MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Garré claims Malvinas sovereignty during ceremony at South African vessel
Argentina claimed sovereignty over the Malvinas and South Atlantic Islands and criticized UK’s unilateral actions in fisheries and hydrocarbons during the signing on Saturday of a defence cooperation and development agreement with South Africa. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell....... That's her job :-)
Nov 21st, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think - what? espousing common sense? another terrorist having come to terms with democractic rights and values of the free world!
Nov 21st, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas, forever in my heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A
Nov 21st, 2010 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once a twit Always a twit, does she now think that as south American countries have refused to help you recover the islands militarily, and only by the law, then you think south Africa will help you, perhaps you think south Africa will invade the Falklands, you guys are just pathetic, you keep pushing and pushing until the inevitable happens, then you will be the first to cry, my only critism of my government is why they keep letting you take the piss, and why they don’t or wont stop you, but the time will come when Argentina pushes to far,
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[sooner the better perhaps] Argentina the country that refuses to grow up,
Malvinas for ever in my heart.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A
Austin powers to the rescue yipee
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, there's not much happening and these idiot politicians have got to get their spurious message in, even if the event is unconnected. Funny though :-)
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Xbrain and Marvin - nice to know you've got a soft spot for our islands, but you can't have them ......... you're only going to get frustrated ... like your parents, and their parents, and their parents, and their parent .... etc :-))
wrong, are our islands.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As established in our constitution, we expect to recover those Islands following International Law”, added Ms Garré.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0International law, something that the British do not understand.
Malvinas Argentinas
wrong, are ther islands
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0wrong, are our islands if you do not understand, he will go home
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLaCqrisEac&feature=fvsr
mini me and argentina a match made in a box ?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0What flag flys above the islands?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Should give you a hint about ownership ....... and, indeed, reality :-))
mini me and argentina a match made in a box? hahahaha
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0What flag flys above the islands? Yes, with the logic of force.
So make a challenge to the ICJ ....... but your government won't, will it! It knows that it would lose and look stupid in front of all the supporters that it's garnered with its half-truths.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The answer will always come down to this .... if Argentina believes that it has a case, then it should take it to the ICJ.
War ...now that we brazilians joint our brothers argentinians (soccer loosers) we shall declare war against britain and get rid of the f'cker once and for all
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
@ 4 Briton ....
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0What? ja ja ja ja, no sense your opinion, not taught in school text compression
ICJ, good option for me.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 16 Rogger, are you briton? I told you that there will be no war, kid. It's not necessary.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0X ba what? are you illiterate I am a Brazilian, stupid, the English only understand brute force, tha's way we should invade the malvinas again....but if you Argentinians are too scared of the f'ckers ...sit back and let the brazilians get rid of them togueter with all those c'unts living in the islands...death for the invaders....
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is a good option for the British Government too. I'm no fan of devious politicians but I could see the ICJ as a win/win situation for them. In the surprising event that Argentina won then the British Government could graciously open negotiations on a handover to Argentina. If Britain won, Argentina would be unable to sustain any real opposition to the islander's seeking independence.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0But it takes two to tango, and while Britain would find it difficult to refuse taking the case to the ICJ, Argentina has previously shown unwillingness in the case of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Of course, there would have to be two cases presented to the ICJ as the latter 2 islands are not a part of the Falklands group.
I can see that being a particular problem for Argentina, as she has never presented any case in support of the claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands. I think it's a mystery even to the Argentine contributors to this site.
So .... has the Argentine Government got the stomach to take its claims to the ICJ ????
There's been no sign of such ........ doesn't the Argentine press not ever question why?
I agree with what he says in the first paragraph and part of the second, Argentina did not accept the case because it did not include the Malvinas Islands.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Argentina did not accept the case because it did not include the Malvinas Islands....”
Really? Now there's a coincidence, I was just reading the 1956 attempt by Britain to take the South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands case to the ICJ.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9065.pdf?PHPSESSID=58e48b8d8d7f29e232b750d37e368b80
You can read on Page 10, para 4 that, and I quote - “ ... the western limit of Argentina's pretensions, as given in the above-mentioned decree of Septemher 2, 1946, is longitude 74” West : whereas the western limit of the Falkland
Islands Dependencies is 6“ further to the west at longitude 80”
West. The United Kingdom's present Application does not, therefore,
relate to the areas of the Falkland Islands Dependencies
between longitudes 74“ and 80' West, which lie outside the declared
limits of Argentina's pretensions. Similarly, the eastern limit of
Argentina's pretensions, as stated in Argentina's above-mentioned
notice of claim, and diplomatic Note of Fehruary 15, 1943, is
longitude 25” West, whereas the eastem limit of the Falkland
Islands Dependencies is 5“ further to the East at longitude 20'
West. The United Kingdom's present Application does not,
therefore, relate to the areas of the Falkland Islands Dependencies
hetween zj” and zoo West, which lie outside the declared limits of
Argentina's pretensions....”
It was Argentina's 'decree' that limited the submission. Argentina could have corrected this and opened out the area of its claim so that the ICJ in 1956 could consider all the islands. But they didn't. Argentina complained and refused to take part in the proceedings. Cowardice, no?
This is too technical for me, but i appreciate it, i will analyze
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rotted, Since when thieves tell victims what will be the appropiate action in order to recover their stolen property?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I must correct myself. The application to institute proceeding was dated May 1955 and the matter was subsequently removed from the list in March 1956.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The discontinuation of proceedings is given at - http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/2157.pdf
Argentina refused to accept the ICJ's jurisdiction over the matter. Indeed it appears that Argentina refused to contact the ICJ at all and only made its objection known via the Ambassador to the Netherlands via a letter. Argentina rejected the idea of the issue being referred to “ ... any international Court of Justice or Arbitration Tribunal ...”
As Argentina has rather more recntly taken the Botnia Mill case to the ICJ, the assumption must be that they now acknowledge the ICJ's jurisdiction over international disputes ...... so there is now an opportunity for Argentina to take its claims to the ICJ. No?
Ah are these the fantasy international laws which nobody in Argentina actually knows about, but quotes them anyway?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its funny every article I have read and every appearance at the C-24 Argentina makes, claiming international law has been violated, they however do not specify which law has been violated.
And it gets even funnier when they claim that economic activity by the islanders constitutes a unilateral act, why don't they just go and complain to the UN every time an islander makes a withdrawal from an ATM.
Its pathetic really and just shows how infantile the Argentine position has degenerated under the current administration.
MoreCrap, if the victim isn't prepared to go to court, it tends to raise questions about their claims.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only other news report I could find on this is at
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article775079.ece/South-Africa-Argentina-sign-defence-pact
interestingly, no mention of the Argentine flight of fancy :-)
Of course there's no mention of it, It's just a foible that people have learned to put up with, If you're in a position where you have to interact with an Argie eventually they'll start mouthing off about their 'sovereignty' of the Falklands and try to insist that you aknowledge it. Just one of those things, nod politely, make a few sympathetic noises then forget about it.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Typical of our Gender, common sense”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0If they actually had any common sense they would drop all this pretence that Argentina has any claim on the Falklands and worry about more important things in their homelands.
