MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas: Timerman calls for dialogue and lobbies G24 members
Foreign Affairs minister Hector Timerman renewed Argentina’s claims over the disputed Falklands/Malvinas this time before the new authorities of the G-24 or UN Decolonization Committee, who according to Argentine sources rejected “all forms of colonialism and occupation”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“ ... “said they would continue working in support of the Argentine Malvinas position and rejected all forms of colonialism and occupation”....”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which says what? Exactly?
“ ... whom he asked for ‘advise’ about how to deal with a member from the Security Council ‘that does not abide what the very organization states”....”
And the advice was what? Exactly ?
“ ... “Argentina wants to sit to negotiate, in peace; we don’t aspire to impose anything; ...”
Liar! Exactly!
“ ... we simply want the UN mandate to be followed”, ...”
What mandate? Exactly?
“ .. “After sixty years, this is a shameful situation”, underlined Timerman..”
What is shameful about it? Exactly?
” ... “If the UN continues to adopt resolutions for a dialogue between the two countries (Argentina and UK), ...“
What Resolutions? Exactly?
” ... and specifically mentioned recent resolutions from Unasur, Mercosur and the Rio Group, ...”
The 'old boys clubs'. Exactly!
Thought it was the C-24 ... but that's inflations for you :-)
I wonder why the Special Committee on Decolonization had an unusal secret ballot vote of the committee last month
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any chance the Chairman of the C-24 or the committee itself might actually visit the Falklands and look the people in eye?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No?
Thought not. These are the people whose interests the C-24 is charged with representing. They've been invited.
If you want to know what shameful conduct is, that would be invading a peaceful islands community, shitting everywhere, failing to apologise for what the corrupt military regime did and for 60 years conducting a campaign of lies, false claims and half-truths whilst being a huge bully and trying to damage the economy of a small island community. All for domestic political consumption.
And if Argentina wants to raise a territorial claim, the ICJ is in Den Haag, thats in Holland. You don't spout crap at officials who have no power or remit to deal with the issue.
Unless you're a prat.
I like Timerman. Every time he opens his mouth he makes things worse for Argentina.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's just look at what he's up to. “During the meeting which took place last week at the United Nations Argentine ambassador’s office” Why would that be? Are the Argentines handing out “sweeteners”?
“Timerman also mentioned the recent talks he held in Geneva with United Nations General Assembly president, Joseph Deiss from Switzerland whom he asked for ‘advise’ about how to deal with a member from the Security Council ‘that does not abide what the very organization states”.”
How unfortunate that Argentina doesn't abide by what the organisation states.
“Argentina wants to sit to negotiate, in peace; we don’t aspire to impose anything; we simply want the UN mandate to be followed”, said the Argentine official insisting on ‘dialogue’.
Regrettably, there are around 3,000 British citizens with their own government involved. The British government has undertaken not to discuss sovereignty without their permission and inclusion. But Argentina won't talk to them. Oh, and there ius no mandate. GA resolutions are not binding.
“If the UN continues to adopt resolutions for a dialogue between the two countries (Argentina and UK), this dialogue must take place, if not some form of sanction must be adopted against those countries that do not accept or abide UN resolutions”, said the Cuban delegate.”
As previously noted, GA resolutions are not binding. So any sanctions would be illegal. Unless we're taking about the Security Council resolution, that is binding, that called on Argentina to remove its troops from the Falklands.
I suppose Timerman thinks he's going to achieve something. He's not. Neither is the partisan C24, who has never even had the courtesy to respond to invitations to visit the Islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redhot
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JustinKuntz after you said about the war between argentina,brasil and paraguay, its clear that you are an ignorant,
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typhoon, you said the onu respect the slef-determination and thats a resolution that, for you, argentina dont respect right??
If Malvinas are in the descolonization council, and with the history of invasion by the british, that resolution is not applicable, dont you know that?? if there was an invasion and there is sovereignty dispute, the self-determination resolution is not applicable, The UN said that, so is useless that resolution you say, selft-determination is jus applicable to native people, its like the native people of brasil, if they want to be from another country they can because they are native, but malvinas has not natives, they were put in there by UK,
Saying all that you said, the only one who makes it worse is you to your own monarchy
Why is argentina asking the Decolonization committee for their help in colonising another country and culture against their wishes?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SiEquinox - you are talking rubbish. The UN has not said that self determination is inapplicable. Self determination is applicable ...... to ALL people and please show me where it says that only native people can apply for self determination. Why you lot come on here without doing some research is a mystery to me.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what is this fixation with our monarchy? Parliament rules. The queen sits there, says nothing and looks royal. That's it. Now if you could get Cristina to say nothing you'd find your country developing much faster!
Malvinas Argentina has selfdetermination the problem is that illegal aliens have their own selfdetermination in UK not in Argentina, I wonder if USA would allow illegal Mexicans to vote for their own illegal government in California or texas.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 06 Searinox
Mar 08th, 2011 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If Malvinas are in the descolonization council, and with the history of invasion by the british, that resolution is not applicable, dont you know that?? if there was an invasion and there is sovereignty dispute, the self-determination resolution is not applicable, The UN said that, “
The UN has never said any such thing. It couldn't since Belize achieved independence while it was subject to a claim by Guatemala.
“so is useless that resolution you say, selft-determination is jus applicable to native people, its like the native people of brasil, if they want to be from another country they can because they are native, but malvinas has not natives, they were put in there by UK,”
Why the native people of Brazil? Why not the native people of Argentina? Do you think the natives of Argentina can separate from Argentina and set themselves up as a new country?
Anyhow the UN has never said that self-determination is applicable only to native people. It couldn't since several of the territories that are or were on the UN decolonisation list have very small native populations or none at all. Some never had them as they were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.
Currently on the list 9 out of 16
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands.
Formerly on the list 5 out of 35
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cocos Islands, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Réunion, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Seychelles.
And there you go, calling other people ignorant.
Just keep saying no to Argentina is so easy. They are powerless and it is good entertainment to see their pointless bleatings.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0001100//// hysteric Beef
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think UK & 3000 Malvinas tourist have any chance here,becouse that Argentina has 16.720.000 manpower covers male and female deemed fit for military service,ages 15-50.
#7 Good point.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really happy for you Ed. How many did you have ready in 1982? Did it do you any good? Nah. You don't need 16million people to load catapults and haven't got enough pea shooters to go around. Are you going to Tango us to death?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain has 23,738,184
Mar 08th, 2011 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#14 Sir ::
Mar 08th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0my advice to you, don't disdain the manpower...you watch
the bad luck of UK supported Qaddafi in Libya ?!
#15 ::
Britain has 23.718.000
but useless for overseas remote operations !
“but useless for overseas remote operations !”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 01982 disagrees with you.
Ed. We brought Gadaffi in from the cold have have now told him it is time to go. We have not supported him.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will disdain manpower, especially Argentine manpower when it comes to military projection. You are unable to even project your power over a group of Islands a few hundred miles off your coast.
We don't need 23m. All we need is a ship, four typhoon Eurofighters, a couple of thousand troops in the islands for training and possibly the odd sub hanging around. Appears a fairly small detachment. Small, like the Argentine threat.
#17 ::
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0when 1982 the manpowers were not used.
#18 ::
you say,...told him it is time to go.
you say,...we have not supported him.
what an incostintent and variable mentality !
when you say “go” or “stay” to a man then there should be some benefit connections (interest)around.
for example ..Stradfort...for example...London School Economics...
for example...BP...for example... Harrods- Dodi el Fayed interrelations..
for example...Qaddafi ( Libya people) money in British Banks....so on.!
Like I said ed, we brought him in from the cold and incentivisation worked. Thanks for proving my point. You will find that all of his assets have been frozen.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now getting back to the point. The Falkland Islands and Argentina's pointlessness and toothless approach. Pretty funny really.
#20 ::
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then,be ready for disappointments and flukes !
Anyone else noticed how Timmerman looks like a balding Harry Potter?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#3 “Any chance the Chairman of the C-24 or the committee itself might actually visit the Falklands and look the people in eye?”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ambassador Donatus Keith St. Aimee already visited Argentina, you need to understand that is impossible for the Ambassador to visit every corner of our large Republic.
Margot
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Freud has a lot to say about people who think they have a “large republic”, much of it to do with a complex about its “size”.
However, the Falkland Islands have nothing to do with your complex about the “size” of your republic, having never been part of it. Freud also has a lot to say about those that covet their neighbours assets.
If anyone of you tells me where I can find the “people” subjected to alien domination, subjugation or exploitation (and foreign occupation) on the islands I could certainly engage in a serious exchange with any of you. That's the ONLY condition under which self determination applies. DO TELL ME WHERE THIS DISTINCT PEOPLE IS AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES: UNLESS YOU SAY SO, THERE'S NO NEED TO CONTINUE WITH THIS.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 016 - So, you're saying that in spite of condemning what they are saying is Britain's occupation by force and talking about finding a peaceful solution, that they would mobilize millions of civilians to try to forcibly take over the islands?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ed, so now you have no reply and have lost the argument you decide to change the subject. To what I don't know!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Alejo - Argentina tried to subdugate the Islanders in 1982 and got a Royal kicking for doing so. This islanders made it clear then (as they do today) that they wish to remain British and exercise their right to determine their own future in their Falkland Island home. It is a shame that Argentina does not have the integrity to respect this fact or the balls to do anything about it (ICJ etc.).
