MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Taiana and Tierra del Fuego governor heads of delegation to C 24 in New York
A new chapter of the Argentine escalation of the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute is scheduled for next week at the United Nations Decolonization Committee or C24. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYou got to love the “punch line” at the end of this article:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Last Friday Deputy PM Clegg while visiting Spain and in perfect Spanish said that.....
Imagine the condescending smirk in your faces if an Argie newspaper wrote:
”Last Friday the President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez while visiting Britain and in perfect English said that.....
Doesn't she speak English?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the article, I'm beginning to notice that Mercopress is running a few hours behind the Buenos Aires Herald ... cuts down reporter costs I suppose.
Looking forward to the debate though - the Argentine representative said, “...., the Falklands representative said, ” ...
Do the Argentine representatives still walk out when the Falklanders stand up to give their version? I gather that they used to. Rather childish behaviour!
(2) Hoyt
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0From now on you will often be running behind Buenos Aires... ☺
You better get used to it.
Argie Satyagraha strategy working fine, sahib.
New Sheriff in town.
I learnt at an early age never to run but to walk, it's more dignified. Of course standing still is pretty impressive too :-)
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Depends who you want to impress.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure a Herman Munster's sister is going to have a great impact on the Falklands population or the UN committee
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0(6) Idle Hands
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well..... ......
It's better than a Sheep.....
Or not so Idle hands......
A concern here must be the membership of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/special_committee_members.
It is to be hoped that the members will put aside any interests other than those of the Falkland Islanders, but let us note that Antigua & Barbuda, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & The Grenadines and Venezuela are all members of the OAS.
Is this a properly constituted fora in which the Falkland Islands can argue its case, or one that will be predisposed to Argentina? I judge that, although they continue to argue their case year after year, both Britain and the Falkland Islands have long recognised that the Special Committee is biased. The result is that they pay little attention to its draft resolutions, whilst remaining hopeful that, one day, even the Committee will be forced to recognise that the stance of the Falkland Islands is inevitable given a neighbour with stated colonial ambitions.
And Jorgebobo keeps repeating that Argentina won't take its case to the ICJ because it's biased!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I ve lived for 2 years in Ushuaia, the capital of TIerra del Fuego, Antarctica & South Atlantic Islands Province (include Malvinas occupied) , now i return to BA to have another point of view and can compare about how live the two sizes : a democratic province with a democratic governor (Fabiana Rios) and a dictartoship gov. like Malvinas. In TDF we have university, oil royalties for de federal gov, taxes free, industrial prod, and 100.000 happy inhab., in Malvinas UK only mantain 2500 resentment inhab. plus 2000 royal army, without university education, only to clean their minds, with a virtual government, and now with oil exploration in Arg. waters. Lamentable.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0notrojuan thinks that the democratically elected FIG is a dictatorship .... there's no hope with idiots like him around :-)
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Last Friday Deputy PM Clegg while visiting Spain and in perfect Spanish said that “we will not compromise the rights, preferences and sovereignty of the Falklands”, adding that “we clearly want the Falklands to remain as part of the United Kingdom”.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This comments reminds me at Jack Sparow in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean...are we in the 2010? some British believe we are in the 1700's.
Marco, we know exactly 'when' we are as we know exactly 'where' we are, for example, we're in the Falklands!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred, are you confused? you are in South America and what you called “Falklands” is actually called Malvinas and part of Argentina.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marco- Nick Cleggs comment perfectly understood- what he meant was that UK wants the Islands to remain part of the UK- for as long as we- the peoople here wish to do so - its called democracy and what the Un has enshrined in its Constitution - self-determination freely expressed.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nitro- Hello good to see you back again! We have been over this one before- we dont have a Dictator Governor and more that Australia has a Dictator Governor-General!! All legislative power is vested in our elected Assembly and the Governor has no vote - he opens meetings in the Queen,s name - and then leaves and the Assembly is run by the Speaker - who is elected by the Assembly itself.
Neither are we 2500 oppressed people - we are 3000 who live here by choice. In 1982 we were indeed for 74 days an oppressed people under the boot of imperialist colonialism.
Today we are self governing Islands in freely desired assocuation with a larger country who defends us.
Islander
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred and me were chatting earlier and want to ask you something quiet important.
Do you happen to know, how many of the players from the outstanding Falklands Cricket Team competing in Mexico nowadays are actually Islanders?
You know what I mean?
Not imported... Born there or with Falkland’s parents.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Marco, The islands were first referred to as the Falkland Islands in 1708. The Spanish did not have a name for the Islands, so used they used the French name - Iles Malouines. Malvinas is a corruption of Malouines and was first used about 1805. That's nearly 100 years after the “Falkland Islands” came into use.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, you can call them the Malvinas if you like, nobody really cares. Just like the we say “Rome” instead of “Roma” or “Florence” instead of “Firenze”, but the official name for the islands is the Falkland Islands and until the Falkland Islanders choose otherwise they are and will remain British territory. FYI, The islands have never been part of Argentina.
(8) Harrier says:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”It is to be hoped that the members (of the UN Special Comitee on Decolonization) will put aside any interests other than those of the Falkland Islanders, but let us note that Antigua & Barbuda, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & The Grenadines and Venezuela are all members of the OAS.”
I say:
Let us note that Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines are all members of the Commonwealth.”
Why are these happy Commonwealth subjects biased against the Falklands?
Why did they vote in favor of Argentina at the OAS?
What do they know that You don’t know?
Ask them!
It’s about 1 million of them.
It's easy. Each is a small country. With fears about South American colonialism.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I only ever remember the OAS calling for negotiations to end the dispute. Not negotiations to transfer the Falklands to Argentine control. Two different things although Argentina likes to think they both mean the latter.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No right minded person would have a problem with Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines supporting the former. And they do it because it costs them nothing...
Very good, J.A.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you explain how the negotiations would go?
Let us imagine Britain and Argentina sit down. Britain says that there can be no negotiations about sovereignty without the agreement of the Falkland Islanders. Argentina won't negotiate with the FIG. Argentina maintains its claim to sovereignty over the territory of the Islanders. How would you recommend the dispute is ended?
Harrier, I will answer your question.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dispute will be ended when Argentina and UK negotiate kelper nation independence and britain retreat from south atlantic.
