.
Argentina could find itself with a hefty compensation claim.
“See Article 11, Article 22 for example. You cannot make or define laws that discriminate on racial or national grounds under the UN Charter, neither can an embargo be enforced without a UN resolution to legitimise it.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina could find itself with a hefty compensation claim.”
They'll just default on it though so no problem for them there.
ok ! Malvinas Fredo ( #9) !
Apr 28th, 2010 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1i see that yu want to speak Welsh instead of English
as foreign language eagerly !
Christina , ond yn hytrach Cristina !!
Now I might be a little slow on the uptake, but if the ship isn't within 24 nautical miles of the coast of Argentina, and isn't actually fishing or drilling itself within 200 and 350 nautical miles respectively then the captains of the ships that are being monitored have the right of innocent passage i.e. they can sail through unmolested?
Apr 28th, 2010 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or is the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea another minor technicality?
Erioed dendio.
J.A !! why did you find more pretty name instead of “ Rufus”
Apr 28th, 2010 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1to make same kinds of comments !
OMG grd, are you suggesting Archibald has a troll to make comments? lol
Apr 28th, 2010 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stick to the numbers GDR.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is good to know that the Argentine coast guard are monitoring ships. They will actually be earning good money for making sure that all ships are safe and can intervene if anyone finds themselves in difficulty.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Even better to know that they can do little to stop shipping visiting the Falkland Islands.
Last time they attempted this, the majority of tour/cruise ships simply cut Argentina out of their schedule. Argentina soon changed their minds!
Oddly enough, JA didn't create the username Rufus, I did. And I chose it for the simple expedient that it's my name.
Apr 28th, 2010 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Instead of accusing someone of being a sockpuppet GDR, you might actually want to examine UNCLOS, or would that be a case of letting the facts get in the way of your arguement?
What Argument rufus? GDR seems to have a stroke most the time how else can you explain his ramblings.
Apr 29th, 2010 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for Jorge, well he is just a parrot squawks and squawks occasionally nips and imitates the well rehearsed lines in his Malvinas handbook, given to all kids when they pass their proficiency at not thinking for themselves level 1 exams.
It's amazing I never thought I would see the day when a entire country has become so embedded with a singular lie, that any democratic or academic questioning of this lie is so readily dismissed as nonsense, Jorge the case book example of the Great Malvinas myth in Argentina!
I bet you Jorge as a school kid was the one eagerly sticking his hand up at the front of the class during the Malvinas lessons, eagerly lapping up the pure nonsense like a puppy and a bowl of milk!
#19 i ne'er said , J.A did create the username Rufus....
Apr 29th, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse -1i mentioned that J.A may have heard this name from anywhere ..!
No, I did not create the usr Rufus. Please stick to the numbers GDR.
Apr 29th, 2010 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0excuse me J.A. !!
Apr 29th, 2010 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point is, within 12 miles of their coast (territorial waters) PNA are perfectly within their rights to board and inspect vessels in accordance with Argentine law. Between 12 and 24 miles (contiguous zone) they are entitled to enforce Argentine laws relating to pollution, immigration, taxation and customs only. Beyond 24 miles, if a vessel is not actively fishing or drilling then it has the right of innocent passage. As ratified in the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea by Argentina in December 1995
Apr 29th, 2010 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not that I actually have a problem with PNA actually doing their jobs of monitoring shipping leaving or travelling through Argentine waters, but once it's out of their waters then the ships destination is precisely none of their business.
18 Beef is trying to be funny. You are not funny man!
Apr 29th, 2010 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 020 Rhaurie-Craughwell didn't understand what the hell you meant.
Are you smoking again???? Did you remember I advise you to come here to Patagonia since we have a farm to fix people like you??? LOL
Anyway Rhaurie (Bob Marley), I'm not a chid, I'm an adult.
Malvinas oedd,yn a bydd yn Ariannin !
Apr 29th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1byddwn yn troi !
“Argentine coast guard to monitor vessels travelling to and from Falkland Isl.” Wonderfull ! Just lets hope British Navy not are in the neighbourhood. However Argentinians know where to anchor if ...(remember 1982).
Apr 29th, 2010 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The civilised international world have agreed to common rules for traffic at sea and follow them. It seems that international rules now become overruled. Civilisation or ....??
