MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine lawmakers bring up ‘Malvinas issue’ at Inter-Parliamentary Union
Argentine and British lawmakers held a bilateral meeting in the framework of the Inter Parliamentary Union 124th meeting which took place in Panama, according to Argentine sources. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBring it up as often as you like and where-ever you like .... it'll not make an ounce of difference .....
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have no doubt about our sovereignty ....... because there is none :-)
We have no doubt about our sovereignty... because there is none (sovereignity:-)
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0““to emphasize that the UK must cease its unilateral hydrocarbons’ exploration activities to the north of the Malvinas Islands”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same old record, it's the Falkland Islands Government, not the UK. Maybe one day you Argies'll learn the difference and stop making fools of yourselves. In the mean time you'll get the same response whenever you raise the issue.....”yes, yes, it's a shame...very worrying.....(yawn)....
The only ones making fools of themselves are you, Great Brutons, trying to hide your fat ugly ass with a minuscule FIG(leaf)
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0you've got it bad Think.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Says who?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agree
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cheeky little tinkers.“You must stop exploration to the North of the Falklands” ah yes, thats where we have found interesting amounts of oil. Does this mean that we can still carry on exploring to the South until we find something then also stop ? Get real baby, anything exploitable out there is the property of the Falkland Islands people. Any revenues out there will accrue to the Falkland Islands people. Keep looking lads :-)
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0[] Article's second paragraph ;
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The completely Falkland/Malvinas Islands areas in the Argentine
Continental Platform ,in principle..!!
BUT
It can be interpreted Falkland/Malvinas Island(Islas) has
150km West --200km North--200km South --400km East
own Terrestrial Platform ! in practice.
As I remember, the oil exploration is only 'unilateral' because the Argentines spat their dummy and walked out. They were offered co-operation and declined. Shame.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt very much that there's any UN resolution that mentions oil exploration at all.
So in other words, this is another Argentine just making things up and embarrassing his country in a public forum.
No change there then.
“The head of the delegation and Deputy for the province of Buenos Aires Atanasof made it a point “to emphasize that the UK must cease its unilateral hydrocarbons’ exploration activities to the north of the Malvinas Islands, on the Argentine continental platform, and in accordance with the several resolutions from the United Nations General Assembly and the Decolonisation Committee”.”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is this guy a fool or does he think everyone else is? The Decolonisation Committee can't make resolutions. It can only present drafts to the General Assembly. And all General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.
So it's just more meaningless Argentine hot air.
Well........the Union Jack still flies high and proud over these....our beautiful and resource rich Falkland Islands and associated territories.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are the ever loyal Islanders throwing a few street parties for the future Kings wedding?
12...
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol... I just loved your comment,
Union Jack!! Here! Here!
You colonials do love your royalty I'll give you that.
Uh, resource right though? If all you want is shrubs and penguin poop... yup, you're rich.
Go back to Catalunya Martin. Stop breathing South American air which does not belong to you...
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] 9 -- continues ...
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is not trump card holder at this subject against UK..
becouse that : Falkland/Malvinas has different status not like
Australia & New Zealand ..Falkland/Malvinas is neither autonomous
nor independent !..just UK patch.
14,
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I told you Kelper, you don't know my ancestry, take your foot out of your mouth.
15,
Good luck finding a fertile patch on those rocks...
You know, I'm growing quite fond of your 'Union Jack', please keep sharing your colonial stories with us.
I'm beginning to suspect as time passes that Martin isn't actually a real Argentine.....but a plastic one :) Anybody else share my suspicions?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The trouble is they are so full of their own bombast and bullshit- that actually belive it to be true, and the more they spout it the more the Arg public will fall for it - then when the day happens and reality dawns it will be a hell of a shock - just like 14th June 1982 when all of a sudden the Arg nation had to accept the reality of miltitary defeat when it had been continually told daily that they were winning and all the Brits were at the bottom of the ocean!
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But if that the way they want it - their choice!
Yes- a street party is planned for the 29th - indoors though as its late autumn down here!
17,
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0haha... really?
I'm not a Kelper, Martin, but we all know you are a Catalan...
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 “And all General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But this shows the world the United Kingdom's refusal to solve a problem of sovereignty.
“Well........the Union Jack still flies high and proud” = British Overseas Territory.
It's true. Belong to a country. That country is Argentina. The Islanders do not realize they are in a territory was taken from us.
@9 Geo,You have to accept it. The Malvinas Islands are on the continental shelf Argentina. The islands are a few steps from our coast.
J.A.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You do know Cataluña is just a region in northern Spain, right?
I don't even know what it is that you're trying to say.
“The Islanders do not realize they are in a territory was taken from us”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Erm, no Malvinense. The Falklands were never Argentine territory. Please get your facts right.
As far as I can make out Fierro is not a native South American surname. Apparently Catalan, so why don't you go back there Martin.
'Martin Fierro' is a fictional work, a book.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice research though, I didn't know that.
how stupid is this, british saying falklands government can decide by himself? “falkland ”illegal“ government cant decide without the uk government approbation, besides the stupid brits thinks falklands will be free?? JAJA good joke, if UK let ”falklands” free then the uk would lose the right to claim a part of antartica, you are really stupid... but it doesnt matter say what you want it is just by pride that your monarchy doest want to give it back, then you ll be so devastated when we recovered, jaja
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who sent a document in pdf format called “Getting it right”??
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting stuff.
I must admit I found interesting points against absolute Argentine sovereignty as well as points in favor. But I also found out not all the Islanders were ejected from the Malvinas in 1833. And I have to admit that our pitiful undemocratic ex-president Juan D. Peron may have been right in some things but was wrong in others. Indoctrinating the Argentine people was perhaps the most pitiful and wrong thing he did to my country not only about the Malvinas issue but about other things as well. So, you might have a point there about our ex-presidents indoctrinating us about the Malvinas.
And yet, that indoctrination does not invalidate our claim for sovereignty, in any case, it has only brought about undue blindsided nationalism in regard to the Malvinas issue which sets the Argentine negotiatiors with nothing to concede if the UK accepeted to discuss the matter. You have a point there.
Now, another point which is clear for all to see: there is a resolution 2065 standing and pending to be heeded by both gov´ts the Argentine and the UK.
What seems strange to me is that on the one hand you´re ready to concede to Argentina to take the Malvinas issue to the ICJ, a third party, a referee, a body of international judges to decide on it but strangely enough you are not ready to discuss the issue with directly with Argentina without a 3rd party as the ICJ would be. WHY is that so? What is the rationale/your logic behind it? .... let me risk an answer: maybe you are sure enough Britain has nothing to lose there while a bilateral discussion would by itself granting Argentina stuff to discuss in connection with sovereignty?