Billy, do you have any evidence that the Argentine government would be willing to accept an independent Falklands? Or that any previous Argentine government has been willing to accept an independent Falklands?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The keyword is decolonisation....A very good intention.
Begin in South America. Whole South America (and by the way N-America too) have been colonialised. Kick off the colonisators! For practical reasons, do it in alfabetic order. Begin with A (A like the first letter in the word Argentina!) . I am sure the people called Mapuches would like it very much . Good idea or....?
Think,
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have no idea really,several are born here,several have emigrated to here quite a few years ago- does it matter? One assumes they comply with the rules of the Cricket Association? But I can guess where you are heading! Were all those who fought and died for Arg liberation 200 years ago born in Argentina- I suspect some at least may have been born in Europe? Does it matter - of course not - they chose freely to support the Country where they lived and worked.
As one long term permanent resident of the Islands(but born overseas) once put it - “none of us have any control over where we are born - but we can choose where we wish to live and finally die” - and that is a fair sentiment to me - be you in the Islands or Argentina.
Of course the smaller the population then the easier and quicker the percentage game of who was born where can get distorted!
Next week will no doubt bring the usual annual ritual- but we only need to send a team of 2 - no more as we know we are in the right.
I for one would like to see an impartial fact finding visit here by a delgation from both the OAS and the DeCol Committee.
dab...first you must answer me why bennys talk about selfdetermination but not about independence.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, please don´t compare kelper society with argentine society. Argentina is from the beggining a free nation; in argentina´s society you can find originary people, spanish, criollos, italians, polsks, rusians, germans, other europeans, japs, coreans, chinees, parags, bols, africans, etc.
But benny society is since 1833 an isolated societed, look your history, look your labour and inmigrant laws; only british, no argentines, a few chileans to make hard work. that´s why britain could sustain this colonial enclave; that´s why selfdetermination is a fake. kelper society is an endogamic system; low vitamins but hight alc; why don´t you look at your cousings of TDF?? TDF is 5 times falk pbi with similar resources, only difference is the colonial status. There is no other problem in south atlantic, only problem is british colonalism; why don´t you build your country?? ask argentina to negotiate british retreat from south atlantic and nation kelper independence to start.
Well thank you Billy Hayes for that load of old tosh! Talks about independece whilst being unable to refer to the islanders by anything other than derogatory terms.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina is from the beginning a free nation” - well I suppose it depends from when you start and missing out quite a few dictatorships along the way.
Of course it may be that the islanders would be a less isolated people if they'd been subject to a few fascist regimes and 'dissapearances' along the way! It must have been terrible to live under the democratic junta of Britain for so many decades!
I think that the British Government has taken the right approach because there is just no talking to these idiots. Maybe when they've got 2000 years of history to celebrate then they may have grown up a bit!
(25) Islander
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cricket and the Falklands; does it matter?
Thanks for answering my captious question about the “nationality status” of the Falklands Cricket Team players.
--You say:
“I have no idea really, several are born here, several have emigrated to here quite a few years ago- does it matter? One assumes they comply with the rules of the Cricket Association? But I can guess where you are heading!”
--I say:
Yes, it does matter. Rules are essential.
Be it in sport or in any other aspect of life.
Being a small team/territory does not give you the right to break them.
Yes, it does matter!
--You say:
“Were all those who fought and died for Arg liberation 200 years ago born in Argentina- I suspect some at least may have been born in Europe? Does it matter - of course not - they chose freely to support the Country where they lived and worked.”
--I say:
Does it matter? Of course not!
--You say:
As one long term permanent resident of the Islands (but born overseas) once put it - “none of us have any control over where we are born - but we can choose where we wish to live and finally die” - and that is a fair sentiment to me - be you in the Islands or Argentina.
--I say:
You may “Choose where you wish to live”.... but that’s not the same as getting permission to live there.
The people of the Calais Camps learned it.
The people on the dinghies at the Strait of Gibraltar Strait learn it every day.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world are not allowed to, as this “long term resident” puts it: “Choose where we wish to live and finally die”
“Choose where you wish to live”.... but that’s not the same as getting permission to live there....”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Er, I think, Think, that the Falkland Islanders actually have permission. And from the longstanding owners of the sovereignty who have in fact handed over the permission giving powers to the islanders own Government ....
... but your point is, perhaps, that life is not fair? Quite correct, it ain't. It's just life, fair don't come into it!
(29) Hoyt
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll drink to that last comment.
Have you seen Lexais the “Impartial Argie Historian” lately?
I was rather wondering about him myself ....... he was too good to be true :-)
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@harrier61 How about Argentina drops its claim?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please indulge me....I know it’s long but...
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Look what happens with “ ?? Argentinean ?? LEXAIS” text by simply substituting “Argentine” with “British” and “Ours” with “Theirs”
It makes even mor sense!
Weird Huhhhh?
I tend not to get into these types of Internet debates, but for once I feel as though I should get my opinion across.
Firstly, i am British. 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 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 Overseas Dependant Territory. This means, in essence, that we can no sooner 'Give' them the Islands than Argentina can 'Give' Paraguay to Britain. 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 keep the Islands under British 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
Think, you appear to be a lot more exercised by Lexius' nationality than by the points he makes. Is that because you have no answer to them?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cont.... whatever they want.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is simply no debate here, our Government can spit and shout all they want, but they need to talk to the Islanders, not the Argentinean Government.
Many Governments in the past have tried 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 laws 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 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 forever. We need to focus on the here and now.
In my opinion, Great britain’s current Government is having an adverse reaction in regards to securing sovereignty. Alienating the Argentineans from the rest of South America is only going to make southamericans to align themselves. I personally believe that the Argentinean 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...
“This means, in essence, that we can no sooner 'Give' them the Islands than Argentina can 'Give' Paraguay to Britain... ”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0missed a bit, fruedian slip?
And Mr. Roberts has a point!
!!! This finishing lines are worth reading !!!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cont...... ill-placed nationalism.
Securing sovereignty of the Islands is an important task for any British Government. There is no quick fix, but the support of the inhabitants is the first condition in doing this.
But, frankly, Argentina’s current aim of driving a wedge between us 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 are better off under our leadership, what the positive economic and social effects are, as opposed to why they are ours in the first place. Our biggest concern should be their continuous state as a British Overseas Territory, not the possibility of the Islands becoming and independent nation.