Dismissing half the world's population as having no common sense is not really a good approach to politics.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0James D. Lewis, an official of the Municipality of Puerto Santa Cruz who was born in the Malvinas Islands, traveled last week to the UN headquarters in New York with Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana, to get an example on how some islanders and their descendants have been integrated into society without any problems Argentina, something called “kelpers” say it is impossible.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0James Lewis, who is now director of Tourism of Santa Cruz city, last days for the sixth time he traveled to New York, invited by the National Chancellery with Marcelo Vernet, great-grandson of the first Argentine governor of the Malvinas Islands, to petition the Special Committee to examine the situation on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in this case on the question of the Malvinas Islands.
Lewis, though born in the islands, grew up in Puerto Santa Cruz. His grandfather, Frank Lewis Ushuaia, became mayor of this town, there is now a street bearing his name.
In this way, it reflects the way the settlers who migrated from the Malvinas to the continent took place without difficulty in integrating and respected as full members of the community.
On this there are several examples in the province of Santa Cruz, as the case Gleadell family, whose descendant today is the mayor of Puerto San Julián.
It is recalled that the meeting of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations, Foreign Minister had renewed Taiana strongly claim sovereignty over the Islands in a speech where he emphasized that Argentina's stance “unchanged.”
The Decolonization Committee of the United Nations (UN) gave a new impetus to the claim that Argentina claims sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, to issue a consensus resolution urging “dialogue” with the United Kingdom to end the dispute.
Taiana speech before, heard the testimonies of the two Argentine petitioners Lewis and Vernet.
Integration
Thus, James Douglas Lewis, whose parents settled in
Marcelo Vernet, great-grandson of the first Argentine governor
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How old would that make him?
Argie bollocks at work
“Malvinas Islands, to petition the Special Committee to examine the situation on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You do realise that the islands gaining independance would NOT make them Argentine territory, they would be a new nation.
Thus, James Douglas Lewis, whose parents settled in the town when he was a child and was educated at an English school in Buenos Aires, noted at the time that ”it is interesting to know that Captain Carlos María Moyano (first governor of Territory of Santa Cruz, whose remains lie in this 'historical capital' of Puerto Santa Cruz), an island married: Ethel Turner, reflecting the large islands closer to the mainland at that time.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This was the second wedding held in the territory of Santa Cruz. Many islanders were highlighted and they and their families are still highly respected as full members of the community.
My case is similar, and a generous country like Argentina, myself, like thousands of immigrants have been able to develop according to their customs and beliefs in freedom and harmony with the rest of the inhabitants. “
In his fiery speech, Lewis reminded the UN that ”the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted in 1986 by a hefty majority, the resolution 41/11 declaring the South Atlantic as a 'zone of peace and cooperation'.“
Among his last paragraph said that ”the rights of Argentina for possession discoveries and previous to 1833 have been repeatedly recognized by large majorities in this forum, and my country has been and is always open to dialogue that addresses all issues, including sovereignty '.
James D. Lewis traveled last week to the UN headquarters in New York with Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana?? That must have been some feat; Taiana resigned last June, and Hector Timerman was put in the position. Makes you wonder what information you can believe among these posts?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This information is from 2007, just want to show the opinion of another islander.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This video shows that empires do not respect other countries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AbL-CRU28U
You misunderstand the position Malvinense, It's not a question of whether we could integrate into Argentine society, It's whether we should have have to.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinosense. But this James Lewis isn't an Islander, is he? He doesn't live there. He is actually, as you say, “an official of the Municipality of Puerto Santa Cruz”. So he's an Argentine. Not exactly a good “witness”.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And “His grandfather, Frank Lewis Ushuaia, became mayor of this town, there is now a street bearing his name.”. So what is this? His parents went to the Falklands, she gave birth and a little while later they moved back to their “ancestral” home. Islander, my left foot. He's about as believable as a sea serpent.
Westi, and why not? perhaps one day, an islander is president of Argentina.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typ, James Lewis lived in the islands, too Yolanda Bertrand, she says: ”The islands are Argentine. It happens that Britain seized them improperly, in 1833, at a time when European powers took territory in which they could.
in 1833, at a time when European powers took territory in which they could.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina would if it could, take territory in 1982
Stick, Not repeatable to an independent nation, is believed to browse their rights to inland rivers.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AbL-CRU28U
This is all complete nonsense Mal. No-one is disputing that Falkland Islanders can and have settled in Argentina, and Argentines have settled here. What relevance does the choice made by these individuals have to issue in question?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well said Marvin ... you've shown that nothing has changed since 2007. Nor will it. Well done :-)
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The C-24 is largely discredited now and is unlikely to achieve any more. The UK is pressing for it to be disolved .... to save costs :-))
At this time, what activities do people in the islands?
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0What do you mean?Are you asking me what I'm doing right now?
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0yes, the people...
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0be carefull monty69.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0briton, the truth is that I do not understand, why care?
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am for a good chicken dinner in the oven with a cold beer, why are you afraid?
Nothing so exciting, briton; sadly running around naked doesn't feature in this evening's activities.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's see.....exercised dogs, or rather sat in vehicle drinking a well earned beer and yarning with other half whilst dogs ran around in the sand dunes......raided the poly tunnel for greenery and made a monster salad for supper, watched a dvd whilst other half drew a picture...thought about sewing and playing piano, did neither....about to feed the cat...cocoa...bed. What a debauched lifestyle we do lead :-)
what a load of crap this comment is “I’m really proud that two women Defence ministers are signing this first military cooperation agreement between two nations enjoying full rule of the law and democracy”, said Garré
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The South Africans would be very wise to have nothing to do with any Argentine dictators because it will drag them down to the same level.
If Argentina respected democracy why the hell did they invade our home in 82. The whole lot of them are a sick pathetic lot of time wasters who simply cannot agree to love along side anyone without causing trouble.
My guess to the push to form alliance with South Africa is to try and stop us from opening potential business in that direction. Dream On Argentina it will take a lot more than that to squeeze us and you know it.
Kelpers rule OK
Thanks Monty, i just wanted to know a little more.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm going to dinner, is a warm and quiet night here.
There is little to see on TV is better a good book.
Good night all.
#27Rhaurie Cagawell “Ah are these the fantasy international laws which nobody in Argentina actually knows about, but quotes them anyway?”
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, like I said before ask a well known British Lawyer what does he think about it.
http://www.thelawyer.com/opinion-the-future-of-the-falklands-could-it-be-compromise?/1003785.article
“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law”
David Moss, partner, Lovells
http://www.thelawyer.com/opinion-the-future-of-the-falklands-could-it-be-compromise?/1003785.article
Practices
•Mergers and Acquisitions
•International Arbitration
David has wide experience of upstream and downstream energy work and of commodities trading. His work includes:
•Upstream transactions and projects in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Colombia, Russian Federation, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Sea, Venezuela and Vietnam
•Upstream and downstream documentation such as production sharing, joint operating, joint bidding / study and area of mutual interest agreements, offtake and allocation agreements
•Farm-ins and farm-outs of upstream interests
•Pipeline agreements
•Drilling and other service contracts
•Trading of crude oil, refined products, natural gas and LNG
•Price reviews under long term supply contracts for natural gas and LNG
•Shipping of crude, refined products and LNG
•Advising on developing disputes arising in these areas.
