MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina must accept Falklands’ people wish to remain British
The Argentine government must accept that the Falklands people have expressed their democratic wish to remain British and that the Falklands government will resist all colonial aspirations from Argentina, said Sukey Cameron MBE, the Islands representative in London during the annual reception on Wednesday. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYou can remain British if you wish, in UK or the islands. However Malvinas is part of Argentina and South America not the UK nor Europe.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, almost completely wrong as usual Marco ... if the islanders remain British then so do the islands! A little bit of the UK and Europe in the south Atlantic ...... after all this time you should have got used to it.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0A good speech and one I suspect will be repeated in the next few days at the Decolonisation Committee at the UN.
“Cameron highlighted the Falklands’ wish for a peaceful cooperation with “our neighbours”.”
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Course, as Brazil that rejected their prays...
“Now, through a Presidential Decree, Argentina seeks to control the maritime access to the Falklands, contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its actions begin to look suspiciously like an attempt at an economic blockade – which President Kirchner herself publicly ruled out during a speech she made in February!”
predictable. If Britain doesn't respect the international laws, the consequences will be suffered by the Islanders and paranoid attitude...
“The Argentine government must accept that the Falklands people have expressed their democratic wish to remain British and that the Falklands government will resist all colonial aspirations from Argentina, said Sukey Cameron MBE, the Islands representative in London during the annual reception on Wednesday.”
Colonial aspirations? hahaha. A great joke... a colony being fear of being colonized.
Desires of being british? yes, just a wish. But we know that indeed, they are second class citizens, ENCLOSED in their Islands with a brain washing and paranoid by an invasion that never comes... that's pathetic...
Really these speech is pure stupidity...
Nooop hoytred! “Nope, almost completely wrong as usual Marco ... if the islanders remain British then so do the islands! A little bit of the UK and Europe in the south Atlantic ...... after all this time you should have got used to it.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0A good speech and one I suspect will be repeated in the next few days at the Decolonisation Committee at the UN.”
As usual you are wrong.
They live in south america. They can stay, and we will love and respect them, but extracontinental powers: OUT!!!! brits, spanish anybody.
Israel - what planet do you live on? Please define for us - what do you call a Colony?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I call a Colony - a country whose population is ruled by another power AGAINST their wishes.
Please describe to me in deatail why you claim we are a Colony of Britain? We have a fully elected legislature totally in charge of all internal affairs.Currently we are under threat by a large belligerent nation so as we are to small to defend ourselves and think of complete Independence we need do have somebody to look after our foreign affairs and protect us. As we are thus not fully independent, that country-Britain - is legally obliged under the UN Charter to ensure that we practise high standards of good governance and democracy - and so she does.
Please list the UN Laws and Decrees that Britain has ignored or broken? Remeber there have ever only been non-binding “requests” - not legal demands- from a small part of the UN- the Committee of 24 - calling on the UK and Arg to PEACEFULLY negotiate and try and resolve the dispute.
We and UK have often made it clear we are prepared to sit down and talk - but that is totally a pointless waste of time when the Arg position is not “discussions on how to resolve the dispute” - NO - the Arg position has been clear for years - any talks can and must only lead to full transfer of Sovereignty to Arg and the wishes of the islands population are IRRELEVANT - Your Ministers have made that clear many times!
Its called good old fashioned 19th Century Colonialism. Nobody has brainwashed us - but Arg Governments have done a good job on brainwashing you.
And you ask for it?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Israel - what planet do you live on? Please define for us - what do you call a Colony?
I call a Colony - a country whose population is ruled by another power AGAINST their wishes.”
“Please list the UN Laws and Decrees that Britain has ignored or broken?”
Resolution 2065 UN. You determination is a FAKE.
The response is simple. YOU DOESNT EXIST AS NATION FOR SPEAK ABOUT SELF DETERMINATION, a joke. Theres not Political Parties, you have only a newspaper, the 50% of your population is temporary. You can't speak of being british, or being at least a proyect of nation. Your desires? DOESN'T EXISTE. Without islanders the presence of Britain would not be affected, the islanders presence are insignificant. Directly, YOU DONT EXIST. And Your people DONT WANNA EXIST.
A colony will never be at a height of a South American nation. These islands are a fetus planned by London and no independent nation would stoop to doing business with a puppet handled by London. When these islands are independent, and not a British puppet, they avenge and speak about independence. You are an INSULT to the independence. And their desires DO NOT EXIST, and principally because they are so mediocre that they cannot defend their rights and to live fearful for what happened 30 years behind.
“ We do our own business ”. Another farce. The position of these islands provoking hysterically our neighbors to call the attention it is really sad.
They are a colonial unviable thrown in the way of Atlantic, UNVIABLE, and believing itself independent when actually they are alone a puppet.
Speak of being brits when therare 10000 kms of distance, What planet live you? IN A COLONY!.