25 Searinox:
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All overseas territorys have the right to hold a referendum and leave the UK. Gibraltar has had three i think now.
26 Gotey:
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because we know we'll win. Theres no doubt of this and the ICJ is final.
So... if the ICJ were to rule in favor of Argentina, and I said IF, the UK would simply pack up and leave? All military personnel in Mount Pleasant, gone. All claims on Malvinas and adjacent islands withdrawn, including Antarctica since its claim is based on an expansion of the EEZ around these islands.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again, I said IF.
26 Gotey - Also because Argentina makes it very publicly clear that there can only be ONE outcome to any negotiations - Full transfer of Sovereignty to Argentina!! How can 2 sides have any genuine usefull negotions to seek a solution to a problem when one side has already stated the only possible acceptable outcome!
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For meaningful talks and negotiations to happen then both sides have to enter those talks on and open agenda NO preconceived final solutions. Furthermore those talks would have to take into account the the UN declaration on the rights of all peoples to selfdetermination.Somehow cannot see Buenos Aires ever agreeing to evem one of those basics.
A pity because if such talks could take place they might produce a solution where all could be seen to get what they want with no loosers.
Also Argentina has destroyed any possible climate of trust for any talks to take place in for a long time , as a result of their belligerent actions since 2003.
19..ho ho ho yes really :) call it my spider senses, but there is something not very “Argentine” about you.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are alot younger than you claim to be, that much is obvious, student perhaps?
Hmm English with Spanish ancestry, or American with Spanish ancestry on a gap year.
The above profile fits the clear personality disorder inherent in your postings, wishing to be something that he is not XD
@23 Martin Fierro is a gaucho.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Erm, no Roberts. The Malvinas were never British territory. Please get your facts right.
@26 Who sent a document in pdf format called “Getting it right”??
There are maaaaaany lies in that document. Any half truth is a lie.
“But strangely enough you are not ready to discuss the issue with directly with Argentina”
Not discussed directly because they know that Argentina is right.
Argentina “for now” does not used the Court because it believes that it is like sitting at one table the wolf and the lamb.
31,
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd call it sheer stupidity...
I'm from Rosario, Argentina.
Something not very Argentine about me? My knowledge of English is throwing you off, I live in the US.
Just because I can speak your stupid language perfectly doesn't mean that I can't be Argentine, it means you couldn't imagine learning another language as well as I have.
Ok stupid?
@30 Islander1, You can not do justice with injustice.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look, I think many people in Argentina agree to shared sovereignty. No full transfer of sovereignty. The 2 flags waving and problem solved forever. Peace in the South Atlantic. And we all win.
It can also be a free state associated with Argentina. Argentina would play a role similar to U.K.. U.K can be guarantor
I do not know, guys, it's just talk and not be so hard.
Please, imagination!!!
23 J.A. Roberts “As far as I can make out Fierro is not a native South American surname. Apparently Catalan, so why don't you go back there Martin”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again with that non sense about the names origin. Obviously you don't have a clue about Martin Fierro nor Argentina but love fairy-tale weddings.
34 Malvinense- correct in it needs imagination. Currently we feel like the lamb you mention in 32 as currently you are definatley the wolf-lucky for us we have our friendly bear on our side.2 flags? - difficult- heck even UK and France argue enough over a little shared island near Canada! It would be 3 flags actually as we currently already have 2! Much better surely find a way where an Islands flag over our Govt can be achieved- and recognised by all, and thus the UK flag- which appears to be the problem to so many - dissapears. One on here once even suggested a possible deal where UK handed Arg the Sovereignty and Arg simultaneously recognized our right to selfdetermination and gave us Independence. The result could be an Independent Islands, member of the British Commonwealth (where our traditions lie) and member of Mercosur and OAS where we were perhaps part of your delegation. It could be done - but realistically not in our lifetimes perhaps as so much hardfeelings about now.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 033 Martin_Fierro
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it helps at all, I never thought you were anything but and ex-pat Argentine with a massive chip on both shoulders.
And you don't speak our language perfectly.
@36 Islander1 I understand. But if you ask self-determination and seek to be an independent island, member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, then that's a British victory and Argentina will not accept defeat.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is as if we were to accept only a full transfer of sovereignty.
Are two extremes and thus there is no solution. We must find the middle.
“All claims on Malvinas and adjacent islands withdrawn, including Antarctica since its claim is based on an expansion of the EEZ around these islands. ”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can only laugh at the sheer ignorance of this statement.
Hey dab........
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Humala's people speaking with Toledo's people......
Varguitas Llorosa voting for Humala....
Are you sure you can afford those 100 Soles?
Toledo has since said 'ni con Fujimori, ni con Humala. In any case Peru Possible members and Peru Possible voters will vote as they individually think best, not as Toledo tells them to. As will the members and supporters of the other parties.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The bet is still on then?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just say no and you save all those nice soles:-)
Just keep those pesos ready and waiting for me.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What Marcos Alejandro? Are you saying he's from Ciudad Real or Zaragoza instead?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://apellido.enfemenino.com/w/apellidos/apellido-fierro.html
And what right do you have to comment anyway, with your Spanish name, breathing South American air, which belongs to the native South Americans.
36 Islander1, ” The result could be an Independent Islands, member of the British Commonwealth (where our traditions lie)” and the bills get paid.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JA,
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Martin Fierro's not his real name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Fierro
Finally an intetelligent Brit, he just learned about Google :-)
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0google?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG.....
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good I didn't call myself Leopold Bloom :-)
Think how that would have disoriented Mr. J.A. Roberts!
Martin,
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's: You colonials do love your Foreign but born in the UK royalty I'll give you that.
Why did I add Foreign but born? Because if you trace their royal roots, you will end at the begin where it started..Germany (Similar like my so called royal family who are Germans and don't pay tax at all). the fanboys of the royals don't mind that at all.
“Foreign but born in the UK”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lmao.
I've changed my mind. I completely agree with your analogy. I believe if we all trace our roots back far enough you will agree that we all all pangeans.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] 46 --- dab
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Martin Fiero's real name is -- Andres -- .
38 Malvinense 1833
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no middle. Either you have sovereignty or you don't.
And why would an independent Falklands be a British victory?
50 Fido Dido
'Foreign but born in the UK'.....
Very funny. And what do you find underneath if you scratch the average Argentine?