That would surely spell the end of the British claim.
The simple fact of the matter is: the Islands are quickly becoming Self Sufficient.
Britain needs to find a way for the Islands to need us, not to be able to exist without us.
The stated policy of the British Government has been to deliver independence upon request to any British Overseas Territory and has been for over 40 yrs. So we don't care if the islands want to be independent, we give them the freedom to choose. Same as if they decided to ally within another local country, they have the freedom to choose.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lads,
Jun 18th, 2010 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember the source of this text!
It originated from an alleged “Neutral Argentinean Historian”.
Hoyt: I did not miss anything...
I don’t wish to lie or manipulate here.
But apparently others are not so pernickety.
And speaking about Hiperbolic Freudian Slips.......= “Britain needs to find a way for the Islands to need us, not to be able to exist without us ”
Nice endline.
J.A. Roberts
Jun 18th, 2010 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Probably the best idea. After all, one of the arguments constantly put forward by the SA contingent is that the Falkland Islanders have no right to self-determination because they are not an indigenous people. By the same argument, the majority of people living in the territory currently called Argentina are not indigenous and also have no right to self-determination. They are just the descendants of groups of people planted in South America by the Spanish and Italian governments. Surely it follows that they have no right to form a “government”?
I remember Lexias said he was a historian but I never recalling claiming to be “neutral”. Mr Think embellishing the facts somewhat methinks...
Jun 18th, 2010 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Harrier, if your ancestors went to Argentina of their own free will, that's called “immigration”, if they went to the Falklands of their own free will then for some reason it is “implantation”? That's latin logic for you...
harrier, in SA and in modern world seldetermination means popular sovereignity; this definition is incompatible with british presence. the only way the region will recognice kelper seldetermination is when they exercise it as the world and the region understand it should be exercised. now kelper selfdetermination is a farse used to sustain british colonial presence in a southamerican territory. there is no justification for that presence.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(42) J. A. Roberts
Jun 18th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me for the last time correct you then....
You can read: ... Thread: Argentina must accept......25 Lexais
He declares:
“My answer is merely a reply, not necessarily my own opinion. As, in my profession, we are not entitled to one.”
This is the 4th time you falsely accuse me of distorting facts.
I think I will keep communicating with the others here.......
43 Billy Hayes “harrier, in SA and in modern world seldetermination means popular sovereignity; this definition is incompatible with british presence.”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't aware there was more than one definition of self determination? What is Popular Sovereignty exactly?
I believe self determination is when a group of people chose their own fate, which is exactly what the Falkland Islanders have done. How is this not self determination?
“ ... Self-determination is the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion. In politics it is seen as the freedom of the people of a given territory or national grouping to determine their own political status and how they will be governed without undue influence from any other country.....”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As there is no “ undue influence” from Britain, Billy Hayes' definition doesn't seem to be applicable. No?
legion; seldetermination is the modern worl´s tool to fight against colonialism.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0bennys are trying to use it to sustain a colonial situation, that´s an absurd situation.
popular sovereignty means that there is no power over that society.
kelpers are using selfdetermination to anulate their popular sovereingnty; that´s an absurd.
in modern world selfdetermination consecuense is independence.
The form of “self determination” which applies to the Falkland Islanders is clearly defined in UN Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) of 1960, and not the version made up by Billy Hayes or anyone else.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Popular Sovereignty” is a South American term not recognised anywhere else in the world. It is most common in Argentina where it means Argentine sovereignty over something that doesn't belong to them. Elsewhere in the world, it is characterised as imperialism, colonialism or just plain theft.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UNGA Resolution 2625(XXV) of 1970 added a fourth option for self- determination
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
*The establishment of a sovereign and independent State*, *the free association* or* integration* with an independent State* or *the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people* constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Please. Nobody stop Billy. He's the best laugh we've had for weeks.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think,
Jun 18th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cricket I also hope the Islands team has meet the rules of team nationality! Otherwise it would not ne right at all.
Billy,
What a joke! I can go to a supermarket here and buy select from 6 different varieties of Apples, 4 different table citrus fruits, salads, fresh vegetables etc etc.Even strawberries and blueberries fresh. Also we have been finacially selfsupporting since the 1880s - they only money we ever had from UK in the 20th century was for for some new capital projects - and since 1986 we have met all those costs ourselves as well.
Independence- UK would give it to us tomorrow if we asked for it! The reason that stops us is very simple - we know that if British Troops withdraw from the Islands they will immediatley be replaced by Argentinian ones - and we had enough of them in 1982 thanks. So we stick with those we like and trust.
One day Independence will come as it is the only practical solution - but Arg makes it very clear that they will not accept it - they want to hold us as a Colony instead. TDF belongs to Aregentina because its people WANT to. We dont - that is the difference between a Province and a Colony(where you are ruled by nation you do not want to rule you)
For all of you; “Interpreters of International Law”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 07:42 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.
So Think, tell me, why do the descendants of Spanish settlers have the right to self-determination but not the descendants of British settlers?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what about the islanders descended from Vernet's settlement? You know the ones who weren't expelled as Argentina claims.
Booooring.... match
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 055 Think “Booooring.... match”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are referring to the England match Think then there is at least one thing we can agree on. A shocking performance from England. At least Gerrard was man enough to admit it after the match.
A while ago, everybody was asking; where are the Argentinean arguments!!!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were are they!!!
Where!!!
Well I served them to you.
British arguments, from a British lawyer.
Would anybody care to answer with other than evasive questions?
Avoiding the awkward question yet again?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do the descendants of Spanish settlers have the right to self-determination but not the descendants of British settlers?
A while ago, everybody was asking; where are the Argentinean arguments!!!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were are they!!!
Where!!!
Well I served them to you.
British arguments, from a British lawyer.
Would anybody care to answer with other than evasive questions?
“Well I served them to you”
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry think, one legal opinion does not an argument make.
“...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?...”
“.. would likely contend” - doesn't he read the newspapers? I would contend that the size of the population is irrelevant and that this lawyer is merely leaving the question open, as most do. He doesn't seem to know very much about the situation regarding Jersey either.
I suppose that the discussions at the UN next week might be a little slow as the Argentina Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana resigned today!
