MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, March 28th 2024 - 09:15 UTC

 

 

UK World Heritage tentative list includes sites in three Overseas Territories

Tuesday, March 22nd 2011 - 19:58 UTC
Full article 33 comments

Three Overseas Territories have been chosen to be included as sites across the UK and its OT to form the new UK tentative list for potential nomination for UNESCO World Heritage Status. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ed

    once my appealing for C-G-D-S ( not longwood) area to visit
    in St.Helena but not accepted by reason of forbidden .

    Mar 22nd, 2011 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Great Britain its self is a fantastic place to visit, having said that, their are thousands of places of interest in the world we are losing due to the rolling tides of progress, many ancient places are being destroyed in the name of development or some other reason, soon there may be nothing left to admire, future generations may never see what we have today,
    the worlds population gets ever bigger, but the world its self seems to be ever smaller .

    Mar 22nd, 2011 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    They forgot Bullshitshire or “Falklands”, same thing. (they wouldn't dare)

    “Few places in the world can match the wealth of wonderful heritage we have available in the UK.”

    If by “wealth of wonderful heritage” you mean stolen foreign land, you bet.

    “future generations may never see what we have today”

    Oh, they won't, trust me on that one.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Wouldn't dare what, Martian? Select a site on the Falklands for UNESCO World Heritage Status?

    If there was a suitable site, you can be sure we would. But as there was no real history prior to British arrival that appears unlikely.

    You know the old saying, “here today, gone tomorrow” ! Or in the Falkland Islands case “here today, here tomorrow” :-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    Well Redhot, we've already proven your education leaves much to be desired so I'm not surprised you don't know much about the history of Malvinas.

    Your comment didn't even make any sense. If its the “UK World Heritage” doing the selecting why would they care about the history prior to British arrival? They didn't care about the history of Gibraltar, St Helena or West Indies prior to British arrival.

    Your comments are getting really stupid.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    “ ... The move was being welcomed in heritage circles in Gibraltar where Gorhams Cave has often been described by the world’s leading archaeology as a “Rolls Royce” of sites because of the way in which it has recorded early history....”

    Well done Martian - right again!

    Although I'll agree with you that prior to the British arriving, there is generally very little history worth mentioning ;-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    “welcomed in heritage circles in Gibraltar”

    Yeah... the same circle of British pirates that stole Gibraltar in the first place. Now we're getting someplace.

    “ there is generally very little history worth mentioning”

    None that would work in your favor, shhhhhhhh... ;-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Gibraltar was conceded in perpetuity .. in other words, it was given away by Spain following Spain's defeat. Uti Possidetis De Facto ... to the victor the spoils. You should remember that Martian, it could also be applied to the defeat of Argentina in 1982. The only difference is that Spain signed Gibraltar over, whereas Argentina acknowledged British sovereignty over the Falkland islands in the 1850 Treaty.

    You Spaniards do like to go back on a deal, don't you ;-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    “ it was given away by Spain following Spain's defeat”

    You Brits do like twisting things around, don't you?

    Argentina never acknowledged any kind of “British sovereignty” over Malvinas.

    Do elaborate.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    1849 (Ratified 1850) – The “Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship” is signed.

    This is regularly described as a peace treaty. Argentina makes no mention of the Falkland Islands but the Treaty ‘settles ALL disputes’

    Moreno was Ambassador to UK in 1849. On July 27th 1849 Palmerston replied to a question in the House of Commons: “… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, & had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, & she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain. 10 or 12 years ago the Falkland Islands, having been unoccupied for sometime, were taken possession of by Great Britain, and a settlement had ever since been maintained there …”

    Moreno then protested in a letter dated 31 July.

    On 8 August 1849 Palmerston replied briefly, stating that “I have always understood the matter in question to stand exactly in the way described by you in your letter.”

    This is a reference to Palmerston saying that the dispute had ceased by the acquiescence of one party (Argentina) and the maintenance of the other (Britain).

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    Talk about twisting things around.