Malinense 38 - Thats why it could be that Argentina represents the Islands in S America .- a sort of half way. Or are you thinking of perhaps sharing the current type of Govt where we the Islands have all our own internal laws and taxes-including income from any offshore hydrocarbons if any happen, and Arg and UK mutually guarantee our defence and are responsible for our foreign affairs? - thats the one that could tie diplomats up in knots for years I think.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was there when when that meeting took place, they walked in as we were sitting around having a nice cup of tea. Conservative MP Robert said to me Bulldog who are these people, what do they want I had to tell him that they were here for a discussion, on what said he said, How do I know I had to say it could be anything you know what these people are like.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We sat down and Alfredo Atanasof opened the discussion and said listen Gringos we wont the Malvinas back, at this point Labour MP Mike Gapes nudged me and asked me, were the frigging hell are the Malvinas I did not know we had territories called that name.
I had to tell them that that was the name that Argentina called the Falklands.
Now at this point this is were it started to get a bit out of hand because Labour MP Rt Hon Ann Clwyd who had told me certain members of the Argentina delegation had been making eyes at her jumped up reached across the table and grabbed Alfredo by the throat, now listen to me you jumped up little twerp she shouted you got me down hear on false pretences we dont own any Islands called the frigging Malvinas they are called the frigging Falklands you little twerp.
At this point we had to pull her of him, he was going blue in the face.
Anyway to cut a long story short we all decided to go home, we last saw them at the airport Alfredo was rubbing is neck the color was coming back though thank god, he did look a bit shaky on his feet. Ann said she just saw red when they started to tell a few porky's and that's why she lost it at the table.
I had to say to don't worry Ann, how do you think we feel when we read all the comments from the Argentines on MercoPress - South Atlantic News Agency.
[] 56 --
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was wolfhound not bulldog !!
@54 Monty69
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I respect your opinion. That to me is an extreme position.
Is like that of the Argentines who want the full transfer of sovereignty.
Britain would be a victory because:
Leave the problems of remote settlements.
More votes in international organizations.
Commonwealth larger.
Argentina would be empty-handed.
If seeking self-determination, Argentina would have no choice but to play his last card: the Court.
If you earn is happy. And we have to forget about Malvinas.
If you lose will be sad. And forget about independence.
Why can not reach an agreement between the parties?
Why not seek a special status for the islands, Argentina to deal with international relations, defense, and the United Kingdom is a guarantor?
Why an islander can not be president of Argentina at some point?
Why should we give this problem to future generations?
“Why an islander can not be president of Argentina at some point?”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Language?
:-)
Malvinense- thing is it will be years- a generation at least- before we could even begin to trust anything the Arg Govt might say or sign up to!
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and that time would only start when the last 8 years are quietly dropped and move back to 2002 relations. Without all that happening we would need a very cast iron defence guarantee from the UK - they are the only people we know we can trust today.
Remote settlements issue - sorry I dont follow you there, we get back to the old argument of what is a remote settlement- the spanish one in early Argentian pre 1810 was just that - at the expense of the native people!
If we became Independent Arg would not necessarily be emptyhanded - she could hold her head up in the UN and say We agreed to these people having Independence( it could even be set in such a way that Arg herself gives it to us) as they have built up their own little country over the years and we respect their rights.
Can you speak another language other that English smarty Zethee?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 59 No, I'm serious. There are many things that seem impossible, and then they are not, understand me Zethee?
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AS I see it, language should not be a problem for an islander to become president of Argentina, moreover, this is precisely what we need these days, presidents who can speak the language which is the lingua franca these days.... besides, I do believe people who can speak at least 2 languages have better goggles to see thru things in the world, more openmindedness, more perspective, etc
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I´m tired of the weak and ignorant taking posts in Argentine politics, those sickie ignorants make me sick myself. I´m fed up of jerks running our politics ineffieciently, sick, sick, sick. AN ISLANDER FOR A PRESIDENT??? I WOULD SURE VOTE FOR HIM/HER as long as he/she proves to be a man/woman of the world, with lots of knowledge, culture, and skills and honesty to deal with all matters as fair as possible!!!
All a fairy tale I think, since Argentina will never take the matter to the ICJ, as they have no verifiable evidence to present to the Court.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In this fairy tale scenario, I don't think the Islanders would forget about Independence, if the ICJ decision handed Sovereignty over to Argentina; as the people of the Islands have a completely separate elected Government, language, and culture, to that of Argentina, they would immediately have grounds to seek Independence from Argentina using Self Determination.
Any Independent country can apply for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, even Argentina as it happens, so it is not a stretch to assume that the Falkland Islands would make such an application.
Also such Independence from Argentina could include Free Association with the UK, or any other country, if the Islanders so wished, there would be nothing that the UN or ICJ could do about the Islanders exercising Self Determination in that way.
Such Free Association might include the granting of a Sovereign Base on the Islands to the UK, or any other country, and again there would be nothing that South America, the UN, or the ICJ could do about that either.
So we're back to the start of the matter, it is a circle. There is no solution to the Islands other than the one that the Islanders wish for themselves, and it seems that Argentina and Argentine contributors to this thread have yet to realise this, but are blinded by their indoctrinated patriotism to the point of seeking annexation of the territory and the denial of the Islanders right to Self Determination.
For clarification purposes, it is suggested above that the UK act as a 'guarantor'; this role would be what exactly?
@60 Islander1 “sorry I dont follow you there, we get back to the old argument of what is a remote settlement...”
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May not express myself good, for the British, the islands are an overseas territory distant.
Then they, with the independence of the islands, leave the problems, economic costs, etc.
@63 According, it would be something extraordinary, the language is not a problem.
To be honest, I was thinking of putting in my application to stand in the Argentine Presidential Elections, as I think I'd make a good job of it.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There would be zero tolerance to corruption and lies, and all contracts, treaties, and agreements breached would include financial penalty payable to the state, and enforced public humiliation by setting those responsible in public stocks to enable the public to throw rotten fruit at all day.
I'd also guarantee that my government would take the UK to the ICJ over the Falkland Islands, SGSSI, and the British Antarctic Territory within 12 months, in order to settle the matter.
Assuming I could stand for election, do you think I'd get many votes?
@64 You are wrong. Just the opposite, there is verifiable evidence is why UK avoids the discussion.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the International Court of Justice determined that the islands are Argentine, there is nothing that the islanders can do. The ruling is final. You are wrong.
If you solve all these problems, introduce yourself. Already got my vote.
