MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina announces Malvinas sovereignty presence with patrol vessels
Argentine Defence minister Nilda Garré said that four navy patrol vessels will be sent to the “Mar Argentino” (South Atlantic) to show presence and the willingness of Argentina to exercise sovereignty over the (Argentine) Falklands/Malvinas Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLOL ....... funny :-)
May 29th, 2010 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course Argentina is entitled to exercise sovereignty in its waters, but if it tries to exercise sovereignty over Falklands waters then I can see these new ships going down faster than a diamond drill looking for oil :-)
“Taccetti said that the current Argentine diplomatic approach is helping to build a “world consensus on the issue. The British will have at some point to sit and negotiate sovereignty because of world pressure. In all forums we bring up the subject and it’s working, consensus is building”.”
May 29th, 2010 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0What world consensus? What world pressure that will force the UK to sit and negotiate sovereignty? Which forums are the Argentines having success in getting others to agree to their case? What forums of any weight? The ICJ? Of course not - Argentina is far too scared to do that. Instead they lie about what the UN has actually said etc.
Hmmm! What did Spain say to Argentina when she tried to bring it up at the EU presidency held by Spain? Yep - some consensus indeed.
And if these negotiations did take place - would Argentina go into them open minded and willing to give up its spurious claim? Would they still want any negotiations to have a preamble that stated that they were to be about a handover rather than a true negotiation wiithout a predetermined outcome? Would Argentina recognise that it would have to be a negotiation that the islanders first ask for and that would include them as the third party? Of course it wouldn't - that is why no one takes Argentina seriously and rightly ignores them...yes they may play lip service when it suits them but when push came to shove they never back Argentina up with anything solid.
““Britain’s position is unsustainable and even inside Britain there are sectors with the idea of putting an end to the dispute. ”
The UK position is far from unsustainable. Yes there may be the odd maverick in the UK who agrees with Argentina but there are those in Argentina who agree with the UK...so what!
”Some European countries are supporting us, although tepidly still but a growing majority favour a negotiated solution”
Who? And what are they actually saying to Argentina? Oh yes - nothing really but a negotiated solution but not taking sides
That's good. The Royal Navy will have Type 45 and Astute subs in service by then. You are entitled to patrol your 200 miles but enter the Falklands waters and your ships will be destroyed. They will sink faster than the Belgrano.
May 29th, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0How is patrolling outside of the Falkland Islands waters a way of protecting a claim of soverignty? I bet the Royal Navy is crapping their pants at the thought of dealing with a couple of patrol boats.
May 29th, 2010 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The drilling continues and Argentina can do nothing about it in any legal or military manner because they have no legal recourse or military capability.
“ ... Hmmm! What did Spain say to Argentina when she tried to bring it up at the EU presidency held by Spain? ....”
May 29th, 2010 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now that is interesting Christopher, because if you look at how Spain is currently dealing with its dispute over Gibraltarian territorial waters, you will see that maybe Spain has suggested to Argentina that she takes the same course. It is one of harassment!
The difference may be that the British are more sensitive over the Falkland Islands because of 1982, than they currently are over Gibralter which has almost total independence. Argentina should remember that! Having said that New Labour were no great friends of the Gibraltarians after being politically sidestepped and out-manouvered a few years ago. The new Coalition harbours no such resentment and Spain should be aware.
The Gibraltarian opposition is pushing for a more marked response to Spain's Guardia Civil trespasses and it may yet lead to an 'unfortunate incident', particularly as 'waters' case is once again proceeding to the EU court.
I doubt whether the Falklands Islands government will be so backward in coming forward?
If someone keeps taking the urine long enough then a bloody nose is the only available response ??
Who will crew the new boats ? jorge and his maricón ches perchance
May 29th, 2010 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt. Sorry to be a pedant but it's GibraltAr, not GibraltEr...
May 29th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT. HOITRED. CRISTOPHER U.K.
May 29th, 2010 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON AND HOITRED, you still didn't answer the comment that i left for you in the articule of may 18th, anyway that's your decition.
About this articule, i think it's a great news, after reading this, you should start to think once and for all, about that mendacious assertion that you like to believe, about a new invation by my country.
May be some day you learn to separate the context of the militar dictatorship, and the actual context of a democratic nation.
CHRISTOPHER, what spurious claim are you talking about?, you repeat it all the time, and you know that it's just a crap, if our claim is spurious and weak, then why before the war there were negotiations betwen both countrys to find a pacefull solution to the dispute, i have memorandum in my house of one of the negotiations of 1965, and it does not mention a word about all those arguments that all of you like to argue all the time, were the british so idiot, that they were going to negotiate the sovereignty of a territory with a country that had dropped it's claim in 1850?, please i can refute many of your ignorant arguments, anyway my country made big mistakes on it's policy for the malvinas, but accept it or not, my country still has right to claim for the islands.
On the other hand, not even the authoritys of your country or the councellors of the islander government argue about a prescription of our claim, they only argue about the right to self determination, and that's all, read the words of councellor norma edwards or minister brown, and you'll see that what i am saying is true, like it or not, some day you, your compatriots and the islanders will have to understand that the solution must benefit the three parts of the conflict, negotiating does not mean submition, your posture shows that you too suffer of cheap nationalism like many of you the islanders and like many people from my side.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Be careful to avoid the UK nuclear sub if you enter Falkland territorial waters!