Jorge, there is no way I can be funny on here when compared to the laughing stock that is you and GDR.
Apr 29th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You take the biscuit in the funny stakes; funny in the head that is.
Yawn....how boring senorita Rios
Apr 30th, 2010 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only smoking out your mum and your girlfriend Jorge, but anyway thats a story I will tell your half brother in 15 years time.
I don't think I could have made it much clearer Jorge Rios, Now do answer the question dear fellow, you know exactly what I meant, so in plain english stop being a cunt and adress my challenge instead going down this pathetic Bob Marley trash talk, one would think you were in fact a child with such mannerism, rather than an adult:
As for Jorge, well he is just a parrot squawks and squawks occasionally nips and imitates the well rehearsed lines in his Malvinas handbook, given to all kids when they pass their proficiency at not thinking for themselves level 1 exams.
It's amazing I never thought I would see the day when a entire country has become so embedded with a singular lie, that any democratic or academic questioning of this lie is so readily dismissed as nonsense, Jorge the case book example of the Great Malvinas myth in Argentina!
I bet you Jorge as a school kid was the one eagerly sticking his hand up at the front of the class during the Malvinas lessons, eagerly lapping up the pure nonsense like a puppy and a bowl of milk!
I don't expect much because that is what is expected of Mr Rios, a nasty piece of work who would see human rights abused just to satisfy his nationalistic and facist cravings like soi many of his brainwashed country men.
Perhaps Jorge you should come over to the priory in London they will soon break down the mental barriers consrtructed by the big lie which prevent you seeing clearly over this issue.
Jorgey wanna a cracker then?
#29. You are stonned. I don't know what you mean. :-)
Apr 30th, 2010 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Try to calm down Bob. Relax!!!!!!! Do not get angry, it's bad for your help. :-)
#29 plentyn yn poeni alban !!
Apr 30th, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Jihad Jorge shouldn't go around accusing others of being on drugs - not when a news report on Mercopress says “Argentina also suffers most from drug-related crimes, despite its efforts to improve the city police. It is still a high risk country with city crimes as the country's second cause of danger.”
Apr 30th, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/30/uruguay-chile-and-costa-rica-rated-as-safest-countries-in-latinamerica
NicoDin can be found posting there performing the usual Argentine game of 'its all untrue Argentina is much better...
Christine, I'm not on drugs, in Argentina there are many people on drugs just like in Britain ans many other countries. Your point is.....???
May 01st, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Jihad Jorge ejaculated “Christine, I'm not on drugs, in Argentina there are many people on drugs just like in Britain ans many other countries. Your point is.....???”
May 01st, 2010 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I made it...damn but you are a slow lad;-)
Sssh Chris, Jorge is one of us remember he's a British agent Provocature! It makes sense really, would any Argentine be as thick as himself!
May 02nd, 2010 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0jorge shut your noise your boring, same as gdr. your broken records, keep repeating yourselfs. what you should do is both of you go find a nice quite cave and suck eachothers cocks you silly curly haird argentine cunts, your both in a dream world, out of touch with reality, basicly so far up eachothers arses that you dont remember what clean air smells like, i knew you were like that jorge, i bet your family abandoned you out of embaressment of knowing their related to a little backward freak that you are, poor jorge, not even given a chance in life, oh wellll looooooooooooool
May 02nd, 2010 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Rhaurie-Craughwell wrote “Sssh Chris, Jorge is one of us remember he's a British agent Provocature! It makes sense really, would any Argentine be as thick as himself!”
May 02nd, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL... or perhaps some Argentine village is missing its idiot?
Don't upset jorge! He'll stamp his little paddys.
May 02nd, 2010 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Let us approach this sensibly. Argentina can do what it likes, within the terms of international law, inside its approved territorial limits. It cannot, unilaterally, extend its territorial limits into international waters. Now, back in February, it was reported that the Royal Navy (HMS York) intercepted an Argentine vessel (ARA Drummond) inside the EEZ. The encounter apparently took place in January and, according to British sources, radio communications were friendly. Here's an example:
HMS York: ARA Drummond, according to our navigation you are where youy shouldn't be.
ARA Drummond: Sorry, we're leaving.
This is, of course, more open and honest than a sneak attack on undefended territory when you think the protecting nation won't act.