Thanks for your vote, I must look into whether its possible for a foreigner to stand for election as President of Argentina.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0As an aside to this debate, you've obviously never been to any Court, things are rarely final, which why things like the Courts of Appeal, and higher Courts exist.
You're expecting that the ICJ will rule on whether self determination is applicable to the Falkland Islanders versus the events of 1833 based on Argentine evidence?
It would certainly be interesting to see the final ruling by the ICJ.
However, I must press you for an answer regarding the role you suggest for the UK as a 'guarantor', since you seem to have overlooked this in my post.
Wireless, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THE WHOLE PROPOSAL.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would vote for you, if you did all the things you said, including taking the issue of Malvinas to the ICJ and once and for all finish off the matter and the dispute so we can advance further into the future without sovereigdisputes with anyone
61 Marcos, 62 Malvinense; It was just a joke.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless is right. If the ICJ did rule in Argentinas favor it wouldn't be over. The association with the UK would end because the UK takes ICJ rulings as law.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders would still be humans entitled to human rights and would be able to go for indepedance. There would be a second ICJ case, appeals and all sorts.
This will never happen because if the ICJ did such a thing the UN would fall apart.
66 Wireless, “There would be zero tolerance to corruption and lies”
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great, why don't you start doing that in your small British colony.
Let me give you a few examples: Remove former Desire Petroleum director and current Mineral director from any wildlife conservation trust; find out what happen with those 30 kilos of cocaine missing from inside your police department, enough to make the whole island high as a kite for months.
And solve the case of marine Alan Addis, who “disappeared” without trace 30 years.
37 Monty69,
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If it helps at all, I never thought you were anything but and ex-pat Argentine with a massive chip on both shoulders. And you don't speak our language perfectly.”
That's funny, if we look out for our country we have a chip on our shoulder, if you do, it's ok... you're showing us the right way.
And I don't speak your language perfectly, the end. haha..
72: The fact that you can list all the major crimes from the islands in the last 30 years in one paragraph speaks volumes.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina is so wonderful Martin (the Catalan), why do you live the States?
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@32 “Erm, no Roberts. The Malvinas were never British territory. Please get your facts right.”
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right. Also 'Malvinas' don't exist. Just an Argentine delusion.
@34 “It can also be a free state associated with Argentina. Argentina would play a role similar to U.K.. U.K can be guarantor”
Not a chance. The Falklands are either a BOT or independent. Dagoland has no role.
@38 “Argentina will not accept defeat.”
Why not? You should be used to it by now.
@58 Are you out of your frigging mind?
“If seeking self-determination, Argentina would have no choice but to play his last card: the Court.” No change there. Except Argentina dare not go to the ICJ.
“Why not seek a special status for the islands, Argentina to deal with international relations, defense, and the United Kingdom is a guarantor?” Why not have a special status for the Islands, Britain to deal with international relations, defence and Argentina keeps its nose out?
@62 “No, I'm serious. There are many things that seem impossible, and then they are not, understand me Zethee?”
Here's a couple of impossibilities. Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. An official Argentine presence on the Islands.
@67 “You are wrong. Just the opposite, there is verifiable evidence is why UK avoids the discussion.
If the International Court of Justice determined that the islands are Argentine, there is nothing that the islanders can do. The ruling is final.”
No, there are Argentine fabrications. Even money says that if the ICJ ruled that the Islands were Argentine, the Islanders would call for British protection. But it's moot. Because Argentina would never dare to go to the ICJ and present their lies and fabrications.
The Malvinas are, belong to Argentina. Argentina has a very strong case for it. Argentina has never quit its claim for the Islands. Silence over the issue on the part of Argentine governments in the period mentioned in that paper “Getting it Right” are not a reason to conclude Argentina stopped claiming them. Rather Argentina´s silence may have been connected more to the survival of their own nation because except for the years 1959 to 1982, their armed forces could never match the British. The British have always used all possible means of coercion to silence the Argentine claims, forceful threats, forceful trading pacts, subtle alliances with Argentine neighbors. YOU BRITISH are in the wrong! You may have been cunning enough to have planted your flag their and bribed all those kelpers who stayed, you may have benn able to exercise forceful sovereignty over the Islands but none of the things you have done, including the 1982 victory against an undemocratic military dictatorship (otherwise, that war would have occurred), none of those things earned you the right, the VALID right to keep them. Just think of the French when they lost their provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany after 1871. They never forgot them. They waited and waited and WWI gave them their territories back. Of course, there was also the people there who even though they spoke German felt themselves of French hearts. In this respect, the comparison is not very good. Because the kelpers were and have always been BRITISH ever since 1833.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conclusion: YOU may have the NUKES and the power you get from your ARMED FORCES and the veto at the UN Security Council, but you have don´t have the VALID RIGHTS to keep those islands.
Las Islas Malvinas SON y SERAN Argentinas. Y todos los gobiernos, del color que sean en Argentina, will always regard the issue the same way.
Think it over, you Brits and Kelpers, you should try and consider that your status quo is just that.
The British
I am still waiting for an explanation of what the UK would be expected to do as a 'guarantor'.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina would take the matter to the ICJ if I were elected.
77 Gotey
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are you taliking about? In the 1970s and early 80s the British government were desperate to offload the Falkland Islands. If you hadn't invaded in 1982 they probably would have done it, despite the islanders' objections.
And no, the islands aren't Argentina's, and they never will be.
77 Gotey:
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How does a few Argentinians living on the islands for 10(give or take) years give you more rights to the land than the current people who've been living there for 180+ years, it doesn't.
It's simply “We want them because we say so”.
”victory against an undemocratic military dictatorship (otherwise, that war would have occurred)“
Sorry, I don't understand. You you trying to claim if the Junta didn't attack us the war would have still happened? Expalin.
”Just think of the French when they lost their provinces of”
Yeah, the french also let the Germans walk into Paris a couple times too i seem to recall. I don't think we'll be copying the French when it comes to defending our people.
Zethe
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I meant to say, “the war would not have occurred” but forgot to type it...
Constitution of the Argentine Nation
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Second Part - Authorities of the Nation
Title 1 - Federal Government
Second Division - Executive Power
Chapter 1 - Its Nature and Duration
Section 89.- To be elected President or Vice-President of the Nation it is necessary to have been born in the Argentine territory, or to be the son of a native born citizen if born in a foreign country; and to have the other qualifications required to be elected senator.
Oh well, it was just a thought, if the present Argentine Government won't take the matter to the ICJ then I was kind of hoping that if I led the next one it would, seems they don't like foreigners.