I see that Beef cannot answer my question. Understandable. All his arguments avoid my very question. Do tell me where the people is under the circumstances spelled out by international law and we can discuss the issue seriously. As I said, it's simply useless to engage in any exchange unless this argument is clear. Even the population on the islands on 1982 didn't amount to such a “people” (as they don´t today). I challenge any of you to prove this and we can follow this issue.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cry babies, go shear a sheep or something make yourselves useful.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Leave this to real nations, nothing to do with you Kelpers.
In 1982 the Falkland Islanders wanted Argentine forces to leave. In 1982 Argentina imprisoned the population of Goose Green. In 1982 Argentina changed the road names and names of towns to names alien to the Falkland Islanders. In 1982 Argentina imposed a leadership structure that the Islanders did not want. In 1982 the UK intervened to make sure that the Islanders' wishes were upheld and defeated the Atgentine forces. British forces stay ther today to protect the wishes of the Islanders and any descisions on the Islands must be in the best interests of the Islanders. It is logical and proper that as adults the Islanders are the ones to decide what is in their best interest.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“That's the ONLY condition under which self determination applies.”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are incorrect and your post shows you lack the basic understanding of that the term means and indeed international law.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LOOK UP THE TERM OR PERHAPS THERES NO NEED TO CONTINUE WITH THIS.
Anyway. For the 400th time i will explain yet again to an Argentinian what the term is. Self Determination in the concept(And a human right applicable to all humans with no exceptions - UN states this.) that all humans should have the right to choose sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference.
Most nations have this, for example when i(or you) go and vote this or next year(ect), that is your right to Self Determination. It is in essence the right to choose and vote for your own government.
As for international law. Both the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
And the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
both state that:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
What a joke you just made Beef
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're a bunch of idiots who can't be left alone for two seconds without resorting to corruption and abuse of the environment. If you call that structure you sure as hell need a new one.
Oh and by the way, you're driving on the wrong side of the road, we can help you with that too. ;-)
Aleco - where in the UN Charter or any UNGA Resolutions does it require that a people be 'distinct'. Where? Nowhere of course.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another idiot unable to understand the english word “ALL”. as in “ ... 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. ...”
No mention of 'subjugated', no mentionof 'distinct'. Just ALL.
Is there actually an Argie contributor on this site that has an IQ above his shoe size!
My dear... Do you happen to grasp the meaning of “alien” domination, exploitation or subjugation? Once again, Article 1.2. of the UN Charter refers to all “peoples” as entitled to self determination. AS LONG AS THERE IS A PEOPLE, WELCOME SELF DETERMINATION! What about yours? Where's your people under the conditions set forth by international law? I won't go over all decolonisation resolutions or ICJ judgements as I see it will be incomprehensible for you. I won't call you idiot, just ignorant which is less offensive. Once again: where is the people subjected to colonialism in your case to claim self determination??? As I told you before, this is useless
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 025 Alejomartinez
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what you are saying is that the Falklands are not entitled to self-determination under British sovereignty, but they are under Argentine sovereignty.
By the way, Resolution 1514 says the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, but nowhere does say that only those subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation are entitled to self-determination. On the contrary, it quite clearly says in the following para that all peoples have the right to self determination.
“ .. Once again, Article 1.2. of the UN Charter refers to all “peoples” as entitled to self determination. AS LONG AS THERE IS A PEOPLE, WELCOME SELF DETERMINATION!...”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is the UN Charter - http://www.falklands.info/history/unarticles7374.html Now show me where it says that!
Here is UNGA Resolution 1514 - http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution1514.html Now show me where it says that!
Tryinf to reinterpret a clear set of words in order to promote your spurios case if fraudulent!
UN Decolonization Committee Draft Resolutions are worthless!
UNGA Resolutions have advisory effect but are not enforceable in internationsal law.
UNSC Resolutions do have force in international law although recent experience with North Korea and Iran would suggest, not much!
Please note that UNGA Resolution 2065 clearly identifies the Falkland islands as a colony. I quote, ” ... Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands..”
Alejo, ... you are talking through your ar*e !
Same resolution restricts application of self determination to PEOPLES under certain circumstances and makes it clear that this must not disrupt the territorial integrity of States.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Zethee: Good job, now go revise your theory as to what the scope of self determination can be: internal (as you describe) and external (options set out in GA resolution 1541). I'm not here to teach you general international law and world politics. Go revise your theory once again and tell me where the “people” entitled to self determination is on the islands? Unless the UK is the “alien” power who subjects youn and we all don´t know. Once again, unless any of you proves where this PEOPLE is (and whey the UN doctrine and jurisprudence is WRONG), I won´t have any further exchanges. It's simply useless and too basic a forum. Propaganda may have side effects...
“ ... Same resolution restricts application of self determination to PEOPLES under certain circumstances and ...”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Show me! Prove your case! Where does it say that there are restrictions? Provide your sources. Provide a link.
Ignorant is a term that applies to yourself!
This moron sickens me, maddens me and makes me laugh all at the same time, how can such a senior politician be such a fkin dullard...he clearly has his head in the sand...' blah blah blah im not listening' ....how can someone be so impossibly one sided, theres no room for negotiating with such a moron, i really hope there's a change of government soon, even if they stick to the same claims over the islands, i hope they will be a little more open minded about what really happens in the world.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Go revise your theory once again and tell me where the “people” entitled to self determination is on the islands?”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0All the people on the island are entitled to and currently have Self Determination. You are right in the fact that they arent currently under domination, subjugation or exploitation. If Argentina got it's way they most definitely would be. The islanders are trying to keep the right they currently have, not ask for one they don't.
“AS LONG AS THERE IS A PEOPLE, WELCOME SELF DETERMINATION”
It is quite clear that the “people” on the islands are very different from the population in Argentina (language, history, ethnicity). So yes, they are a “people”.
“Same resolution restricts application of self determination to PEOPLES under certain circumstances and makes it clear that this must not disrupt the territorial integrity of States. ”
Yeah..Err, Kosovo.
“Same resolution restricts application of self determination to PEOPLES under certain circumstances”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please quote the exact line or paragraph of Resolution 1514 that says this.
“and makes it clear that this must not disrupt the territorial integrity of States. ”
But the Falklands are not and never have been part of Argentina, and UNGA resolutions are not binding and are not retroactive in
international law.
AS LONG AS THERE IS A PEOPLE, WELCOME SELF DETERMINATION!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islanders are not English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish, so they are a people.
They're not Irish, French, German, or Italian, so they're a people
They're not Argentine, Paraguayan, Uruguayan, or Chilean, so they're a people.
30 Beef “British forces stay ther today to protect the wishes of the Islanders”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should've said: British forces stay ther today to protect the oil....well, just water for now.
Marcos, that is one of the most idiotic things i've heard from you....and there is an awful lot to choose from.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0You make a statement then discredit it immediately with your own owrds...are you bi-polar? Schizophrenic? ??
The forces have been here way before any oil--or water ...was ever found you plank. They are here to look after the islanders at thier request, from moronic people like Timerman and you!
The forces have been here way before any oil--or water ...was ever found you plank. They are here to look after the islanders at thier request, from moronic people like Timerman and you!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAA!
Camming from Mother theresa of england is reasurring.....
They are the ones with experience at supressing,murdering,occupy,otheres land....
What a joke,talking about the “boogy man” from the continent....
Do not cry babies,SA suport us,not the extracontinental powers.....
We have no problem with the islanders.We kicked the spaniards,and we do not want the uk or anybody in our turf.
So long gonners.....
SiEster hasn't been taking his tablets again!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are of course, on our own turf .... not worked that out yet. Been there since 1690 ..... before an ungrateful set of Spanish colonists rebelled against their motherland. Well ... you always be spanish to me :-)
I think he needs tablets, that is one weird rant....
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0They are spanish when they want to be, but i do know spanish dont bribe people in every day life. A friend is recently back from Buenos Aires, he said nearly every price given or bill handed, theres always ' extras' ...i.e bribes. Apparently its the way of life in Argentina....even the Spanish dont act like that.
#45 Y Draig Goch= Mother Theresa of England(or Wales)HAHAHAHAHA
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0the fact you find that amusing is disturbing and really odd...
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now why am I not surprised to see this -
Mar 09th, 2011 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.elchubut.com.ar/despliegue-noticias.php?idnoticia=153391
LOL ... could have put money on it!
Wow, the sniveling little creep....do you think he was paid to talk this crap? or do you think he is really is this two -faced?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tte Estevez, have you been sniffing petrol again?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still waiting for an answer to my question @7
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 014 Teaboy2
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas will be returned to Argentina through diplomatic means. Just this way!! Sorry man!! It is the truth!! Just time
Fraid not boyo
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 025 Alejomartinez
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0We, the Falkland Islanders, are the people. You are the 'aliens'. Simple.
Do you have anything culturally, linguistically or historically in common with us? No you don't. That makes you aliens. Sorry, but there it is.
The idea that we are an 'implanted population' is a propaganda lie perpetrated on you by your government. We are a population with its own distinct identity that has developed over a long time. You can say it's not true if you like, but that would be just your own wishful thinking.