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you're right jerry, strange time to go to, just before the C-24 next week and after it had been announced that he was attending.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Outed as an agent provocateur working for the FIG maybe? :-)
harrier...a society enjoys popular sovereignty when there is no power over it so they can make their own laws.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0kelpers have a goverment; but is like any municipality. Main laws were made in London; look the constitution, labour & inmigration laws, commerce & investment.
Bennys don´t enjoy popular sovereingty because they don´t have constitutional power; that power resides in London. So they are no more than british subjects of a monarchy in a colonial situation but not citizens of modern world. Seldetermination is vicious in this situation.
The European Union is now the major law maker for all of the countries that are members of the EU but wouldn't claim to have taken their sovereignty from them. To suggest such to the UK would be the parting of the ways!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0As the term 'popular sovereignty' appears to have been made up in Argentina and doesn't enjoy useage elsewhere its relevance to reality is unclear. Importantly the UN don't use the term or, fortunately, Billy Hayes' definition.
In the real world, the one that allows the islanders to determine their own future, sovereignty is “... the freedom of the people of a given territory or national grouping to determine their own political status and how they will be governed..”
A new 'Argentine' definition is so self serving as to be laughable :-0
(61) Jerry and (62) Hoyt
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Taiana is out.
The new minister is 100 times more capable.
He is Hector Timerman, son of Jacobo Timerman
A link for those of you that Think that knowing your opponent is valuable.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Vkb7ue1bkUYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Timerman+%22Héctor+Timerman%22+jacobo&cd=2&hl=da&ct=clnk&gl=dk&client=safari
Taiana was a guerrilla in the 1970´s, but I still would be a little careful of endorsing Hector T. Like father, like son or the apple does not fall too far from the tree? Jacobo T. may be the only Jewish person declared persona non grata in Israel.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ...Unspecified policy differences between President Cristina Kirchner and Foreign Relations Minister Jorge Taiana, and an incident in which she called his loyalty into question reportedly led to Taiana's June 18, 2010 resignation;[1] his replacement by Héctor Timerman was announced the same day...”
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wow, Wikipedia is on the ball with this.
As for the new appointee, I wonder how he'll integrate his new role and his 'Human Rights' principles?
(66) Jerry
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes he was....
For defending human rights and criticizing the extreme right mentality that rules Israel.
Hector Timerman is our “best man ” for the post.
Can already imagine the sarcastic “Argie-Jew comments” from the “Blood & Honour” and “Combat 18” elements in here...
A lot of parallels between Israel and the Falkland Islands. A small nation surrounded by enemies.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is from the “British argument of a British Lawyer” Think foisted upon us at #53
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“For example, would the UK argument hold true if the population of Jersey voted to become independent of the UK or part of France?”
Well, if he thinks the States of Jersey are part of the UK then he's obviously not that well informed and it calls into question his whole article. I certainly would not employ Think's new best friend, he is obviously out of his depth.
Guess Taiana realised he had no chance of convincing Ban Ki-moon of Argentina's flawed case. Neither will Timerman, of course.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT. HOITRED.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON, I have to answer you in this articule, because the articule of the oas assembly is allready closed.
Firstly, there is no any contradiction in my arguments about the rights of my country on the malvinas before 1833.
Obviouslly i am not ging to repeat them again, think whatever you want, that's not my problem.
On the other hand, you still didn't answer me what rights had the u.k. to remove our garrison from port soledad', if it had a any claim, it was only on the gran malvina, beside you still mention the treaty of 1850, however you keep on ignoring that the only one purpose of it, was the rasing of the blockade, beside, the fact that my country didn't mention a word about it's claim during many years, it's not enough, to loss it's right to claim, (this si what the international right say), i have been reading about it, i told it to you in many oportunitys, this is not my idea, because i am not an expert in international right, these are te words of british expert in foreign affairs, ian brownley, i will add hes words to my survey, anyway i have the opinion of others experts who are not argentine, and who confirm what i think, if you prefer to ignore their words, because they something that you dont like, or because they are not funtional to your ideological posture, sorry jason, but life is not allways how we wish it.
HOITRED: My dear hoitred, i can have an answer for you everyday, even when you writte crap (everyday).
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - I doubt that you are even capable of answering my crap!
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... what rights had the u.k. to remove our garrison from port soledad',...”
Our right Axel is based on our claim dating to at least 1765, our defeat of Spain in 1771 which included our claim to ALL the islands, our maintained claim after 1774, our diplomatic objections of 1829 and 1832 and the fact that Argentina's occupation of October 1832 was illegal! I've made it short in the vague hope that you finally grasp the essentials!
The argument about the 1850 Treaty is that it was supposed to deal with ALL matters between Argentina and Britain, not just a blockade.
Any real research will include the opinions of those who DO NOT confirm what you think .. otherwise it is meaningless!
More crap from AXEL HERRERA REYES
I understand that you feel upset that we removed your garrison 100 years ago, after all, those troops had been living there for 2 months. How wuld you feel if spain came along and said you have to move out? it's quite comparable.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WHO is this so-called British expert in foreign affairs, Ian Brownley? Your teacher, perhaps?
Jun 19th, 2010 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, I don't usually ignore an option just because I “don't like it”, but it seems that is exactly what you do.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British claim was well established in 1833 and Hoyt has answered already. No need for me to repeat, although I know that you will simply ignore facts which you “don't like”.
Have you actually read the Convention of Settlement? In the first passage of the Convention it spells out what the Convention is about: To put “an end to the EXISTING DIFFERENCES” (which includes the Falkland Islands because it was a “difference” between them at the time); the restoration of perfect friendship; peace; the independence of the States of the River Plate. The treaty further promised: The British evacuation of Isla Martin Garcia; return of seized vessels and cargoes (by both sides); saluting rights for the Argentine flag (another form of recognition); British intervention with the French; Argentine law in the Rio Parana. It was not all about the raising of a blockade.
Read the text. Link below:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
And what is more, the Messages to the Argentine Congress regarding the Falkland Islands stopped IMMEDIATELY after the Convention was signed. It could not be MORE OBVIOUS that the Argentine Confederation had dropped its claim the Falklands.
If that is not enough, Axel, then I don't know what is....