May 29th, 2010 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel - long ago lost track of the 18th although I believed that I've responded to every question with an answer ... but you haven't accepted it. Repeat, and we'll try again.
May 29th, 2010 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for this article, your claim is spurious particularly as a result of Pascoe and Pepper's works which were not available in 1965. The new evidence/argument clearly refutes Argentina's claim and no new argument to challenge that of Pascoe and Pepper has been forthcoming from the Argentine government. Forget 1965 .... deal with NOW!
The boats is just a trick stolen from the Spanish, in this case it will backfire. What will Argentina do when the Royal Navy detains one of her new ships for trespassing??
Mr Roberts, quite correct ... my apologies :-)
Who ever wrote this statement must be dreaming!
May 29th, 2010 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is completely untrue. UK will defend its overseas territories.
“Britain’s position is unsustainable and even inside Britain there are sectors with the idea of putting an end to the dispute. Some European countries are supporting us, although tepidly still but a growing majority favour a negotiated solution”, concluded the top Argentine official
@5 Hoytred. I think we should track back to the MercoPress article at http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/spanish-maritime-guidelines-acknowledge-british-gibraltar-territorial-waters.
May 29th, 2010 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's also worth bearing in mind that, as far as I can tell, Spain's claims over Gibraltar only relate to the square mile (approx) of the isthmus. Not sure whether the airport is on it. It would appear that Spain has actually accepted that British sovereignty was ceded in perpetuity.
Our British friends seem to be a little nervous ... and only for a couple of patrols!
May 29th, 2010 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Be assured that we will always be around to blow the nape, until they cease to usurp our islands.
Argentines are the most anxious people in Latinamerica and rank among the most nervous at world level according to an international opinion poll which reveals that eight out of ten residents in Argentina admit to suffering some sort of anxiety.
May 29th, 2010 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/29/argentines-the-most-anxious-of-latinamerica-and-at-world-level
If I was waiting for someone from 8000 miles away to piss on me from a great height, I'd be anxious too! Fortunately, Britain doesn't have that problem, Argentina does!
Jesus, you mean that the Argentine navy has four boats that it can put to sea!
May 29th, 2010 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is worrying! Those Patrulleros de Zona Marítima (PZM) are nearly one-fifth the size of a Type 45 destroyer. They are also around one-third the size of a Type 23 frigate.
May 29th, 2010 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll bet the Royal Navy is quaking.
Still, according to a nice up-to-date internationally-recognised map (not Argentine), the “Mar Argentino” only exists in the estuary of the River Plate.
Hope Uruguay doesn't mind. It's got SIX patrol boats!
LOL, How is a crappy patrol boat going to allow Argentina to exercise sovereignty over a type 45 destroyer?
May 29th, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0axel: i believe your comment is the only well thought out, and well written on this page so far.
May 29th, 2010 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hoytred:
“The difference may be that the British are more sensitive over the Falkland Islands because of 1982, than they currently are over Gibralter which has almost total independence. Argentina should remember that! Having said that New Labour were no great friends of the Gibraltarians after being politically sidestepped and out-manouvered a few years ago.”
try not to bring up the past as you proceed to tell others not to do so, on the same darn webpage.
so glad you find this international conflict so funny. great job
HOITRED.
May 29th, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You think that you answered my questions, but actually, you answer just what you want, and distort the reality, i will tell you why.
You could never answer me, if our claim was spurious then why, there where negotiations betwen both countrys before 1982 to find a solution to the conflict?, you only talk about the present, and about the right to self determination, but that is not what i am asking you.
About the pepper pascoe document, when i spoke to one of our ministers about that document, she told me that she knew it, and she old me that it's really notable for it's wrong interpretation of the reality and bad faith, i have nothing more to add about that document, beside if you want to know more about our perspective, you can get into the page of the ministery of foreign affairs, i can give you the website.
Beside i tell you again, that i never heart from the mouth of any british or islander authority, about a prescription of our claim, they only argue about the right to self determination and that's all, in fact in the last words of minister brown, and councellor norma edwards, they dont mention a word about a prescription of our claim, dont you think that i have reasons to think that many of you distort the reality?.
With the survey that i am doing, i have planty of evidence to refute that document.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
exactly. all minister brown had to say to kristina's plea for both nations to “respect the treaties, the international law and not to impose unilateral decisions,” was that the, “principle of self-determination as set out in the UN charter” applied to the islands, whilst the UK broke international rules which forbid unilateral development in disputed waters by going ahead with its plan to allow oil drilling under a seabed off the islands.
May 29th, 2010 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pascoe and Peppers research cannot be so easily dismissed. Their document examines the history sufficiently well to have destroyed the Argentine case that was being presented prior to it. Indeed that was why it was prepared.
May 30th, 2010 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel you have failed to come up with any serious counter-attack against the British view of history and your reliance/subservience on Argentine Ministers destroys your credibility as a researcher. You dress yourself up as an intellectual but the reality is different.