Interesting though, because all this talk of an Islander President would seem to be in error too.
75 J.A. Roberts,
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm still lost about the 'Catalan' thing, I told you, Martin Fierro is not my real name. Are you a heavy drinker like Zethee? Cause that would explain a lot...
It would
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Get with the programme! We all know your real name is not Martin, but we all know you're probably a Catalan, possibly from Ciudad Real or Zaragoza but most likely a sneaky Gallego.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0apellido.enfemenino.com/w/apellidos/apellido-fierro.html
You never answered why do you live in the States if Argentina is such a wonderful country?
To hang out with his SEAL mates
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 085,
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People move for various individual reasons and circumstances J.A., I'm not about to discuss my personal life with you. It's a pretty weak argument since people from all over the world move to other countries, all the time.
And you know what? I know next to nothing about Spain, I'm Argentine.
Enjoy the Islands rocks for now Brits and the grey crappy weather and boring towns just like London.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey you, will the royal wedding will be broadcast live to the islands??? Then you claim to be a “people”... God save us from you all!
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it's being broadcast all over the world.
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no broadcasting privileges as subjects of the Crown? Wow, that's unfair!
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 089 Alejomartinez
Apr 23rd, 2011 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The royal wedding is being broadcast to 2 billion people around the world.I bet you can even watch it in Argentina.
88 Tigre2000
Yes we will thanks. Is that really the best you can come up with?
@87
Apr 24th, 2011 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martin...the plastic Argie.
;-)
I'll actually be on a beach during the Wedding, since most people will be in front of a TV and the roads to the coast will be clear.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll watch it live on the mobile phone maybe, or I could be snoring on a towel, depends on the weather.
Yes, Martin, and a lot of people moved to the Falkland Islands of their own free will, and made a life for themselves there. Yet you and your kind are saying they have no rights because they were “implanted” when that is exactly what your ancestors did in Argentina. Where your ancestors not Spanish? Or European at the very least. Did they not go to Argentina of their own free will? You yourself are a product of migration, yet you and your ilk seem to think that very fact denies the Falkland Islanders their rights. Typical Argentine doublethink.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 95 Roberts, hi again, I see you are still insisting on that big lie of your country. Argentines were expelled in 1833 and no allowed to settle down through a colonial policy aimed at preserving your “britishness” which no one could deny as you are British. No Argentine can still purchase land neither own a property; only a few live on the islands now and because they were so “authorized” by HMG Governor of your democracy. Come on, the first settlers were transplanted INSTEAD of the Argentines who resided there before and now some descend from those and some others have “freely” arrived from the metropole. Stop lying
Apr 24th, 2011 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't actually matter how the people of the Falkland Islands got there, their right to seld-determination is protected by the UN Charter...... and the British people will make sure that they can exercise that right !
Apr 24th, 2011 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 096Alex0- fantasyman like so many more! Facts and evidence are clear that only the military garrisson was expelled by the british in 1833, civilians were invited to saty and quite a few did so- not fantasy but a Fact
Apr 24th, 2011 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines as such are NOT barred from owning land here- our law states that unless you are a permanent resident then you have to apply to our Govt(not the Governor as he has NO vote) for a licence to hold land etc - wether you are English,Chinese,Chilean.Argentine,Zimbabean etc - no difference. Someone applies and they may or may not be granted that licence.
Please define the difference from the “Transplanted” Spanish who went to what is now Argentina when it was a land that belong to the native peaples in in the 16 and 17 th century.
and the “ Transplanted” British who went to the Falklands where there was no indigenous natural population.
We know where we stand - fair square in OUR country that we have developed and made over the generations and that right is there in black and white in the UN Charter.
“Argentines were expelled in 1833 and no allowed to settle down.”
Apr 24th, 2011 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's documented from both Argentine and British sources that(1833) the islanders were not forced to leave. Captain Onslow asked people to stay. When Captain Pinedo(Argentinian) returned to Buenos aires he reported the exact same thing in london that was reported in Buenos aires. He was Captain of the ship Sarandi.
Go look it up in your own library;
AGN Sala VII.
“No Argentine can still purchase land neither own a property”
Yes, due to the fact that a few years ago a loat of Argentinians came over and stuck guns in there faces. Any nation has the right to refuse immigration from people they don't want living there. And they have ample reason to not want you there.
96 Alejomartinez
Apr 24th, 2011 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, I think you have the same rights as anyone else to apply for jobs here, and then for residence rights and the right to buy land. Immigration regulations are fairly strict but they apply to everyone.
The Penguin News is the place to look for job vacancies. Good luck.
Seems clear that you still need to justify the opposite. This is not true, absolutely. There have been many cases to date and this permit from your Crown governor (democratic, of course) is not available. That's a fact guys, I cannot own land on the islands (even when that very land is ours). Not only becasue I say so, not only me but many, many countries in the world. The UN Charter is right, of course, as it ALSO speaks of the other principle applicable to this case: territorial integrity. Don't do cherry picking and go to the RELEVANT UN resolutions if you want to quote the UN, there're plenty of them on the Malvinas issue. I understand your cherrypicking though: none of these supports your so called “position”. Too many doutbs to still insist on claiming that you have no doubts! Good job Argentina!
Apr 24th, 2011 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alejomartinez:
Apr 24th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the islanders don't want a bunch of nationalistic argentinians moving in around them, THIS IS THERE RIGHT TO REFUSE YOU. Was only 40 years ago a bunch of nationalistic argentinians moved in without permission and pointed guns at them.
They don't even need to give you a reason to refuse you. No other countrys do.
“The UN Charter is right, of course, as it ALSO speaks of the other principle applicable to this case: territorial integrity”
This makes me laugh. The islanders were under Argentinian controll almost 200 years ago for a grand total of, what...10 years? They were never an integral part of your nation.
Even still.. Take it to court. Self Determination will always win over territorial integrity.
“Good job Argentina!”
For what? Nothing's happened. You've done nothing, You can do nothing.
“Don't do cherry picking”
Apr 24th, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A case of the pot calling the kettle black eh? Alejandro?
Please prey tell me how Argentina's territorial integrity is being violated by not having sovereignty of territory which was never incorporated into the Argentine state :) 200 years after you arguably had limited possession....
”That's a fact guys, I cannot own land on the islands (even when that very land is ours)”
-Your speaking out your arse now, please name these cases :) OR are they so super ultra secret only you know of them ho ho :)
And who cares if some Argentines were expelled in the distant past....you did exactly the same thing in Patagonia and other places.....Are you saying the present Argentine inhabitants of Patagonia are not allowed to live and own land there then?