Usual cr*p from the Argies who have the notable ability to stare reality in the face and then ignore it completely.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0One more time, the reality is that the FALKLAND ISLANDS are BRITISH TERRITORY in the SOUTH ATLANTIC. Somehow I doubt that will be understood as they've not been able to get the message in the last 177 years.
Nothing is going to change and, for those who don't appear to know, UN Resolutions ARE NOT international law. Britain is not in breach of any international law with regard to the Falkland Islands (I thought I should be accurate just in case we're breaching any somewhere else!).
Israel you're an idiot, the islanders wishes successfully prevented the British Government giving (please note, not 'handing back' because you have never owned them) the islands over to Argentina. The islanders desires now control British policy on the Falkland Islands. It would appear that their desire rather over rule yours. No?
And do they 'live fearful'? I thought it was Argentina which LOST in 1982. N0?
And the British live on this planet, the same as you .... we're just spread around a bit more :-)
Well as one of you always says:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same Old... Same Old...
Britain keeps up their usual Darvo Policy.
We are counteracting it more effectively every day.
I tend not to get into these types of internet debates, but for once i feel as though i should get my opinion across.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, i am Argentine. I am also what the West would call an 'academic'. A historian in fact. But that is beside the point.
I have read through many of your comments, and whilst some have been interesting, many have been truly bizarre.
I don't think many of my countrymen understand the legality of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. They do not 'belong' to Britain in the sense some people think they do. They are recognized by the United Nations as an Oversea's Dependant Territory. This means, in essence, that Britain can no sooner 'Give' us the Islands than we can 'Give' Britain Paraguay. It is legally impossible, morally irresponsible and politically suicidal for our Government to keep pursuing the current line of negotiations.
Most importantly, the United Nations will not allow any kind of Sovereignty transfer - whether the British Government supports it or not - without the agreement of the inhabitants of the Islands. (See Gibraltar). Regardless of what the OAS or anyone else says.
I'm sorry if you do not agree with me, but this is - unfortunately - indisputable fact.
Our Government must pursue alternative routes if they wish to bring the Islands under Argentine control. In academic circles this whole fiasco is almost laughable.
I dont think many of the posters here understand what the Decolonization Commity is responsible for. To put it in the simplest of terms: if they support the Argentine claim for the Islands, they will simply demand the transfer of sovereignty. Like they have done with countless other nations scattered all over the world. But as there is a population on the Islands, it is in 'Their best interest' to do whatever they want.
There is simply no debate here, our Government can spit and shout all they want, but they need to talk to the Islanders, not the British Government.
Lexias
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for that rational and appropriate post. The quality of posts on Mercopress had been improving but a bunch of intellectually challenged individuals continue with their nationalistic rants, which is a shame. As you indicate the democratic process is paramount and many Argentines have first hand experience of what life is like when this right is denied them.
I hope the FIG and the Argentine government are able to open equal negotiations on the business opportunities that exist. This would preferable than having to work with Brazil, which contray to other stories has been happening since Jan/Feb.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right Lexais ... now please excuse my flippancy, but this is far more important!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.webnewswire.com/node/543915
“ The Falkland Islands Defeat Costa Rica on Day 2 at the Americas Division 4 Championship
June 16, 2010 - 13:32
A devastating spell of medium pace bowling from Falkland Island's Elliott Taylforth caused all the damage in today's match. He took 6 wickets for 14 runs including a hat trick and completed the overs by taking another wicket for a four wicket maiden .....”
(9) Lexias
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welcome! You certainly add quality to this debate.
I have a question to you; hope sincerely you could find the time to respond.
You say:
“It is legally impossible, morally irresponsible and politically suicidal for our Government to keep pursuing the current line of negotiations.
Our Government must pursue alternative routes if they wish to bring the
Islands under Argentine control.”
My question is:
As we all know that our Government wishes control over the Islands;
What, in your opinion, should those “alternative routes” be?
9 Lexais --------------------------
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0in 05.45 GMT post from Argentina !? interesting !!
a man who never sleeps and Historian !! OK
I asked lang syne Malvinas ( Falkland) name David Murphy
I haven't any answer . Do you know this name who was ?
Another extra ask for you ; lang syne Malvinas(Falkland) name
Michael Ralf Clark ( his nickname was more known)who was he ?
Now that is a good question Think, a little thinking been going on there ?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course Lexais immediately has a challenge regarding his status. Is he Argentine or is he not? Could it be a bluff, a double bluff or a double, double bluff.
Of course, just because he's Argentine would not necessarily mean that he's in Argentina!
His answer to your question may be the key?
(15) Hoyt
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be as mistrustful as I am.
“Agent’s0060 long arm” crossed my mind.
Let’s give the man a chance and see what he answers. Shall we?
Back to Cricket.