As to the right to 'self determination', that is indeed the overriding principle now. The UN founding charter provided that right to ALL people and the history of the Falklands has become rather irrelevant because of it. This is why Argentina expends so much energy in C-24 attempting to muddy the waters over the 'territorial integrity' exemption. This tack is doomed to failure.
Axel, you keep saying that you have evidence. I doubt it but why not present it anyway?
Agent - Spain has 2 claims in against Gibraltar. One concerns the rock that was ceeded in the Treaty of Utrecht, the other concerns the piece of 'no-man's' land that acted as a buffer zone and was taken by Gibraltar. That is where the airport is sited. Spain still attempts to ignore the Treaty and claim all the Rock.
efyouj - you are misinformed. Britain is not in breach of any international law. If you can find one that you think applies please refer to it in such a way that it can be found by others. You will not of course be able to because this claim is just more of the twisted rubbish that emerges from the Argentine government.
Britain does not have to discuss sovereignty and has fully complied with all its obligations to both the UN and International Law.
Still not happy ? ...... you can always go to the ICJ !
my misinformation came from BBC news, silly.
May 30th, 2010 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0also here's some “twisted rubbish” from another British website:
herbertsmith.com
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (to which both the UK and Argentina are party), islands (other than “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own”) are entitled to the same maritime zones as other land territory.
An island has sovereignty over its territorial sea and is entitled to ''sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources” in relation both to any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and to the Continental Shelf, each of which extends up to 200NM “from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured”.
Argentina and the UK have overlapping claims in relation to the EEZ and Continental Shelf to which Argentina and the Islands are respectively entitled. In such circumstances, the delimitation should be effected under UNCLOS “by agreement on the basis of international law … in order to achieve an equitable solution”.
Argentina has recently stated in the press that the UK rig's exploratory work has “violated a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters”. This refers to the 1976 UN resolution 39/40 (”Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”) which, reiterating UNCLOS and customary international law, “calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation” while the parties negotiate a solution. Arguably, it prohibits unilateral exploratory activity which might cause permanent physical change to the seabed or subsoil.
Whether or not the parties wish to reach a final resolution of their disputes is of course another matter. In the meantime, the UK and Argentina should bear in mind the views expressed by the ICJ in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, which concerned interim measures of protection during the boundary dispute betw
“ .... while the parties negotiate a solution. Arguably, it prohibits unilateral exploratory activity .... ”
May 30th, 2010 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 01. There are no negotiations taking place. Discussions were held between 1976 and 1982 however. The fact that they ended without Argentina obtaining what it wished is irrelevant!
2. Please note the term 'arguably' !
3. The definition of 'permanent physical change' is also arguable.
Now having said that I cannot find any reference to UN Resolution 39/40 of 1976. There is however Resolution 31/49 of 1976 which states -
” ... The General Assembly -
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.... “
The result of the negotiations as reported was ..... the Status Quo remains.
The most recent mention of the Falklands was in Resolution 43/25 of 1988 which merely stated that the General Assembly- ” ... Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ... “
Note ”Requests“ & ” in accordance with the Charter”
That matter has not gone further than C-24 since that time.
Axel “You could never answer me, if our claim was spurious then why, there where negotiations betwen both countrys before 1982 to find a solution to the conflict?, ”
May 30th, 2010 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is a simple answer to that question.
The Falkland Islands at the time were not self sufficent and were costing the UK money. The UK government at the time therefore considered TO THEIR SHAME a hand over of sovereignty. It was only when the islanders strongly and rightly objected to any such deal that the idea was dropped.
Like many things Axel it all came down to money.
That however is no longer an issue. The Falklands are self sufficient and soon the revenue from the Falklands oil will cover the cost of the islands defence, a cost I might add that would not be necessary were it not for the sabre rattling of Argentina.
efyouj - interesting article from herbertsmith.com who claim to be a firm of international lawyers! 1976 31/49 can be deciphered as the 31st session (1976), Resolution 49 ........ herbertsmith do indeed quote 39/40 which refers to the 40th Resolution of the 39th session which was in 1984 (and refers to the Western Sahara). As they also fail to identify any history prior to the 1830's I can only suspect that they were getting paid by an Argentine customer!
May 30th, 2010 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Research ... that's the key that all the Argentine respondents on this site fail to understand. Slavish adoption of your Government's twisted view of history and international law does not count as research !!
@Axel
May 30th, 2010 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“JASON AND HOITRED, you still didn't answer the comment that i left for you in the articule of may 18th, anyway that's your decition.”
Actually I did answer you Axel, and it was my decision.
My answer is at the link below, #34.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/26/falklands-hopes-for-stable-relationship-with-argentina
Actually Axel I did answer you also -
May 30th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/britain-s-stance-on-the-falklands-a-mistake-un-resolutions-must-be-complied
#55
Try and keep up!
hoyt: thank you for the update. i was looking for that, and will take my time to do some more research. i couldn't find this case on the ICJ website...
May 30th, 2010 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as for the claim that herbert smith was paid by an argentine company, i could easily say the same about any news article found on the web. however, nowhere in there does the article take sides. and neither am i. i'm just trying to filter the crap news we citizens of the world are fed. however, i have a hard time believing anything the British government allows to enter the press. and i'm not argentinian, by the way, noonienoo.