Very impressive
(Thank you Think for the research)
International Law gets tested in International Courts, MoreCrap ..... like the ICJ.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go for it :-)
(53) Marcos Alejandro
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0(Thanks for Thinking:-)
Is 'thinking' the euphemism you use to describe the posting of a lot of guff as a smokescreen to aviod providing a straight answer, al la Think.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell it to the judge Marcos.
:-)
53 I think we have gone over this somewhere before Dumbkampf?
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0ooh yes I remember I tore you a new arsehole! Do you want a 3rd?
From our last lesson the conclusion reached was that you don't read sources and quote them ad Nauseum in the vain hope our knees turn to jelly, oh yes and you never answer specific questions you just quote the great messiah David Moss.
Lets get down to business shall we?
1. Its an Opinion piece
2. David Moss is not a towering international collosus on this issue.
3. He does not state anywhere or anything about a breach of international law.
4. He is a mediator, not a law maker, or upholder of the law.
5. His specialty is environmental issues, not long running sovereignty disputes.
6. He never once states there is a problem, he says its “POTENTIALLY” an issue.
7. His solution his trilateral cooperation.
8. The article was written before the Kosovo ruling, one which unequivocally states that self-determination is applicable in all scenarios OOPS!
So remind me again Crotch Sniffer of which specific international law has been violated which states that the islanders are forbidden from exploiting resources within their own territory and area of governance, an area I remind you which Argentina respects.
David Moss's credentials are not going to save you here Thickus Headus!
Have you even read the this fucking opinion piece which you repeat like a retarded hamster in a wheel?
Or do you just post these random articles in the vain hope that at least one word might support your ridiculous assumptions.
Remind me again because you have yet to answer the question, which law has been broken?
“Or do you just post these random articles in the vain hope that at least one word might support your ridiculous assumptions.”
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was under the impression that's what most of the Argentinians do on this website.
Marcos Alejandro......
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Never mind Mr. 57
1) He is a Sassenach
2) He is a Campbell Jock
3) He is not Clan, he is family
4) He is nothing more than a Lowlander
5) In short, anything coming out from such is “Hot Air”
He is British ... and we know where we're at :-)
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@59
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Eh? hot air? he's just asking a question.
“which law has been broken?”
Surely that's easy enough to answer....one word would suffice:
None.
:-)
What on earth are you blithering on about think?
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm quite intrigued to learn which international law has been broken, not the credential and opinions of an environmental arbitrater.
Or your deranged ramblings about lowlanders and highlanders, campbells and English people flying in hot air balloons.
It surely isn't that hard?
Name one law which forbids inhabitants of a territory from exploiting natural resources in a sustainable manner for personal wealth gain within their own administrative and territorial boundaries?
Oh wait.....you can't can you? Because no such law exists!
What makes it even funnier that the people doing the exploitation are a people and authority unrecognised by Argentina, so how can international have been broken if you don't recognise the people supposedly breaking these non existent laws?
Effectively under international law, unrecognised govts and people cannot break the law, because eeer, they don't exist in international law.
David Moss didn't figure that fact into his OPINION did he?
A womens heart may be as deep as the ocean, but Malvinisms contradictions are fathomless
Soon that you teel thruth to this British knucleheads they go crazy...Is it hard to digest the truth? Get some pepto.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#59Think, Rhaurie Cagawell is a Sassenach?
Scotsman walking through a field, sees a man drinking water from a pool with his hand.
The Scotsman man shouts ' Awa ye feel hoor thatâs full Oâ coos Sharn'
(Don't drink the water, it's full of cow s ** t.)
The man shouts back 'I'm English, Speak English, I don't understand you'.
The Scotsman man shouts back 'Use both hands, you'll get more in.'
Was there an Argentine commenting on here? All I heard was a fart.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Soon that you teel thruth to this British knucleheads they go crazy...Is it hard to digest the truth? Get some pepto.”
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Soon as they ask you a question you avoid it.
On several threads now i've seen you avoid the same question over and over again.
You can't answer which international law because we have not broken one, and it just blows your little mind, doesn't it?
(63) Marcos Alejandro
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rhaurie Cagawell......... Sweet.... :-)
Rhaurie Cagall......
Rhaurie Cagalot......
Rhaurie Cagalways......
The Sassenach!
Finished Think?.......
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good. :-)
Now how about answering his question?
Ask a Lawyer, even better a British one
Nov 24th, 2010 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.”
“One thing that is clear is that investors will need greater certainty about the legal status of disputed areas before investing substantial sums in exploration and production activities. In the case of the Falklands, UNILATERAL ACTION is, therefore, not a viable option in the long term”
http://www.thelawyer.com/opinion-the-future-of-the-falklands-could-it-be-compromise?/1003785.article
They won't answer because they have backed themselves into a corner; once you dissect every comment or claim they make, you find that its all made up crap, and at that point they realise its a load of crap, but instead of acknowledging they were indoctrinated in the crap, they can't face the fact as macho Latin American males that they have been found out on a public forum and are in a state of humiliation.
Nov 24th, 2010 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Caught with their pants down they bluster their way out of it, changing the subject, introducing unrelated subjects of contention as a basis that 'there's no smoke without fire', yet all that has really happenned is someone farted, and an Argentine heard it and decided to make up a story
Tengo tantas cosas para decirles!!! Cómo no estudié inglés en la escuela!!!
Nov 24th, 2010 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rosalyn Higgins, British jurist:
“From the UK perspective, self-determination plays an important role. It is a dependent territory whose people have been given the opportunity to decide about its continuation or non-status quo. From the British point of view the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory should be heard. But from the point of view Argentine is
irrelevant. ”
Here comes the interesting part:
”Should be said that the subject land comes first, until it is determined who owns the sovereignty is not possible to determine whether or not people have the right to self determination.
(67) WestisBest
Nov 24th, 2010 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even if you can be quite ”turnipy” sometimes; I reply to you occasionally because you are an Islander and your life is somehow at stake here………
But……Why should I bother to answer to this Sassenach?:
Post Nr. 57:
”Dumbkampf”
”I tore you a new arsehole”
”Crotch Sniffer”
”Thickus Headus”
”This fucking opinion piece”
”Retarded hamster in a wheel”
Ps:
Marcos Alejandro did answer at (53) and (68)
Marvin - tell that to Kosovo :-)
Nov 24th, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh crotch sniffer? you haven't answered my question :)
Nov 24th, 2010 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which law states that Islanders aren't allowed to exploit resources within their own administrative and territorial boundaries.
You can quote David Moss all you like.
