MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands hopes for stable relationship with Argentina
THE Falkland Islands Government still hopes for a stable relationship with Argentina stated Falklands Governor Alan Huckle in his Government budget address today. He told assembled Members of Legislative Assembly, “It remains the hope of both the British and Falkland Islands Governments to have a stable, co-operative relationship with the people and Government of Argentina.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr Huckle condemned Argentina for arguing that Falkland Islanders are just like British Citizens living in the UK. He said this ignores the fact that Islanders are a community quite distinct from the UK. The Falkland Islands are not part of the UK and Islanders have their own identity and separate government.
May 26th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He also criticised the Argentine government for portraying Argentina as a weaker nation having to deal with a stronger, more powerful Britain when advancing its sovereignty claim. He said “Yet, seen from here, it is a mirror image – of the Falkland Islands with its tiny population of 3000 souls facing a much larger Argentina, which fails to recognise the democratically expressed wishes of the people of these Islands to remain British, under their own self-government, free of Argentine sovereignty and control.”
hear hear Mr Huckle, the Argentine Imperial claim gets weaker every year as the Falklands people get ever more independent and ever more recognition from the international community it shall be a long drawn our process but in the end the people of the Falklands shall emerge triumphant in a great victory of democracy, tolerance and mutual respect for peoples and human rights over Latin American Imperialism, ultra nationalism, tyranny and denial of basic human rights based on little more than national ego, Latin American supremacy and Anglo-phobic racism....
.......“Falklands hopes for stable relationship with Argentina”.........
May 26th, 2010 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Wrong!!!!! You have to say “Falklands hopes for stable relationship with Buenos Aires”, since you are part of Argentina. Every province have good and bad relationships with Buenos Aires, you are not the exeption.
...........“Islanders are a community quite distinct from the UK”........
- Wrong again!!!!! The correct statement would be ”Islanders are a community??? quite DISTANT from the UK. GO AWAY!!!!
MAlvinas Argentinas!!!!! For ever!!!
I see Jihad Jorge has excelled himself again.
May 26th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Islanders see themselves as a community distinct from the UK then that is their notion of identity and they will act it out with a unique set of discourses.
Anyway, this self-determining territory is has the potential to become very weathly on a hydrocarbon indutsry and I am part of it :-)
@jorge!
May 26th, 2010 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Friend sorry but I don’t think that statement like that would help because our fight is not against the Islanders else UK’s old fashion Imperialist style rhetoric.
Even thought some of the Islanders seem Bin Laden lunching a crusade against US and can drive you crazy, in the end they are victims as us of the old imperialism from Europe.
So even though Argentina kick off UK govt. from the domination game we will have to coexist with the Islanders in quite good harmony and respect.
Except of course with the Ultra Nationalist Rhaurie, haha
And personally on the contrary of what Rhaurie thinks (always wrong) I would like to have the Island as the little Britain.
Do you know how much many can we save instead to go to UK for a pint of large and fish and chips?
Think about it...
NicoDin
May 26th, 2010 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't play the “victim”card. It is rather petty and pathetic. That argument doesn't wash with anyone. The Islanders want a honest and open relatinship with Argentina and it is your leardership that are creating the obstacles for purley political purposes as they try to salvage their careers.
If there are any victims here then it is the Islanders and the Argentines that have let down by the Argentine leadership who sit in their Ivory tower crying and blaiming others for their own failings.
If they want a good relationship with the Islands then it is possible but they have gone so far down an ideological and partizan road thet they have left themselvee with littel option to backtrack without looking weak.
Perhaps a change of leaderhip will take a more pragmatic view and start to collaborate with the FIG on an equal basis? Here is hoping?
You are right NicoDin, but the statements I mentioned were those of Alan Huckle, the “”“Governor”“” of the islands. When I say my typical “Go away” I do it to british squatters living there. I don't want to expell old islanders from the islands as their pirate ancestors did with argentines. There are many british living there who came after 1982 and they push to mantain the status quo of our islands. You are also right about some extremist islanders who drive me crazy with their “self-determination” ridiculous thing, I just tend to respond in the same way. Maybe you don't know, but there used to be an islander here who was worth talking, very moderated and respectful, but current ones are so blind with hatred against Argentina fed by UK interests. The comment made by ·#5 is the proof, he has economic interests trying to exploit our resources, he among others are the ones who feed islanders with lies about the history of the islands, they brainwashed islanders with that “engendro” of self-determination and make them believe all that crap with the only porpuse of controlling the South Atlantic.