Beware of US warships. They are known to shoot first and apologise later, if at all.
We should have a prize for guesses on whose Navy will sink the first Argentine. And a prize for the crew that does it.
My best guess, jorge!, is the Royal Navy. Because we DON'T LIKE YOU!
Your constant crazed diatribes will have one result. An earnest wish on the part of all British citizens, wherever they may live, to wipe your imperialistic, power-hungry, maniacal and, above all, STUPID, nation off the face of the earth.
Don't bother to respond jorge!. You don't have my prime requisite. In other words, you haven't yet made it to half-wit.
But I'll tell you what. If you think you're right, when the situation allows, I'll meet you on the beach at Stanley. Broad daylight. I'll try to make it a quick one in the head, but if you manage to crawl ashore, I'll be glad to give you seven inches of steel. Can't promise it'll be from the Falklands though. I also cherish a bit of non-regulation kit. It's called a kukri. Originates with the Gurkhas. Wanna meet my kukri, jorge!
Ah, the nice smiling Gurkhas, the ones I knew (I grew up in a town with a large army barracks) were always smiling and cheerful. I could almost imagine the same serene smile as they slit your throat.
May 02nd, 2010 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently the joke in Stanly used to go something like:
“How can you tell if the Gurkhas have been by in the night?”
'When you wake up shake your head, if it falls off then they have.'
#38 LOL.
May 02nd, 2010 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I'm here, you come and meet me, then you are gonna return to your sh*tty country wrapped in your sh*tty flag.
lool and your flag is great is it? hahahahahahaha light blue stripes with a little smily face is it? ha! hahahahaa! il meet you jorge, il meat you and who ever you can find to back you up, seen as i would nock you out in one hedbutt, your nothing jorge, a nobody, you cant fight jorge, you curly hair'd caveman, you are some mutated ugly creature that was abandoned at birth, hey jorge, how do you get electricity in your shity cave? i bet you wear homemade sandals and have a big nose with a big dirty argentine afro, do you even wipe your arse over there in your dirty little shithole country? does toilet paper even exist over there? i bet it does, you just cant afford it, because your a nobody, a transexual cave man who doesnt even fit into your own society, hahahahhaha what a looser, i bet your own country would throw you out just for looking how you do, shame!!! your weak jorge, a laughing stock, a joke!!!! heres a funny but true fact, almost a joke in itself,
May 02nd, 2010 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +122 Royal Marines held back hundreds of Argentine troops for weeks..... That's hilarious, but true.
For the transport of big machinery and materials related to the extraction of oil (if any is found) more often than not it would be convenient to make a stop in an Argentine port... now that's not gonna be an option. So Montevideo is the only choice, and knowing this fact they are they will charge you accordingly. Which add some more points to consider if extraction is going to be feasible or not... that's not even addressing the fact that there will be no continental support to the operation at all. Even some kelpers don't want facilities in the islands to receive the crude from the oil rigs... and they hate the notion of having more people in the islands... the oil workers.
May 03rd, 2010 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please stop the war mongering will you! We are not a threat to any island now, maybe just economically because that is inevitable.... we don't like each other and everyone knows that. No reason to be disrespectful.
Yup, MAP it might be convenient to stop in an Argentine port, but it might also not necessary and considering all the hassle it would cause if it's not necessary then it might be even more convenient to miss Argentina (or Uruguay) out altogether.
May 03rd, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0agent 006.5 wrote:“We should have a prize for guesses on whose Navy will sink the first Argentine. And a prize for the crew that does it.
May 03rd, 2010 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1My best guess, jorge!, is the Royal Navy. Because we DON'T LIKE YOU!
Your constant crazed diatribes will have one result. An earnest wish on the part of all British citizens, wherever they may live, to wipe your imperialistic, power-hungry, maniacal and, above all, STUPID, nation off the face of the earth.”
AHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHA, good joke.
If there is an Imperialist maniac people are the english!!
some nuts, who live in a tiny island in the North Attlantic, that think, they should own the world!!
How ridiculous!!
If there is one country, they are going to finish will be you.(uk)
Do not think for one minute, they are not going to give it back to you.
keep dreaming poor imperialist!!!