“ ... Malvinas will be returned to Argentina through diplomatic means ....”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL Now there are optimists .... and there are fantasists ... and there is Kiwi'sarse LOL
SiEster hasn't been taking his tablets again!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are of course, on our own turf .... not worked that out yet. Been there since 1690 ..... before an ungrateful set of Spanish colonists rebelled against their motherland. Well ... you always be spanish to me :-)
AHAHHAHHAHHAHAH,really? since 1690? AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I am not spanish,ladybug.....
Oh dear Alejomartinez, Do you happen to grasp the meaning of “alien” domination, exploitation or subjugation? Like the murder of the natual inhabitants of Argentina by the Spanish colonialists? One major flaw in your redundant arguement is that the population on the Falklands in 1833 weren the orginal inhabitants of the Falklands, however they were themselves planted on the Falklands by the early version of your country. The Islands were claimed by the British, and they took back what was theres.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now from what you say (stating I am an illegal Alien in the Falklands) suggests to me that you believe you have more rights to the Falklands, than I do, someone who was born here, and is 7th generation Falkland Islander. How many generations does you family go back in Argentina Alejo? 2, 3 or 4? Have you ever been to the Falklands? And if Argentina successfully colonises the Falklands, would you move here and bring up your family? I personally believe you will not answer any of these questions because you will be embarassed by your answers.
You have no real understanding of the facts on this subject. You are wanting to remove the rightful inhabitants of a country and dominate, exploit and subjugate. You just cannot see the hypocracy of your agruement.
Only @ M_of-FI(#) as the rest is too vulgar to consider. I haven't mentioned the 1833 invasion. So how can it be “one major flaw” of my argument when my argument has not stated what YOU say? There's still a need for a true people to exercise self determination subjected to colonolism. You can count up to as many generations as you want on the islands and that will still not change this fact (besides Argentines have not been able to reside and buy land during all these years of occupation). Don't put in my mouth words and arguments that I have not said only to force yours when you lack solid reasons to justify the injustifyable. WHERE IS THE SUBJECTED PEOPLE ON THE ISLANDS SUFFERING COLONIALISM AND ENTITLED TO SELF DETERMINATION AS SUCH? Unless the whole world is mistaken, UN is mistaken and international law is mistaken, show me the opposite and I will follow the thread. Otherwise, it will be as useless as the other who resort to insulting to avoid their decrepit lack of knowledge. (Oh, YES, I've been to the islands, YES I will move there when Argentina RECOVERS that portion of its territory and I've been living in continental Argentina ever since my great great grandparents came from Spain and Switzerland as IMMIGRANTS, not as instruments of any colonization policy btw)
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SiEster -the tablets would probably help with that terrible speech impediment.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
The only people who deny fundamental human rights here and attempt to dominate and subject anyone is Argentina. They deny the Falkland Islanders have rights, that they exist and by their design to impose an alien culture seek to dominate and subjugate them.
Colonialism pure and simple, Argentina seeks a “colony” in the Falklands.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Note the words “All peoples” , it is not a right that is qualified in anyway.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Argentina attempts to claim this negates the Falkland Islander right to self-determination. The Kosovo judgement shows this to be incorrect.
Para 6 exists “to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions”. The use of the word “attempt” in paragraph 6 connotes future action, and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past actions. Its aim is rather to protect ”colonial territories or countries that have recently become independent against attempts to divide them at a time which they are least able to defend themselves. Para 6 is sub-ordinate to Para 2 so the right to self-determination remains intact and without qualification.
Aleco - I've challenged your assertions at 33, 36 and 38 above and provided links and quotes whereas you've provided nothing. Your ignorance of the workings of the UN and international law is rather too apparent.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination applies to ALL people without qualification and, in any case, the UNGA Resolutions clearly identify the Falkland Islands as a colony.
The C-24's only remit therefore is to assist them towards independence or whatever choice they make.
You need to do a lot more research before you attempt to debate anything here and it is clear that you have a lot of work to do.
And I wouldn't expect to move anytime soon if I was you :-)
60 Alejomartinez
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sorry you think I'm vulgar, but I would like to ask you what you would consider to be the definition of a 'true population'?
I'd also like to point out that if you ever got your hands on the Falkland Islands, we would instantly qualify for self determination by your own or any other criteria, as we would be a 'subjugated people subjected to colonialism'.
And you can come and live here now. You can apply for a job the same as anyone else. You can also apply for a work permit subject to the same restrictions as any other immigrant.
I think Alejo is a bit of a fraud. Avoids serious debate, demands information which is then ignored, refuses challenges and provides nothing but bland statements. Just another Argentine who has swallowed the official line and is closed to any other ideas.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the whole world believed Argentina as he thinks, then the islands would have been a part of Argentina a long time ago. That they are still British, rather speaks for itself.
Hang on a minute, G24? Why has the title of the Committee of 24 (C24) suddenly become the 'G24'?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For a start, the C24 now has more than 24 Members, so is an irrelevant title, but why is Timmo referring to it as the G24? Is this reported correctly, and did he actually use the G24 terminology?
If he did then this is another way that Argentina is trying to lend the C24 more weight than it actually carries, since G8, and G20 is terminology used to describe important Groups, not the bent and discredited C24.
Until we can establish that Timmo actually used this terminology, and that it has been accurately reported, we can't fully take the piss out of it.
”Only @ M_of-FI(#) as the rest is too vulgar to consider.“
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL! I love how he used this line to blank every single persons opinion and facts.
”WHERE IS THE SUBJECTED PEOPLE ON THE ISLANDS SUFFERING COLONIALISM AND ENTITLED TO SELF DETERMINATION AS SUCH?“
I've already answered this but you decided to ignore it.
All the people on the island are entitled to and currently have Self Determination. You are right in the fact that they arent currently under domination, subjugation or exploitation. If Argentina got it's way they most definitely would be. The islanders are trying to keep the right they currently have, not ask for one they don't.
IF Argentina got it's way and the UK decided to hand over the islands they would have full rights to claim Self Determination. Your argument is one based on a silly technicality because if Argentina owned the islands they would be subjugated. Your entire argument is that they can't claim self determination untill they are subjugated and then you claim that the islands will once again be Argentinian. And therefore the islanders could claim Self Determination and the islands would no longer be Argentinian.
”YES I will move there when Argentina RECOVERS”
No, you won't. Because. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. No amount of political pressure from south america is going to change this fact and we've already shown we are fully prepaired to go to war to protect these people. Argentinas only option is to take this to the ICJ. And we'll be happy to go.
Zethee, even if they decided they wanted to take the matter to the ICJ it wouldn't happen, because Argentina wants to lump two BOTs together under one claim, and the UK would only fairly consider each BOT separately.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you remember, the UK attempted to take Argentina to the ICJ before over SGSSI, but Argentina refused to accept arbitration on the grounds that the ICJ would not be considering the Falkland Islands.
It would be a stalemate, because Argentina wants the fantasy its own way without looking at the reality.
Argentina is a joke.
Wireless, can I check that last statement with you? As I understand it on the last occassion when we offered to go to the ICJ over SGSSS we submitted our papers unilaterally. Argentina refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court, indeed it wouldn't even recognise that there was such a court. It's refusal to play was only contained in a letter to another country's Ambassador. No mention was made of the Falkland islands in that, and they were certainly not given as the reason for not attending the ICJ.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure I've got all this somewhere .. I'll have to dig it out!
Their objection was due to the Latitude and Longitude stated within the UK papers, which they noted did not include the Falkland Islands, hence they never accepted the ICJ jurisdiction.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Latitude and Longitude had no bearing on the matter to the British, since the papers were submitted in relation to SGSSI, not the Falkland Islands.
I had it in my mind that Argentina had responded to the ICJ, but you seem to indicate that they didn't but instead whined diplomatically to a third part country, I'd be interested in getting to the bottom of this myself.
The only joke is that you believe that UK is the real owner of malvinas, if you search about the negociations about malvinas between argentina and UK before the war, it was the UK who say ok adn then they stop, after that ok and again stop, UK negociations were a big lie that they did to keep malvinas under their control but without being sanctioned, its the UK and their lies the only joke
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 071 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All of this is neither here nor there.
The UK has been entirely consistent since 1982 in saying that it will only discuss sovereignty if the islanders wish it.
The real owner of the Falkland Islands is the Falkland Islanders; in the distant past the Argentine Government agreed a Treaty called the Convention of Settlement in 1850 with the UK, and that ended the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the 1930s and 1940s Peronism introduced the Big Lie to Argentina, 'to unite the people', and Juan Peron admitted it was just an internal political instrument to maintain his power.
You live a life based on the Big Lie, you argue for the Big Lie, even your Constitution has the Big Lie written within it since 1994.
One day you'll all realise it was all a Big Lie, but until then you'll live it and breathe it like the numpty you are.
60 Alejomartinez
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ WHERE IS THE SUBJECTED PEOPLE ON THE ISLANDS SUFFERING COLONIALISM AND ENTITLED TO SELF DETERMINATION AS SUCH? Unless the whole world is mistaken, UN is mistaken and international law is mistaken, show me the opposite and I will follow the thread. Otherwise, it will be as useless as the other who resort to insulting to avoid their decrepit lack of knowledge.”