@efyouj.brown. Couple of points. The tone of your comments mark you as a South American - true?
May 30th, 2010 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If “efyouj.brown” is supposed to be some sort of long-standing response to the British Government and people, you might want to note that the name of the UK's former prime minister was “George” Brown, not “Jorge” Brown.
Now here's a bit of straight information for you. Some time ago, NicoDin started rabbiting about the views of one Alexander Betts, a supposed Falkland Islander supporting the Argentine position. Whilst purporting to be an Islander Betts appeared before the UN Decolonisation Committee and spouted a word-for-word statement of the Argentine claims. It turns out that “Alexander Betts” real name is ”Alejandro Betts, who worked for Argentina's LADE (a government owned airline) office in Stanley, deserted his his ageing mother, a daughter and three grand children and the grave of his first wife and left behind an overwhelming feeling among Islanders, including his family, that he's “a traitor”. He supposedly left within 2 hours of being given the opportunity. All the actions of an agent, spy or fifth-columnist, I'd say.
I think you'll find that, if still alive, he lives in Cordoba. If you can, you should let him know that his deception will not work again. The UN is being informed of his background.
efyouj.brown - quite right, never believe a reporter. They are all trying to sell their particular media and more often than not do not do their own research ! In fact always be wary of lawyers for much the same reasons.
May 31st, 2010 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now of course when I saw this news title I expected the worst and then saw “The ships which are under construction, and hopefully will be ready by next year”. I suspect that the Ships will end up Patrolling Argentina's territorial waters and will not go anywhere within those ones defined as the Falklands territorial waters.
May 31st, 2010 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I cannot help but see the only message this sends out is that Argentina might within the next year or so have at least two new shiny patrol boats, nothing breathtakingly important here.
ef-brown - your earlier remarks about unilateral action - UK has done NOTHING unilaterally. The Offshore Oil Exploration is controlled and licensed by the Falkland Islands Govt as the UK has NO direct say in it. The seabed areas offshore belong to the Islands and were tendered internationally for exploration as is normal in the world. The only UK influence is in that the exploration is done to full European Safety and Tecnical Standards.
May 31st, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell you who has acted unilaterally - Argentina - when they walked out of and threw away the previous international agreement and ongoing talks between Arg, UK and the Islands in 2007. Just the same as when Arg walked out of an refuses to continue with talks on Fisheries Control and Conservation in the areas that affect us both. Now there is serious overfishing and guess who is suffering badly - the Argentine fishing industry!
HOITRED AND J. A. ROBERT.
May 31st, 2010 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly i have to apologize to both because i had not see your answer, that's why i told you that you had no answered me, so, i apologize.
HOITRED: you work so hard for being an arrogant who distorts the reality one more time, i dont dress my self up as an intellectual, i am just a profesor of geography, an intelectual in formed with experience, this freeday i will be just 29 years old, i'm still so young for being an intellectual, and my experience is nule.
On the other hand, why do you underestimate the words of one of our ministers, she is a diplomat, she knows so much more than you and i, i dont underestimate the words of your councellors, i just have serious doubts about their arguments, i allready told you why.
About te right to self determination, the u.n. says perfectly that it can't be aplyed if it brakes the territorial integrity of a country, like it or not, the u.k. is braking our territorial integrity i allready explained it to you why, beside if that right is the only one important aspect, and all the rest is irrelevant, why the u.n. still calles both countrys to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands?, why doesen't it takes into account only the wishes of the islanders?.
About my evidences, i allready told you many of then, read all my comments again, and you will find there all the evidences of my survey, anyway there is still so much to survey.
JASON, i wil answer your comment in the same articule where you answered my question.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - you are young, sadly I am rather less so and have long ago come to the conclusion that politician, ministers, councillors, etc know very little. Few of them fully understand the issue under discussion unless that issue is 'politics' and their responses are based in the occupation. Research is achieved by others and politicians can hardly be trusted with the 'truth', let alone anything else!
May 31st, 2010 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for 'territorial integrity' you are still missing the point. If Argentina NEVER owned the islands then there is no territorial intergrity claim. We contend that they did not. Argentina contends that it did. So this is my point entirely, the only real issue is that 'ownership' and ownership is not the same as 'possession'.
Argentina did not exist even in its own eyes before 1810 and the British had full control from 1833. So - the years in between are, to my mind, the important ones and usually those which disputes on this site come back to.
So put it a nutshell for me. WHEN did Argentina gain the OWNERSHIP that it requires for its territorial integrity argument ??
Territorial integrity relates to areas wanting to break away from their sovereign nation since the UN decree was drafted. I can't see it being applied to a tenuous link nearly 200 years ago when different rules applied.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Territorial integrity to my mind is highly ambiguously applied as in this case, it implies that the current Argentine state was the one that had the Falklands back then, when in reality the Argentina back then was hardly what we could call a “integral” unit, but rather a series of thiefdoms and very loose nominal confederated control all concentrated on the Rio Plata area, central government did not extend to within a few miles beyond the limits of Buenos Aires city.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not that I don't find certain uses with territorial integrity but that in this case it is not a very convincing argument, why should we apply it to a state entity that was 10% the size of it's current successor?