I strongly suspect a case of “Britainnia waives the rules” here.
I’ll wait for Islander1 info about the “true Beanniness status” of the players.
He is a staight sport.
Your answers on the subject tend to be a tad “BP-oily” :-)
15 ------------
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you spokesman of Lexais ?
Same questions are valid for you too ..?
Nothing compares to this! (well... Croquet, maybe)
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=10524_1276669080
Play Cricket not War
Some... interesting reply's. I will start with Think.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is the million dollar question, is it not? Many Governments in the past have tried and failed to secure sovereignty of the Islands for countless reasons. First, and most obvious, is the information we have regarding re-occupation of the Islands in 1832. Not only is using 170 year old treaty's as an argument for sovereignty ludicrous, it is typical for us to bend historical facts in accordance with our own personal opinion. Moreover, it is even more important for us to understand that we cannot use today's law's in order to determine grievances of the past. And if you take into account the situation in which many of the grievances take place, it is simply counter-productive to use information regarding this as a weight in your argument. Was Argentina a 'Third Party' in the Nootka Sound agreement? Possibly. But possibly not, as we where not recognised as a country by most other nations. Was an Argentine population expelled after the return of the British Fleet? Possibly. But many chose to stay. Did Britain leave all her assets during the 1800's? Possibly. But they left a plaque behind stating their claim. Is this enough? Probably not. The questions will go on for ever. We need to focus on the here and now.
In my opinion, our current Government is having an adverse reaction in regards to securing sovereignty. Alienating the Islands from the rest of South America is only going to make the Islanders align themselves more with the U.K., and in turn, Europe. I personally believe that our Governments decision to not assist in the exploitation of these natural resources is one of the biggest economic failures of this century. If they cannot secure sovereignty of the oil fields, and mining begins, what then? Argentina has lost out on a possible huge economic boost due to stubborness and ill-placed nationalism...
Hey Think, I like him.... talks a lot of sense. Can't see Lexais surviving here though, as most (possibly including myself) talk no sense at all!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0His countrymen are not going to like it though ... conspiracy theories to follow me thinks?
Cont...
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Securing sovereignty of the Islands will be one of the toughest tasks any Government will have. There is no quick fix, but winning the support of the inhabitants should be the first aim in doing this. But, frankly, our current aim of driving a wedge between them and everyone else is not going to gain us the support we require. I believe we need to explain why the Islands and their inhabitants will be better off under our leadership, what the positive economic and social effects will be, as opposed to why they should be ours in the first place. Our biggest concern should not be their continous state as a British Oversea's Territory, but the possibility of the Islands becoming and independant nation. That would surely spell the end of the Argentine claim.
The simple fact of the matter is: the Islands are quickly becoming Self Sufficient. Argentina needs to find a way for the Islands to need us, not to be able to exist without us.
In reply to Yul. Though i feel no need to justify myself to you, i have to admit that i'm not entirely sure what you are asking me. In reference to Lang Syne. Is this a person, or do you mean the Scottish meaning of Long Ago? Long ago in the Islands there was a man named David Murphy? And, to be frank, David Murphy could be any number of people in history: possibly the most likely of whom would have been the Irish Musician who i believe wrote Tiarna Mhaigh Eo in around the 17th century. However, my 17th century Southern Irish folk history is a little bit hazy, so you may have to be more specific. Contrary to what you might think, I dont know every single thing through history. Would you expect me to know who the Spanish Secertary of War was in 1788 off the top of my head? Unfortunately, historians are no where near as intelligent as Good Will Hunting will have you believe.
Good points Lexais.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina wants the Falklands then they have to “sell” Argentine sovereignty to the Falkland Islanders. So far the “sales job” has been pretty dire.
By the way, the Falklands are already self sufficient had have been for a while bar defence costs, which would not be a factor were it not for Argentine aggression.
In reference to Self Sufficient, I was of course referring to defense.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whilst Lexais' comments are eminently reasonable in most respects, no-one should miss that the final objective still seems to be Argentine control of the Islands.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In response to harrier61:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My reply was an answer to Thinks question. This is how i best think the Argentine Government should proceed with claiming sovereignty over the Islands.
I have also stated that - legally - it is ultimately the Islanders decision regarding this matter.
My answer is merely a reply, not necessarily my own opinion. As, in my profession, we are not entitled to one.
Harrier, if the islands wanted Argentina as a government then that's their democratic right. I would have no problem with it.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to say Lexais' ideas are good ones. I think Spain has also learned this lesson and is treating Gibraltar nicer than it used to.
The best way would be for the Argentine government to play nice with the islands. But if im honest. i don't think it would work Lexais, Like all british, we tend to be very hard headed and stubborn about things.
I mean, we was going to give you the islands, until you took them, then it was a case of “you can't have them”.