Billy, you never end with your silly statements - we are in control of our constitution! we decided it and we employed experts to put it into the correct language - UK has a formal responsibilty to the UN to ensure fair democratic government in the Islands so they also need to “approve” it - but if it was not what we wanted it would simply not have happened - we decided it! Please accept that. As for the Monarch - yes we are subjects of the Monarch - so are all the Australians,newZealanders,Canadians, many Carribean Islanders etc etc. So are the Australians and Canada Colonies? Their constitutions are approved and signed by the Queen - or her reperesentative the Governor General - just the same as ours. Xan you not get it into your head that different nations have different types of constiutional democracy - ours and those other commonwealth independent nations that have kept the Queen as Head of State just have a different one to yours - a largely unwritten and traditional one- but no less democratic - to your one.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we get to control and keep ALL our income from wherever - and pay zero taxes to London.What we do with national income is OUR decision. Which Arg province has that level of independence from Buenos Aires?
Think, we will all see in time how the new boy works out at the Foreign Ministry, time will tell. Have you ever met him in your time in local government?
Dear Islander
Jun 20th, 2010 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for accepting that rules are Paramount (in Cricket). It is after all a gentleman’s sport ;-)
You mentioned the other day that not 200 but rather 600 Chilenians are residing at present in the Falklands. This is over 20% of the total population!
I have another capcious question to you:
What provisions has the FIG taken to avoid the granting of permanent residence/citizenship to these immigrants?
Are they allowed to apply for citizenship?
Are they contractually obliged to leave the Islands before your legislation entitles them to obtain permanent residence/citizenship?
Are they allowed to inter-marry?
Or has the FIG just plainly granted them the right of “choosing where they wish to live and finally die” as you mentioned in one of your notes ?
I’m asking because at this rate of growth Chile could easily, in a foreseeable future, claim the Islands by demographic / democratic means.
And that would truly have an effect on the Argentinean claim!
Have you seen how many British live in Spain ! Indeed, how many Spanish live in Patagonia ! You do ask some interesting questions Think :-)
Jun 20th, 2010 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0And how many muslims are taking over our beloved Britannia.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, Britain has lower immigration percentages than most other country's. over 90% of people in Britain are in fact, British.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander1 is totally right, the only dependency that those islands have on the UK is defense, the only reason they need defense is because they have a hostile nation 300 miles away. You Argentinians keep banging on about decolonization and at the same time you are the sole reason that those islands can not be independent
#75 Harrier 61 I assume that he means Sir Ian Brownlie QC. Indeed a respected practitioner in International law who believed that the ICJ was truly 'independent', possible because he won a fair few cases there. Sadly he dies in a car accident in Egypt earlier this year. The relevance for Axel we'll have to wait and see.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think - how many muslims are taking over ... well anywhere!
zethe - quite right, ironic ain't it :-)
(81) zethe
Jun 20th, 2010 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your info strengthens my point.
If the BNP can galvanize public opinion and all the other political parties against 8.5% “Foreigners” in Britain, then...........
Imagine what +20% would archieve!
Anyhow, the question about Chilenians in the Falklands still stands.
Any “responsible politician” would look at the demographic aspect and shudder.
“responsible politician”
Jun 20th, 2010 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now there's a conflict in terms !
At the last time of testing, the 2010 general election, the BNP got less than 2% of the overall vote, did not manage to return a single MP to Westminster and lost almost half of their local government seats.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's hardly “galvanizing” public opinion...
I tend toenjoy these threads like a kind of Simultaneous Semantic Chess.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One-player/multiple games.
But I’m here only for the “Chess”
Not for “Checkers” (J.A. Roberts & Co.)
Nor for “Tic-Tac-Toe” (Harrier61)
And certainly not for “The Lying Game” (agent0060 / Lexais)
Pasting the same thing into various threads again Think. How very considerate of you...
Jun 20th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(84) Hoyt
Jun 20th, 2010 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear colleague in conversational pompousness...............
Wouldn't the most adequate wording in this case be:
“Now there’s a contradiction in terms!”
Think,80- Well the figure includes those who work on contract terms at the military base as well but even taking them out as civilaian there do not go into the national census figures there are still 300 plus in the Islands.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are not racist so of course people marry whom they wish even Argentines can marry islander! Chilean-Argentine-English-Australian all are treated the same under our immigration laws. You have to have a work permit - after a period of years you can apply for “permanent residence” and if approved you can then reside here without a work permit. After that people can apply for “Status” - which makes them effectively the same as born Islanders . There are even Argentine born people living here with Status - not just Chileans and people from UK - we are not a racist society.
Cricket - yes there could be questions over some team members qualified - but its only an amateur bit of fun so maybe the rules are more relaxed!
islander, argentines in malvinas are the exception that confirms the rule; inmigration policy is the confirmation of the colonial situation.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0endogamic society.
“the fact that my country didn't mention a word about it's claim during many years, it's not enough, to loss it's right to claim”
Jun 21st, 2010 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it is actually, its a legal principle known as “acquisition through acquiesence”.
(89) Islander
Jun 21st, 2010 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for your answer...
Not surprisingly, the FIG uses the same rules to keep undesired immigrants at bay, as the rest of the industrialized world.
It’s not “racism” its “realism”. That’s the phrase commonly used this days.
We agree then that the glorified statement of “one of your old settlers”: “We choose where we wish to live and finally die” is more than heavily regulated.
Much more sincere are the words of old Don Bonner:
“General Galtieri really did us a favour when he invaded.
”It wasn't a very nice thing to do, but I think we were the luckiest people that was ever mixed up in a War.”
About Cricket: I am not so sure the Costa Ricans are so “relaxed” after the “lesson” you gave them last week :-)
“Not surprisingly, the FIG uses the same rules to keep undesired immigrants at bay, as the rest of the industrialized world”
Jun 21st, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh and Argentina has not immigration rules?
J.A: You forget mate, Argentina is allowed to make hypocritical statements as long as it's their national interests, i believe it's part of the constitution.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED. J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED: Your claim was just a joke, exactly like you, if one territory belongs to you, you have to occupy it premanently, the fact that you left a plac was not enough to consider a territorial claim for the rights of that time, i allready told why, and explained the bases of my arguments, you , jason and many of your compatriots can keep on ignoring all that you want, it's abslolutly irrelevant, in fact i can wait to heard the statement of you councellors before the u.n when they affirm that our claim is ilegitmate, let me remind you that never in my life i heart such an important assertion like that, dont you think they should mention it all the time, this assertion is only mentioned by you and your compatriots, wich is absolutly irrelevant.