But he doesn't answer the question does he?
Does he say “According to established international law what the islanders are doing is a whole hearted serious breach of international law”.
Does he say “The UK has violated international law”
Nope.....
Ergo you have not answered my questions.....
Still waiting.....
waiting....
waiting....
Got some bad news for you boys (other than the Falkland Islands are British - no problem!)
Nov 24th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... British brewer SABMiller on Wednesday announced its entry into the Argentine market after agreeing to buy CASA Isenbeck from German rival Warsteiner Group for an undisclosed sum...”
Be careful what you're drinking :-)
@71
Nov 24th, 2010 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gee thanks think, I wouldn't worry too much about 'my life being at stake' though, we know you're not going to get anywhere with your spurious 'claim', you've given it your best efforts (such as they are) and we're still here.
:-)
73 Rhaurie-Cagawell, “You can quote David Moss all you like.”
Nov 24th, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK Sassenach
“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.”
“One thing that is clear is that investors will need greater certainty about the legal status of disputed areas before investing substantial sums in exploration and production activities. In the case of the Falklands, UNILATERAL ACTION is, therefore, not a viable option in the long term”
All evidence to the contary
Nov 24th, 2010 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(74) Hoyt
Nov 24th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good news for Argentina and for Think…..
My personal favourite (Plzeňský Prazdroj) will be hopefully imported at an affordable price:-)
(75) Westi
You are welcome……
And many of you will “still be there” for many years……
Question is …….. How?
76.
Nov 24th, 2010 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unilateral action does not mean unlawful action, or a breach of international law.
Try again old chap
waiting.......
@78
Nov 24th, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Eh?
What do you mean...How?
You seem to have a bit of difficulty in understanding that we're here, we're British and we're not going anywhere, just saying 'Malvinas son Argentinas' (or whatever) means jack shit, the question is not 'How are we still going to be here?' think, The question is 'how're you lot going to try to prevent us from being here?' you've not done too well so far.
:-)
Question is …….. How?
Nov 24th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How long?
Well not in your life time Think, nor your Grand kids
Professor Antonio Cassese in his book “Self-determination of Peoples. A Legal Reappraisal”, clearly expresses that ”the inhabitants ... In the Malvinas are essentially colonial origin.
Nov 24th, 2010 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The distinguished Uruguayan jurist Dr. Jiménez de Arechaga, (former member and president of the court), in his book “The contemporary international law,” expressly states that for these reasons, the Malvinas case is precisely one of these cases derogating from the principle of self-determination where “the General Assembly has requested the States concerned to negotiate the issue of sovereignty and the transfer of territory, and has refused to accept effects of a referendum or consultation of the present inhabitants ...”
Kosovo, Gibraltar, Chechnya, it is not my subject.
“the inhabitants ... In the Malvinas are essentially colonial origin.”
Nov 24th, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one is denying that. Are you denying that Argentina is of colonial origin? If not, what makes it relevant to the discussion?
The latter refrence is a south american law person. And is incorrect entirely. The islanders are free to hold a refferendum if they so wish and have a constitution they wanted.
Allowing people self determination equals to derogating from the principle of self-determination in this mans eyes? In what world is that logically correct?
Ahh, Antonio Cassese ... a good old British name :-)
Nov 24th, 2010 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for Kosovo, you should make it your area of interest. The recent decision changed international law so that all that has gone before .... has gone !
79 Rhaurie-se Cagawell
Nov 25th, 2010 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain’s occupation of the Falklands was/is illegal. Both Argentina and the islands were ruled by Spain. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory. Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1816. For these reasons, Britain's invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was illegal under international law; Britain could not make a legitimate claim to the country.”
“The UK Government prepared a secret deal in 1968 to give Argentina ownership of the Falkland Islands, it has been revealed. An Argentine draft Memorandum of Understanding, largely accepted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is one of the documents released after 30 years of being locked in government vaults. Dated 5 July 1968, it reads: ”The government of the United Kingdom will recognise Argentine sovereignty over the islands with effect from a date to be agreed.”
Zethee, The occupation by the British in 1765, held in secret, was only partial, since reduced to Port Egmont, and precarious, because after eight years was abandoned.
Nov 25th, 2010 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that left visible signs of possession, to indicate their intention to return, no may be a superior legal title to the open exercise, continuous, effective and peaceful state sovereignty by Spain, the generality of the archipelago, during the 37 years following the British withdrawal.
In 1820, Colonel Jewitt took possession of the islands in the name of the new republic successor Spain, an action that was not answered by the United Kingdom or the time to recognize the Argentina's independence in 1823, and when finalized, in 1825, a treaty of commerce, friendship and navigation with the United Provinces of Río de la Plata.
By decree of June 10, 1829 the government of the United Provinces of Río de la Plata established a political and military government in the Malvinas Islands, headed by Governor Luis Vernet.
On January 3, 1833 the English corvette Clio evicted and expelled the inhabitants of the islands, and Argentine authorities established on the islands and proceeded to their occupation. From then until this the Argentine government has maintained a permanent claim their rights.
This historical background makes the Malvinas issue a special and particular colonial case, not comparable to the situation in other Territories.
Numerous pronouncements by the General Assembly aware of this fact.
Red, i gave many old British names, Malvinas is not Kosovo.
While the past is fun and we could debate it all day long.
Nov 25th, 2010 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The human rights of people who have been dead for over 150 years and were dead before human rights were even around do not, and will not override the human rights of the people currently living here, in this day and age.
“This historical background makes the Malvinas issue a special and particular colonial case”
United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, was created to make colonys independant, i don't see why you guys think that they are going to help you colonise the islands. The only outcome from them will be independance.
I don't think the committee will even be around much longer, none of the remaining territorys want to go independant, it's redundant.
The committee was set up around(BECAUSE OF) the principle of self determination, i just don't understand why Argentina thinks that they are going to allow a nation to deny people that right.
Before you come in with “they ask us to resolve the situation”
The United Nations has never called upon the British Government to discuss sovereignty over the Falklands islands merely the problem caused by Argentina's revival of its 19th century claim.
The Resolution 2065 (XX), adopted by a large majority of the General Assembly and reiterated subsequently in many other resolutions, states that the question of the Malvinas Islands include the dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom concerning sovereignty over the islands and should be resolved through negotiations which take into account the provisions and objectives of the Charter and resolution 1514 (XV).
Nov 25th, 2010 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0In this way is precisely defined with respect to the question of the Malvinas Islands, there is, first, a dispute over sovereignty over the territory. Second, that in this controversy are, from the legal standpoint, only two parties: Argentina and the United Kingdom. And thirdly, that the solution to the dispute must arise from negotiations between both governments, as the only way to end the colonial situation, in this case ruled out the possibility of implementing the right to self-determination.
Such unenforceability, on which the General Assembly was issued in 1985 to reject a proposed amendment UK including this principle clear. The principle of self-determination is only valid for people under a colonial power and not when it comes to the descendants of the settlers who illegally transplanted such power in the nineteenth century, following the expulsion by force to a population of Argentina earlier was returned to the mainland, without authorization to never come back.