The one showing decrepit lack of knowledge is you. We've shown you several times that resolution 1514 does not say what you think it says, and we've asked you to prove otherwise, which you have failed to do. I'll ask again. Please provide evidence (eg UN Charter, UN Resolution, ICJ decision, etc) that the right of self-determination is restricted to subjected peoples because if you can it would mean Argentines are not entitled to self-determination.
dab14763 It was you own country who said malvinas were a UK colony, jajaja Wireless show me the convention of settlement hat you say, i want to see it, because if that were as you said, then why the UN keep calling Uk to negociate, its that simple, if we are the liers then why UN dont tell us we are wrong?? because you are the big lie
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The unprinciple of self-determination
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Almost three decades later, new advances in petroleum prospecting and extraction technology have made drilling for oil in the area potentially profitable; the UK's justification for authorising drilling, however, is fundamentally similar to that which was used to win support for the war in 1982: the population of the Falklands (now risen to 3,140 civilian residents, plus 500 British soldiers) regard themselves as British, so the hydrocarbon resouces under the sea bed which surrounds the colony must therefore belong to Britain. Noting the unanimous support for Argentina's position by the 32 counties of South and Central America and the Caribbean at the 'Rio Group' meeting on 24th February
Were 'democratic self-determination' a genuine right for the inhabitants of the small but strategically important outposts around the world that Britain managed to retain in the twilight of its empire, one would suppose that it would be accorded universally to those inhabitants by the UK government. The sad fate of the Chagos islanders proves otherwise.”
by Noah Tucker
Hypocrisy Anyone?
6) Are you an Argentine prick? I only ask because being a prick isn't dependent on being Argentine, but being an Argentine you are automatically a prick.If you had any brain, you would understand the situation. The British and French were co-existent on the Islands. The French sold their bit to the Spanish. The rebel ex-Spanish colony in South America recognised Britain's rights but tried to “plant” a penal colony. When Britain returned the garrison was tod to p*** off. Just the garrison. No-one else. Most “colonists” remained under British sovereignty. No invasion. Just recovery of property. And Argentine propaganda.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 012) Britain's population is approx. 65 million compared to Argentina's 40 million. Want to figure available British combat power? Incidentally, the majority of Britons despise and are disgusted by Argentines. Dirty animals!
45) Is there a brain in there somewhere?
54) Dreamin'. Britain may give up the Islands to the Islanders. To Argentine animals? Never!
60) What an incredible prick! Islands that were British territory from 1690. Unoccupied by Britons for 60 years. In terms of speed of travel and communication at the time, insignificant. No invasion. Recovery of property.
Bottom line. Argentines are stupid. Is there a better aim in life than “Kill an Argentine a day?” Argentina is like a louse. An irritation. Nothing more. But it could turn into a large radio-active crater. You pays your money.................
@75 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really are uneducated aren't you, and you have the affront to call me ignorant?
I suggest you look in your history books and work out what your government signed in 1850, and then correlate this with the Peronist Big Lie you're living and breathing today.
Argentina invaded, conquered, and annexed the Pampa and Patagonia, territories that were not Argentine and had never been Spanish and after doing so continues to complain that another country has stolen from it territory which in 178 years it has failed to prove it ever owned. Hypocrisy anyone?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the UK had ever thought the Falklands were strategically important, it would have developed them to reflect that fact. The fact is most of the time it has left the Falklands to develop themselves.
And the oil belongs to the Falklands, not to Britain.
#27 :: Sir Beef ,
Mar 09th, 2011 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26800.html
rgentinas only option is to take this to the ICJ. And we'll be happy to go.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really,zethe? Did you know Argentina had invited at least 3 time uk to go to an arbitration,and uk refused?One was around 1885.
Do you think uk will go to arbitration?
Check this out:http://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
Mock court:http://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
Aspatria(Arg) versus rydal(uk)
http://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
Interesting result....
#80 !!!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is very interesting of related article's You Tube video series !..isn't it ?
Funnily enough for Gibraltar for example both the UK and the Government of Gibraltar have suggested the ICJ as recourse for settling Spain's claim for the Sovereignty of Gibraltar. Spain has consistently refused.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As has been demonstrated in the case of the Falklands and in particular the SGSSI the UK has been prepared to go to the ICJ. During the NY talks in 1981 the UK Government suggested a referral of the dispute over the Falklands to arbitration at the ICJ in 1983. Over SGSSI it suggested it in 1947, 1948 and unilaterlly referred the case to the ICJ in 1955.
Argentine refused in every case. We all know what happened in '82, when it could have been settled at the ICJ.
So if the question is will the UK go to arbitration, you would have to conclude most likely.
Argentina would be very unlikely to go to the ICJ for the simple fact they'd lose and they know they'd lose. Every judgement at the ICJ that has pitted territorial integrity against self-determination has ruled in favour of self-determination. Argentina lobbied hard against the Kosovo judgement, with Spain it sought to abrogate the right to self-determination where there was a sovereignty dispute, the UN GA rejected it.
The best you can do is claim that the UK rejected arbitration in 1885. First of all Argentina relinquished its claim in 1850 with the Convention of Settlement. Secondly “arbitration” was with Argentina's preferred arbiter and finally Argentina waited until after the UK had made a considerable investment since 1850 in establishing its settlement. All of which occurred nearly 60 years before the founding of the UN.
Since the founding of the UN, the UK has sought to resolve the problem with negotiation. Not only has Argentina failed to negotiate, other than to insist on compliance with its demands, it has spurned arbitration at the ICJ and resorted to armed aggression to impose a solution and continues to use coercion.
Argentina has made itself irrelevant.
Beef !! see you !! au revoir for now.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ED - if you want a good SAS mission then look up the raid on Pebble Island. Argentine forces toothless to stop them.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 01884- Francisco J. Ortiz- Invited to an arbitration court to uk,uk declined
Mar 09th, 2011 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 01885 -F. Ortiz invited to an arbitration court to uk,uk declined
1887- Quirino Costa invited to an arbitration court to uk,uk declined
All to respect the Malvinas question.
http://www.taringa.net/posts/info/5717628/Historia-de-las-Islas-Malvinas-_P_1_.html
You did not know justin? What happens,about the 1850 settlements?
Was not clear cut uk after that?
Why they refused?
And a clarification: while it is true that the UK has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under Article 36(2) of its Statute, the dispute could still not go to the Court without the UK’s consent, even if Argentina itself filed an Article 36(2) declaration. This is because the UK’s declaration is worded rather masterfully to exclude all disputes that have arisen before 1 January 1974, which most certainly includes the Falklands sovereignty dispute.
So, even in the best case for Argentina, the UK would still have a year after Argentina accepted the Court’s jurisdiction to limit its own declaration under 36(2), for example by excluding any dispute regarding the Falklands.
http://www.taringa.net/posts/info/5717628/Historia-de-las-Islas-Malvinas-_P_1_.html
Rather complex case Malvinas...
uk has not resolved anything.How come afetr 170 years they can not came with a solution?
I think they have imperialist claims.....
Not for long,because they are nobody in the South Atlantic
you want a good SAS mission then look up the raid on Pebble Island. Argentine forces toothless to stop them.
I have one better,corned beef: Bluff Cove
“How come afetr 170 years they can not came with a solution?”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have come up with a solution. The islanders live on the islands under the British flag untill the day they wish to go independant.
Suits us fine.
Estevez,
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what, Britain would take its case to the ICJ, Argentina wouldn't. Other disputes do not have to be included.
Argentina declined because it knew it would lose.
SiEster - you indicate an author but not the sources for your claim that Argentina want to go to international arbitration. Not sufficient. What is the source, and what international court of arbitration is being referred to. The ICJ didn't exist in 1884. 1885 or 1888 ? Also as I understand the story, the British did not decline. They made no response. I cannot find any papers to suggest that Britain received any such request. Again, what are the sources for this claim?
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless - the one item of information taht I have readily at hand is a copy of the papers submitted to the ICJ. The latitude and longtidude were determined by Argentina- ” ... the Republic of Argentina, in a notice of daim deposited on Deception Island (South Shetlands) in January, 1942, and in a Note addressed to the United Kingdom Govemment on Febuary 15, 1943, defined her pretensions in the area south of latitude 60' South as covering al1 Antarctic lands and dependencies between longitudes 25“ and 68” 34' West. This westerly limit was later extended by a decree of September 2, 1946, to longitude 74' 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....”
Now I need to track down Argentina's response again ... must get a better filing system :-)
I think i've worked out whats wrong with Timerman, his arse and mouth are wired back to front, explains why all that comes out of his face is pure sh*t.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0ICJ facts:
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council
Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge of the same nationality to complete the term
Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court.
Ahh .. you mean that his nose runs and his feet smell therefore he's built upside down :-)
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0SiEster - having tried to take Argentina to the ICJ over the SGSSI four times without success, why would the UK try to do the same with the Falkland Islands ... getting rebuffed 4 times is enough of an answer !
DECOLONIZATION IS THE KEY WORD ALL OF YOU INSIST ON IGNORING. I won't blame you islanders as otherwise you cannot have “your” case. The issue is dealt with within the scope of decolonization as we have a COLONIAL case but NOT A COLONIAL PEOPLE. Sorry, not only my words but UN's... Even the UK has accepted this and resort to the C24 every once in a while. They have even entered into negotiations with Argentine to comply with the DECOLONIZATION mandate on this “special and particular” colonial situation involving a sovereignty dispute. Once again, not only my words but your (true) Government's (HMG's!). I won't call you idiots, once again. I'm too intellectually honest to be driven into such a poor exchange. That's it. Follow the news, go and study a little bit and maybe I feel like amusing with your “arguments” in the (near?) future. Enough for the time being. Bye for now!!!