Or is it more socially acceptable to rid the land of troublesome primitives in Argentina, than to be on the receiving end of it yourselves?
LOL I love it how Argentine logic and arguments tend to bite themselves in the arse and fall on their faces at the first hurdle at the same time :)
Alejo, say as you wish, ultimatley of course anyone who feels themselves hard done by in a Govt decision here can appeal all the way up to the Queen,s Privy Council for a ruling- its called democracy.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good point Zethee - one thing is for sure is that in a mere 22years the Islands will be celebrating our bicentennary and the flags flying overhead will be our own - not somedody elses sky blue and white one.
Aye, screw them. Not much they can do anyway.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@101Alejomartinez,you cannot own land on the islands because you are not a Falklands citizen, and no that very land is not yours.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lt has never been yours & it never will be yours, lt is OURS.
they came
Apr 24th, 2011 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they saw
realised they could do nothing
then went home again
101 Alejomartinez
Apr 24th, 2011 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A permit to own land can be granted by Executive Council. You are quite right in saying that there have been Argentines interested in buying land here. Exco is within its rights to refuseif it isn't in the best interests of the country as a whole. And having an Argentine buying up the whole of, say, Weddell Island, is not in anyone's best interests.
Absentee landlords are not encouraged on the whole, wherever they come from, unless they have very good plans for what they want to do with the land.
And you can whinge about that all you like because it's our country and we can do what we like with it. I'm not cherry picking anything; you're the ones with the problem, so fillyour boots. I couldn't care less.
Interesting how the phrase changed when it migrated across the Atlantic, we say, 'I couldn't care less', yet Americans seem to say, 'I could care less', which seems to means they actually care to some degree.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a bit of off topic, lateral thinking on my part is all.
You do seem to care, and not only “less” than you say. Good job Argentina again! Not only my own words, once again! Then, it seems that you don't are so democratic and that Argentines are not elegible to own land and “colonise” the islands. Great, YOU said it, not me again.
Apr 24th, 2011 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it seems that you don't are so democratic and that Argentines are not elegible to own land and “colonise””
Apr 24th, 2011 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What does democracy have to do with immigration, At all?
If the people of a land don't want people to immigrate to there land that is democratic. You aren't part of there land, they don't have to give a crap about what you want.
“Argentines were expelled in 1833”
Apr 24th, 2011 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Erm, no. They were not from Argentina, because Argentina did not exist in 1833. They came from Buenos Aires, and only the garrison was expelled. The civilians were encouraged to stay. Most of them did.
“No Argentine can still purchase land neither own a property”
Absolute bollocks. Anyone who has a residency permit or FI status can buy property - and that includes Argentine nationals.
“only a few live on the islands now and because they were so “authorized” by HMG Governor of your democracy”
So? Perhaps they are the only ones who want to live there. Anyway, at least you are right about democracy in the Falklands, which goes back a lot further than it does in Argentina.
“Come on, the first settlers were transplanted INSTEAD of the Argentines who resided there before and now some descend from those and some others have “freely” arrived from the metropole”
What “Argentines”? If you mean the settlers from Bs As, most of them remained. Some of today's Falkland Islanders are descended from those Bs As settlers. Most other settlers arrived freely, and many of them were not from the UK.
“Stop lying”
Get your facts right!
'Self determination' outweighs 'territorial integrity' .... or hasn't the implication of the Kosovo ruling worked its way through to you yet ?
Apr 25th, 2011 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not that Argentina can claim 'territorial integrity' over the islands as they have never belonged to Argentina. Spain had a case once, but they gave up a long time ago.
Nothing Argentina can do :-)
110 Alejomartinez
Apr 25th, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can buy land here; you just have to go through the same process as anyone else; apply for a job, be appointed to said job, live here for a few years and prove that you're an asset to society, apply for a permanent residence permit, get it........and then you can do what you like.
What's your problem?
It is democratic; the laws governing this have been enacted by our elected representatives. You might not like it, but then it's not your country.
Dear, dear I won't go down into the historical revision you NOW seem to be in need of. Remember that these very same objective facts were on the table when YOUR gov't decided to abide by the international obligation imposed on it by the UN and which is in force to date. Not my own words, once again. The fact still remains that there is a sovereignty dispute due to your illegal occupation of our land as the WORLD recognises and claims negotiations for. Self determination is not applicable as there is no “people” entitled to it in this case: your are part of the “administering” (OCCUPYING) power by birth and law. Sorry, not our fault but yours. And, once again, not my words but the international community's opinion based on international law, among other facts. Nothing to do with Kosovo, btw. It's your endogamic and colonial immigration policy which has turned the very objection to your sought after “right” to self determination: you are not a people but British subjects exercising colonial objetives! This is enough for the time being, MERCOPRESS doesn't deserve more of my time for now. Bye folks, enjoy the wedding!
Apr 25th, 2011 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Self determination is not applicable as there is no “people” entitled”
Apr 25th, 2011 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Prove it. Self determination is a human rights. All humans have human rights.
Find one single UN statment that states any human in any circumstance is not entitled to it.
Better yet, prove that they aren't a “people”.
115 Alejomartinez
Apr 25th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My government is FIG. Your refusal to accept that reality is one more example of why you are never going to get anywhere.
And you are talking complete rubbish with your 'endogamic and colonial' immigration policy. While you're looking in the Penguin News for a job, you could take a look at who's applying for residence permits. I doubt most of them have ever been to Britain.
But no, you construct and promote your fantasy view of what the Falkland Islands are because you have to. The moment you admit that the Falklands are a diverse, lively, independent and self- sufficient place run by its own people for their own benefit, your case is finished and you know it.
Well poor you.It would be so much better for all of us if we could be friends.
I'm planning to spend royal wedding day fishing as I don't have television. I just hope it's as nice a day as today.
@115 Here's a thought. Why don't you take your totally valid and incontrovertible case to the ICJ?
Apr 25th, 2011 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0dear dear me Alejandro :) You say you won't reply but I can see its killing you not to XD
Apr 25th, 2011 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“historical revision”
-Heres some food for thought in 1965 when the Falklands issue was debated, the Argentina's UN representative Bonifacio del Carril, said when he went on the “expulsion” tangent, said the UK only expelled the Garrison....Woops!