Beside, about your claim, what you say, does not coincid with the letter i have from lord palmerston, when i show it t you, you will get your conclutions, meantime you, jason, and all the rest of your compatriots, have all right to keep on overflowing with crap this forum, and all those that you want, my dear hoitred, you and i are just ignorant, the only one that really matters, is what an expert in international right can say respect this dispute.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, I'm not sure if you are replying to me or to Hoytred? I've never really mentioned plaques or Palmerson's letter to Moreno. Anyway, as much as those things are interesting things to debate, they are ultimately irrelevant.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you'll find the only relevant thing today, in the case of the Falkland Islands, is current international law. Under that law, ie UN resolutions 1514 and 1541 of 1960, the right to self determination of the Falkland Islanders is very clearly spelled out. There is no alternative.
Axel. I need to point out something to you that you seem to misunderstand.
Jun 21st, 2010 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Beside, about your claim”
We don't have a claim to the islands. The people currently living there do not “claim” the islands. They live there and by all accounts own those islands until another government moves in.
Argentina has a claim on the islands, yes. The people living there are currently in possession of the islands. they own them, you have a claim, that's all.
Billy
Jun 21st, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing wrong with endogamy. I can see why any Falkland Islander wouldn't want to marry anyone with the sort of views that you typify.
It's rather similar to why, possibly, Argentines aren't permitted to buy property and settle in the Islands. British treason laws apply to EVERYONE on British territory. So an Argentine with retained Argentine nationality living on the Falklands who gave any support, of any description, to the current Argentine government or its position would automatically be guilty of treason.
(89) Islander
Jun 21st, 2010 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for your answer...
Not surprisingly, the FIG uses the same rules to keep undesired immigrants at bay, as the rest of the industrialized world.
It’s not “racism” its “realism”. That’s the phrase commonly used this days.
We agree then that the glorified statement of “one of your old settlers”: “We choose where we wish to live and finally die” is more than heavily regulated.
Much more sincere are the words of old Don Bonner:
“General Galtieri really did us a favour when he invaded.
”It wasn't a very nice thing to do, but I think we were the luckiest people that was ever mixed up in a War.”
About Cricket: I am not so sure the Costa Ricans are so “relaxed” after the “beating” you gave them last week :-)
Axel -answer a question or three:
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Why, if the 'marks and signs of sovereignty' (plaque and flag) were so unimportant, did Spain feel the need to remove them?
2. Why, if the 'marks and signs of sovereignty' (plaque and flag) were so unimportant, did Spain leave exactly the same when they left the islands?
3. Where, in international law in the 18th century does it say that a territory has to be permanently occupied by a garrison. Where does is say that continual use by citizens of the sovereign state is insufficient?
I would suggest that, re. the marks and signs, contempraneous action is good evidence. This of course happened in 1774 and was referred to in Viscount Palmerston's letter to M.Moreno in 1834. Try to keep up lad!
I look forward to reading your arguments regarding 18th century international law.
Billy,
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying that a Chilean or an American or a SouthAfrican-or any other foreign nationalk can just go and live in Argentina and get a job,draw a state pension, expect some health care etc etc - just walk in and stay for ever and thats it? I rather doubt it!! All countries have Immigration Systems!! I think the fact that people from Britain have to apply for a work permit and later if they meet the grade then the right to stay etc might suggest to even you - that we are NOT a British Colony!!
Think,
Glad we can agree on a few things! Yes I also claim that General Galteiri did us a BIG favour - we would probably have been Argentine by now if he had not invaded! Well not me - but my home probably would have been. One day we might even build a monument to him!
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 !”
No-one cares. Bye.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0There have been a number of questions over the status/nationality of the members of the Falkland Islands cricket team. I was a member of the 13-man team and it was composed of the following: -
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 05 are Falkland Islanders born and bred (and, as far as I am aware, all are at least 5th generation Islanders)
1 is of Falkland Islands descent, born outside the Islands, but has lived in the Islands for at least 10 years and is married to an Islander
3 have lived in the Islands for over 10 years
3 have lived in the Islands for less then 10 years, but long enough to qualify to play for the Islands under the ICC rules aplicable to all member countries
1 player received an exemption from the ICC
Of the 3 countries participating in the ICC WCL Americas Div 4 tournament (Costa Rica, Falkland Islands and Mexico), only the Falkland Islands had any players who were born in the country that they were representing.
” ... only the Falkland Islands had any players who were born in the country that they were representing ...
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now Think you timed your exit nicely, couldn't wait for the answer you wanted?
Or vice versa?
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Last sentence is, anyhow, a damn bloody British lie.
Buddha’s last words mate: “Doubt everything” Find your own light.
Still there ? :-)
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't trying to make any political point by saying that the Falklands was the only team with any players born in the country that they were playing for, I was simply stating a fact. Before you say something is a lie, it is usually best to check the facts. You can check the ICC Americas website for the match reports from the tournament and the full scorecards. None of the names of the Costa Ricans and the Mexicans have a latin ring to them, you'll find. And this doesn't matter, as all of their players qualify to play for their countries in some other manner - be it length of residence, descent, whatever - according to the eligibility rules that apply to all ICC member countries.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is all too easy to say that something is a lie just because that something doesn't happen to agree with your point of view or with the answer you were hoping for. Unfortunately, by doing so, you demean yourself and your point of view.
(108)Mr Pom In Oz
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
I wasn't trying to make any political point by saying that the Falklands was the only team with any players born in the country that they were playing for, I was simply stating a fact.
I say:
1) Yes , you are “trying to make a political point by saying that.
2) My “fact” is that I personally know two (2) of the Costa Rican players.
They are as Ticos as the “Gallo Pinto”
You Say:
None of the names of the Costa Ricans and the Mexicans have a Latin ring to them, you'll find.
I say:
If you knew anything about Costa Rica, (you even “declare” having being there with the Team!) you would know that descendants of nineteenth century black slaves that escaped from Jamaica populate the whole Atlantic coast. That’s why they speak Creole-english, that’s why their “imposed” English surnames, that’s why they like and play Cricket.