86-More crap, crotch sniffer and Bum bandit supreme.
Nov 25th, 2010 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bravo Bravo! You've finally found something other than David Moss! And slightly more coherent, still it hasn't yet answered my question, but your nearly there! Should I crack out the Champagne to mark this evolutionary achievement?
Still what do now defunct “memorandums of understanding” (not laws) have to do with what you and your nutty ilk claim to be illegal acts?
But still you have not named a specific law that forbids drilling or exploitation of resources.
You've merley cut and pasted the Official position of the Argentine Govt on this issue.
And they also seem reluctant to identify which international law has been violated.
Or even which one currently forbids islanders to exploit natural resources within their own territorial and administrative boundaries.
I shall set some criteria:
1. Name the specific law
2. Date of the law
3. Date the law was ratified and recognised by all countries
4. Other examples other than the Falklands of these laws being enforced.
5. The specific wording of the law.
That shouldn't be too hard? here's a hint, you know that big mushy thing in your head? Its called your brain, use it.
Marvin, if you've got all this law on your side. why not take the case to the ICJ?
Nov 25th, 2010 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, if Argentina will not take the case to the ICJ it suggests that your interpretation of International Law and UN Resolutions is perhaps not as water tight as you try to suggest.
We believe that the islander's have a right to self determination. Much as the people of Kosovo had. We were prepared to stand behind Kosovo in support of their declaration of independence. We'll do the same for the Falkland Islanders when their time comes.
You are right in one respect however - the issue is only between two parties ..... the British and the islanders!
You've certainly found yourself a lot of words there Malvinense, well done.
Nov 25th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0However once you get past all the historical minutae, opinions, rhetoric and so on surrounding the issue of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands you get down to this:
Argentina claims sovereignty of the Falklands.
Britain claims sovereignty of the Falklands.
...and there is an established, autonomous population in the Falklands who also have rights no matter what any historical edict says, and this population concurs with the British claim.
(I know you RG's you like to believe that we're merely an implanted population serving the UK's interests but hey, you're wrong, shame shame)
Two against one,
:-)
Rhaurie-se Cagawell
Nov 25th, 2010 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0blah blah blah....boring Sassenach.
Answer to your question:
“Britain’s occupation of the Falklands was/is illegal. Both Argentina and the islands were ruled by Spain. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory. Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1816. For these reasons, Britain's invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was illegal under international law; Britain could not make a legitimate claim to the country.”
If you are blind get some glasses, if you need more specific legal information ask a lawer. Here is a good one and from London:
“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.”
“One thing that is clear is that investors will need greater certainty about the legal status of disputed areas before investing substantial sums in exploration and production activities. In the case of the Falklands, UNILATERAL ACTION is, therefore, not a viable option in the long term”
David Moss
Practices
•Mergers and Acquisitions
•International Arbitration
David has wide experience of upstream and downstream energy work and of commodities trading. His work includes:
•Upstream transactions and projects in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Colombia, Russian Federation, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Sea, Venezuela and Vietnam
•Upstream and downstream documentation such as production sharing, joint operating, joint bidding / study and area of mutual interest agreements, offtake and allocation agreements
•Farm-ins and farm-outs of upstream interests
•Pipeline agreements
•Drilling and other service contracts
•Trading of crude oil, refined products, natural gas and LNG
•Price reviews
Oh dear we have mentally regressed to a darker time! And I was so hopeful that I nearly thought you had finally discovered how to walk upright :)
Nov 25th, 2010 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see lots of big words.....But not alot of understanding on your behalf.
But where are the answers?
Name the law.
wording of the law.
Date of the law.
Who ratified the law.
Who recognises the law.
Amazing you haven't answered the question, is it because?
you can't?
You can talk about 1833 being illegal all you want, but what law was violated?
None!
And can you still be in breach of non existent laws 180 years in the future?
Nope!
So which law are we ignoring? Is it this magical fantasy law that Argentina invokes every time the UK does something it does not like? In the hope that people such as yourself vomit the same lines they do and don't question it?
So what evidence have you independently thought out so far?:
You have Tried to portray the THEORIES of vattel as law.
posted a picture of an octopus.
Engaged on a deluded obsession with an environmental lawyer who never said any laws where being violated.
embarked upon a bizarre train of thought which makes you think unilateral means unlawful.
regurgitated the govt line.....
all of which fails to answer my question:
Which law has been violated?
Which law forbids the islanders exploiting resources in their own territory?
I don't need to ask you bottom fetish friend David Moss
I'm asking....
.....You!
ps...Rhaurie-se Cagawell? -My My your two brain cells have been working in over time!
THIMC:
Nov 25th, 2010 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(and the Sassenach at 93:-)
The Eighth Commandment
(Exodus 20:15 KJV)
“THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.”
ARTICLE 9
Nov 25th, 2010 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THE NINTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.299 Including the Falklands
THIMC
Nov 25th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinean proposal about “Refusal of Service” for all Malvinas related shipping on all ports of Unasur’s member states. ….
Today, 25/11/2010, Unasur meeting, Georgetown….. Hot and humid…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQI8pMWXE2k
There are currently 18 territorial conflicts in Latin America, one of them is Argentina with Great Britain for the Falkland Islands, the Summit agenda includes discussion of possible sanctions UNASUR countries to Great Britain;
Nov 25th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well as the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty of UNASUR and the election of the new Secretary General.
teleSUR
includes discussion of possible sanctions UNASUR countries to Great Britain;
And if Thinks Granny had balls she would of been his grandad
Interesting video, if ive grasped this correctly Argentina is upset that the [AA] [RAC] have taken their 3 star rating away for shoddy workmanship and ripping off customers, so in retaliation Argentina is refusing to service some ships . The Falklands will now employ proper repairers or send them to the UK. [was that right]
Nov 25th, 2010 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The irony of this is that it just makes us more dependent and strengthens aor ties with the UK. The best Argentina can hope for is that we achieve independence one day and the British go away, which is what they say they want (or at least the british going away part). Everything they do just makes this less likely to happen.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0We're not going anywhere. When I have to cut up a substandard onion, or pay a few pence more for a carton of milk, do I say to myself 'Oh dear, better become part of Argentina after all? No. It merely confirms what I knew already. I just mutter 'bastard Argies' to myself and get on with it. Any country that could do this to us is so utterly beneath contempt as to not be even worth thinking about.
I actually come on here for pretty much the same reason. In day to day life I don't have much cause to think about you at all. But on here, as well as the entertainment value of seeing some marvellously puerile stuff, I get to remind myself of just why I don't want anything to do with you. You just aren't nice people.
@ Hi Red, the issue is only between two parties Argentina and Great Britain, I do not say, says the O.N.U. Malvinas is not Kosovo, Malvinas is not Gibraltar, are different cases. I agree with you on taking the case to the ICJ.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rosalyn Higgins, British jurist: Should be said that the subject land comes first, until it is determined who owns the sovereignty is not possible to determine whether or not people have the right to self determination.