@Israel: with respect to your comment #6 regarding resoltion 2065(XX) is inaccurate; it only requires the AR/UK to settle AR's dispute peacefully. It does not affect the Islanders rights under Resolution 1514(XV) which guarantees the Islanders rights to self-determination.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 1514(XV) was voted 89 for and zero against, with 6 abstentions, 1 being the UK.Argentina voted for this resolution & also voted that it should apply to the Falklands. Thanks to the adherence of UN members to resolution 1514(XV) there are now 192 member states of the UN in 2010, compared to the 95 states in 1960, i.e. the number of free independent states has doubled thanks to the universal implementation of resolution 1514(XV).
Resolution 2065(XX) simply reminds AR & UK that even if they agree who has sovereignty peacefully, their sovereignty rights are removed by resolution 1514(XV) & requires that:
“Immediate steps shall be taken, in... Non-Self-Governing Territories... to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations
The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination & exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations & is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status & freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.”
Resolution 1514(XV) stands as law as does the democratically expressed wish of the Islanders to live on their Islands & to choose free association with the UK.
What's so difficult to understand about this?
(19) Lexais (cc. Hoyt)
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course you like him Hoyt. I like him too but............
Lexais.... Just to make sure I’m dialoguing to the right person;
Would you mind translating your own concepts below to Spanish?
It shouldn’t take more than 3 minutes, as they are, after all, your own words.
””””” Securing sovereignty of the Islands will be one of the toughest tasks any Government will have. There is no quick fix, but winning the support of the inhabitants should be the first aim in doing this. But, frankly, our current aim of driving a wedge between them and everyone else is not going to gain us the support we require.”””””
Of course you are free to ignore my request.
We live in a free country.
Right?
Lexais, Credentials! now!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[14 ] Yul .... where are you ?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your questions are very dangerous and you hairy man.
I worry that you have any questions in American-Brits relations
1775--1865,..Brits Boston Massacre... American Civil War....etc.
Don't exceed Wikipedia level here ,please ..!!!!!!!!!!!
May I suggest google Translate?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(19) and (28) Lexais
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lexais, the “Impartial Argentinean Historian” could not translate any of his own words to Spanish.....
Not even to prove that he is who he says he is.
Weird.......
I suppose this “Friendly Argie” got so embedded with the British academic frame of mind that he forgot how to write Spanish.
Sh** happens......
Isn't that jumping the gun a bit Think? I'll be laughing my head of if Lexais returns with a translation...
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would it occur to “Think” that not everyone is able to spend every waking moment here?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If he returns with an academical correct text in Spanish I promess I’ll eat my hat.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course is a little bit early to ask for an answer but I did not want you to forget him.
He was so.... cool and understanding... wasn’t he?
We'll keep an eye on this thread.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he sacked at # 21 -lang syne- phrase !! becouse noone knows the
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0meaning of Scottish (!) Long Ago , except some British .
(38) Arquero
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not totally so, dear Arquero....
I myself guessed the meaning from Scandinavian: Laenge siden = Long Ago.
Then you can always Google it. (just did it, it worked... try yourself)
But he will have difficulties with a proper translation of his own “text”.
Even Nick Clegg, with his perfect Spanish would sweat!
J.A.Roberts... Maybe you could give it a try... Just for fun.... You know some Spanish....
I suggest that this whole matter (the subject of the article) can be resolved quite simply. A constant South American argument is that the Falkland Islanders are not an indigenous people and therefore have no right under the UN Charter to self-determination. I assume that it is from this basic rationale that Argentina refuses to discuss/negotiate matters with the Falkland Islands Government. By the same argument, the majority of people currently living in the territory that they style “Argentina” are not indigenous. They are the descendants of groups of people “planted” by the Spanish and Italian governments of the day. Later immigration has added groups of various other origins. It follows that they have no right of self-determination and no right to form a “government”. Actually, it would appear that they are just descendents of imperial colonists.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN has never said that only territories with indigenous populations are entitled to self-determination. It would be absurd for it to do so given that several of the territories that are or were on the decolonisation list do not have indigenous populations.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Currently on the list 9 out of 16
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands.
Formerly on the list 5 out of 35
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cocos Islands, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Réunion, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Seychelles.
I agree. But South Americans CAN'T. It would destroy part of their rationale. How amusing. Irrational people having a rationale.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all of you; “Interpreters of International Law”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is a balanced analysis of a “Real International Lawyer”
Biography: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?g=841614fb-2130-46e4-8a55-6078a950a59d
Complete article:
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?g=841614fb-2130-46e4-8a55-6078a950a59d
Mr. David Moss,
The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the first article of both the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held that this right is ’irreproachable’.
However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.