You say:
It is all too easy to say that something is a lie just because that something doesn't happen to agree with your point of view or with the answer you were hoping for. Unfortunately, by doing so, you demean yourself and your point of view.
I say:
Vice-Versa.
You are still a liar and very possibly, a well-formulated fake.
Yikes, Think, you've got me wondering whether I was in Mexico at all!
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point that I was trying to make was simply to put an end to the notion that the Falklands team was somehow made up of recently imported players. Each team that enters an ICC competition has to send in a registration form with the details of their players. The ICC Americas and the ICC head office in Dubai both check the eligibility of all players. All the players in our team (and those of Costa Rica and Mexico) met the eligibility criteria one way or another and so were cleared to play.
I'm sure that Costa Rica does have a number of locally-born players. However, as far as I'm aware (and I do stand to be corrected on this), there were none at the tournament - certainly that it is what we were told by the Costa Rican team themselves.
As for calling me a liar and a fake, well, that's a bit strong, isn't it?! Especially as I don't think that you've ever bought me a beer! I've been called worse, I suppose, so I know that I'll get over it, although it might take me a while!
More seriously (well, a little bit more seriously!), those last comments of yours are the written equivalent of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen.
Think, I thought you were leaving?
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0(110) Pominoz
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0I called you a liar because you last sentence at (104) was and remains untrue.
Your otherwise trustworthy information and the final results in Mexico seem to confirm my previous perception of Malvinas Cricket and lead me to believe that everything went “by the book”.
My choice of words was almost certainly a little bit inconsiderate, maybe because we have wasted our precious time ;-) in here before with impostors and charlatans.
I’ll think about the beer............
Good luck at Scroggie Park.
Think, thank you for your best wishes for the Falklands team (that is, the Falkland Islands team, not the Falkland, Scotland, nor the Falkland, England, team, I hope!) in the tournament up in Scotland next month.
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hi Think ... long time so see :-)
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is it time for “I told you so” already ...?
Make Cricket, not War!
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.cricketargentina.com/
At comment 102, Twink said:
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Well Chaps...
It 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”
AND
“I’ll drop by periodically if and when word affairs go our way just to brag:
“I TOLD YOU SO !”
proving beyond a doubt that Argentine not only LIE but they can't even remember what they said less than 24 hours before.
Based on his reported comments regarding the Falkland Islands so far, Sr Timerman will stand up and attempt to mislead by making inaccurate statements and embellish it with LIES.”” Always assuming that he doesn't run out of the room when the representative from the Falkland Islands speaks. Obviously, he's been doing it for his domestic audience, but I didn't think they would need it having been thoroughly brainwashed already. I assume he's practising saying these things with a straight face.
May God strike him dead if he attempts to mislead, tells untruths or LIES at the UN!!!
He's doomed then!
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED. J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 24th, 2010 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED: You misunderstood me, i never said that living a plac was unimportant to claim territorys, i said that it was not enough, it had to be accompanyed of a permanent occupation, i told you that the bases of my arguments, are based on the jose maria ruda's allegation of 1960, he mentioned that plac, and what he said was contundent.
Beside, mauel moreno's letter, and lord palmerston's answer were wrotte in july and august of 1849, you will read them.
J. A. ROBERT: Whatever i say, you will allways underestimate it and rejetc, you know that i respect your posture, i just dont agree on you, maybe you respect mine too, the only one diference betwen you and i, is that i base mi arguments on the knowleadge of academic people, i talk to expert people, i would like to know, with how many expert in international right did you discuss?, i all ready told all the bases of my arguments, i wont repeat them again and again and again, you have all right to reject what i say, the only one that really matters is what the international right says respect the dispute, including what it says about the right to self determination, and everything about the sovereign dispute.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
I know you've told me the basis for your arguments Axel, but you never got around to explaining the contradictions in your arguments. Like how the Falklands can be Argentine “patrimony” while at the same time saying Argentina inherited nothing from Spain...
Jun 24th, 2010 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for experts, I hardly think someone in the Argentine Chancilleria is an independent expert. The last place I would go for information about the Falklands is the FCO. You will just get the Chancilleria/FCO interpretation. I have told you before, it's best to get your information from independent sources and preferably contemporary accounts and documents. I have also said before that a good place to start is the AGN. You might have “spoken” to an “expert”. I'll take your word at that. Personally, I prefer to do my own research and come to my own conclusions. I don't need “experts” to help me with that.
You are correct. The only thing which counts is international law, and under international law the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination is paramount. The UN has made that VERY CLEAR. Self determination comes BEFORE anything else. Any resolution to the dispute MUST BE subordinate to the right of self determination. It's time Argentina accepted that and allowed the Falkland Islanders to get on with their lives.
I agree J.A.
Jun 25th, 2010 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0But they never will drop it. Just the same as our government wouldn't. for one it would be political suicide.
It's just one of those things they'll always moan about. Maybie in a few decades or so they'll have another go at a war again and we'll just send them packing again.
Apart from that, the islanders can continue living their lives. and getting rich as pigs off their oil! :)
Axel - what's the point of 'leaving' a plaque, if you aren't actually 'leaving' ?
Jun 25th, 2010 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Viscount Palmerston refers to the history of the islands quoting the events of 1771, 1774 and 1832/3 .... so your point is?
Sorry Axel, I forgot to mention that Palmerston's letter is dated January 1834 ... still can't see your point!
Jun 25th, 2010 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well thank you Axel, that was a very interesting half hour, now I'll ask you again, have you read Lord Palmerston's letter? The letter? Not a reference in someone's version of history or the MA thesis of a US student, but the letter?
Jun 25th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0M. Moreno's letter was sent to object the British action of January, 1833. It was sent in, unsurprisingly, 1833. Lord Parlmerston, as Foreign Secretary, replied in January 1834 (no internet in those days).
Palmerston was Foreign Secretary on two occssions, 1830-1834 and 1835-1841. He managed prime Minister in 1855.
I note from a very brief amount of research that one author has his dates wrong and that that mistake has been picked up by another. I cannot find any reference to letters from Palmerston in 1849 ..... your source, please!