May 27th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm afraid Jorgy boy that the only 'lies' and 'brainwashing' done over the history of the islands is the propoganda that Argentina continues to throw out even though no-one believes it. The British version of history has written records as evidence whilst much of Argentina's is based on flawed interpretations both of historical circumstances and, indeed, international law. If Argentina was certain of its cause then it would go to the ICJ but it cannot, because the Argentine version of history would be shown up as false to the embarrasment of its political classes.
May 27th, 2010 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are many territorial disputes between countries in the world and I note that Argentina is involved in another one with Chile. The effect is that most countries in the world just don't care. The UN is one example of that. And in any case the UN doesn't really believe Argentina's version of history either which is why the annual C-24 proposals for Resolutions are not adopted.
Your Foreign Minister claims that the UN supports Argentina ...... he is lying! Once again the Argentine Government twists the facts to produce some support of its cause. That cause is doomed to failure.
The British will certainly look after their own interests, all countries do but as far as the Falkland Islands are concerned, if the islanders wish to become a nation of their own then the UK would assist and support them in that process. The UN would support them too ... it has to if it is going to be true to its Charter.
The Falklands offers no base to control the south atlantic. And we still have South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands over which Argentina has no viable claim and which provide the British with easy access to Antartica. Control is not the issue.
Truth and justice will out ... which is why the Falkland Islands will not belong to Argentina .......... now try and get used to the idea. It's no problem after all :-)
I see that some commenters have no idea about Malvinas(Falkland) ..
May 27th, 2010 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0there are no any people ..3000 units persons is lie..there has only 271 persons ..who are military,military intelligent,some scientist(?)..
if you talk about their self-determination then it means that ,you want
their military revolt to independence from Royalty ..
@2 : this is Argentina Republic' s undisputed public opinion anyway . !
Jorge, jorge, jorge. Jelousy is a terrible afliction isn't it.
May 27th, 2010 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you really feel the resources are yours then put your money were your mouth is an buy inot the exploration. Anyone in the world can by shares in any publicly listed company, even you!
Globalisation - wake up and live reality not your introverted dream world. You might find you are much happier with life.
ivo
May 27th, 2010 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you keep making up nonsense about the size of the civilian population on the islands? It's no great secret and not disputed by anyone else.
Ivo - stop wasting energy on posting crap and try to develop a brain instead!
May 27th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you latin reactionaries fail to understand is that the age of British imperialism is a thing of the past. Countries who claimed independence were granted such (some after bloody confrontations I admit) with many experiencing a smooth transition from colonial administration to independence. The dependencies that remain do so because they want an affiliation with Britain in the 21st century. You can't impose 19th century values on a modern political problem: the world has evolved and Britain no longer depends on its empire. We have a loyalty to these odd little islands scattered around the globe and while they want this union with the UK they have this country's support. Nothing to do with oil, all to do with a modern political relationships. Something Argentines have an inability or unwillingness to comprehend.
May 27th, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 ,
May 27th, 2010 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0don't neglect your Royalfallacyn and Redbull please !
@13 ,
I see you have a little vertigo symptoms ..need a drug ?
@14,
May 27th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you have symptoms of little intelligence... need a brain?
J. A. ROBERT AND HOITRED, i have an answer for you, in the articule of may 18th.
May 27th, 2010 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ivo
May 27th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are you talking about? Are you actually saying that there isnt 3,000 people on the Falklands? Please tell me that you are! And how can you accuse people of not knowing the Falklands when you say that! I am sitting in a building in Stanley. Ivo, there are 3,000 people in the Falklands, and I have seen more than 271 people today! Thanks ivo, you have discredited everything you have ever said and will ever say again!
Ivan just grow a brain and attempt to say something meaningful?
May 27th, 2010 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0why don't you go and wank over some more massacre articles on wikipedia little boy? If you have nothing better to say?
Your Parents must be slightly despairing that when other young teenagers of your age are chasing little Chica's your bumming around looking at aboroginal massacres sur la net and sticking rubber exocet shaped toys in places were the sun doesn't shine, whilst at the same time looking at the Page 3 pictures of the Falkland islands
I recommend a good case of get a life, or if that fails, shut up?
Comment removed by the editor.