    “Argentina makes no mention of the Falkland Islands but the Treaty ‘settles ALL disputes’”

    How could the sovereignty dispute of Malvinas be settled without any mention of it?

    “Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain”

    So what? How does that prove the UK had more rights to Malvinas than either Spain or Argentina? Spain denied UK's claim as well, as did Argentina, neither country granted the UK anything.

    “10 or 12 years ago the Falkland Islands, having been unoccupied”

    WRONG, Argentina took possession of Malvinas in 1820, its inhabitants were expelled by the UK in 1833.

    ”acquiescence of one party (Argentina)“ - ”Moreno then protested in a letter dated 31 July.”

    31 July, what year? Where is Moreno's letter?

    Let me guess, you don't have Moreno's letter.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Unmentioned the matter was considered 'closed' !

    Argentina could not 'grant' anything, as it owned nothing.

    Argentina DID NOT take possession of the islands in 1820.Colonel David Jewett made a half hearted claim which he didn't bother to inform BA of, and then left. No occupation, no possession. And there were already 2 claimants.

    1849

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    You base your argument on Argentina “acquiescence”, yet you conveniently hide Moreno's letter.

    Now the matter is simply 'closed'. Still, no letter.

    The man you're referring to was Manual Moreno

    “He wrote many formal complaints about the British occupation of the Falkland Islands after 1833, which were rejected by the British government.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Moreno

    So I ask you again, what “acquiescence” are you speaking of?

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Good guess - I don't have a copy of Moreno's letter as it is not available on-line from the British National Archive. However it was refered to originally by Axle who I believe does have a copy from you national Archive, and a copy of the reply from Palmerston.

    “ ... The Convention was referred to as a “peace treaty” many times by both sides; it represented a considerable triumph for Rosas, .. but Rosas was prepared to pay a price – the Falklands. By failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, he effectively dropped it.... ”

    Pascoe & Pepper - pages 24 & 25 in the Spanish version.

    The reference to “acquiescence“ was in a statement by Palmerston to the House of Commons 27.7.1849 - ” ... were taken possession of by Great Britain, and a settlement had ever since been maintained there; and he thought it would be most unadvisable to revive a correspondence which had ceased by
    the acquiescence of one party and the maintenance of the other...“ [ The Times, London, Saturday 28 July 1849, p. 2, co l. 6.]

    Pascoe & Pepper also state - ” ..after the ratification of the Convention, Argentina completely ceased to mention the Falkland Islands to Britain – for over a third of the 19th century....”

    Get reading Martian :-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    “but Rosas was prepared to pay a price – the Falklands”

    According to whom? Rosas? Or those two clowns Pascoe & Pepper?

    If the UK wanted to make their suspicions official they should have mentioned Malvinas explicitly, but they didn't. There are no documents signed by any Argentine official that explicitly state that the matter of Malvinas or the “Falklands” is closed.

    Just because the matter was not discussed by one man, Juan Manuel de Rosas, who was clearly tending to a different matter, doesn't implicitly suggest the matter of Malvinas was closed. The matter was simply being handled by different people, one of them, Manuel Moreno.

    You don't have a case, you have lies, distortion and fabrication.

    Argentina has NEVER, not for one minute, ceased its claim on Malvinas, the UK simply ignored it.

    No such “acquiescence” ever took place.

    You lost the argument.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Christopher UK

    Martin_Fierro wrote “If by “wealth of wonderful heritage” you mean stolen foreign land, you bet. ”

    Argentina is itself a land stolen from its indigenous peoples. Why do Argentineans keep on charging others with regard to stealing land, colonialism etc when their own country is built upon such 'principles' ?

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    “ ... You lost the argument ...”

    Says who? You, the independent arbitrator? You are a bit quick to claim a win.

    Section 7 of the Conventions states - “ ... VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality ....”

    Perfect friendship? No outstanding matters then! And as Rosas was the head honcho at the time, his approach is important. After all he was negotiating from a position of power as the blockade had been going for 5 years and the British wanted out. depending on who you talk to he was the winner. So why would he not deal with the Falklands?