J. A. ROBERT. JUSTIN. HOITRED.
May 03rd, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is what i found in my survey, anyway ther si a lot to investigate yet, the name of the book where i found the information in our chancery is, (segunda cronologia anotada sobre malvinas falklands), by ferrer vieyra.
Protests by argentina since 1884 untill 1939:
1884: the argentine gov. wanted to renew it's claim on the islands, the british gov. denys to discuss with argentina about the dispute, and in 1885, argentina declared that the cause between both countrys was still pendent, it made it through a memorandum.
1885: the memorandum wasen't answered by the u.k.
1888: the argentina gov. renewed it's protest against the british ocupation, and it said that it will allways consider the islands as an integral part of our territory.
1908:the minister of foreign affairs, protested against the inclution of the islands as a british possession at the convention of the anual postal union in rome.
1910: in an argentina map of the centenary, the ilands were included as argentine, there was no protest by the u.k.
1922: the argentine gov. ordered it's consuls to deny to vise british passports of people from the islands.
1928: the argentine gov. authorized the postal and telephonic interchange with the islands, but it made a reserve of it's sovereign rights.
1932: there was a protest by argentina, for a circulation of signets of the islands, where they were included as british by the u.k.
1934: there were three cases where argentina denyed to accept british passports from the islands, it was necesary to make a diplomatic presentation before the argentine embasy in london.
1935: the subsecretary of state from argentina for the foreign affairs informed that the argentine gov. was going to concede argentine visas to the citizens from the islands, and declared that our claim wasen't prejudiced.
I continue.
I continue, there is a lot more to send you, but i have no more time, with the passage of the week i will send you most the information that i could get, my true purpose is to refute the british perspective.
May 03rd, 2010 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, i want to tell you that the adquisitive prescription that you say, is not valid for the public international right, beside the u.k. never invoked any adquisitive prescription before the diferent negocations with my country about the sovereign dispute, i have the copy of a memorandum of one of the negociations, i will tell you about too.
I think that both countrys made big mistakes about the dispute, as you can see our clame wasen't continuous, beside the war was an impardonable mistake and absolutly destructive, but it was made by a dictartorship, not by a democratic government, you should take into account too.
On the other hand britain had no right to remove our small garrison, we were excercising our sovereign rights, and during many years it refused to discuss about to find a solution to the conflict, i know perfectly that the islanders are not guilty for what happened in 1833, they are living there since 8 or even 10 generations, they have right to chose to remain as british citizens, but they have to understand that we have right to excercise again our rights too, accepted it or not, we must a find a fair solution that satisfys the wishes and the interests of the islanders and the argentines.
axel arg wrote “britain had no right to remove our small garrison, we were excercising our sovereign rights,”
May 03rd, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Britain had every right as it was Britain and not Argentina who held legal title to the Falkland Islands. It conducted a police action to remove an unlawful attempt at occupation. You make the mistake of thinking that Argentina held title to the islands. Argentina has never shown anything that backs up their spurious claim and show no sign of ever letting a court put it to the test. Not that that matters now as the UN enshrined rights to self determination takes precedent.
Axel - I think you are missing the point. Argentina's objections after 1833 are irrelevant. The point is that the British claim predates that of Argentina and Britain has never abandoned that claim. Any dispute is/was between Britain and Spain. Argentina was never a factor other than attempting to take the islands by force. That was tried on 2 occassions (1832/1982) and rightly dealt with by the British authorities.
May 04th, 2010 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina did not 'inherit' any claim and Spain has long abandoned its claim so there is nothing to negotiate over!
Axel said: “On the other hand britain had no right to remove our small garrison, we were excercising our sovereign rights”
May 04th, 2010 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0On what basis did you have ”sovereign rights Axel? You're not going to try and tell us again that Buenos Aires (because, let's not forget, Argentina did not exist in 1833) somehow “inherited” the Falklands from Spain?
Estevaz, Argentina, desires Antartica, South Goergia, Falklands, South Sandwich islands, south Shetlands.....
May 04th, 2010 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats alot of territory which don't own, yet you want? Call me padantic but that is in fact Imperialism, the desire to take other peoples territory to increase your own territorial boundaries!
Whether you like it or not Argentina has been in denial about this issue for a long time, it has become so convinced that Imperialism can only be conducted by European countries that any territorial expansion it does itself, cannot be Imperialism.