It's a highly ambiguous argument and I don't think many Argentines who advocate this case are entirely convinced themselves.
In my mind Self determination seems the most neutral manner in which to decide this argument, and is highly positive and democratic, there is zero democratic process with a territorial integrity argument because they tend to exclude peoples opinions and work on the basis of what states want....
Cornish nationalists are currently kicking up a fuss about English flags being sold in the region for the world cup. That is an example where territorial integrity rather than self determination would apply - not that there would ever be a majority anyway.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0These patrol boats are merely an attempt to shake the kaleidoscope and hope the pieces land differently.
It’s pretty desperate. I imagine they hope we’ll sink one
I agree with Idlehands. If they send these ships around to harrass our ships i bet they hope one of our Destroyers eventually just says “f*** it” and sinks it.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This way the British look bad.
HOITRED.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I answered that question more than once in many of my comments, anyway i will do it again.
The malvinas were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty like all the rest of our territory, but the fact that the united provinces (actual argentina) declared it's independence unilaterally in 1816, made that our rights on malvinas were precarious, because we never inherited anything from spain, in 1832 we started to excercise our rights on the islands, we had an small garrison there to ocupate that territory and controll it, unless for a few monthes the malvinas were argentine territory, but we could not improve our rights there, because the u.k. removed our garrison, since 1833, the u.k. is braking our territorial integrity.
Maybe the u.k. had right to ocupate the malvinas too, because there was a garrison in port egmont during 8 years untill 1774, but after that year, the u.k. didn't controll anything, remember that one territory is only controlled by authoritys, it's not controlled by sporadic settlements.
What you say about the politicians is absolutly true, in fact i dont wait so much from them, you have no idea about how much i hate many of those sons of a bitch, just a few of then are really a good example.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - thank you.
Jun 01st, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. You gained nothing in 1816 because Spain did not recogbnise Argentina as existing. Nor did Britain who already had a claim over the Falkland Islands.
2. The garrison Argentina sent to the Falkland Islands in 1832 were trespassing and two months of illegal occupation confers no rights at all.
3. Wrong, territory is NOT only controlled by authority. Please show me the international law which states that! British sovereignty had not been abandoned when the British garrison left in 1776 and that garrison left the internationally recognised marks and signs to that effect.
4. Argentina has NO territorial integrity which includes the Falkland Islands.
Now I don't suppose you would like to give me your arguments for Argentina's claim to South Georgia and the South sandwich Islands ??? :-)
HOITRED.
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The sailors who used the islands untill 1833 where soported by the san lorenzo treaty, but that treaty didn't mention a word about the sovereignty of the islands, i would like you to give me what international marks recognized the british controll in the malvinas after 1774, beside what kind of controll the u.k. excercised after 1774, if you are recognizing that britain didn't gain nothing neither, on the other hand, you dont have to be an expert in international right, to realise that one territory needs a government to be controlled, or unless a militar garrison.
Tell me too what kind of trespassing my country was doing in 1832?, in fact, i have a letter in my house of lord palmerston to minister moreno, where lord palmerston told him that the sovereign dispute betwen both countrys was still pendent, if the rights of my country were weack, and britain's were solid, i wonder why did lord palmerston recognize that the dispute was still pendent, if it soposes that if britain's rights were strong, it had nothing to discuss with argentina.
You can think whatever you want about our actions in 1832, every opinion are respectable, but i dont agree in absolut.
About south georgia and sandwich, i must say that i dont know very much about it, that's why i can't say a word.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, I should like to add to 3. that the Argentine Government was fully aware that the British considered the islands theirs because the British Ambassador registered diplomatic complaints in 1828 (BA's grant of land to Vernett), 1829 (Vernett being given an official title) and 1832 ( Argentina's invasion of the islands).
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I understand it the Argentine government did not dispute these complaints but chose to ignore them. It at no time stated its belief that Britain had relinquished sovereignty in 1776. It only came up with that after Britain had retaken the islands in 1833 !
Argentina cannot continue to manipulate history in the face of written evidence!
Axel, please quote to me the words of Lord Palmerston as I can find no such passage in the letter to Moreno. If you are refering to the his comments about what occurred in 1771 then he is talking about Spain, not Argentina.
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The internationally recognised symbols of sovereignty that the British left behind were exactly the same as Spain left behind. A plaque stating the claim and a Flag.
Soveriegnty can be maintained without the need to visit. Your government in 1832 was fully aware of the British position.
Axel - you quote the Treaty of Lorenzo although I am uncertain of its relevance. As I understand it this treaty, more properly known as the Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation Between Spain and the United States, was only between the US ans Spain (Britain was not a signatory) and only concerned the boundaries between the US and the Spanish colonies in Florida. Quite how it explains the presence of ships in the Falklands Islands I know not, and the presence of British ships ????
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please explain its relevance.
As for your statement. “ ... you dont have to be an expert in international right, to realise that one territory needs a government to be controlled ....” Well that is easily sorted. The Falkland Islands in 1832 did have a Government ....... it was in London!
Axel- it occurs that the Treaty of San Lorenzo that you are refering to is the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escurio which is also known as the Nootka Sound agreement (apparently there's more than one San Lorenzo about!).