That's right Mal, and do you know why?
Nov 26th, 2010 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's because if we suddenly became part of Argentina, we would have a cast iron certain case for self determination. We are completely different from you, culturally, linguistically, historically,and we don't want to be colonised by you.
If we are British, then our right to self determination is less clear cut, since we are very similar to other British people. We have a right to self determination at the moment chiefly because Britain says we do.
Either way, the idea of us becoming some kind of unwilling colony of Argentina is preposterous in this day and age. We'd be a thorn in your side forever. We would never give up and never keep quiet about the wrong that was being done to us.
Is that what you want? Really?
Whatever Malvininse, I don't give a shit what Rosalyn Harris said, we do have a voice and we will be heard. You can fantasise about it being between Britain and youselves if you want to but Britain respects our rights, we're in the equation whether you like it or not.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0(99)
Nov 26th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Life is a bitch…… and then you die
WTF do you expect!
You ”invite” a far away atomic power down here to plunder our resources.
You provide the logistics and excuse for their continued domination of all the other Island groups and the Antarctic.
You do it happily and proudly..................
And then you cry bloody murder because you buy some sub-standard onions…….
We didn't invite them here, you did, and you know how you did it as well. You provided the excuse and you still do.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you've missed the point about the onions. They might well make me cry, but not enough to give up my home, country and community. You are living in a fantasy world Think. Would you trade everything you have for a bag of fresh onions? No, thought not.
'atomic power'? you're not scared Britain's going to nuke you are you think?
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't flatter yourself mate, BA (or whatever other shithole you live in) wouldn't be worth the price of a warhead, anyway the next coup d'état and military junta you get in Argentina'll do a good enough job at screwing your country (again), nobody else need go to any trouble.
Marvin - Rosalyn Higgins wrote before Kosovo I suspect and the Kosovo case must change the opinions of international lawyers. A different case maybe, but it will affect the Falklands argument which is why Argentina was so opposed to the decision.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for Gibraltar, well there are many similarities, including Britain's decl;aration that it will not negotiate unless that is the will of the people. That declaration stymied Spain, as is does Argentina. The British Wall ... heard of it?
Think - we cannot steal what we own. If you think otherwise take the matter to the ICJ ...... but you won't will you.
There is no real problem. Britain continues to deal with the Falkland Islanders. The lack of communication betweenthe islanders and Argentina only serves to reinforce their resistance. Remember - what doesn't kill you makes you stronger :-)
(104)
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are just the sad and long overdue remains of an Empire that has been constantly retreating for the last 60 years…..
If you think that the destiny of the 2.500 Malvinas settlers will be different from the one of millions of foreign born British subjects that had to leave their beloved India or Kenya or Hong Kong or Rhodesia or Singapore or whatever…..….
Well….. Who is living in a Dream-world then?
Think ... I believe that you are :-)
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If you think that the destiny of the 2.500 Malvinas settlers will be different from the one of millions of foreign born British subjects that had to leave their beloved India or Kenya or Hong Kong or Rhodesia or Singapore or whatever…..….”
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah we do, and you know very well why think, unlike all those cases there is no subjugated native population in the Falklands, so there were a few Argentine colonists...big bloody deal, if you reckon you can dismiss 3000 of us as colonials then the same can be aplied to them.....we are the Falkland Islanders think, nothings going to change that and there's no spin you can apply that'll make any difference.
:-)
Are you really thick or are you pretending just to keep the conversation going?
Nov 26th, 2010 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0These countries gained their independence because their native populations wanted it. Not because some bumptious neighbour a few hundred miles away wanted a piece of them.
And for no better reason than to satisfy your pathetic notions of national pride, that and enormous chip on both shoulders about the British. And because you had three men and a dog here for about five minutes nearly 200 years ago. Where native Falkland Islanders? I don't see any.
It's feeble, and by continually banging on about it you just make yourselves look ludicrous. You might think that your neighbours support you, but it's all diplomatic bla bla. They're actually laughing at you.
@ Red, You think ... that will change the opinion of jurists, Malvinas is not Kosovo, Malvinas is not Gibraltar.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The historical facts are different. I agree, is a case to the Court. I want communication between the mainland and islands.
Question: Why are British islands? Why are they afraid of us?
Answer -
Nov 26th, 2010 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 01. They are British Islands because history favours our argument ( if only since 1833)
2. They are not afraid of you because they know that they have British support, However, they are wary of you because your history towards them is one of covetousness and beligerence. And, most importantly, because the 1982 invasion by Argentina is only too clear in their memories. 28 years is no time at all.
As for your other points, you kep saying that the Falkland Islands are not Kosovo or Gibraltar, without acknowledging the similarities. Both are an example of the 'butterfly effect' in that one thing affects another, apparently unconnected, thing.
Kosovo IS important, how else do you explain Argentina's resistance to the outcome at the ICJ? The Kosovo case concerned issues such as the right to self-determination and the right of a people to declare themselves independent in defiance of 'territorial integrity'.
Gibraltar IS important because what happens there WILL happen to the Falkland Islands at some time in the future. Gibraltar is a much bigger issue at the C-24 and at the 4th Committee. How they handle it will determine their handling of the Falkland Islands should they exist as Committees long enough to get around to it.
The only hope that Argentina has is to pursue its claim through the ICJ and yet it will not take that course.
WHY ???????????
@112 Redhoyt, because they know they would lose. of course l would expect them to reject the ICJ's decision. so round and round we go. the Falklands are not yours, amigos. they belong to the Falklanders
Nov 26th, 2010 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0...and the Falkland Islanders are British, QED.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
If you think that the destiny of the 2.500 Malvinas settlers will be different from the one of millions of foreign born British subjects that had to leave their beloved India or Kenya or Hong Kong or Rhodesia or Singapore or whatever
Nov 26th, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Northern Ireland Think? whatever Gibralter Think? whatever
The whole argument by Argentina saying that the Falklands is a bilateral dispute rather than the tri-lateral one it really is, is not actually grounded in any legal basis whatsoever.
Nov 26th, 2010 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is a very cunning delaying tactic by Argentina to gain sovereignty by forcing out the people capable of wrecking the argument from Argentina's point of view.
That is the islanders, they are for Argentina, the elephant in the corner of the room.
If the islanders didn't have the potential to throw a spanner in the works, then why would Argentina deny they exist as a peoples, or even that they had no place in the sovereignty dispute.
Or even the continually embarrassing episodes at C-24 where Argentine delegates have the tendency to run out the room in an undignified when confronting their islander counterparts.
So Mal, the question should be not why are the islanders scared of Argentina, by why is Argentina scared of the islanders?
Surely after 180 years as a progressive democracy recognition that 3,500 people have a part to play in this tale is a very small step?
Rhaurie-se Cagawell Sassenach
Nov 26th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Surely after 180 years as a progressive democracy ”
What democracy ???
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/news/2010/10/the-swearing-in-ceremony-of-mr-nigel-haywood-cvo/
Make sure that he returns the sword on his departure, sassenach people do not like to return borrowed or stolen property.