May 27th, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
May 27th, 2010 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, you haven't come up with a valid response yet ... you are getting to be a little like jorge in that!
May 27th, 2010 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 010 Beef, you are a thief!!!!!!!!!!
May 28th, 2010 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse 013 Tomsk, what you don't understand is that those are our islands taken ilegally by force by the british!!!!!!
The rest of brits comments are not worth responding!!!!
Malvinas Argentinas!!!!!!!!!!
OK Jihad boy, it you say I am a thief then have me extradited! Better still take all the matter to the ICJ!
May 28th, 2010 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, you are an envious, small and meaningless litte boy with a deluded sense of reality with nothing more than dreams (your “top secret” plans). Do yourslef a favour and stop wasting your life.
jorge - “13 Tomsk, what you don't understand is that those are our islands taken ilegally by force by the british!!!!!!”
May 28th, 2010 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again you scream “taken ilegally”, but can provide no proof of any international court or international body which has stated as such.
It isn't illegal as it has never been tested in an international court.
There are ZERO UN resolutions which state UK sovereignty is illegal.
So Jorge you may scream with impotent rage that it is illegal, but it simply isn't.
@7 jorge! We have to own up. There are people on the Falkland Islands who arrived after 1982. Are you satisfied now? They are mainly composed of two groups. The first consists of those born there from July 1982 on, the second of British military personnel deployed to dissuade your lot from trying another sneak attack. But I especially like your derogatory remarks about #5. I think you'll find that NicoDin generally purports to be South American, possibly Argentine. But I have little doubt that you are right and he does want to steal the Islands' resources.
May 28th, 2010 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 ivo. I don't need to repeat myself, do I? See above. Have you tried coming up with your own comments instead of repeating someone else's?
@14 ivo. Is there any chance that you could, sometime, post something intelligible. We won't go as far as intelligent, we wouldn't want to push you on too fast!
@22 jorge! I hope you're a lawyer. Unless you have proof of your accusation, you'll find that your statement amounts to libel. I'll help you. Read Articles 109 to 117-bis of your Penal Code.
Regarding your second comment, have you got a brick wall near you? Try bashing your head against it 40 or 50 times. In your case, it is unlikely to result in any increase in intelligence, but it might knock some of the rubbish out.
Now, did you want to join in our “Write a song for Argentina” competition? You'll find it in the comments on the Tories are “tougher” article.
23 Beef, sure, you call envous the people who live in a country who was attacked several times by your crappy country. Envous??? Not in the slightest man!!!! I preffer to be here right now!!!
May 28th, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 024 LegionNi, you don't have to go to a court to know wether or not something is illegal, ignorant!!!!
25 agent0060, I was talking about 6 Beef!!!
You cannot talk about intelligence being an idiot monkey!
Where are you sir from middle east?????
24 LegionNi, you don't have to go to a court to know wether or not something is illegal, ignorant!!!!
May 28th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to go to court to PROVE it, jorge.
Using argie logic,shouldnt isla martin garcia belong to uruguay,it being closer to them
May 28th, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK jorge, if you are not envious then what is your logic for calling me a theif? Since when has it been illegal to own shares in Oil Exloration companies? Since when has any insitution with legal jurisdiction concluded that the Oil Exploration in the Falkland Islands is illegal?
May 28th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN doesn't care and your excuse for a government has refused to take the matter to the ICJ - which is the only option if CFK and her fellow failures wish to get an acutal legal judgement.
They avoid this as Argentina has no legal claim. For them the Falklands Islands are an ideological argument to be pulled out when they are trying to save their political careers. This appears to be a habit for Argentine leaders as was the case in 1982.
Believe me Jorge, I would much rather put my money were my mouth is and base my interest around somehting tangible rather than live my life around a host of illusions that have no chance of becoming reality.
With your dreams, “top secret” plans, Al-Qaeda fetishes and warped sense of reality you have shown all on here of that you are nothing more than a bitter little boy.
27 zethe, someone goes to your house and destroy your car. Wouldn't it be ilegal???? You will eventually go to court, but you know in advance it is ilegal!!!
May 29th, 2010 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 028 stick up your junta, you are an ignorant, Martín García was negociated with Uruguay!!!!
29 Beef, I call you a thief because those oil companies operate without argentine permission. Those are our islands!!!
You know nothing about politics, you are old in the past, exactly in 1982. None government can use Malvinas to distract people now. How can you be so retard????