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0If that is so there have been long arguments on this site before over that particular Treaty and there is widespread doubt over its applicability to the Falkland Islands due to their distance from the coastline of South America.
If is does apply the Argentina's invasion in 1832 would have raised the secret clause allowing the British to eject them.
Either way I don't see how Argentina's argument is improved by the Nootka Sound agreement. Perhaps you can confirm which Treaty you referred to above.
As I understand this, Britain has had de jure sovereignty since 1690. De facto control was first exercised by France although there was a British settlement. Spain claimed the Islands under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. In 1766 France agreed to hand over its settlement to Spain on payment of the costs of settlement. No similar agreement between Britain and Spain. 1770 Spain ejects British colony but this is followed by a treaty in 1771 allowing Britain to return. Neither side relinquishes sovereignty. In 1774 Britain abandoned many settlements owing to the cost of the American War of Independence. However, Britain left a plaque asserting their sovereignty when they left in 1776. in 1826 and again in 1828, Luis Vernet asked Britain for permission to build a settlement (tacit admission of British sovereignty) and sent regular reports to the British Government. in 1829 was appointed Governor by the United Provinces of the River Plate. This was protested by the British Consul. Vernet's actions prompted the United States to send a warship that ejected the Spanish in 1831. Britain then returned in 1833 and re-established settlement and sovereignty. This is followed by 177 years of de facto British control. Spain's claim therefore dates from 1766, 76 years after Britain's claim.
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Nootka Convention of 1790 is irrelevant as since Article VI provided only that neither party would establish NEW settlements on islands off the east or west coasts of South America. If the Nootka Convention is thought to apply to states subsequent to Spain then Vernet's settlement under the auspices of the United Provinces was a breach of the Convention. But he did have British authority. His appointment as Governor by the United Provinces was illegal and invalid. Essentially, British-controlled settlement began again in 1829. The United Provinces of the River Plate is anomalous as it did not constitute the same territory as present-day Argentina.
Pretty close agent0060 although I should, in the interests of honest debate, point out the following -
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Spain traces it's 'sovereignty' to the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. The fact that this was before the islands were discovered is, apparently, irrelevant!
2. The islands were named in 1690 although it is not clear whether they were claimed. They were certainly claimed for Britain in 1765. The french settlement of 1764 apparently made no claim.
3. The 1770 action by Spain nearly led to a war and as a result the Spanish backed down agreeing to the full restitution of the British garrison and all its possessions.
I'm being picky I know ... can't fault the rest as a summary though :-)
Pascue and Pepers document is full of ad-hominem against argentine historians and the pope at the time. I'm still waiting their stupid book they said they were going to issue last year.
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, I've heard many times about the letter to Moreno, but I can't find too much information. I'd appreciate you could send me a link or a file???
matiasateo@yahoo.com.ar
cheers.
@ Rhaurie. Can't argue with you about the Treaty of Tordesillas, although it probably has as much relevance as the papal bull of 1493.
Jun 02nd, 2010 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Naming of the islands: In January 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare was heading for Puerto Deseado (now in Argentina). Driven off course by contrary winds, he reached the Sebald Islands instead and landed at Bold Cove. He sailed between the two principal islands and called the passage “Falkland Channel” (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition (Cary later became First Lord of the Admiralty). The island group later took its English name from this body of water.
Third item: Agreed. It was just that I was running out of space.
I hope they really sink all pirats in the area and get the jews out of Malvinas, I wonder why white people think that the vote of 2000 white britich occupiers are worth more then the will of 35 million Argentine mestoisos, has racism really changed or do they hide behinf groups like UN, EU and nato, we don't have to fight a war just poison the food we serve them.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the comment at #50 is exactly why neither the Islanders nor Britain will ever agree to Argentine sovereignty, or even joint sovereignty. We know, of course, that avargas is of a Nazi origin. I'm sure the Islanders amongst the readers will be glad to pass his comments on to the FIG.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This comment alone might be considered justification for a pre-emptive strike. This no-brain is recommending genocide!!
There is, of course, a solution to the Argentine question. Follow Hitler's example.
PRESSURE, MORE PRESSURE! Falklanders will have to think a lot! None want's a war, but we are going to OUR islands! The dispute will be solved democratically no doubt we have the approval of the majority of the world. Every human being (rational, indeed) knows Argentina's sovereignty is unquestionable, an unwanted war only hid the truth.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I hope they really sink all pirats in the area and get the jews out of Malvinas”
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL.
Jewish pirates. Comedy at it's best.
@Juanweather. Will you be in the first wave? Hope so. Look everyybody, a new tosspot for us to take this piss out of, assuming he ever comes up with any propositions for his position.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Best thing Argentina can hope for is that it will be allowed to survive, your economic situation is your problem.
Best thing for South American nations to realise is that they would be facing the totally professional forces of Britain. Britain fights, when necessary, to win. Never lost.
You missunderstood me, any way if I had to I would. Neverthless, I believe in democracy and CFK is doing a great work by gathering all the necessary approvals to convince FIG and UK about sovereignty.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't misunderstand you, chicken dick brain. Your solution is Argentine sovereignty. Never. Do you understand that? NEVER. 40 years, 400 years, 4000 years. NEVER. Destruction of Argentina first.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What they fail to see is that the longer this dispute goes the stronger that the Falklands islanders right becomes.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can a nation honestly claim sovereignty over a country which is only 20-40 years younger than they are?
agent
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I feel dissapointed, you fail to insult and you fail to communicate.