Must piss you off big time Marcos,the Falklands running on rails,despite the Argies best attempts to make life uncomfortable :-)
Nov 26th, 2010 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Surely after 180 years as a progressive democracy ”
Nov 26th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What democracy ???
Marcos, he's talking about Argentina you complte numpty!
keeping on abt the past time and time again, you get the feeling that Argentina is jealous of the islanders, and wish they could have such freedom , charisma, charm and a super hero to look after them,
Nov 26th, 2010 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After all what have they got [nothing ??]
“ If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.”
Nov 26th, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Moby Dick, Herman Melville
Whoever said they were comfortable? I'm still cross about my onions. And it's no joke having to pay 5p more for a carton of milk I can tell you!
Nov 26th, 2010 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.”
Nov 26th, 2010 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think Herman Melville was the best person to judge whether someone was comfortable or not....have you read Moby Dick? not the work of someone who's familiar with comfort.
A tree that grows crooked will never be straightened.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0They can not build a country with a piece of another country. (The tree is growing crooked.)
Argentina has not signed any treaty with the United Kingdom, as it did Spain for Gibraltar.
Argentina on January 15, 1833 protest against the usurpation and the injury inflicted on the republic. Maza to Philip G. Gore.
I ask the question in reverse: Why not take the case to the Court for that Argentina not disturb.
WHY?????????????
Because WE don't have any problem with the status quo ..... so the question remains :-)
Nov 27th, 2010 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you cannot answer !
“They can not build a country with a piece of another country”
Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seemed to have managed quite happily carving up indigenous societies in the geographically area that now composes Argentina :)
Marcos....Not the question I asked.
Which law has been violated, which law forbids drilling.
I didn't ask for your opinion on the Falklands constitutional setup
....Which is democracy anyway, because the governor has no law making powers.
But it is evident from your interpretations of your google searches, that yet again you haven't even read the question properly, I'm talking about your country numpty!
Now questions have been asked which are yet to be answered!
I'm still waiting for the name date and wording of this blanket law valid unchanged for 180 years which forbids the islanders from doing anything that might remotely upset Argentina.
Make haste dear fellow, or people might conclude that you have no answer and are trying to wing on here!
Red, I can answer in Spanish?, For me it is difficult to answer in English.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is very difficult for my. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z907QwXpUqA
126@ more excuses, do not know how to justify their theft, nice try.
Sorry ... I don't do youtube. It doesn't mean anything!
Nov 27th, 2010 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are not making excuses .... Argentina is the one with the problem, Argentina is the one that seeks a 'solution', Argentina is the one that cannot answer the questions!
Argentina's spurious claim against the Falklands Islands is nothing more than a land grab. Nothing justifies it. And because Britain remains strong, the attempted land grab will fail. And that's just the Falklands.
As for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands ... well we may have failed to notice thier strategic value for a long time, but we've got there. They were made into seperate British Overseas Territories to ensure that whichever way the Falkland Islanders went, they would remain British. That's a lesson that Argentina fails to understand.
Regardless of what happens with the Falkland islands, the British are in the South Atlantic ...... and we ain't going to go away. And the whole of South America joined in harmony is not big enough to make us!
:-)
Red, you look like him, no problem, no problem.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21fRA1VrLPo
What excuses Mal?
Nov 27th, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I merely pointed out a very inconvenient fact not addressed in your quote. And have proved contrary to your opinion, that countries can be carved out from existing countries....And are not necessarily “crooked trees”.
You country springs to mind...
As does Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, USA, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, South Africa.
So prosperous democratic societies can be carved out from other countries.
130@ You seemed to have managed quite happily carving up indigenous societies in the geographically area that now composes Argentina. Excuses, do not know how to justify their theft, good or bad, the expulsion of the American Indians can not be compared with that of the Argentine of Malvinas in 1833 by then, England and Argentina were recognized each other as sovereign countries, diplomatic relations and were part of a single international system increasingly London and led by self-proclaimed commitment to the observance of law and respect among States.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina had no problem with the British in the Falklands for over a hundred years, except for the odd pickle, but then comes along a dictator and a war ensues, after the defeat it goes quiet, then oil is discovered, again Argentina jumps on the bandwagon, all this mean is this .
Nov 27th, 2010 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no interest in the islanders of the island, all they want is the riches that the oil will bring, i defy any Argentina bloggers to deny this ???
Briton
Nov 27th, 2010 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not true, Argentina claims from 1833.
The problem comes from well before drilling.
We are interested in the islanders, are our brothers.
In 2 hours by plane arrive in Buenos Aires and argies going on vacation there.
No-one is stopping you coming on vacation here. In fact, I think you should. You'd have to change planes at Rio Gallegos. Bring your passport.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you say the islanders are your brothers, you love them, you all holiday on the Falklands, yet unisure with argentines instigation has just signed a paper blocking all ports to anyone trading with the Falklands, this is what you call [brotherly love]
Nov 27th, 2010 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it just proves that Argentina cannot ever be trusted, they say one thing, then stab them in the back. As the red Indians used to say,
but in this case, [Argentina speaks with forked tongue] ??????
Monty, I really want to go, the trip is expensive.
Nov 27th, 2010 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can be my guide there, and I can be your guide when you come to my city.
“the expulsion of the American Indians can not be compared with that of the Argentine of Malvinas in 1833”
Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True but not for the reasons you stated.
The Argentine settlers sent by Vernet were not expelled, this is an Argentine myth. Point of fact is that they were there with British permission; Vernet sought both British permission and protection for his settlement.
No one was hurt, they simply asked the Argentine warship to leave. The settlers remained.
The Argentine Conquest of the Desert was a full blooded genocide, so no the two events are not comparable at all.
If you are stating that it was OK to steal native lands because they weren't a nation recognised by a “European” standard, then you're nothing but a racist bigot.
“self-proclaimed commitment to the observance of law and respect among States.”
What like responding to diplomatic protests contesting Argentine proclamations of sovereignty? Like in 1829, 1830, 1831 and 1832.
And no Argentina did not continually dispute the Falklands. It protested annually until 1850 when it signed the Convention of Settlemenet with the UK. The matter was forgotten for 91 years in the Argentine Congress. It was raised briefly in 1885 and then forgotten again.
Snow in the UK. Christmas is coming ,
Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sadness in Argentina trouble is coming
christmas pud for brits
dog meat for argies
stop crying argentina lolol
#138 stop crying argentina ? Not exactly...
Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://momento24.com/en/2010/11/26/unasur-countries-pledged-not-to-allow-the-dock-for-boats-with-the-illegal-flag-of-malvinas-falkland-islands/
Thanks for the link Marcos,were you cold?
Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://momento24.com/en/2010/11/27/man-photographed-naked-and-getting-out-of-a-car-by-google-street-view/
Surprise! can not answer, then say it is a MYTH.
Nov 28th, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surprise! Indian defenders and you annihilated entire populations around the world.
Surprise! you talk about theft.