In 1982 the dictatorship controlled all the media and Internet didn't exist. Today is different, can you imagine that for one second??????
To sum up, you are a ignorant and arrogant thief, while I'm here living where the problem takes place knowing what happens in this country.
You live in a bubble and my fetishes have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda exists for people like you and you have to deal with it, I just don't care the problem you have with them, it is your fault!!!!
27 zethe, someone goes to your house and destroy your car. Wouldn't it be ilegal???? You will eventually go to court, but you know in advance it is ilegal!!!
May 29th, 2010 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0But until you go to court it's not proven to be illegal.
under international law you have not proven that you own the islands, you've just claimed them. If you want them take it to the ICJ...
Jihad Jorge ejaculated “Those are our islands!!!”
May 29th, 2010 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that what you cry out during the climax of your many bouts of onanism?
They are not your islands...no international court or forum says that they are. The UN, having given all people, including the Falkland Islanders, the rights to self determination have, in doing so, actually sided with the opinion of the islanders. In fact - the islands are not the UK's to give away nor Argentina's to take...they belong to the islanders.
You inhereted nothing from Spain...there is no will left by Spain that will show that they gave the islands to you. You tried to steal them from the UK in 1833 and look where that got you. Argentina is a thief and a country that does not support the UN enshrined rights of self determination.
Martín García was negociated with Uruguay!!!!
May 29th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0But they are in Uruguays waters does that mean proximity is no longer an issue ref the Falklands
@ Axel.
May 29th, 2010 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see that although your argument has changed slightly it is just as contradictory. You admit Argentina could not gain control and admit that Britain did. So the Islands must be British, right? By the way, the BsAs garrison was protested and then removed by Britain. Not, “despoiled”, whatever that means. It was a police action, removing an illegal occupation by the BsAs garrison.
You then go on to claim: “On the other hand we have right to claim for our territorial integrity, because the u.k. is violating it since 1833”. Well if you did not gain control as you admit, then the territory never became Argentine so how can you claim your territorial integrity is being violated? The Falklands never became part of your territory.
Either the Islands were Argentine or they were not, and the facts show the Islands did not become Argentine, as you even mention yourself. Argentina did not gain any control over the Falklands, so the Falklands never became Argentine territory.
“Besdide you still didnt' answer my question, if my country dropped it's claim in 1850”. Yes, I did answer your question. Refer back to my reply on the 18th. In a nutshell I said: Since all negotiations to date have taken place behind closed doors, neither of us could possibly know what was said, so you cannot say that the UK did not raise the matter of Argentina dropping its claim in 1850 any more than I can say the UK did. This does not change the FACT that Argentina discontinued mentioning the Falklands claim in messages to congress immediately after the Convention was signed. Actions speak louder than words!
Finally if Brown, Norma Edwards, or anyone else representing the Falkland Islanders only mention self determination because self determination is the ONLY thing which applies today. All the historical arguments like 1850, the garrison etc, are all very interesting to debate, but they are obsolete. They have no relevance. Only self determination is relevant to the situation now.
Only chance of a stable relationship is when Argentines move up in the housing market. Do you think the horses will mind?
May 29th, 2010 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By working hard, as we always have.
May 29th, 2010 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have a long history of having debts then repaying them.
Unlike Argentina, that has a long history of having debts and defaulting on them.
May 29th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0how will you pay these debts back
May 29th, 2010 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By helping the falkland islanders get at that lovely black gold
@40 gdr. Did you have a point to make? Anyone can pull some figures from an undisclosed source and post them. You appear to have used data from the OECD, an organisation that Argentina has never been invited to join.
May 30th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Feel free to ignore GDR's posts. He attempt to Bulls**t his way through his postes but is not able to make a convinving argument. He believes that there is no oil in the Falkland Islands and that the whole thing is a Bitish conspiracy (mention the RKH oil find {next RNS to be made sometime after 1st June} and he puts his fingers in his ears).
May 30th, 2010 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He even tried to pass off that he had a friend working for BP in Columbia that told him that no oil existed in the Falkland Islands. He also claimed that Satellite data had shown no oil in the Islands; good claim except that Satellites have never been used to detect for offshore hydrocarbons (onshore yes, but offshore and you having a laugh).