    Not that it really matters. My personal view is that the matter was settled in 1833 and what followed is irrelevant. Interesting, but irrelevant.

    Some would argue that the 'acquiesence' took place in the 91 years after 1850 !

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Martino, round & round we go, talk,talk,talk blah blah blah, etc. Means nothing. What is important is that WE own the Falklands & you DO NOT.
    Stop banging your head against a brick wall, Martino. You have NEVER owned the Falklands and you NEVER WILL. btw- there is no such place as the malvinas. lf you really want some islands then why don't you level a couple of mountains in the Andes, dump them in the sea & call them the malvinas? not near us of course. may l suggest up near BA?

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    “Some would argue that the 'acquiesence' took place in the 91 years after 1850”

    Same idiots you're quoting from? All you have are personal views, no documents that even mention Malvinas or “Falklands”, that's why you lost the argument.

    You and I both know the matter is not closed.
    You and I both know Argentina is not alone.

    Nothing is closed.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    “ We have no doubt about our sovereignty”

    The official British position. Sounds closed to me :-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    We have no doubt about our sovereignty.

    The official Argentine position, and the rest of South America. ;-)

    The UN calls for sovereignty talks.

    The US calls the islands by its real name: MALVINAS

    Things will only get worst for the islanders, you're just a spoiled English brat trying to lecture me with silly quotes 8,000 miles away.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Perhaps just a few more relevant facts

    1. The flag that flies over the Falkland Islands is NOT Argentine

    2. There hasn't been a UN General Assembly Resolution since 1988

    3. The United States of America refers to the islands as the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) e.g. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html

    4. The news this week would suggest that things can only get better for the islanders.

    5. I haven't been a 'brat' for nigh on 50 years.

    6. I was never spoiled - sadly :-(

    7. My quotes are authentic ..... whereas you do not quote at all !

    8. I am not 8,000 miles away, not today anyway ... next week - maybe :-)

    Oh, I forgot one - who gives a pair of dingo's kidneys for what South America thinks?

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    1. The flag that flies over Malvinas is the “Union” flag, a COLONY flag, the UN Decolonization Committee doesn't like that one bit.

    “A union flag waves over Stanley, Falklands.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain

    2. The UN resolution stands, no change to the request for both parties to talk.

    3. The CIA? We can only guess when that page was last updated.

    Here's an update for you. ;-)

    ”Britain was forced to issue at least three formal diplomatic protests to the United States last month after a State Department official called the Falklands ‘Las Malvinas’, the Argentine name for the disputed islands. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain

    Why the protest? All they had to do is look at the CIA page. lol

    4. This week what? Oil? They've been saying the same thing since they started drilling, they probably found MORE WATER.

    5/6... whatever

    7. Your quotes are crap, Pascoe & Pepper, I never really knew how much they twisted and fabricated their 'facts', now I know.

    8. Don't care

    Last, you may not care, you're just here to have the last word, the islanders LIVE in South America, that's not gonna change and they know it.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    1. The Decolonisation Committee is irrelevant and discredited. No-one listens which is why there has been no UNGA Resolution since 1988.

    2. Where does it state that a UNGA Resolution 'stands' after 23 years ?

    3. Something more modern, and after the date of your links - http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm

    4. The markets seem impressed.

    5/6. Whatever :-)

    7. One quote came from an 1849 copy of the Times newspaper - too authentic for your tastes? At least P&P quote their sources, few of your revisionist 'historians' do !

    The islanders live near South America. They live IN the south Atlantic.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    1/2. Again, your opinion. Where does it state that a resolution is only official up to a certain amount of time? Strange Redhot, you seem quite fond of resolutions even when they don't even mention the issue in question. Why can't I bring up an official resolution that clearly states the issue in question? MALVINAS and/or “Falklands”.

    3. “Special Sovereignty”, not quite outright sovereignty is it? ”Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)” ...good link. ;-)

    4. Suppose they are wrong, again.

    5.6. ...