To begin with, the precise scope of the right and the definition of ’peoples’ is a developing legal area. In the past, indigenous peoples in island states such as Nauru (population of 12,000) and Tuvalu (population of 11,000) have been recognized as exercising a bona fide right of self-determination. However, the population of the Falkland Islands is only 3,000 and Argentina would likely contend that the right to self-determine does not apply because the islanders are descendants of British settlers. This raises the issue of what are the limits of the right to self-determination. For example, would the UK argument hold true if the population of Jersey voted to become independent of the UK or part of France?
These issues are likely to come under the microscope again when the ICJ issues its advisory opinion on Kosovo. Argentina and the UK have both put in written submissions to the ICJ in the Kosovo case, which centers on a dispute over the status of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Predictably, Argentina emphasized the importance of territorial integrity and the UK emphasized the right of self-determination.
That's fine. After all, Argentina, and all South American territories, are colonies that, for the most part, rebelled against their mother nation. Rebels, terrorists, colonists, traitors, criminals, pirates. What a wonderful heritage!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0harrier61#40....
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is not nice You write such well argumented and rational thinking. Remember Argentina=Mapuche-country was occupied and colonised by Europeans (mostly from Spain/Italy and other S-European nations).
They never mention this fact, when they make their “argumentation”.
However, the indigenous people in S-America are slowly but gradually
beginning to protest ,and request to have more rights in their stolen land.
Just wait! (Chile has already experience from the s-parts of their country). Next may very well be Argentina and maybe they will change their thinking about colonisation/DEcolonisation!!!
Many of you ask constantly: Where are the Argentinean arguments against Self-determination!!!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were are they!!!
Where!!!
Well I served them to you at (43)
British arguments, from a British lawyer.
Would anybody care to answer with other than evasive questions?
Starting to repeat yourself again Think - as I've said elsewhere, ”one lawyer does not an argument make!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And dab14763 makes an excellent point.
(47) Hoyt
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Least I give you one... He says:
”The precise scope of the right and the definition of ’peoples’ is a developing legal area.
This raises the issue of what are the limits of the right to self-determination.”
Show me any document that states that selfdetermination is limitless.
Pleeeeeeease
Very little is 'limitless', time is usually a major factor. And how long does a 'developing legal area' need to develop? 20 years, 200 years, 2000?
Jun 19th, 2010 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for 'self determination' it doesn't have to be limitless, it has to be applicable.
The reality is that the islanders can conduct a free vote, as the Gibraltarians did a few years ago, and decide who they belong to. This is reality because it works. They vote to be British, and hey, they are British! Reality is that the British, as a unity, are strong enough to resist any pressure and so people can be what they wish.
Of course the irony with Gibraltar was that they voted to be British in order to defy moves by our last Government to enter into a power shaing agreement with Spain.
And so it should be. Power to the people, and what the people want they should get. If Scotland wishes to be independent on a majority vote by its people then I believe that is should be. If the Falkland Islanders wish to be a part of the UK then I believe that they should get their own way too.
And if the Turks and Cacos islanders wish to be Canadian, so be it!
My personal attitude to 'territorial integrity' is “ stuff it”!
You say:
Jun 19th, 2010 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As for 'self determination' it doesn't have to be limitless, it has to be applicable. “
Applicable, that’s the right term!
We in Argentina belive that it is not applicable in the Falklands case.
The endless political and legal discussions will keep on for.................... but, in the meantime Argentina will continue to hotly contest the area, denying investors certainty about the legal status of the disputed area.
The potential for blockades, sanctions and loss of rights would be too great for shareholders and operating companies will be unwilling to take the legal, political and commercial risks of developing natural resources.
There is no debate about the applicability of self-determination for the peoples of non-self governing territories, resolution 1514(XV) applies, & is confirmed to apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas in all subsequent resolutions. Even Argentina voted & agreed it applies to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas. Therefore Argentina agrees self-determination applies to peoples of the Falklands & irrespective of Argentina's change in public opinion, 1514(XV) stands as the will of the UN General Assembly.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0People with nationalistic agendas can be debate it as much as they wish, the fact is the UN endorses resolution 1514(XV) & states the peoples of the Falklands/Malvinas have the right to self-determination
Also: “All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully & freely their right to complete independence, & the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.”
Each time Argentina uses force or coercion it is breaking its UN & international obligations. The idea of a direct blockade sounds crazy to me as this would be a massive escalation & risks being considered an act of war. However, to impose a blockade requires use of military force & is really difficult by sea, especially if convoys are escorted, & almost impossible by air, as the Berlin Air Lift proved. Certainly I would expect the UN to demand the any Argentine blockade be lifted immediately and also sanctions under 1514(XV).
Unilateral sanctions are a dangerous game to play against members of powerful trading blocks like the UK in the EU.