“Illegal occupation of our land”
-Wrong again :) if it was illegal, don't you think the UN would have said so, and if it was your land, don't you think the UN would have said so???? Instead we have calls to resolve the sovereignty dispute, not a demand to return “stolen” land to Argentina :), in fact the only country which claims that this is stolen land, happens to be Argentina ho ho, and you still haven't answered my earlier question, what about Patagonia....according to your own argument you have no right to that land smirk smirk ;)
“Self determination is not applicable as there is no “people” entitled to it in this case”
- Yup and when did Argentina become the final say for defining peoples....eer never! And who is the only country saying this argument.....Argentina....and why is Argentina saying it....because self-determination would invalidate your claim....what a surprise eh? ;)
”Your are part of the “administering” (OCCUPYING) power by birth and law“
-what the hell are you on about? the islanders where born there numbnutts! Please do state one example of international law in relation to the Falklands which states the islanders aren't a people, and are a part of this fantasy ”occupation“ XD
”you are not a people but British subjects”
eeeer....aren't British subjects...eeer a people as well?
Once again an Argentine argument falls flat on its arse, nice one Alejandro, got any more jokes for us....heres one: Argentina's claim to Antarctica and south Georgia XD
The whole world recognises your claim Alejo ? Yeah right ! That's why the islands are still British lol.......
Apr 25th, 2011 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing Argentina can do ...... :-)
This argument will rage on until Argentina finally has the balls to take the matter to the ICJ, every day they refrain from doing so shows the whole World that Argentina has no balls.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kirchner doesn't have any balls (in a figurative sense, not physically), I wonder if anyone else in Argentina has any, figuratively or otherwise.
If Section 89 of the Argentine Constitution allowed it, I'd have the balls to stand for President and ensure that Argentina brought the matter before the ICJ within 12 months of being elected, but will the next Argentine President? I doubt it.
It's so hilarious to see that the majority of whingers on this site are Brits,
Apr 25th, 2011 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess it reflects on their culture they whinge like a bunch of grumpy retired pensioners lol lighten up pommies.
Whinging about whingers....Wouldn't that make you a whinger?
Apr 25th, 2011 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems to me that it is the Argies doing the whinging ... after all, we've GOT the islands :-)
Apr 26th, 2011 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0can some of the law lovers in this forum tell me why there are three islands 20 miles off the venezuelan coast which were first under Dutch sovereinigty and now are self governing,Aruba,Curacao,Bonaire.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0venezuela never claimed them.
By the way the british Embassy in Buenos Aires is giving a big party
in honor of the wedding and a lot of argentine governement officials will have been invited and will attend ,and will be standing listening the “God save the Queen”
@115 Alejo:
Apr 26th, 2011 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0The people entitled to self-determination are the people living on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. The reason for this is they were living in a British Colony under autocratic government and the United Nations Assembly voted to include them in resolution 1514(XV) to grant them the right to independence to chose their own future. Argentina agreed and voted for this resolution to apply to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands too. However did not agree and the the UK abstained its vote.
This is why the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is listed as a non-self-governing territory by the United Nations Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation, whose purpose is to report on the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in listed territories to the United Nations General Assembly.
Resolution 2065(XX) confirms that resolution 1514(XV) covers the case of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
It also notes there is a sovereignty dispute and invites both Argentina and the UK to negotiate the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) and to find a peaceful solution.
The UK and AR are invited to resolve their dispute peacefully and find a solution to implement resolution 1514(XV), whilst the Islanders right to self-determination is confirmed because resolution 1514(XV) is confirmed to cover their case and AR and UK must implement resolution 1514(XV) on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
The UN is quite clear that self-determination applies to the people of the Malvinas/Falklands Islands because of their original colonial status.
Alejomartinez will reply, he just can't help himself!
Apr 26th, 2011 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@82 Everything he says of course there can not be applied now.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe everything can be different with a future agreement.
My question is: why being a powerful country, UK does not take the case to the ICJ and gets rid of the annoying Argentina?
“My question is: why being a powerful country, UK does not take the case to the ICJ and gets rid of the annoying Argentina?”
Apr 26th, 2011 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would have thought the answer to that was pretty obvious. It is Argentina who claims the Falklands, not the UK. It's up to Argentina to prove their claim at the ICJ.
Argentina has not recognised the full jurisdiction of the ICJ whereas the UK has. The result is that the UK cannot take Argenitina to the ICJ but Argentina CAN take the UK to the ICJ. The question is, why doesn't she ??
Apr 26th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@129 It's true. But... Britain took the case without Malvinas.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is, the United Kingdom can take the case to court.
@130 The wolf and the lamb sitting in the same table? mmm
“@129 It's true. But... Britain took the case without Malvinas.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is, the United Kingdom can take the case to court.”
Yes the UK can, but it doesn't need to. Do you really think an ICJ ruling in favour of the UK is going to make any difference? Argentina will continue to whine at every opportunity and attempt to “control” the Falklands through illegal legislation.
“@130 The wolf and the lamb sitting in the same table? mmm”
I bet that's just what Uruguay thought. Funny how you Argies always play the victim when it suits you. Any suggestion that the ICJ is biased towards the UK is simply not supportable with facts and you know it.
@132 “Yes the UK can, but it doesn't need to” Why not? It would be better to get rid of Argentina.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think if C.I.J. rules in favor of UK, Argentina will have to forget about Malvinas.
Yes, I also think so, but do you really think Argentina will let the matter drop? I personally doubt it. Just see Argentine reaction to the ICJ ruling re the paper mill at Fray Bentos...
Apr 26th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The earlier attempts by the British to take the case of South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands to the ICJ were determined by the claim written by Argentina and that was determined by latitude and longtitude markers that did not include the Falkland Islands.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina then refused to recognise the authority of the ICJ so the case could not proceed.
I repeat, Argentina CAN take the UK to the ICJ, the UK CANNOT take Argentina because Argentina has not recognised the ICJ's authority in the case of the Falkland islands.
So the ball rests in the coward's court !
@ 134 No, those who disagree is a group of people.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Court also gave him reason to Argentina. Uruguay did not comply with the treaty. We say white, you say black. You think, no agreement could be reached between the parties?.
Any compromise would be unwanted by the islanders, so no i don't think so.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@135 “So the ball rests in the coward's court” calm, calm, all in due time...
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@137 What is the solution for you? Why are you afraid of Argentina?
We aren't. Theres a difference between being afraid and not wanting anything to do with you.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Things are fine as they are. Argentina moans, we ignore it. Let it stay like that untill Argentina gets the courage to take it to the ICJ. Then the islanders will win the case and it'll all be over and done with.
@139 With accordance, all win and lose something.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With the Court, win or lose everything. And if you lose everything?