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well i mean its the only explanation for the maddening yet hilarious...potentially dangerous rhetoric that diharroeas from his face,
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm too intellectually honest to be driven into such a poor exchange”
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've yet to provide one single fact to back up your opinion and you ignore any person who provides any information to counter the stuff you make up.
Not intellectual and most certainly not honest.
“DECOLONIZATION IS THE KEY WORD ALL OF YOU INSIST ON IGNORING”
Seems to be the one you are also ignoring also. Argentina getting ownership of the islands would create a colonial situation.
So what, Britain would take its case to the ICJ, Argentina wouldn't. Other disputes do not have to be included.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina declined because it knew it would lose.
It seem you do nto understan English: Why is the reason uk declined in those 3 ocassions?
From a neutral point of view,the legal case is complex,is not Argentina making it ,but independent people....
We are talking about malvinas not the dependencies...Lady bug.Why is the Un insisting on that?
Rebuffeed? Did you invited for the Malvinas?
Easy question/s are :
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Any indigenous population when the Brits First Arrived? No
2. Did Argentine exist in 1690 or 1833? No
More cr*p from Alejo I see ... not a 'learner' is he :-)
Mar 10th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... not only my words but UN's ...”
Where's it say that then? If you don't reveal your sources you will be treated as a liar!
“ ... Even the UK has accepted this and resort to the C24 every once in a while.... ”
What are you talking about? You are starting to look stupid ... actually you started yesterday, but today is a whole new day!
“ ... “special and particular” colonial situation ...”
Where does it say that then? And in your reply please do not insult my intelligence with references to either Argentine documentation or C-24 material. Both are irrelevant.
I'll give you one thing, you are amusing. Stupid, but amusing ... still no sources, just bland statements :-) Back to school you stupid boy - just don't believe everything they tell you.
SoEster - I still haven't seen any evidence that the 3 occassions that you quote actually took place. Beginning to look like more Argentine propoganda. And as the ICJ did not exist in the late 1800's, what onternational arbitration would have been available.
What dependencies? Falkland islands have no 'dependencies' !
The case concerned the SGSSI SiEster, limited by an Argentine claim. Do you really know so little ? Hmmm ... seems so!
2. Did Argentine exist in 1690 or 1833?
Mar 10th, 2011 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes in 1833
During the Argentine War of Independence, the territory used a number of names, mainly Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (United Provinces of the Río de la Plata)
You missed the 200 birthday celebration last year.
well that would make it 1810...you didnt beat the spanish until 1824...and federal state in 1854....so answer is, did argentina exist in 1833...no. You had a collection of warring regions with Spain.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0SoEster - I still haven't seen any evidence that the 3 occassions that you quote actually took place. Beginning to look like more Argentine propoganda. And as the ICJ did not exist in the late 1800's, what onternational arbitration would have been available.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seem lady bug,you are a good spokes person from the clown SALT & pepper.I never said ICJ,but the arbitration court existed even in the Roman Empire. I have said: ARBITRATION COURT!!
Comprende?
Wireless - found it - http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/2157.pdf Paragraph No.43
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0No mention of the Falkland islands!
Also interesting - http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/2157.pdf Paragraph No.28
And again very interesting - Island of Palmas Case, (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829),
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/2157.pdf
Throws out geography and confirms that leaving a flag on a beach may be sufficient for a continuity of sovereignty.
MoreCrap - Y is quite correct 2010 was when BA declared it, it was a long time before you got it or indeed for Argentina to become what it is now. And at #91 you and me have had this discussion before. There have also been Argentine judges at the ICJ. I believe there was one sitting when the UK tried to take the SGSSI case to the court. What do you want? All the judges to be from South America?? LOL
So I guess 40 million Argentinean celebrated the wrong birthday party then.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0let's ask the Yanks
http://argentina.usembassy.gov/bicentennial.html
“The United States of America and the Argentine Republic are the oldest independent states in the continents of North and South America”
SiEster you are an idiot ... I asked a question for the second time - “ ...what international arbitration would have been available ...” ????
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is no good just saying 'arbitration' unless you can actually refer to a suitable (note that) body/court/panel. So, as you know so much - NAME IT!
MoreCrap - we already know that 40 million Argies can be wrong :-)
Taking power, Juan Manuel de Rosas, ruled from 1829 to 1852 while acting as a caretaker of the external relations of the whole country, who lacked any other form of federal government. Acknowledged as a tyrant, Rosas was overthrown by a revolution led by General Justo José de Urquiza under whom Argentine national unity was established, and a constitution promulgated in 1853.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0With the declaration of independence on July 9, 1816 and the military defeat of the Spanish Empire in 1824, a federal state was formed in 1853-1861, known today as the Republic of Argentina.
http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/holidaysinargentina/qt/ArgIndependence.htm
Hoyt, “What do you want? All the judges to be from South America??”
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, a few countries control the UN because they won something 66 years ago, and have a “permanent” judge since 1960 in the ICJ, my answer to you is: YOU BET! I want to see you then saying: take it to the ICJ ! :-))))
yeah cos Argentina made a great contribution during that war 66 years ago didnt they?
Mar 10th, 2011 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0SiEster you are an idiot ... I asked a question for the second time - “ ...what international arbitration would have been available ...” ????
Mar 10th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lady IDIOT BUG RED: I have said,there where International arbitration court.So Argentina invited to settle,uk did not wanted.I have posted the links.Is all in the historical papers,and uk acussed receit of that.
Idio ladybug.
ICJ, is fairly new
@Alejomartinez (60)
Mar 10th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is from the UN website...
4. In respect of the self-determination of peoples two aspects have to be distinguished. The right to self-determination of peoples has an internal aspect, that is to say, the rights of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development without outside interference. In that respect there exists a link with the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs at any level, as referred to in article 5 (c) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In consequence, Governments are to represent the whole population without distinction as to race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The external aspect of self-determination implies that all peoples have the right to determine freely their political status and their place in the international community based upon the principle of equal rights and exemplified by the liberation of peoples from colonialism and by the prohibition to subject peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation.
I will focus on this sentence...“the rights of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development without outside interference.”
Notice the words “the rights of all peoples” and “without outisde interference”.
The people of the Falklands, as stated by the UN, have the basic Human Right of Self-Determination (we are a people after all), and we choose to be British. Also, we can exercise this right, without any external interference, e.g. Argentina. It is clear that everyone has the right of self-determination. It does not only apply to people as described by you as subjected to colonialism, it is subject to ALL people. The whole world is not mistaken, you are mistaken.
The quotes I have provided are from this link...
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/dc598941c9e68a1a8025651e004d31d0?Opendocument
“I still haven't seen any evidence that the 3 occassions that you quote actually took place. Beginning to look like more Argentine propoganda. And as the ICJ did not exist in the late 1800's”
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a simple answer really: They didn't.
The Falklands were not even on Argentine maps before 1884. In 1884 Ortiz asked the British ambassador for the islands back. As the UK has made very heavy investments and the islands had only just turned a profit he was told no(40 with no objections from Argentina). This was just mentioned in a conversation and was not an official act neither did he ask to take the UK to court. He then spoke to the US ambassador about the lexington raid.
Ortiz then tried to claim that the Argentine maps that were spread all across the world to promote immigration were not an official government map, which was a lie. There were suggestions that this should go to arbitration(twice). This however has been twisted into Argentina asking the UK to go to court and there being “deafening silence” from the UK.
The first official protest to the UK being in the falklands was 1888, the seond time in the 1940's.
The UK didn't go to court in 1884 because we was never invited to go to court, it was merely suggested.
SiEster, you are a fraud. You have not named the international tribunal that existed in 1884. You have provided no links to such an organisation. You Sir, are an idiot and a liar!
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, thankyou for that. Any links or sources?
@ 109 M_of_FI (#) Yes, that's part of the UN website but go to the relevant section dealing with THIS issue and you will see. It's under DECOLONIZATION by the way, not any other topic. You know why? You will find plenty of documents on the sovereingty dispute and the need to solve it between its only TWO parties taking into account the INTERESTS of the (British) inhabitants of the islands (that's you I think). PERTINENT documents please, as otherwise you will end up quoting the international convention on coffee trade! Bye for now, good job for a beginner!
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am an inhabitant of the Falklands, well done Alejo, you actually got something right.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The interests of the population are of paramount, and we have the right to decide, and we are exercising that right through self-determination. Britain is the only one taking into the interests of the inhabitants into account.
The fact you dismiss what the UN states clearly regarding Self-Determination, just concludes that you are hiding behind ignorance. Self-determination is a right of ALL peoples. It does not say with the exception of the people of the Falklands.
You also clearly miss the fact that the Falklands is not a colony. It is an OT of Britain. The Falklands has its own Government and its own elected officials. Something that the DECOLONIZATION Committee misses.
What the UN has to say on self-determination is relevant. You are just ignoring what doesnt suit your country's imperial objective of colonising the Falklands and its people.