Some of you may already know this, in which case I apologise. Some time ago, NicoDin brought up the matter of one Alexander Betts. Some research has unearther UN Press Release GA/COL/3105 dated 18/06/2004 reveals that this individual's REAL name is Alejandro Betts. This same individual and I quote ”said the present discussion had a colonial origin that resulted from the invasion of the Argentine territory by the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century. Although the United Kingdom had been in possession of the Falklands (Malvinas) since the invasion, it was a legal fact that possession did not alone give legitimacy. Bearing in mind that in 1883 the Falklands (Malvinas) had been in the possession of Argentina, they had not constituted a vacant land open to occupation. The principle of self-determination could not therefore legitimately be applied, as the community implanted by United Kingdom since the illegal ousting of Argentina had benefited from the use of resources in a manner not approved by international law.
May 30th, 2010 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Moreover, he said, due to the excessively severe migration policy, which had been in place since 1983, Argentine citizens had been unable to move to the Islands or to own land there. There had also been a refusal to re-establish contact or to resolve issues related to aviation and fishing with the Government of Argentina, or with other territories such as Patagonia. That refusal was intimately related to the above-noted illegal foreign exploitation of resources, facilitated by the illegal distribution of fishing licenses.“
Does any of this sound like the words of an ordinary Islander, or those of an Argentine agent and propagandist? Note that the excessive severe migration policy started after his REAL country failed to steal the Islands. Look back, NicoDin mentions place of birth, but not nationality or passport. And the UN press release described him only as a ”former resident”. An Argentine fifth-columnist!!
@agent0060
May 31st, 2010 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are not a honorable a person at all Mr. Agent0060.
We agreed (in another post) to not talk about Alexander Betts issue (or any other that involves families tragedies or concerns) due to his family is living in the Island and any public comment here can cause troubles to his family.
Even though Alexandex Bett can be used for any Argentinean as strong evidence to make any argument you can see that all us had abstained to use any Islander case to make any argument or sustain our point.
We also agree with Mr. Rhaurie-Craughwell to don’t use personal cases or families tragedies to make up our arguments. I thought that all of you were concern about his family, but I can see you don’t.
Rhaurie “But I would prefer if we kept away from using very public tragic family breakdowns”
But you insist with this in several posts with lies.
So you don’t care about you own mates Sir, what class of obscure and evil person are you?
So to clarify, the real name is Alexander J. Betts son of “Rebecca Mc Cullen” from Scotland and “John Charles Betts” from Lincolnshire, England. And he is 4th generation of Islanders born in the Islands.
So please stop to distort the truth and stick with reality please.
@46 NicoDin. Let's try a few straight facts. You brought up “Alexander Betts” in the first place. You never asked me whether I was agreeable to not mentioning individuals. I agree that there are tragedies here. There's the tragedy of an individual too concerned for his own skin to stay with his family. There's the tragedy of a family finding that one of their own is, in their own words, a traitor. There's the tragedy of an individual turning on his own people. There's the tragedy of an individual who represents himself when on the Falklands as one thing, “Alexander” and as something else, “Alejandro”, in front of the UN and when presenting himself for public office. Mayor of Cordoba, wasn't it?
May 31st, 2010 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fact is, you don't like it when the truth comes out, do you? Besides, these things are a matter of public record.
http://en.mercopress.com/2007/01/29/former-islander-running-for-mayor-in-cordoba-village
Any more “lies” you'd like to mention? Argentines are, after all, experts. Perhaps you could mention how often this individual has tried to lessen the tragedy by visiting the family he deserted 28 years ago?
Should we not mention some more of his notable comments? Like “an oppressive and solitude life” in reference to his 32 years(?) on the Islands, or ”life under the Argentine (military) dictatorship of the time was more democratic than life in the Islands”
Are you just a typical ignorant, sneaky, lying Argentine or are you trying to protect this fifth-columnist? Let's just consider what he might have been up to whilst working for the Argentine government-owned airline, LADE. But you can let him know he's safe, as long as he doesn't get within 200 miles of the Islands.
As for the truth, how would you know it? You've spent God knows how long denying it right here on this site.
Get lost, loser.
dear Agent
May 31st, 2010 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On one of the few occasions I agree with nicotine we have agreed not to bring this unfortunate tale to the fore again, he was not a double agent but a Falkland islander he changed his name to Aljendro. He made a very foolish error in choosing between invaders and foreigners and protecting his own family, friends and neighbors and his family they paid a terrible price for his appalling behavior.