Sorry Estevaz but your country is an imperialist nation it's just your in denial, Imperialism is not just regulated to european nations.
RHAURIE.
May 04th, 2010 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your assertion is so pathetic and ignorant, let me remind you that since we declared our independence, my country lost important territorys, even we lost the malvinas, what kind of imperialism is that by argentina?, i rode many of your commentarys, some times i think you are right, but others times you are so funny with what you say.
J. A. ROBERT. HOITRED. CHRISTOPHER.
May 04th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that john david was the first navigator who made public the discovering of the islands, it does not mean that they are british, if you say that one territory belongs to your country, then it must to populate it, the u.k. didn't ocupate permanently the malvinas untill 1833, before that year there was a settlement in port egmont during 8 years .
The fact that my country didn't inherate anything from spain, is not so relevant, we didn't need the consent of spain to declare our independence, the malvinas was just one more part of our country, they were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty like all the rest of my country, if could not excercise our sovereignty in the islands like you say, because were not the inheritors of the spanish kingdom, then we could not excercise it in any other part of my country, what you say, i think it's really wrong.
May be the u.k. had right to ocupate the islands, becaue there was a settlement for 8 years, beside it had a prior claim, what it should have done was to negotiate with my country about the sovereignty, however they decided to despoill the united provinces (actual argentina) from the islands, what we had started to do, was to excercise our sovereign rights on the malvinas, accepted or not, the u.k. had no right to remove our garrison, and lower our flag from the islands.
On the other hand, i allready told you that there is no place for any adquisitive prescription in public international right, the prescription that many of you say, is only valid for the private international right.
Beside the u.k. never invoked any adquisitive prescription to argentina in the diferent negotiations between both countrys with objetive to find a pacefull solution to the conflict.
If our claim is so weak and spurious like some people in this forum says, i wonder why, the u.k. accepted to discuss about to negotiate with argentina about the sovereign dispute?, i continue.
I continue, and i wonder too, why the u.k. never invoked any of those adquisitive prescriptions that you like to recur all the time?.
May 04th, 2010 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think that both nations made big mistakes about the dispute, i already told you why i think it.
Beside my country never recognized the legitimity of the british sovereignty on the malvinas, accepted or not, the solution must benefits the islanders, and the argentines.
On the other hand i rode a couple of times in this forums, that the islanders want to be independent in the future, you know very well that it's just a dream, if you could declare your independence, you would have done along time ago, the malvinas are the most prosperous place in the world at the moment, if you chose to be still under british government, that's only because of the sovereign dispute that you have with my country, then, as lond as you dont accept to discuss with argentina, to find a fair solution for both parts, i am sure that you will keep on being a prosperous viceroalty for the next 300 years, anyway i recognize that our authoritys can't keep on ignoring the islanders.
To jason, about the patagonia, i knew that my country controlled diferents ports of that territory before 1880, but i didn't know exactly about what was the last port that was under our controll, i asked one of my profesors, i told you about your arguments, and he told me that before julio roca's presidence, the controlls were extended untill el golfo de san jorge (santa cruz), and during the colonial times, the controlls were sporadic, anyway, the viceroalty had to make front a couple of times to diferent intents of france and others countrys to colonize the patagonia.
If that territory was not ours like you say, because it was populated only by the indigenous people, i wonder again why did we spend money controlling a territory that didn't belong to argentina?.
The ONLY reason they have not declared Independence is because they require a British garrison there in order to defend them from Argentina.
May 04th, 2010 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British government's attitude on the subject is this: There will be NO talks about sovereignty until the PEOPLE of the Falkland islands wish it. Your country is the only thing which blocks them from Independence.
But axel, in reality it doesn't matter if they are part of Britain or not, in their day to day life it makes no difference. You keep saying we need to discuss it between our country's when the truth is, we don't. Your nation can keep it's claim going, and we can keep our garrison there, and if/when you try to force your way back on to the islands again, we will respectively remove you again.
We have no desire to give you sovereignty, you have no way to take it.
Sorry Axel, but a country does not have to occupy a place just to validate its claim .... the South Sandwich islands for xample, have never had a resident population but are still British.Permanent occupation is not a requirement of ownership!