Also, the UN Resolution (“relevant” documents) you keep referring to was pre-1982, and I am sure the aggressive invasion of the Falklands was against the interests of the inhabitants.
He should tell his Ambassador in London to make immediate representations when he gets to the UK circa 2012/2013.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aleco is in the same legue as the rest of the Argentine idiots on this site. They believe that the C-24 has some real relevance to the Falkland Islands. The C-24 only has one job, and that is to assist the territories on its list to eventual independence. Nothing else. And if the Argie's believe that the C-24 is going to do anything else for them then they are living in a fantasy world. No UNGA Resolutions since 1988 ... don't they realise that that fact alone should tell them that the UN no longer cares. The C-24 is discredited. I'm a little surprised that it got a 'Third Decade', I doubt it'll get a 'Fourth'!
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0111 Redhoyt :
Mar 10th, 2011 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Page 30, The refrences are Argentinian.
The UK took Argentina to the ICJ but Argentina refused to go, Argentina merely mentioned that they might do so.
@102 Redhoyt
Mar 10th, 2011 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for that link, if I read it correctly, it appears that Argentina gave no reason for refusing the British application to the ICJ.
However, Pascoe and Pepper, Getting it right, page 35-36, give a link to a 1984 document called Headland; which on page 241 Argentina is stated as giving no reason for refusing the ICJ arbitration but said the following as justification for the Argentine decision to refuse;
That Argentina has held “unquestioned rights and titles derived from and based on legitimate methods of acquiring territorial domaine, and effective, notorious and peaceful possession”
Which is an outright lie, because Argentina has never held such possession of SGSSI, or indeed the Falkland Islands for that matter.
However, I am sure I've read somewhere about a dispute over the Latitude and Longitudes within the British application to the ICJ, I just can't remember where I've seen this.
Francisco J. Ortiz, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, propuso al representante inglés en Buenos Aires, someter la disputa a arbitraje
Mar 10th, 2011 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_86/documentos/Islas_Malvinas_o_Falkland_Islands.pdf
Además ante la falta de respuesta a sus reiteradas protestas, el 2 de enero de 1884, el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Argentina, en nota y memorandum a Monson (Ministro inglés en Buenos Aires), ofreció llevar el diferendo a arbitraje, lo cual también fue rechazado sin dar razones por el Reino Unido
http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_86/documentos/Islas_Malvinas_o_Falkland_Islands.pdf
30. Propone discutir la soberanía. De Ortiz a Monson. 24 de diciembre de 1884.
31. Los Dominios de la Corona. De Monson a Ortiz. 26 de diciembre de 1884.
32. Propone una solución amistosa y de derecho. De Ortiz a Monson. 2 de enero de 1885.
32.1. Memorándum. De Ortiz a Monson. 2 de enero de 1885.
33. No resultaría bueno reabrir la cuestión. De Monson a Ortiz. 8 de enero de 1885.
34. Reitera que la cuestión se halla pendiente. De Ortiz a Monson. 13 de enero de 1885.
35. Se niega a reabrir la discusión. De Monson a Ortiz. 13 de enero de 1885.
36. Concluye el incidente del mapa. De Monson a Ortiz. 5 de mayo de 1885.
37. Desecha responsabilidad por el mapa. De Ortiz a Monson. 6 de mayo de 1885.
38. Pide Respuesta al Memorándum. De Quirno Costa a L.L. Domínguez. 11 de marzo de 1887.
39. Informa sobre el reclamo. De L.L. Domínguez a Quirno Costa. 18 de noviembre de 1887.
39.1. Recuerda el asunto. De L.L. Domínguez al Marqués de Salisbury. 3 de noviembre de 1887.
39.2. Respuesta británica. De Lister a L.L. Domínguez. 14 de noviembre de 1887.
40. Inglaterra considera cerrada la discusión. De Pakenham a Quirno Costa. 9 de noviembre de 1887.
41. Argentina propone medios conciliatorios. De Quirno Costa a Pakenham. 20 de enero de 1888.
42. Acusa recibo. De Pakenham a Quirno Costa. 25 de enero de 1888.
43. Inglaterra se niega a discutir. de Jenner a Quirno Costa. 13 de abril de 1888.
44. Argentina propone arbit
Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Massive gaps in this claim.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 01. What internation arbitration did Argentina plan on using, what nation would be holding this case.
2. Proof of Argentina submitting the case to this international arbitration
3. Wheres the UK's refusal of going to arbitration
Currently all you've said is that Argentina subitted this case to....some? internation arbitration and there was no reply from the international court..and the UK..
Then, then this court that no-one seems to know anything about took the UK to court, there was no reply.
I guess our ambassador sat there and looked at the Argentine ambassidor with a blank stare silently untill Ortiz got bored and left the room?
This time in history is well documented by both Argentina and the UK, yet there is no record of Argentina asking the UK to go to court from our side, i guess the theory is that we somehow destoryed those records for some random reason.
Thank you SiEster, but there is still no mention of which or what Tribunal would deal with the arbitration. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was not set up intil 1899.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thankyou Zethee, I have now made the connection with the affair of the map.
“ .The map controversy lasted four years, and the correspondence contained
two references to the Argentine suggestion that the matter should be decided by arbitration, but that is all. In a letter dated 2 January 1885 Ortiz urged “… that the postponed discussion be reopened again… and resolved by the friendly means and law that today civilised nations adopt to solve questions of this type.” However, the discussion had not been “postponed”; nothing can be postponed except by agreement, and there had been no agreement by either side to postpone the issue. Argentina had dropped the Falklands issue in 1850 and the issue was closed...”
“ ... on 20 January 1888 Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa protested to Britain against Britain’s possession .... The last letter of the exchange, dated 12 June 1888, complains about “the s ilence the British
Government was maintaining in the face of Argentine suggestions to submit the matter to arbitration”, but after that letter Argentina dropped the idea of arbitration once more – and did not mention the Falklands again to Britain for over 20 years....”
It would seem that the initial proposals for arbitration where not given much emphasis and not delivered at a sufficiently high level. Also before 1885 they mere merely perceived as being a part of Argentina's response over the map issue.
Wireles - amongst the papers relating to the 1955/6 attempt to take Argentina to the ICj is a British description of events both prior to 1925 when Argentina acknowledged British sovereignty over SGSSI and the Antartic islands etc, and after 1925 when Argention developed 'pretensions'. There is even a suggestion that the idea came from Chile!
Some interesting stuff.
117, Wireless, I think what you are trying to remember was that when the original Letters Patent were issued in respect of British sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, they contained mistakes as to the exact extent of the territory that Britain was claiming.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The mistakes in these original Letters Patent were rectified and re-issued (in 1908, I think). Both Chile and Argentina requested copies of them. These were provided and neither country protested at the British claim to sovereignty.
This is important because the territory that Britain claimed under the Letters Patent has become the subject, in part, of later claims by both Chile and Argentina to part of the British Antarctic Territory and Argentina in respect of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Only @ 113 M_of_FI (#) (The rest simply irrelevant). So it seems that the UN calls the islands a UK “OT”. Wrong again. They are NOT that but a NSGT to be DECOLONIZED as indicated by the GA (including C24 of course). After 1982 there were many GA resolutions on the same terms which you seem (or decided?) to ignore: even in 1982 the GA adopted a resolution calling BOTH parties to resume dialogue on the SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE. There is a COLONY, of course, but “special and particular” as there are no subjected, exploited or dominated PEOPLE entitled to self determination! Sorry again, go back to school and freshen up a bit.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aleco yoi idiot -
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Decolonized = Independence
'special and particular = oes not exist ..... onl in Argentina's fantasy
You should leave school ... and leave those shool text books behind. You know nothing!
“There is a COLONY, of course, but “special and particular” as there are no subjected, exploited or dominated PEOPLE entitled to self determination! Sorry again, go back to school and freshen up a bit.”
Mar 11th, 2011 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Over the course of this thread it has been shown and proven on several occasions that you totally do not understand the concept of Self Determination, the above quote just proves this again.
You ignore evidence that proves you wrong and just repeat the same thing over and over again.
Ignorance is bliss.
To be fair, Aleco has shown himself to be marginally brighter than I(diot) or ed(case) but, and this is no compliment, dumber than Martian, Marvin and even, dare I say it, MoreCrap !
Mar 11th, 2011 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines have no honour, they twist and subvert everything they see to suit their spurious interpretaion of history, the UN and of international law.
A little country, perfidious in nature!
@Alejo (123)
Mar 11th, 2011 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands is not a colony it is a British Overseas Territory, by choice. We have our own Government which administers control over the Falklands without any assitance/interference from Britain, including financial assistance. We govern ourselves, we have democratically elected politicians who govern the Falklands, again without any interference from Britain, the Governor is there to ensure that FIG is transparent and to provide advice, which the Falklands can ignore. The fact that you cannot understand this, and therefore base your arguement on an incorrect interpretation of this system, you are incorrect on all counts. It is very easy to be right when you ignore facts that dont suit your arguement.
This is taken from the Decolonization website...
The Charter of the United Nations established, in Chapter XI (Articles 73 and 74), the principles that continue to guide United Nations decolonization efforts, including respect for self-determination of all peoples.
Note the fact they apply self-determination and to ALL peoples.