No, I am sure friendship, cooperation & trust shall better relations & lead to a permanent solution. E.g., if UNASUR the EU free trade & movement & allowed the Falklands/Malvinas membership, such that firm friendship, trust & goodwill to each other becomes reality. Then they may choose closer ties freely. A happy outcome takes effort by all
(51) Domingo
Jun 19th, 2010 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“There is no debate about the applicability of self-determination.............................................................................................................................................................................................................”
I say:
Yes, it is, as Nr.: 43 proves.
No. You are wrong in terms of the will of the United Nations members. As I remind you, the UN General Assembly has debated the question of non-self-governing territories right to self-determination and has resolved in 1514(XV) that all non-self-governing territories have the right to self-determination.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Think 51. Your source Mr David Moss, in comment #43 , states that:
”The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the first article of both the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held that this right is ’irreproachable’.“
So it is confirmed by Mr. David Moss that:
The right to self-determination is irreproachable.
as all relevant international organisations confirm the inalienable human right to self-determination. It is irreproachable. There is no international debate here on self-determination or to whom it applies, it is agreed self-determination is an inalienable human right applicable to the Islanders.
Mr David Moss then goes on to address the separate issue of Argentina. Namely, that in the case of the Falklands:
”Argentina would likely contend that the right to self-determine does not apply because the islanders are descendants of British settlers“
and this is :
”a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law”
I agree. It is contentious & I would go further & say, evidently problematic facet of international law. Argentina has voted as a UN member for resolution 1514(XV) and voted that it should apply to the case of the Malvinas.
It is hypocritical for Argentina to vote for resolution 1514(XV), to vote that it applies to the case of the Malvinas and then prevent implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in the case of the Malvinas
Argentine hypocrisy is indeed contentious &problematic. In despite the UK & FIG refuse to discuss Argentine hypocrisy, & prefer to implement 1514(XV) without further debate, after 50 years of delay
(53) Domingo
Jun 19th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say hypocrisy I say policy.
You say potato and I say potahto,
You say tomato and I say tomahto;
Ok. Agreed. Argentine POLICY is contentious & problematic & it is still hypocrisy for Argentina to defy the will of the United Nations on resolution 1514(XV), when Argentina itself voted for resolution 1514(xv) that self-determination should apply to non-self governing territories & pecifically voted for resolution 1514(XV) to apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, & the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
Immediate steps shall be taken in...Non-Self-Governing Territories... to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
The Falkllands/Malvinas freely expressed will & desire is:
“The message is simple and unequivocal. We are a distinct community with our own identity and separate Government. We have the right to self determination, the right to decide our own future, unhindered by any interference from any other government; and our expressed, democratic wish is to remain British. It is time the Argentine Government accepted that.”
& both the AR & UK must act in accordance with the Islanders wishes under resolution 1514(XV).
The facts remain unchanged and confirm that the rights to self-determination apply to the Islanders and they may act in accordance with resolution 1514(XV) to secure the rights applicable to self-determination.
Thus no matter how we say it: Potato, potahto, tomato or tomahto, the Islanders right to self-determination is irreproachable & guaranteed by 1514(XV) & by the UK & UN against further Argentine force or aggression, as it was in 1982.
Nope!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yup!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lazy Gook... :-)
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ .... would be too great for shareholders and operating companies will be unwilling to take the legal, political and commercial risks of developing natural resources...”
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, right ... and you really believe that?
http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's more than just policy Domingo, it is hypocrisy. The presidential shipping decree in Feb is just one example of a hypocritical act. That was more than just policy.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0(59)Hoyt
Jun 19th, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as the Free Market market believes it........
You don't argue with the Free Market.......
You manipulate it.....
If you can...
We'll try..
Twink
Jun 21st, 2010 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What has the Free Market to do with it? The Secretary General of the United Nations, you remember, the chap your Sr. Taiana rushed off to whinge to, has told the Committee of 24 and the World that the 16 non self-governing territories must have self-determination on their future. No exceptions for the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. I'd say that's Ban Ki-moon's answer to Argentina.
Sorry lads could not find any Oxford Professor.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Dark Side of Self-Determination
January 11, 2009
Author: Joseph S. Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
......Self-determination is generally defined as the right of a people to form its own state. This is an important principle, but who is the Self that is to do the Determining?.....
.....Self-determination has turned out to be an ambiguous moral principle. Woodrow Wilson thought it would solve problems in central Europe in 1919, but it created as many as it solved.....
.....Demands for self-determination in today's world must be judged on a case-by-case basis that assesses the motives, means, and consequences involved, and that does so in a multilateral framework.
Complete Article:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18773/dark_side_of_selfdetermination.html
I agree with that he says.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For example a few thousand people in the middle of new york gang up and declare self determination when they've been American their entire lives. That is not a case of self determination.
Think, these people have not EVER been a part of your culture, they have never been aligned with your nation, They don't speak your language, they don't share the same goals.
These people have been living there for almost as long as your nation declared Independence . They are not harming anyone, they have every right to live how they want.