Zethe
Malvinas is a disputed territory never was a country, besides, how can you stablish a country with only sheeps and no human being?
Juanweather
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am a rational human being and I find Argentina's sovereignty claim highly questionable, Juan you would be surprised when we eliminate all those who attack this from an intensely anti-british racist attitude, how many people worldwide disagree with Argentina's sovereignty claim seeing it as little more than neo-colonialism disguised under the veil of latin american anti-colonial sentiment.
You also shot yourself in the foot when you said the dipsute shall be resolved democratically, which I would imagine if it were to be truly democratic should involve the Falklanders the only people who matter in this dispute, never mind the bully 400 miles away whose sole claim is 3 years of inheritance from Spain 200 years ago, holding a referendum on what their future should be? I would imagine the question should be:
Tick your preference:
A) independence
B) Status quo
C) Full unity with the UK
D) Full unity with Argentina
E) Status Quo but with greater autonomy.
If acting as an uncooperative, spoilt, reactionary bully with tacit threats of military action, blockades and demands for complete submission to Argentine rule and complete denial of basic human rights and your existance as a free thinking and national people, is convincing the FIG and the UK about the merits of Argentine rule, I would say she has done a piss poor Job.
the Jerkners have wrecked Falkland-Argentine relations in less than 3 years with their petty lust for more votes, there was a point under Carlos Menem and his reconciliation approach towards the Islanders that it wasn't really the Argentine nation who opressed them in 82, but the junta, but the Jerkners changed all that and have acted no differently than the Junta.
Let's have a look at this from a different perspective.
Jun 03rd, 2010 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone really believe that Spain will ever get Gibraltar back?
If you look at the histories Spains claim to the Rock based on 'territorial integrity' and 'anti-colonialism' is much stronger than Argentina's and Spain itself has been a world player for much of its history. Even against that Spain has repeatedly failed to get Gibraltar back.
The Falkland Islands are only some 20 years behind Gibraltar as a colony and yet they both have already attained a degree of independence that is too strong to be taken away. They have their own governments, they are both self financing in all matters except defence and the mother country now only has responsibilities with regard to defence and foreign affairs. Even there the reality is that foreign affairs are controlled by the governments of the respective lands. Also both are recognised as being part of the European Union.
Spain, with the better historical claim has achieved nothing since 1713. What has Argentina achieved ??
@Juanweather. I don't believe I misunderstood you in any way. The matter has already been resolved democratically. On a number of occasions, the Falkland Islanders have overwhelmingly made it clear that they are not prepared to accept Argentine sovereignty. Nor are they prepared to accept joint sovereignty. These 3000 people are the only ones that matter. The wishes of the Argentine population are irrelevant. Democracy (and the UN principle of self-determination) rules!!
Jun 04th, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SON LA VERGUENZA DEL MUNDO USURPADORES, COLONOS HIJOS DE PUTAS PIRATAS, ESTAN A MILLAS Y MILLAS DE ESA BOSTA DE NACION QUE ES INGLATERRA A LA CUAL EN EL 86 LES ROMPIMOS BIEN EL CULO CON MARADONA, EN LA GUERRA SINO FUERA X LA AYUDA DE LOS YANKIS Y LOS CHILENOS NO SE QUE HUBIERA PASADO, POR LO MENOS LES MATAMOS A MAS DE 300 SOLDADOS COBARDES MAL NACIDOS HIJOS DE PUTA VIVA ARGENTINA , LAS MALVINAS SON Y SERAN SIEMPRE ARGENTINAS COLONIALISTAS USURPADORES HIJOS DE MIL PUTA
Jun 04th, 2010 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can anyone do a better tranlation than: THE SHAME OF THE WORLD ARE Usurper SETTLERS PIRATES motherfuckers, they're miles and miles of that DUNG OF ENGLAND A NATION THAT WHICH IS IN THE 86 were broken ass WELL WITH THE MARADONA, BUT OUT IN WAR AID OF X Yankees and Chileans do not know what had happened, at least they kill more than 300 soldiers COWARDS bastards bastards ARGENTINA VIVA, THE FALKLANDS ARE AND TO BE ALWAYS ARGENTINAS COLONIALIST USURPERS CHILDREN OF THOUSAND PROSTITUTE
Jun 04th, 2010 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, I've told you elsewhere, diego dipstick, English, English, English. The language of civilised people. If you want to post this sort of pig-ignorant fascist crap in the Spanish version, that's fine.
Hi Christopher UK: (or any reader who would like to respond) I understand that the Falklands are to the UK as any state is to a federal country? If so, your statement “Would Argentina recognise that it would have to be a negotiation that the islanders first ask for and that would include them as the third party?” looks difficult to justify.
Jun 04th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As foreign affairs and defence are outside islanders' authority, (correct me if I'm wrong) why Argentina would accept to include an associated territory in an eventual negotiation with a nation?