I'm not racist, just show your desperate argument.
True, I do not share the method, but you know something ... if the General Roca did not do this, you would be in Patagonia after having done the same thing you criticize.Argentina was in the islands since 1820.
With the battles of Independence in the Americas, the islands were empty from 1811-1820. British did not say anything.
1774-1829. British did not say anything.
91 years? is the first time I hear that.
I've told you before Marvin, popping out is not an abandonment of sovereignty. There is no international law that says an administration has to remain present in order for its title to be maintained. The fact that no official British garrison was present on the islands did not affect our sovereignty as we proved in 1833.
Nov 28th, 2010 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0” ... from 1833 to 1849, Argentina protested regularly against the possession of the Falklands by Britain. There were two kinds of protests: first, there were three campaigns by diplomatic letters, with some gaps of several years
between them, in 1833-34, 1841-42 and (one letter only) in 1849. Secondly, a brief protest was made in the “Message to Congress” every year from 1833 to 1849 inclusive. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level (like the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States), made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance – foreign diplomats attended, international affairs were treated in detail, and the addresses were printed, not only in Argentina but in other countries including Britain........ Argentine protests ceased after 1849....... The Convention of Settlement was signed on 24 November 1849 and ratified by both sides in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850 – at that time treaties only came into force after they had been ratified. And after
the ratification of the Convention, Argentina completely ceased to mention the Falkland Is lands to Britain – for over a third of the 19th century.... “
” .. The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands. After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941...”
You've got to stop using those school text books Mervin:-)
OK then answer me this.
Nov 28th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain did not colonise the Falklands till 1841, the only people there was a a small naval detachment established in 1834 and the remains of Vernet's settlement.
The log of the ARA Sarandi records that only 2 couples opted to leave the Falklands in January 1833.
Thomas Helsby a settler brought by Vernet kept a diary that documents who stayed.
Charles Darwin documents the presence of Vernet's settlement. Fitzroy documents the return of Matthew Brisbane in March of 1833. Again in 1834 both document the presence of the settlers brought by Vernet.
In 1841, the colony was in mourning following the untimely death of Manuel Coronel, another settler brought by Vernet. Antonina Roxas became a major land owner in Stanley.
I could go on.
But the real kicker is the gallant El Gaucho Rivero, who in the Argentine version leads a rebellion against British rule in August of 1833. How is he there if the population was expelled?
Oops, the Argentine myth promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
And the myth of the gallant Rivero, common murdering thug out for gold, who ratted on his mates.
Argentina was not in the islands since 1820. Vernet established a permanent settlement in 1828.
And again the myth of the British absence between 1774 and 1829. In 1820, when Jewett staggered into harbour in the wreck of the Heroina, he only made it into harbour because of the assistance of Weddell a British captain. There were between 40 and 50 other vessels already there.
Not to mention the fact that the Governor of Puerto Soledad regularly reports the British all over the islands exploiting the natural resources - the Spanish never did anything beyond the environs of the penal colony.
The Argentine congress debated the Falklands annually from 1834 till 1850, it stopped upon signing of the Convention of Settlement 1850, and did not do so again till 1941 - we were kind of busy fighting fascism at the time.
l guess in 1941 they thought that we were going to lose the war and they might as well get in on the“kill”.
Nov 28th, 2010 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0also covetous eyes were looking at antarctica's resources & what a spiffling base the Falklands would make, to say nothing of control of one of the worlds chokepoints.
Your right mal, they cannot be compared.
Nov 28th, 2010 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you just said a very stupid quote which you're unable to back up, you said no country can be carved from another country, I merley pointed out that this was the same process from which Argentina was created as well as dozens of other countries around the world.
I'm not making any excuses amigo, merley pointing out the staggering hypocrisy in your statement
It seems what you implying is that:
Argentine expansion of state control over indigenous societies, muy Bueno!
Re-establishment of British sovereignty over territory claimed by Argentina, Diablo!
Ergo you statement about “crooked” trees is hypocritical, contradictory and wholly wrong. Now were is the excuse bit?
According to wikileaks the Argentineans were embarrassed for the world to find out , that Argentina thought she was cleaver to have its flag printed on the worlds toilet rolls, only to see it backfire and be flushed down the drain olol
Nov 28th, 2010 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@142 and @143 You and Justin use the same school text book.
Nov 30th, 2010 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There is no international law that says an administration has to remain present in order for its title to be maintained”. Friend, begin to review the laws. “The fact that no official British garrison was present on the islands did not affect our sovereignty as we proved in 1833.” If, as demonstrated by force, using no rights.
“Britain did not colonise the Falklands till 1841” Of course, if the British were not there. That happened after the usurpation.
yes, yes Antonina Roxa, Petrona González, Juan Simón, Manuel Coronel, Dickson, Brisbane, Luciano Flores etc, etc, there are many unknowns with the population. The Germans captured French towns as Libramont and Bouillon and not all the inhabitants are gone. The fact is that captured the islands by force.
Were never in the Soledad Island (East Falkland). NEVER. Were never in the Gran Malvina (West Falkland). NEVER. Only in the Trinidad Island (Saunders Island) You can not base their claims by a small establishment, in Port Egmont, precarious, ephemeral, illegal, that was finally abandoned.
British absence, yes mister, there is a myth, there were no british people, nor british garrison. There was no British flag. Do not lie.
Only whalers.
Weddell, Fitz Roy, Darwin did not live in the islands, traveling the world.
Convention of Settlement 1850: in no way related to Malvinas, it relates to the lack of respect for to sovereign country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AbL-CRU28U
What you say are desperate attempts to justify theft.
Marvin (the Paranoid android) show me the international law that says that a country has to maintain an administration on a claimed territory in order to maintain its sovereignty. Show me!
Nov 30th, 2010 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina's version of history and internetional law were correct, why does she fear to take the case to the ICJ?
Let's look at this rationally. Every Argentine administration elected since the 1940 has shouted about the Falkland Islands. Every such Administration has had the opportunity to take the case to the ICJ (or the World Court before it). Every Argentina Administration has declined to take such action. WHY?
The reason must be clear even to you ...... when the Administration gets into power it says to its lawyers, “ Hey, why don't we take Britain to the ICJ”, and every time the lawyers must say something that the Argentine Administration finds unpalatable. Hence, no attempt to take Britain to task in an international court.
Britain does not have to justify anything. We did not steal anything. We merely used force to retain what we already had. And we continue to retain it.
No Argentine argument holds water in the face of its refusal to take the matter to the ICJ.
Argentina looks foolish!
“Justice and equity are neither absolutely identical nor generically different. ... If they are different, either the just or the equitabe is not good; if both are good, they are the same thing. ... For equity, while superior to one sort of justice, is itself just ... Justice and equity are therefore the same thing, and both are good, though equity is the better.
Nov 30th, 2010 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The source of the difficulty is that equity, though just, is not legal justice, but a rectification of legal justice. The reason for this is that law is always a general statement, yet there are cases which it is not possible to cover in a general statement.”
Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!