This is not ill against you in any manner in order to avoid exploiting this tragedy but it should not be used as ammunition for either side, nico has acknowledged this, please do likewise and remind anyone else who would think of doing the same.
@47 Rhaurie. Sorry, I don't agree. You and Nico may have your own little cosy agreement, but it doesn't apply to anyone else. I agree that it's a terrible price to find that you have a traitor in your family, but they've spoken of it. He's just cheap!!
May 31st, 2010 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try telling Nico to apologise for ever mentioning this individual and promising that he (Nico) will never tell a lie again.
Betts put himself in the public domain. Gonna take something to get out from under.
Betts is not under a public domain at least any more the poster boy as he was for a while fell out of favor when he advocated that the best way to solve the dispute was through the ICJ,
May 31st, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunaley I beg to differ when he is not taking cheap shots through his heavily edited google search queries he as at least done this.
we need to set ourselves above this lot and show that we will not denigrate to their level utilizing every negative in our arsenal to try and prove a point, the more we can get them to discard such absurd arguments as the opinion of Betts, the better....
THIS is the public domain:
May 31st, 2010 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2007/01/29/former-islander-running-for-mayor-in-cordoba-village
Once in the public domain, you're always in the public domain.
We are above this lot and always will be. Best way to destroy your enemy close up is with a bayonet straight up through his groin.
Best way to avoid problems with Argentines and Argentina is to destroy them/it. I don't believe in mercy for enemies that have been beaten once and refuse to accept their defeat. Best thing for Argentina is to become a large smoking crater!
Get that gdr, jorge!, NicoDin? I am quite happy for Britain to destroy each one of you, your compatriots and your country. Use Wikipedia, dumdums. Figure out the British nuclear capability and match it against the size of your population centres and your country as a whole.
Do you get the picture? I've corresponded with Argentines on this site and I've met them in person. Useless, all of them.
Just bear in mind that Argentina is a bunch of dago bullfrogs, trying to puff themselves up beyond their abilities.
J. A. ROBERT.
May 31st, 2010 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When i say that we had started to excercise our rights in malvinas, we started to controll then too, we had an small garrison there to ocupate that territory, our rights were precarious but we wanted to improve then, the islands were argentine territory unless for a few monthes, we all know all the rest of the history.
About the dropp of our claim, how many times will i have to repeat you that the adquisitive prescription is not valid for the public international right?, that kind of prescription is only valid for the private international right, i recognize that our claim wasen't continuous, but my country never recognized the legitimity of the british ocupation.
About the right to self determination, if that right is only one important aspect, and all the rest is irrelevant, why the u.n. doesen't take into account only the wishes of the islanders?, why it calles both countrys to negotiate the sovereignty pacefully?, tye answer is simple, because my country still has right tom claim for the islands, accep it or not.
Beside i never changed my arguments, i told you the same arguments many times, you are the one who understands just what he wants.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - I believe that you are wrong and that acquisitive prescription (adverse possession in the UK) does have an international presence.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wikipedia states - “ ... In law, prescription is the method of sovereignty transfer of a territory through international law analogous to the common law doctrine of adverse possession for private real-estate. Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question ...”
This would appear to be why some arguments come down to Argentina's failure to complain diplomatically to the British authorities for 91 years!
However, I still feel that this is irrelevant to the argument as I do not believe that Argentina gained effective ownership/sovereignty in 1832.
The British had the prior claim, complained about Argentina's actions in the appropriate diplomatic way and then, legally, ejected the 'invading garrison' of Argentine troops.
I believe that Argentina's claim fails at this point and that whatever occurred after is irrelevant!
As for the UN - it does take into account the view of the islanders. It's Charter provides their Right to Self-Determination.
A few points of note -
1. the UN General Assembly has not considered or made any Resolution regarding the Falklands since 1988. At that time it merely made a request that the parties talk.
2. the C-24 are the only UN body to make an annual Resolution requesting talks. They have done this since 1983. However none of their Resolutions have subsequently been adopted by the General Assembly.
3. UN Resolutions are not obligatory under International Law other than those which deal with the internal affairs of the UN.
I accept your argument - NOT !