It seems to me that any differences or wishes the locals may have with its mother nation have to be addressed and agreed before any meetings between nations.
@64 Devil's advocate. Your first mistake is in your first sentence “I understand that the Falklands are to the UK as any state is to a federal country?” The Falkland Islands are a self-governing overseas territory. There are considerable differences between the two concepts. At the risk of going over much-trodden ground, the basic concept is self-determination. Britain respects and supports this. Argentina does not. Britain recognises the democratic right of the Islanders to decide their government. Argentina does not. Foreign affairs and defence? Britain conducts these matters on behalf of the Islanders after consultation. The “locals” as you call them, have no differences with their “mother nation”.
Jun 04th, 2010 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may find, elsewhere in these articles, the proposition that the democratic wishes of 40 million Argentines are of more importance than those of around 3000 Islanders. Unfortunately, the democratic wishes of 65 million Britons is of even greater moment.
Is that clearer now?
You may find, elsewhere in these articles, the proposition that the democratic wishes of 40 million Argentines are of more importance than those of around 3000 Islanders. Unfortunately, the democratic wishes of 65 million Britons is of even greater moment.
Jun 04th, 2010 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that clearer now?”
But weren't you a self-governing territory or not? if that so, why don't you act like an independent country and govern without any help of UK? What has to do the democratic wish of 65 million britons?. It's makes me sick to see XXI colonialism and YOU SAYING THAT IT'S NOT.
@66 Juanweather. Are you practising being stupid? I can tell you its working.
Jun 04th, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason that the Falkland Islands doesn't act like your definition of an independent country is because of belligerent, delusional, interfering, land-grabbing neighbouring states like...........let me think now. Got it, Argentina. The Falkland Islands is happy to be British. Do not try the typical Argentine disinformation of colonialism. I told you that you would find that proposition elsewhere in these articles. You are obviously incapable of the simplest of research. So I'll make it easy for you. All you need to bear in mind is that Britain will defend the archipelago for the benefit of the current inhabitants.
I shan't bother to respond to any more stupid comments. If you can't come up with a contribution to a meaningful discussion, trot off and play with your building blocks.
By the way, I'm glad you're sick. Something terminal, I hope.
@Rhaurie-Craughwell
Jun 04th, 2010 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“how many people worldwide disagree with Argentina's sovereignty”
Can you name them please?
Thanks,
@Juanweather
Avoid to enter into any debate with agent0060 he is like a Hooligan no brain at all.
Abrax,
@ DIEGO - ahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA DIEGO you prick your a fucking specimen, in other words, a retard, shut your hole you dirty half evolved cave dweller, you are an experiment gone wrong, or a stray dog mutated by chemicals, because a human, english or argentine or even american would not say the retarded bollocks coming out of your mouth, i say diego that you are probably thee single biggest cock head that has ever graced this earth, ahhh well, theres always one i suppose
Jun 05th, 2010 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0infact, if you diego idleise maradonna so much, then there is really no hope for argentina, that fat crack head couldnt beat us unless he was high on performence enhancing drugs, the short cunt coudnt even hed the ball, even with hes 4 ft high hair on hes 1 ft tall body, so diego, fuck your maradonna, and fuck you, you call us the children of a thousend whores i suppose is better than being whelped by the bitch who spat you out, speak in english diego you fool or fuck off, or by a dictionary, or just shut the fuck up and have a wash, i can smell you from here, your ruining my clean air
NicoDin - there are 193 undisputed Sovereign States in the world. Argentina can claim support from the 35 OAS members plus a few carribean nations. 193-40 (lets say) = 153 who show no support for Aregentina's case.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0For Britain, the Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as British territory (minus some Carribean countries), as does the EU under the Lisbon Treaty (including Spain) and while the USA maintains an outwardly nuetral policy it has supported Britain when support was needed.
Juanweather - the islands are not a British colony, they are currently a British Overseas Territory and when they're ready they will be an independent Sovereign State with a seat at the UN. And there's nothing Argentina can do about it!
@Hoytred
Jun 05th, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong and manipulating a partial truth.
The fact that Argentina has a expressed support by 35 American members plus some European plus China Russia, middle East countries, etc than not means the rest is opposite to her claim.
The same can be argued about UK some CW countries are in favor and the rest are not in his favor.
So UK has around 21 overseas territories The Commonwealth of Nations less the Caribbean plus European (France) again name in singular what countries have expressed their support.
“as does the EU under the Lisbon Treaty (including Spain)”
The Lisbon Treaty does not support the sovereignty of UK only recognizes that UK has the facto administration over it, a complete difference thing.
Roger Edwards, part of your govt. recognizes that not all 21 overseas territories will back UK in the claim.
So again name the countries that have expressed openly support for UK claim the list is not so big as you may think.
Regards,
thorson, vos sos un petero!!!!
Jun 05th, 2010 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NicoDin - countries practice politics. There are no guarantees. Even those who express support may not actually go any further than that expression. Chile, for example, has stated its support for Argentina but that is as far as it goes. The air link still operates and Chile and Britain have many links commercially and militarily that Chile will not threaten by doing any more than uttering a few words. Politics, that's all.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not that it matters. Britain does not feel any pressure and would not change its position if it did!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!