May 05th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you're not happy that the 1690 'naming' is sufficient then the British still have the formal claim made in 1765. This still predates any claim by Argentina and is still valid. The British were not required by any law or authority to negotiate over a belated and spurious claim .... why should we?
The negotiations that have taken place in the past were intended to better relations and, cynically, to reduce the financial burden on the UK. Those days are passed. Any willingness on the UK's part to consider giving the islands to Argentina was destroyed in 1982.
And I'm afraid that you may be disappointed over the issue of independence, which I believe is a real possibility in the near future.
Alex wrote ”May be the u.k. had right to ocupate the islands, becaue there was a settlement for 8 years, beside it had a prior claim, what it should have done was to negotiate with my country about the sovereignty, however they decided to despoill the united provinces (actual argentina) from the islands, what we had started to do, was to excercise our sovereign rights on the malvinas, accepted or not, the u.k. had no right to remove our garrison, and lower our flag from the islands.”
May 05th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hang on a minute there...if the UK held title to the islands, which it did and does, then it did NOT have to negotiate title with Argentina. If, as it is, UK held then why should the UK negotiate with another country on it? And, if so, why Argentina? Spain and France could be said to have a weak, yet far stronger than Argentina's, claim to the islands. We have no need to negotiate with them and they are not asking us to. You were trying to take title of the Falklands when you had no right to it. So, NO we had no need to negotiate with Argentina and YES we had every LEGAL right to kick off the Argentine garrison of pirates/squatters.
The problem for Argentina is that, whilst the UK can show legal title, all Argentina does is speak of their title. Argentina wants the world to accept what she says without having to prove it before a court and the international community.
Axel Arg ”May be the u.k. had right to ocupate the islands, becaue there was a settlement for 8 years, beside it had a prior claim, what it should have done was to negotiate with my country about the sovereignty, however they decided to despoill the united provinces (actual argentina) from the islands, what we had started to do, was to excercise our sovereign rights on the malvinas, accepted or not, the u.k. had no right to remove our garrison, and lower our flag from the islands.”
May 05th, 2010 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0We had a prior claim from 1765, from the settlement we had on the islands for some years, and the fact we had never given up our sovereignty of the islands.
Why should we have negotiated with Argentina in 1833?
Argentina had declared a governor and established a military garrison on an island to which we held sovereignty? An act that the British government of the time officially objected to.
You don't negotiate with someone who is trying to take something that belongs to you, you just make them stop.
You say we had no right to remove you garrison and lower your flag in 1833, but the point is Axel you had no right to be there in the first place in 1833. Britain had claimed the islands since 1765, the first country to do so and have never renounced that claim.
If you believe we should have negotiated in 1833, then do you also believe we should have negotiated in 1982 after the Argentine invasion?
Axel. I'm sorry, but you are a bit confused.
May 05th, 2010 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say this: “...my country didn't inherate anything from spain...”
and then in the same paragraph you completely contradict yourself by saying this:
“...the malvinas was just one more part of our country, they were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty like all the rest of my country...”
Uruguay, Paraguay parts of Bolivia, Peru and Chile were also “submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroyalty” but does Argentina not claim those countries. Why?
Axel, your falling into the same victimhood trap as many an Argentine has, the perception of massive territorial loss.
May 05th, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What where these territories you lost prey, pieces of bolivia, and Uruguay?
In turn Argentina gained Patagonia which alone accounts for 90% of it's landmass, parts of Paraguay after the war of the triple alliance and not to forget the Chacos region, that is an awful lot of territory gained? I think the gained territory balances out alot more than the lost territory.
However since then Argentina has sought to claim Antarctica, South Georgia, South Sandwhich Islands, South Shetland Islands and the Falklands, and their respective sea boundaries.
That is an awful lot of territory you wish to be included within the Argentine state, and certainley territory you never owned or governed, just claimed.
Rather than pathetic I think this is a big issue that you need to adress, claiming territory you have little or no history is imperialism, there's no fugding it, imperialism and colonialism is no longer the realm of the big beastily European powers, it can be very easily the realm of south American countries seeking to expand their borders, its just you don't realise it yet.
............“Sorry Axel, but a country does not have to occupy a place just to validate its claim”.................
May 05th, 2010 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- Then, why do you claim Argentina wasn't right in 1825 since it didn't have a permanent population? You contradict yourself!!!!!!!!!!!