J. A. ROBERT. HOITRED.
Jun 25th, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON: I repeat you again, that our chancery is not the only one source that i have for my survey, in fact, next thursday, i will have an interview with an expert in international right from the uba (university from buenos aires), i will talk to her about all the arguments of the british perspective, on the other hand, all the documents that i am using are english, you can think whatever you want about our chancery, but you have no idea about the all the valious information that you can find there about both perspectives, so, you are just making a prejudgment, because you think that there, you will allways find only the argentine perspective, but you are absolutly wrong, beside dont understimate the words of a diplomatic, just because she works in the chancery, she studyed to refute me all your arguments.
Anyway i need to heard more voices for a true survey, i will search another expert, but from the private sector, because the uba is public, and it's the most prestigious university from argentina.
HOITRED: I found palmerston's letter in the memorys of our chancery, and i found it too in the english documenst that i am using, dont worry, you will read both, before the end of the year, i will publish my survey, just give me time, because i have a lot to translate.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
You still have the fundimental misunderstanding that the past matters.
Jun 25th, 2010 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This isn't the 1800's. Treaties and territorial bargins, colonisation and the age of sail is over.
This is the 21'st centuray and the UN Enables people to have Human Rights, one of said rights is self determination. As the people have lived on those islands for a longer period of time than any other in history they are more than entitled to live how they wish.
Good luck Axel. Still, I would not trust the Chancilleria any more than I would trust the British Foreign office. I'm not surprised to read that “she studyed to refute me all your arguments”, so my point exactly. How can she possibly be independent?
Jun 25th, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think most people here, who can be bothered, have already read Palmerston's January 1834 letter to Moreno. It's freely available on the internet.
Axel, I feel able to prejudge anyone who can't even get their basic dates right!
Jun 26th, 2010 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED. J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 26th, 2010 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON: The expert who i will talk is a retired professor from the u.b.a, so she is independent, maybe in some moment you can understand that in our chancery, you can find important documents of both sides.
HOITRED: What part you dont understand that both letters that i have were wrotte in july and august of 1849?.
On the other hand, there i some thing more important to discuss with you, i have been reading the statement of honorable mlc, m.r gavin short before the decolonization comite.
I must say that it was really emotional, and i agree in some of his assertions, but he made important omitions too, like the existance of negotiations before 1982, beside he understimate the rights of my country, and argues the convention settlement of 1850, as a soposed prescription of our claim, what he omits, is that the only one purpose of that treaty was the reasing of the blockade, i said it in many oportunitys, it's true the fact that my country didn't claim during many years, but for the international right, the fact that a nation paralizes it's claim, is not enough to loss it's rights on the territory in dispute, it must be accompanyed of a recognozance of the sovereignty of the other nation, that is something that argentina never did, and mr short omits this in hes statement.
He only makes an strong defence of the right to self determination for the islanders, wich i agree, you know what is my posture about the conflict, if mr short thinks that a solution is possible like he says in hes statement, he ahould take into account that the solution must respect the wishes and the interests of the three parts fo the conflict, negotiation does not mean submition, it does not mean that the islanders will have to accept only the argentine sovereignty, i am sure that you offer a fair solution for all the parts, our government will accept it, beside i dare to affirm that most our people would accept it too, because i know the way they think.
I'm sure you can find some important documents at the Chancilleria, but do you really think they will show you ones which they don't want you to see? Probably. They are hardly going to be independent are they?
Jun 26th, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know you asked Hoyt these questions, but how exactly are the negotiations before 1982 now relevant. Don't you think the invasion changed things a bit?? And what rights did he underestimate? As far as I can see, the only law “que impone” is international law, and under that the Falkland Islanders right is paramount, before anything else including any rights you believe you have. All the historical stuff is just that, history - interesting to debate, but ultimately irrelevant.
Axel - you have a problem! The letter from M. Moreno is dated June 1833. The letter in response by Viscount Palmerston is dated January 1834. There was no exchange of letters in 1949 ...why on earth would Moreno complain about an action 16 years after it happened?
Jun 26th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to conduct serious research then you need to get the fundamentals right. If the letter you have is dated 1849, then there is something seriously wrong with your source .... so, what is it?
@Hoytred: Source Pepper & Pascoe: ' Argentine 2007 pamphlets...say...“the issue remained unsettled was recognised as such by the British Foreign Secretary in 1849”. Moreno was Ambassador to UK in 1849. On July 27th 1849 Palmerston replied to a question in the House of Commons:
Jun 26th, 2010 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Is lands, & had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, & she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain. 10 or 12 years ago the Falkland Islands, having been unoccupied for sometime, were taken possession of by Great Britain, and a settlement had ever since been maintained
there; and he thought it would be most unadvisable to revive a correspondence which had ceased by the acquiescence of one party and the maintenance of the other.”
The Argentine ambassador in London, Manuel Moreno, clearly unaware of what Rosas was negotiating,wrote to Lord Palmerston on 31 July 1849protesting against that statement. His letter quoted Palmerston’s phrase about the “acquiescence of one party [i.e. Argentina] and the maintenance of the other [i.e. Britain]”, and he also quoted several recent protests including some from the Messages to Congress. On 8 August 1849 Palmerston replied briefly, stating that “I have always understood the matte rin question to stand exactly in the way described by you in your letter.” In other words, Palmerston
himself had indeed mentioned Argentina’s acquiescence just as Moreno had said, and the Argentine protests had indeed been made just as he had stated too, so Moreno’s letter was a correct statement of the case – including Palmerston’s mention of Argentina’s acquiescence. Palmerston did not say the question was “unsettled” – indeed quite the reverse; he said it hadbeen ended by Argentina’s acquiescence.'
Sadly Axel has the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.
Thank you Domingo, I wasn't aware of the 1849 exchange. When Axel referred to his letter I believed he was talking about the 1833/34 exchange. What was Palmerston's position at that time? I don't think he was the Foreign Minister?
Jun 26th, 2010 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I haven't come across this exchange on the internet, but I'll dig a little further. Being in South East Asia at this time limits my research.
Axel - I appologise as we appear to have been talking about two different letters although it would seem that Palmerston's 1834 letter dealt with the matter in greater detail. The 1849 letter doesn't seem to say very much at all. However it may help to explain why no special mention was made of the Falklands in 1850.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!