Also, from UN Paper (http://www.unpo.org/downloads/Self-determination%20conference%201993.pdf), found under the section called “What is Self-Determination?”, “Exercise of this right can
result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state”.
So the Falkland Islanders can decide their future, and it doesnt have to be complete independence.
And one major flaw of your arguement is that if you want the Falklands to decolonize (let say the Falklands is a British Colony for the sake of this arguement), that means Independence, and not just becoming an Argentine colony.
And what resolutions am I ignoring? Please enlighten me.
You seem to be picking and choosing what the UN states to suit your own arguement.
Yes, I think you're both correct, interesting with regard to SGSSI, that in 1905 the Argentines first leased an old whaling station at Grytviken, South Georgia, for meteorological use from the British Government (obviously regarding Britain as holding Sovereignty), and later decided to claim South Georgia in 1927 as its own territory because it had been there a while under the lease?!??
Mar 11th, 2011 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also the 1955/6 ICJ involvement is most likely related to Argentina setting up a 'Summer Station' Teniente Esquival, at Ferguson Bay, on the SE coast of Thule Island, between 25 January 1955, until after the Summer of 1956, obviously under British protest.
They did much the same in 1976, this time establishing a military base, they named Corbeta Uruguay, on the SE coast of Thule Island, without permission; this wasn't discovered until 1978 by the British and immediately protested and tried to solve through diplomatic means. However, the Argentine base was removed by the British on 20 June 1982, following the Falklands War.
It would seem the only history Argentina has in regard to SGSSI is taking out a lease under false pretences, squatting, and invasion, which it apparently cites as evidence of its claim.
#18, Beef
Mar 11th, 2011 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12604190
Corbeta Uruguay was discovered within a month, the British Government kept quiet and tried to resolve the matter through diplomacy. The news slipped out in 1978.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What about Chagos Archipielago?? is the same history of malvinas but with another country, what about the self determination of the people who lived in malvinas before 1833, or beter what about the self determination of the people who lived in chagos archipielago before UK expelled them too and take control of their archipielago?? please brits you say self determination when in both cases you didnt respect it, in malvinas you said you were in there before and what about chagos?? you didnt were there before and you did exactly the same thing that malvinas. You dont have any excuse. Malvinas Argentinas
Mar 11th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless - in amongst those papers you'll find a reference to an Argentine foreign minister in 1941 claiming that the SGSSI and all the rest were 'inherited from spain' :-) The other reason that Argentina must have mentioned, as so much of the British case dealt with it was, and you are going to love this, - geography :-)
Mar 12th, 2011 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0They don't shout about that much now, as the Island of Palmas case threw geography into touch! However I think its instructive that so many Argentine contributors here still revert to the 'distances' argument .... “ well, we're closer than you are” ! LOL
#131 - “ ... what about the self determination of the people who lived in malvinas before 1833 ... ”
The settlers remain, with a couple of exceptions and opted to do so under British sivereignty. Easy choice really as they'd been there with British permission anyway. The only people ejected were the trespassing Argentine garrison. Do try and keep up SiEquinox!
And there was no right to self-determination in international law in 1833. There was no right to self determination before 1945. And Chagos was wrong. But it no more affects the right of self-determination of Falkland Islanders than it affects the rights of self-determination of Bermudians, Anguillans, St Helenians, etc.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0RedHoyt your government told you that right?? is not rare that your country lie about things like this, in chagos archipielago, UK said there were not people in there when they took it, and people is claiming even now their rights because they were the first to be in there and for long time, they didnt invaded, UK invaded them as Uk ivanded malvinas, UK expelled everybody in malvinas in 1833, that about people that stay there is a lie, because descendents from the argentinian colonies has proofs of that, the funniest part is that one UK version said there were not people in malvinas when they come, and there is another version that saids there were and some, as you said, stay there but both of them are lies and every one except you know that
Mar 12th, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0dab14763 that doest matter because too much colonies were from before human rights and they get free so... and you said that chagos was wrong but you are still controlling it because you can use for something
SiEquinox you are a fool. The British Government does not issue propoganda about the Falkland islands. We are expected to find our own information so I'm entirely self taught.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the settlers being ejected from the Falkland islands, we can prove that it was not so. Indeed Argentina provides some of the proof via the records of the Sarandi which listed the people removed in January 1833. It lists the garrison and two settlers and their wives. In March of 1833 Charles Darwin arrived on the Beagle and recorded descriptions of the settlers who had remained. The proof comes from your own National Archives.
Proof of Argentina's lies and distortion. The settlers remained. They had been there with British permission which Vernett had sought, so there was no reason to remove them. All proveable!! You own Government knows it too.
The islands were empty when the British made their first claim in 1690 and still empty in 1764.
Now, the important point is that neither one of us should believe what our Governments tell us but should rely on the brains we were born with to investigate and form our own opinions. From my experience on these pages it would seem that Argentines have a problem with this.
Exercise that brain of yours and stop relying on school text books!
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see that you are another 'believer' SiEquinox, eben in the face of proof. It is why your country will never get the Falkland islands and because you cannot accept the truth, you'll never understand why you can't get the islands.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are a sad case really ... I fำel sorry for you and the indoctrination that has taken place!
Searinox
Mar 12th, 2011 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is evidence that the population was not expelled whereas Argentina has not presented in 178 years a single shred of evidence that it was expelled.
The recourse of a rogue, to mutter under his breath in a minor language when faced with defeat!
Mar 12th, 2011 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Evidence = verificacion, evidencia, probanza
Produce some, or the Argentine case is lost!!
So the news is that Argentina's U.N. ambassador held a meeting with himself in his own office at the U.N. to express to himself Argentina's renewed interest in the C-24, whilst the C-24 chairman did not attend
Mar 12th, 2011 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seems the meeting with the new C-24 chairman was designed by the Argentine ambassador & his accomplices as a pretext to create a news story for release of Argentine propaganda, but when the new chairman could not attend, Timerman & his aides saw no reason to wait for the planned meeting to take place & went ahead & released the story because its purpose was purely for its own political propaganda & could be achieved without the C-24 chairman's attendance. It appears this strategy has worked & the story has been published
It is good to read nations reject colonialism in all its forms. Perhaps, they will support the inclusion of the Unrepresented Nations & Peoples
onto the C-24 decolonisation committee list of Non-Self-Governed Territories?
I wonder what Joseph Deiss advice would be. Perhaps use the ICJ as the proper organ of the UN to bring a claim against the UK?
The Argentine argument to the C-24 that resolution 1514(XV) should not be implemented for the Falkland Islands people is odd. Argentina voted for this resolution to apply to the case of the Falkland Islands people & the UN General Assembly confirmed that resolution 1514(XV) covers the case of the Falkland Islands in resolution 2065(XX)
It is easy to understand why resolution 1514(XV) applies to the people of the Falkland Islands & all peoples of modern-day British Overseas Territories, namely they are non-self-governing territories under resolution 1514(XV) because fifty years ago at the time of the resolution, these territories were British Crown Colonies & non-self-governing
The Falklanders were subjugated to the autocratic alien government of a colonial power in whose government were not democratically represented
Since 1961 the U.K. has implemented much of 1514(XV) for the Islanders
Redhoyt you say we invented evidence when you just say self-determination when there is evidence taht your monarchy invaded jaja, keep being that stupid i can see your future right now jaja
Mar 12th, 2011 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 127 M_of_FI (#) only, the rest is irrelevant once again. I'm not here to enligthen you, do your job. Just one piece of advise: concentrate on the RELEVANT UN documents, not any piece on any other issue. That the islands are a UK OT is UK's position, not the one. Decolonization does not necessarily end up in independence (resolution 1541 btw) and only in self determination is the way, which is not always the case as the very UN stated. One inescapable condition which you don't amount to fulfil: there MUST be a “PEOPLE” under the circumstances established by the UN (including ICJ, of course) and that is where you have a problem. You are not such a “people” entitled to self determination to be decolonized as you are part of the “administering power” (not by CHOICE actually...) Maybe now you stick to this so-called “choice” as there's no other way to justify you argument. Good luck and browse the whole webpage, particularly documents on the Malvinas issue!
Mar 12th, 2011 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0142, Alejomartinez, your argument is ridiculous. Let's remember that the vast majority of Argentines are of immigrants of European descent. From those early days of immigration, the Argentine national identity has developed from what was once a mix of Spaniards, Italians, Welsh, English, Scots, etc. And I don't think that anyone would suggest that Argentines, descended as they are from those early European immigrants, aren't entitled to self-determination in their own country.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, the Falkland Islanders too are descended from European immigrants, although in their case principally British immigrants, rather than Spanish. And, over the same time as the European immigrants to Argentina, they have developed their own national identity as Falkland Islanders from the original English, Scots, Welsh and other European nationals who came to the Islands.
So, when the circumstances of immigration and population of both Argentina and the Falkland Islands are so similar is it that you say one group of “people” is entitled to self-determination and the other “people” is not?