And the thing is, these people HAVE their own government, they already are their own people. Many of them consider themselves Falklanders, not British, if they could afford their own defense then by all means they would an independent state.
65 Zethe
Jun 21st, 2010 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't need to make your own examples with New Yorkers. Enough examples in the article.
The settlers of the Falklands are trapped in GB geopolitical hunt after natural resources.
After 1982, GB took military control over the richest breeding ground in the world for illex and lolligo squid.
Selling fishing licenses in former Argentinean waters to third parties has financed the Falklands since.
Not very much Argentina could do about that.... We had other problems....
Now, GB is going after the oil and rubbing our noses in it. Next Stop: Antarctica.
So Pleeeeease, don't give me that “sentimental card” about GB protecting their “Goals” and “Dreams”
Ask them how the “Company” treated them before 1982!
Ok, so you are suggesting we implanted them there over 170 years ago as some sort of oil plot? before oil was even a commercially wanted resource.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982 by all definitions we liberated a group of our own citizens from a hostile nation. We did not “take military control” We retook our own soil. I know you claim the islands. But that's all you have: a claim.
“Now, GB is going after the oil and rubbing our noses in it.”
If you read up about it you would realize that it was in fact the Government of the islands who started the drilling. Thats not to say we won't benefit from having access to the oil, but it's not “our” oil.
I talk about now; you about 170 years ago.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I talk about waters and fish, you about recuperated soil.
I talk about an British Overseas Territory, you about “Island Government”
You say “its not our oil” yet you declare: “We liberated a group of our own citizens ” and ” We retook our own soil.“
You have, previously, used the word ”hypocrisy”.
Do you know the meaning of that word?
You certainly are good at it.
Ok, lets go through this list.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I talk about now; you about 170 years ago.”
Actually, you mentioned 1982, that's the past think.
“I talk about waters and fish, you about recuperated soil.”
Sorry. isn't your ENTIRE point here about territory? That's a bit rich coming from you. And you first mentioned the war. Unless there was some other military incident you was thinking about in 1982?
I talk about an British Overseas Territory, you about “Island Government”
A British overseas territory has it's own government. Like we've said, the only dependence they have on the UK is their defense needs.
You say “its not our oil” yet you declare: “We liberated a group of our own citizens ” and ” We retook our own soil.“
We liberated British citizens yes. We re took soil. And it's not our oil, the oil is a private business venture between the FI government and the oil company's. We don't take stuff from the islands, therefore nothing they create is “ours”.
That oil is no much ours as it will ever be yours. And you know the thing i love most about this situation? This money the islands make will give the islanders the money they need to become independent, what claim will you have then? LOL.
I've not said anything hypocritical at all. I know the absolute meaning of the word.
(69) Zethe
Jun 21st, 2010 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A “designer” territory
“Designer Legislative Assembly” that responds to a London appointed Guvernor.
“Designer Falklands Constitution” written in London.
“Designer Oil Companies” (Des.l, Fogl.l, Rkh.l, Bsth.l) created In Britain, for the sole purpose of exploiting Falklands oil.
As I said before, keep fooling yourself if that is your wish.
But be assured that nobody in South America.believes in those “designs”
Think, the Legislative Assembly are elected. They make the laws on the islands. They have an election every four years. The governor is a largely ceremonial role. Just like in Australia and Canada. On paper the queen holds many powers.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In reality the government makes the decisions and and Governor just goes along with it(Along with all fourteen other country's which still have the queen as monarch). The queen herself does this in the UK. They are just representatives of the queen.
The new constitution was not forced upon them. It was agreed upon and then signed in a ceremony with the queen, as is custom.
Designer Oil Companies:
British oil company's, yes. If i recall Argentina stormed out the talks over sharing the oil.
It's not the British government who's coming along and taking the oil. These are private companys.
Zethe I think you are making one fundamental mistake. Do not recognise that Argentina has a claim because they do not. They assert a spurious claim nothing more. That can largely be ignored. The islands have been British since at least 1765 and probably 1690.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0How we handle our islands is of no concern to Argentina, We can give them independence, we can keep them British, we can provide a range of shades of grey inbetween. The point remains. The islands are currently British and Britain is saying to the islanders, “what do you want to do” ? That is our right. Argentina needs to get used to the idea and butt out (to use an American phrase).
Think - the oil is irrelevant, and mineral resources are irrelevant, Antartica is irrelevant (we've got South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands for that!).
What's relevant to the owners of the islanders (the British) are the views of the residents and neither the views of Argentina, Mercosur, the OAS or even the UN are powerful enough to change that ....... wake up and smell the roses, we are already ignoring all of you! And there's not a damned thing you can do about it!
“ They assert a spurious claim nothing more”
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's all i meant mate.
I could claim your house. It does not mean i have a good claim :P
Well Chaps...