    7. The Times newspaper, did they quote from an official document that clearly states Argentina gave up Malvinas? Otherwise, where is “P&P's” validity in all this?

    You know what Redhot, if Malvinas were any closer to Argentina I'd be able to see them with the naked eye.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    1/2 So it could go either way then :-) Strange though that there were regular UNGA Resolutions in the 23 years between 1965 and 1988 but nothing in the 23 years since? Not sure what you are trying to bring up, but keep trying, if it exists you'll find it. Perhaps there is no 'issue in question' - just an old colony with a right to self determination :-))

    3. Can't see any mention of 'Special Sovereignty' on that US site ... never seen it at the UNGA either. Argentina keeps trying to make it 'special' at the C-24 but it doesn't get them anywhere.

    5. maybe .. time will tell :-)

    7. The Times article was recording Lord Palmerston's speech on the subject. P&P actually say that between 1833 and 1849 Argentina made regular protests so it is not certain why Lord Palmerston said what he did. Perhaps the protests were not seen as 'official' ?

    You can see 300 miles ... wow. What big LIES you have grandma :-)

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frase

    I remember reading that Grace Livingstone Guardian article. The thing that struck me the most was that I don't think I've ever seen the comments section be so unanimous on any of the blogs, and they were unanimously in favour of the Falkland Islanders.

    The guardian (and it's readership) aren't exactly known for their patriotic chest-beating.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Sorry, not sure I explained myself well ... I can see no definition of 'special sovereignty' on the US site. It would be interesting to know what they meant as it appears to apply to so many territories including at least one belonging to the US.

    Mar 23rd, 2011 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Martin- flags- WRONG- the Falklands Flag flies outsdie Govt Buildings in the Falklands - NOT the Union Flag.Names- as there is a dispute - nobody can deny that - to be strictly neutral and politically coorrect it would be normal for all English speaking nations(other than UK) to use the name Falkland Islands(Islas malvinas). Likewise it is politically correct for Spanish Speaking Nations to use the words Islas Falklands(Islas Malvinas).
    UK says Falklands and Arg say Malvinas as you would expect both to. As for your continual crap about the whole of S America behind you - how come Falkland Islands flagged vessels sail to and from Uruguyan and Chilean ports?
    Even Arg vessels fly the Falklands Flag as common, standard international courtesy, when they visit here!

    Mar 24th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    “Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty”
    http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm

    It's your link Redhot, though I don't know what they mean by 'special', if I had to guess I'd say it means 'disputed', reason why they have (Islas Malvinas) next to it.

    Islander1:

    “Even Arg vessels fly the Falklands Flag as common”

    You must be referring to the yacht that recently docked in Malvinas.

    Regulations state that, when arriving at a port and before reaching the pilot area, the ensign flag of that country is hoisted at the stern of the ship. The ensign of the country from where the ship came is hoisted at the bow of the ship.

    Except, you people are so stupid and insecure, you had a tiny little yacht from Argentina hide its Argentine flag. Both flags, where you're from and where you're going should be hoisted. You people are truly pathetic, sad in every possible way. It's a YACHT, what's it gonna do? Fire missiles at you??

    Congratulations, your overwhelming power was no match for the Argentine Yacht.

    Mar 24th, 2011 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Except, you people are so stupid and insecure, you had a tiny little yacht from Argentina hide its Argentine flag.”

    Except, you people are so stupid and insecure, you have any tiny little ship from the falklands banned from entering port if it's flying it's flag.

    Mar 25th, 2011 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin_Fierro

    The only reason your ships go out is to fish illegally, I'm pretty sure the Argentine yacht wasn't fishing.

    Mar 26th, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JustinKuntz

    Martin,

    It is a common international courtesy to fly the national flag in a countries waters. Ships transiting UK waters fly the Red Duster and in the Falklands would fly the Falklands Ensign.

    The yacht you spoke of flouted that convention, they were politely asked to stop. That should have been the end of it but hey as usual Argentina decides to make a fuss.

    Mar 28th, 2011 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!