Independence of Malvinas???? Without the consent of Argentina????? Is there any Southamerican country willing to recognize you???? LOL
You can keep dreaming on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada Sierra Leona, etc. You already have good relations with them, a recognition from those countries will not make any difference, your place is here, Southamerica, so sorry for you, you live here!!!!!!!
Pirates will not succed!!!
Malvinas Argentinas!!!!!!!!!
Chau!!!
1884: the argentine gov. wanted to renew it's claim on the islands
May 05th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your words, it wanted to renew what it had previously dropped.
1885: the memorandum wasen't answered by the u.k.
So what, you raised it after 35 years.
1888: the argentina gov. renewed it's protest against the british
How?
1908:the minister of foreign affairs,
20 years later, in a forum that had nothing to do with a formal protest. These are messages exchanged with the British Government. But then Argentina has a habit of making ineffectual protests and gestures without meaning.
1910: in an argentina map of the centenary, the ilands were included as argentine, there was no protest by the u.k.
And earlier maps show the islands as British, the same maps that were so embarassing during the Beagle Channel dispute by showing the disputed islands as Chilean
But then Argentina seems fond of redrawing maps.
1922: the argentine gov. ordered it's consuls to deny to vise british passports of people from the islands.
So what? This is not a protest.
1928: the argentine gov. authorized the postal and telephonic interchange with the islands, but it made a reserve of it's sovereign rights.
So what? This is not a protest. Its an empty gesture.
1932: there was a protest by argentina, for a circulation of signets of the islands, where they were included as british by the u.k.
So what? This is not a protest. Its an empty gesture.
1934: there were three cases where argentina denyed to accept british passports from the islands, it was necesary to make a diplomatic presentation before the argentine embasy in london.
So what? This is not a protest. Its an empty gesture.
1935: the subsecretary of state from argentina for the foreign affairs informed that the argentine gov. was going to concede argentine visas to the citizens from the islands, and declared that our claim wasen't prejudiced.
So what? This is not a protest. Its an empty gesture.
“I think that both countrys made big mistakes about the dispute, as you can see our clame wasen't continuous”
May 05th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A claim not pursued is acceptance by acquiesence.
And a fair solution for Argentina? What investment did Argentina make in the islands? You state a claim for islands that were never Argentina and expect something for nothing.
As Carlos Escude notes in his essay on Argentina's myths of lost territories, since the establishment of Argentina it has only acrued territory. Patagonia, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay have all lost territory to Argentina. In the 20th Century invented claims of territory that has never been Argentine have been used as propaganda tools to portray Argentina as the victim of foreign intrigue to explain Argentina's downfall.
And Axel there wasn't a settlement for 8 years. Vernet's settlement was established in 1828, it lasted less than 3 years and never established itself. The garrison collapsed in mutiny after less than a month.
This is the basis of what you claim.
GUYS.
May 05th, 2010 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any of you didn't answer my questions, i will ask you again, if our claim is so weak and spurious, then why the u.k. never invoked any of those adquisite presciptions that you like to mention all the time during the diferent negotiations with argentina?, it's simple, because those prescriptions are not valid for our cause, believe it or not, accepted or not, if you dont like to be objetive, if you prefer to create a beautifull fantasy, you have right to do it, some times life is very hard.
JUSTIN, i have a lot more to send you about my survey, but i have no time, i will try to writte more about it during next week.
May 05th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Escude can say whatever he wants like all of us, every opinion are respectable, anyway, the most important is what the public international right says, i told you what i investigated about it, if you prefer to ignore it, that's your decision.
J. A. ROBERT, we debated many times about the countrys that joined the viceroalty, keep on thinking whatever you want, like all of us do, every opinon are respectable, the most important is what happened in the reality, firstly, peru didn't join our viceroalty.
May 05th, 2010 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, if those nations decided to separate part from the provincias unidas, that's because they were not interested on having any sovereign link with us, they never mentioned not even one word about their sovereign claim, beside they soported our claim in many oportunitys, them, the idea that those nations should claim the malvinas because they joined the viceroalty, is just your wish, but some times life is not exactly like we wish it, sorry jason.
60# Jorge!! As allways you are right...