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0It has been a pleasure (specially Hyt and Isl)...
But really .... I got to go now....
As some of you know by now, I’m not entirely “impartial” or absolutely misinformed about the “Malvinas issue”
Time spend in here has not been a complete waste of time. I learned that:
1) Argentina’s government is not worried about the “Malvinas Oil Boom”. This “bubble” is being run by four small, capital weak “Designer Oil Companies” (Des.l, Fogl.l, Rkh.l, Bsth.l) fashioned in Britain, for the sole purpose of exploiting the Malvinas Basin oil. Recycled BP and FIC managers compose the boards of these companies. No “big actors” have shown any real interest.
2) Argentina’s government is thoughtfully reading all the reports of the defunct “Argentine-UK South Atlantic Fisheries Commission” (SAFC) to find out how best to catch all the migrating species in our jurisdiction, before they reach Malvinas waters, thus denying the Territory their principal source of renevue.
3) Argentina’s clear strategy is (besides all that diplomatic mumbo-jumbo) to make it impracticable for any private company to operate with profits in the Malvinas area.
4) Argentina,s government is creating confidence with our three neighbors (Brazil, Uruguay and Chile) taking more than interesting steps to get them to ”put their money where their mouth is “ by refusing any contact with the British Overseas Territory. One such step is the reduction of our imbecile “armed forces” from 120.000 to fewer than 40.000 in the last years. (Personally I think 1 is still too many :-)
I’ll drop by periodically if and when word affairs go our way just to brag:
“I TOLD YOU SO !”
You don't need to post it in every topic, i doubt anyone cares that much.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear sanity has departed Think!
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Your opening Broadside on this forum was that we were in it for the oil and that BP would seen be along, the big actors have shown interest, but they are just waiting to see what the next round of drilling comes up with, it's not like they are going to be clambering over each other to exploit Falklands Hydrocarbons on account of one succesful oil well and a gas find? Wait and see Think early days.
2. In the same way Argentina destroyed the Hake industry? economic ruin for both industries both sides of the water? And anyway I thought the most Squid (Squid make up 90% of the Falklands Catch) migrated from the bottom of the seabed to the surface? Are you going to blockade the seabed? Good luck on that!
3. Haven't you been doing that for years? Look were it's got you eerm Nowhere!
4. Is that what they tell you in public? And anyway it seems you need those three support more than the Falklands needs them. However I would think that throwing tantrums and pissing of the Chinese, British and Chileans (you reopened a old irredenta not so long ago) is hardly inspiring confidence. the current political attitude I would say with Argentina by those 3 is one of not friendship but mutual sorry and the inconvenience of sharing a border.
By all means pop by and say told say when yet another Latin American organisation (I lose count sometimes a new one srpings up every week!) says that Argentina and the UK must negotiate.
We ex servicemen in the United Kingdom support the Falkland Islanders all the way.We still fly with pride the Falkland Islands Flag in the Palace Barracks Memorial Garden in Northern Ireland .
Jun 25th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should accept you are a colony implanted in argentine territory!
Jun 25th, 2010 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should accet that nothing is going to change!
Jun 25th, 2010 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jorge: The Islanders do have the right to self-determination because the UN General Assembly voted that they do in UN General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV). Argentina voted that that 1514(XV) applies to the peoplof the Malvinas. The UN works on the basis of democracy & the vote was carried 89-0. The C24 terms of reference are to ensure resolution 1514(XV) is implemented in the case of the Malvinas
Jun 26th, 2010 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina exercises no sovereignty rights over the Malvinas because it has no sovereignty rights, Argentina cannot dictate what the Islanders do, think or say because it has no rights in the Malvinas. The Islanders have clearly stated their expressed, democratic wish is to remain British. All Argentines must accept this.
The Islanders need accept nothing from Argentina. Argentina is breaking
international law, the UN Charter & UN General Assembly resolution 1514(XV)
The Argentine government & their neo-fascist nationalist accomplices are committing crimes against humanity by deny the Islanders their fundamental human rights under UN Charter & UN General Assembly resolution 1514(XV)
Argentine State's policy is to dehumanise the Islanders as stateless non-persons without fundamental human rights, to demonise them as a pirate British ethnic group & scapegoats to incite public bigotry & hate against them to justify their forced mass deportation & theft of their property, land & freedom and imposition of a foreign govt. against their will, a foreign culture & social structure & control of economic & miltary power. This is illegal & in direct contravention to to Argentina's solemn obligations under the UN Charter & resolution 1514(XV).
Make no mistake, the Argentine state representatives such as Kirchner, Timerman & Taiana are accountable for these crimes against the Islanders to the ICC, as are their partners in crime, including private citizens, not least the corrupt C24 members who are accountable for their complicity in this crime
Shame on Argentina & C24.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!