What Malvinas issue, there's no such place.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is strange that Argentina still wrongly choses to pursues its political claim for sovereignty of the Falkland Islands & its stated aim of their annexation into Argentina against expressed will of the the people living there through the UN Decolonisation Committee rather than correctly at the International Court of Justice
Mar 12th, 2011 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The purpose of the Committee in respect of the Falkland Islands is to examine the application of the Declaration, to make suggestions and recommendations on the progress and extent of the implementation of the Declaration by the Administrating Country. The C-24 purpose is certainly not to examine sovereignty claims of alien power Argentina who seeks to frustrate resolution 1514(XV), displace the proper Administrating Country to subjugate, dominate a NSGT under C-24 observation
Argentina should be ashamed that it abuses the process of the C-24 to grandstand its own selfish political propaganda aims, rather than use the Committee properly to report what Argentina is doing to support the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in the Falklands Islands, which is Argentina's UN duty
The Falkland Islanders are wholly justified to complain to both the C-24 & the UNGA that Argentina is using prohibited repressive measures against the Falkland Islanders that the C-24 is supposed to monitor and report back to the UNGA
A substantial group of countries within the C-24 are regional economic partners & openly biased in favour of Argentina's systemic political persecution of the dependent people called the Falkland Islanders & they have failed in their duty of care to the Islanders & the UNGA.
Certainly, given Ecuador has openly stated its state support for Argentina's political persecution of the Islanders, the Islanders have grounds to complain of unfit conduct by the C-24
Since the C-24 cannot adjudicate, it appears Argentina has wasted its effort to bias the C-24 with its opinions & hearsay & avoids facts & evidence @ the ICJ
Shame on Argentina
”You are not such a “people” entitled to self determination to be decolonized as you are part of the “administering power” (not by CHOICE actually...) Maybe now you stick to this so-called “choice” as there's no other way to justify you argument. Good luck and browse the whole webpage, particularly documents on the Malvinas issue!”
Mar 12th, 2011 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alejo, I challenge you to produce a single UN document that says that NSGTs inhabited mostly by people who trace their ancestry to the metropolitan state are not entitled to self determination. One single document. I challenge you to produce one single UN document that says they are not entitled if they have the same citizenship as the metropolitan state. One single document.
And the Falklands are not part of the UK.
142 Alejomartinez
Mar 12th, 2011 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who are you to say we're not a people? I asked you before and you didn't answer; what in your opinion constitutes a 'people'. In fact, what in the UN's view would make us a 'people'
And if we became part of Argentina, would we then become a 'people'?
I'll understand if you think my questions are too tricky to answer. Don't call them irrelevant though.
The British Crown Colonies & its government on the Falkland Islands were a manifest form of colonialism. Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands
Mar 13th, 2011 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The reason why the Falkand Islands & all other British Overseas Territories are classed as Non-Self-Governing Territories for the purposes of resolution 1514(XV) is because the form of govt. these territories had at the time as Crown Colonies was autocratic and did not contain fully democratically elected representatives elected by the people, for the people, of the people
The Crown Colony govt. in the Falkland Islands was alien to the people living there, The Crown Colony govt. was subjugated upon the people without choice & The Crown Colony exploited the people as it controlled their natural and economic resources for the benefit of the Crown govt. (not the people) without being democratically accountable to the people
The UN decided Crown Colony govt. was an unacceptable form of govt. for all peoples , whether or not they are indigenous or immigrant peoples & all peoples subjugated to them would be granted freedom by the UN Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples
Consequently full implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in each British Crown Colony including the Falkland Islands is by the UNGA. It is a matter of record Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV) to apply to the Falkland Islands & also that the vote for this resolution was carried unanimously by the UNGA, with the UK abstaining its vote
Argentina's only duties under resolution 1514(XV) is to assist the Falkland Islanders with its full implementation, i.e. transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations & for Argentina to cease all repressive measures against them
This is way self-determination applies to Falklanders
Pompon boy go to the UN and humiliate argentina
Mar 13th, 2011 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0you would be a pueblo if you go to uk were is your original pueblo and land or if you become an argentinian province as this isles are part of our legitime territory
imagine if an argentinian goes to liverpool occupies a part of their land put my family and friends there and say that form now onwards that part of liverpool has argentinian sovereignity or you can call different if you want trulala sovereignity, sounds ridiculous
you are in SA because UK has economic and sustaintable futures interests as all colonies has and that affects all the region
Malen - your translation software doesn't work !
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only bit that I understood, you'd actually got wrong. The Falklands Islands have never been part of Argentina's territory .... never ! Hope that helps :-)
“as this isles are part of our legitime territory”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet none of you can prove this
@149Malen, your whole reasoning falls in a heap because the Falklands have NEVER belonged to Argentina.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just because your country illegally invaded OUR land in 1832 & 1982, you think that you own the Falklands. You do not.
You have no“legitimate”rights in OUR islands, they are NOT YOURS, they are OURS.
When are you going to give back the land that you stole from Paraguay?
Hope this helps.
paraguay and argentina signed a peace treaty after the war(triple alianza), recoignizing argentina jurisdiction to the south of pilcomayo; and argentina renounced (renuncio) to the lands between the rio verde and bahia. argentina didnt begin the war, and it was financed by britain (helping paraguay), as you see, you, as always, in the middle where you dont have nothing to do. we are brothers with paraguay and many of them come to live to argentina and viceversa
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 02 you are changing so much history, some days you invade us others we invade you, really prove all you think in the UN
3 the islands belonged and belongs to argentina and read history books im not going to explain all over and over again
hope this definitely helps and lordhoyt i dont use translate software
Malen - you history books are wrong. Simple. Get used to it. As for the translation software ... if you don't use it then maybe you should!
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are British .... always have been, always will be. Or for as long as the islander's wish it anyway!
“3 the islands belonged and belongs to argentina and read history books im not going to explain all over and over again”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malen,
Argentina did not inherit the Spanish claim, nor did it ever establish effective control over the Falklands. Therefore, the Falklands are not, and never have been Argentine territory. A load of Spanish, not Argentine, history does not change that fact.
point 2 im referring to 1833 illegal occupation of uk that you now say we invade you
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0lordhoyt i obtain a c in fce then i studied other things nothing connected to english language.
and
and if you are right prove it in the UN!!go go
1. Yes, the Paraguayans come to Argentina, and Argentine racists abuse them, so much for being brothers.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 02. Malen, you're got it all arse about face, it is Argentina that needs to prove its claim to the UN ICJ.
3. Vernet had British Permission to undertake commercial activities on the Falkland Islands, he was never appointed Governor by anyone, and sought protection of his commercial interests under British Sovereignty, you then invaded with a Military Garrison in 1832, we came and told the Garrison to leave, and they did. A significant proportion of your Garrison was hanged in Buenos Aires when they arrived home, so they weren't heroes.
Vernet's commercial activities continued under British Sovereignty unmolested, and all but four people from the Island Population were persuaded to stay on the Islands.
Records held in Buenos Aires and London prove this as the truth, and the written source material for the continued presence of the Island Population after the Argentine Garrison went home is provided by Vernet himself.
Malen, you really do need to use better than an Argentine Government Propaganda to prove your point, because you'll soon be regarded as a joke old boy.
“point 2 im referring to 1833 illegal occupation of uk that you now say we invade you”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina had not established any sovereignty in 1833, and Spain never complained about British actions.
not joke not old and not boy
Mar 14th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0that must be you!! brainless
We don't have to prove anything Malen because we own the islands, we occupy the islands, our people live off the islands ....... what do you do? Other than tell lies and whinge ??
Mar 14th, 2011 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina goes to the UN ... and whinges ... but, as it doesn't convince anyone that's its claim is good, nothing happens ............. yaer in, year out :-)
Brainless LOL
@152 Malen,
Mar 14th, 2011 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Paraguay signed a treaty alright because they had lost the war against 3 countries & they had no choice. whatever way you look at it, your country stole their land. Just like you want to steal our land.
2) I am not going to explain it over and over either. Argentina does not own our country, the Falkland lslands. Argentina has never owned our lslands and never will.
3) Your history books are full of lies, prepared by your government so that successive generations of Argentines believe that the Falklands belong to them. Well they do not.
4) We don't have to go to the ICJ, as we are happy with owning the lslands. lf you believe that you really own our lslands, and you have PROOF, then ask yourself why your country REFUSES to go to the ICJ.
5) The answer is self explainatory, the Argentine government knows that it is wrong. Argentina has no rights in our lslands
@Alejo (142)
Mar 14th, 2011 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep referring to UN Documents and I have asked you to provide links to them, but you have refused, and in your latest post, you have referred to them once again. Please do as I do, as a courtesy to the person you are debating with, provide your sources. Then I can start to take you seriously, because at the moment you look foolish.
My job is not to come on Mercopress to argue with you. It is your job to provide links to what you are claiming. It is not my job to validate what you are saying, thats your job. Prove to me that the UN do not consider the humans currently inhabiting and governing the Falklands are not a people.
What I have proved without a doubt is that the UN believes everyone has the right to self-determination.
And life goes on ...... http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/14683/three-more-falkland-well-slots-rockhopper
Mar 14th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0162 M_of_FI
Mar 14th, 2011 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See my post at 146. Join the queue.
“Join the queue”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup, a very long queue with some at the front now starting to die of old age...
Argentines only have demands .... not answers !
Mar 15th, 2011 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0One man's opinion is worthless. Only the opinion of an international court will count ... so no, Malen ... not all is said or answered!
Mar 15th, 2011 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who is John Troutbeck anyway Malen? Does he make international law?
Mar 15th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does it matter what he's written in Spanish anyway?
Mar 15th, 2011 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!