Alexander Betts - as posted on another thread somewhere:
Jun 01st, 2010 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://elmalvinense.iespana.es/elmalvinense/inicio.htm
Axel, whatever you “started” to do doesn't really change the fact that BsAs did not gain control of the islands. Control of Puerto Soledad and its surrounding areas was gained for a very limited period of time. Nobody in their right mind would say that BsAs gained control of all the Falkland Islands. They were awash at that time with sealers and whalers from many countries and there is absolutely nothing to suggest
Jun 01st, 2010 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that BsAs ever managed to stamp any form of control on them.
I have said this before, #39, yet you have not advanced any reasonable counter argument.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/06/falklands-sea-lion-exploration-well-14-10-2-oil-dicovery
You keep bringing up prescription. How can prescription operate if you dropped your claim, please explain? Prescription would only operate if the UP had made it clear that the claim was still active, yet the UP did exactly the opposite. Prescription is irrelevant. The fact is, through its actions the UP dropped the claim. I have made this point before:
#14
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/06/falklands-sea-lion-exploration-well-14-10-2-oil-dicovery
The UN only takes into account the wishes of the Islanders? Please take some time to read EVERY UN GA and SC resolution concerning the Falklands and more generally non self governing territories. It will be difficult for you to find a single one which does not make reference to the UN Charter and does not make reference to UN GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960. It could not be more obvious or clear that self determination is the ONLY principle which operates with respect to the Falkland Islands.
And by the way, if you do read all these resolutions, you will see that the UN does NOT “calles both countrys to negotiate the sovereignty pacefully”. It calls upon them to settle their dispute over sovereignty. There is absolutely no implication in ANY UN resolution that what is being called for is a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina!
HOITRED AND J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can believe whatever you want about what my country did in 1832 or any other fact about the malvinas dispute, every opinion are respectable, i respect your posture but i dont agree in absolute on it.
About the soposed dropped of our claim, i told you more than once that the true purpose of the treat signed in 1850, didn't have anything to do with the malvinas conflict, the only one true purpose of that treaty was the rasing of the blockade, and nothing else, i know that our claim was not continuous, that was a terrible mistake by my country, but even the british expert in international affairs, ian brownly, says that there is no place for the adquisitive prescription in the public international right, i have no more to add for this aspect.
About the right to self determination, maybe you missunderstood me, what i asked was, if the only one one important aspect is the right to self determination, ¿why?, the u.n. does not recognize ONLY the right to self determination, and rejects our claim?.
Maybe i didn't express my self correctly about the fact of resolving the conflict, i apologize.
I know that the u.n. does not mention a word about a transference of sovereignty to argentina, it calles upon both countrys to settle the dispute.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, I could also say this about your insistence that prescription applies: “You can believe whatever you want... but i dont agree in absolute on it”
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0For prescription to apply the UP would have made it clear that the claim was still active. The UP did exactly the opposite. My question above in #54 again: How can prescription operate if the UP dropped its claim, please explain?
I know you think a good answer to this question is that the convention did not concern the Falklands, but the FACT is the UP stopped mentioning the Falklands in messages to congress IMMEDIATELY after the convention was signed. Actions speak louder than words. If this action was not related to the convention, then WHY did it happen immediately after the convention was signed? Was it pure co-incidence?Personally I think not.
Re the right to self determination, if you read all the UN GA and SA resolutions regarding non self governing territories and more specifically the Falklands your question would be answered. I encourage you to read them, they are all available online. The UN has never accepted the Argentine claim as you say above. All the UN has accepted is that a dispute exists. The UN has not taken sides, it has not given any opinion regarding the position of either party. The UN has simply asked the two sides to “settle their dispute”. And if you read all the relevant resolutions you will understand that self determination is the ONLY principle which applies in the Falklands' situation.
The problems I see here are these:
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN has asked Argentina and Britain to resolve the dispute. Resolution does not imply negotiation. If Britain listens to the Islanders (as it does) and the Islanders say No to any transfer of sovereignty and Britain passes that on to Argentina (as it has) then the only bar to resolution is Argentina.
Britain could sit at a table with Argentina but (given the UN principle of self-determination) the Falkland Islands would have to have its own full seat at the table. Argentina won't accept this.
It is unlikely that Argentina's actions over the last 50 years would predispose the Islanders to Argentine sovereignty. Britain would, necessarily, support the position of the Islanders.
My comment at #46 of http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/29/argentina-announces-malvinas-sovereignty-presence-with-patrol-vessels makes it clear that Argentina does not have sufficient de jure or de facto control to justify its current claim.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!