May 05th, 2010 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Pirates will not succeed”
I think it is a “deja vu” !! (iteration)
The reason for that is, as far i know, captain Silas M. Duncan said ecactly the very same words approximately 179 years ago (1831). (the year he liberated three ships, which had been captured by pirates.
Jorge you must like that brave captain S.M.Duncan (Lexington), because like you , he too did not like pirates, or have i misunderstood something... (doublestandards or .... ?)
jorgy - “ ...Then, why do you claim Argentina wasn't right in 1825 since it didn't have a permanent population? You contradict yourself!!!!!!!!!!!
May 06th, 2010 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0...”
You weren't right jorgy boy because Britain had the prior claim .... we got our claim in first so we have the islands. Simple enough?
Axel - “ ... Any of you didn't answer my questions, i will ask you again, if our claim is so weak and spurious, then why the u.k. never invoked any of those adquisite presciptions that you like to mention all the time during the diferent negotiations with argentina?... ”
May 06th, 2010 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go on then Axel ... what is an 'adquisite presciption' ?? I tried looking it up but didn't get anywhere.
jorgy - “ ...Independence of Malvinas???? Without the consent of Argentina????? Is there any Southamerican country willing to recognize you???? LOL
May 06th, 2010 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0...”
Who requires Argentine permission? Certainly not the islanders.
And who could survive without the recognition of those banana republics??? Good one, like it :-)
Let's try a different approach. UK offers the Falkland Islands independence with certain provisos. Falkland Islanders will have dual FI/British nationality. Britain will sign a defence treaty with Falkland Islands, Britain will accept reversion of Falkland Islands to Overseas Territory if any part of the agreed process fails. The agreed process to include admission of the Falkland Islands to the UN General Assembly.
May 06th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How would the UN react to claims for the annexation of a sovereign state?
tee hee Agent that would be class, but I always tacitly suggested that the Falkland Islanders interests would be better served by integrating fully with the British state and become the 5th country in our Union of peoples.
May 06th, 2010 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thus how then would the UN react to Argentine attempts to violate the territorial integrity of a sovereign state!
Either way each scenario buggers Argentina over!
Guys, the UN wouldn't react. just like in 1982, they wouldn't have to.
May 06th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL. There are many “so wahat?” arguments by the Carlos Escudé
May 06th, 2010 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Praiser.
This scottish guy obssesed with our history always says Argentina didn't mention the issue almost 90 years in the congress. Then I would say,
SO WHAT? THAT IS NOT A RENOUNCEMENT OF OUR CLAIM.
Malvinas Argentinas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pirates will not suceed!!! Bye
www.debtbombshell.com LOL
Axel,
May 07th, 2010 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0What I believe doesn't make your position any less contradictory.
You claim the Falklands should be Argentine because they were once part of the Viceroyalty you also claim that Argentina inherited nothing from Spain.
It's one or the other, it can't be both...
Jorge,
May 07th, 2010 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“So what”
I could have pointed out that it is not a protest as recognised in International Law and would have no validity in attempting to defend against a case of agreement through acquiesence but didn't think you'd understand words with more than 2 syllables.
It happens to be a principle of International Law that if you don't pursue a claim, it lapses, the legal principle is acquiesence by silence. So not mentioning if for just short of a century is most certainly a renouncement of your claim in the eyes of International Law. Please feel free to follow your usual practise of ignoring objective argument to post histrionic insults.
It was Carlos Escude who wrote much of history currently displayed on the Argentine Government website and who subsequently renounced it after realising through the means of further research that it was nonsense.
Axel, you didn't ask a question, so I didn't answer. I have no idea of what you're trying to waffle on about but if you're asking why Britain was prepared to negotiate with Argentina given the weakness of Argentina's claim, the simple answer is that the islands meant little to the British Government and they were prepared to transfer sovereignty to improve relations with Argentina. At the time Britain was in the process of decolonising and that seemed a suitable means for the Falklands. However, the British Government were unable to ignore the feelings of the islanders on the matter, however much the FCO would have been delighted to be rid of an unpopular posting and what were perceived to be islands of little value, to the point that the FCO actively ignored the islanders wishes to conspire with the Argentina Government to act against them.
However, Argentina has repeatedly underminede itself through a series of stupid actions that have only served to utterly alienate the islanders and the war ensurs the British Government cannot sell them down the river anymore.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!