Both the UK and Argentina have already lost their sovereignty claims and are at best administering countries for the listed territory of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands until sovereignty and power is transfered to the people who live in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It may be that today the UK still has de facto and de jure sovereignty, but that UK sovereignty is strictly limited to the duties of an administrating country for a non-self-governing territory.
The UK's de facto sovereignty will come to end when resolution 1514(XV) is properly implemented and the full transfer of power is made to the peoples of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands without and conditions or reservations. According to the resolution 1514(XV) transfer of power should occur immediately. The 50 years that have gone by demonstrate that successive UK administrations have deliberately chosen not to implement the resolution 1514(XV) faithfully, for one reason or another. Good or bad.
According to the UN General Assembly the rights of the UK and Argentina are limited to negotiating a solution to the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands and that it is what the ICJ shall rule in any future judgement, as that is the General Assembly's resolution, carried unanimously.
According to the UN General Assembly It is the people of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands own free choice to define their own free association and status and specifically remove any choice on the matter from the governments and peoples of either the UK or Argentina.
Democracy in action.
Provided of course that the repressive measures of all kinds directed against the people of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands cease and that their close neighbors and wider international community respect the integrity of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands national territory.
Today neither the UK or AR recognise the reality of the situation and the people of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands are stuck with the today's impasse.
“And if you lose everything?”
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Won't happen. No UN human rights judge is going to sign over a group of people to be subjugated.
I agree with most of it except the last Domingo:
“Today neither the UK or AR recognise the reality of the situation and the people of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands are stuck with the today's impasse.”
The UK government knows full well the situation and has told the islanders if they want to talk to Argentina about sovereignty they can.
“until sovereignty and power is transfered to the people who live in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.”
IF they want that, they are free to go independant. If they don't want to there is nothing stopping them from keeping it the way it is and no-one can tell them otherwise.
@141 “It may be that today the UK still has de facto and de jure sovereignty”
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0De facto, not de jure☺
Okay, but do not forget there is a dispute between two countries for 178 years, before there is “the people ”
Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Domingo, I think you'll find those powers you mention have already been transferred, well as much as the UK is allowed to by the UN. Maintaining a free association is an acceptable outcome to decolonisation under UN law as are independence and integration. If only the C24 would listen to the Falkland Islanders. Surely they are the only people in a position to decide if they have been decolonised?
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Court also gave him reason to Argentina. Uruguay did not comply with the treaty.” Yup, that's true but Argentina was not awarded a single one of its claims yet Argentina still did not accept the ICJ's ruling with good grace and carried on with its blockades...
“Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible ”
Apr 26th, 2011 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you're saying that the UK disrupted your territorial integrity 170 years ago? We broke the law 150 years before the law existed.
Laws aren't retroactive.
Not to mention the fact that this dispute only arose in 1945. The Falklands had not been mentioned between Argentina and the UK since 1850, when the matter was settled. 178 years, my foot!
Apr 26th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, and considering the UN recognises British sovereignty I'd say that covers de jure...
@146 “The Falklands had not been mentioned between Argentina and the UK since 1850, when the matter was settled.” P & P lies.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A single example: On the proposal of arbitration. Sir Edmund says the issue is closed and warned that no good would result from an attempt to reopen it. January 8, 1885. 1850!! 1945!! My foot!
Oh, and considering the UN recognises British sovereignty I'd say that covers de jure...
I thought you were talking seriously. My foot!
Yup, this refers to proposed arbitration regarding the Argentine Geographical Institute incorrectly and provocatively including the Falklands as Argentine territory on their map... hardly the correct channel for raising a claim, and something the Argentine government at first tried to distance itself from. Not surprising that Edmund Monson said the issue was close. Because that is exactly what it was, closed. Since 1850.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“P & P lies”...“ I thought you were talking seriously. My foot!”
Is that what passes for reasoned argument backed by facts in Argentina?
Theres also that Argentinian offical map of the time that clearly shows the falklands aren't Argentinian territory.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then again, that must also be “P & P lies”
On the 15th of May 1850 in Buenos Aires the UK and the Argentine exchanged ratifications of a peace treaty, the Arana - Southern treaty (Convention of Settlement).
Apr 26th, 2011 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What does international law say about peace treaties and possession of territories?
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/uti-possidetis.html
Uti possidetis
Definition - Noun
[Late Latin, as you (now) possess (it); from the wording of an interdict in Roman law enjoining both parties in a suit to maintain the status quo until the decision]
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated.
(not to be confused with uti possidetis juris, which is a very different legal principle about administrative borders of colonies becoming international borders when the colony achieves independence)
Argentina relinquished its claim in 1850. The UK has both de facto and de jure sovereignty.
@143:
Apr 26th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, undisputed de facto & disputed de jure; although insofar as the UK is the recognised administrating country of the non-self-governing teMalvinas/Falklands Islands on the C24 list, then also undisputed de jure sovereignty in the limited sense of administrating country subject to resolution 1514(XV)
Yes, agreed there has been a dispute of the territory for at least 178 years. Sometimes effective, sometimes ineffectual. Sometimes sporadic, sometimes by peaceful and notorious occupation. Sometimes ended by treaty, sometimes restarted by force.
I'm an optimist, despite the difficult feelings on all sides nowadays. I'd hope that Brits, Argies & Kelpers can find a way to come to a common agreement, in all their long-term interests one day
They are all good people; whatever the mistakes of the past, today they are free to chose a mutually acceptable resolution. It is a matter of doing this in a spirit of friendship, cooperation & mutual respect
@145:
The point about the common practice that laws are never retroactive in their effect is important. At the time of the founding of the United Nations, the Malvinas/Falkland Islands were British, both de facto & de jure (if the 1850 treaty ratified by Argentina was effective).
From a territorial integrity position, resolution 1514 talks of the territorial integrity of the people being granted independence from colonial rule, i.e. the people of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands
I think the attempt to argue disruption of territorial integrity applies to third parties is weak if national unity of the third parties is not disrupted; given the islanders are a distinct ethnicity to Argentines, it is hard to understand how national unity of Argentina is affected. It is easy to see how both the national unity & territorial integrity of the people of the Malvinas/Falklands would be totally disrupted by their annexation into Argentina against their free will
@144: Has UK/FIG declared full compliance with 1514(XV) to C24?
“it is hard to understand how national unity of Argentina is affected”
Apr 26th, 2011 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree. It's hard to get how the islands that were only owned for about 10 years can count as an integral part of a nation.
”Has UK/FIG declared full compliance with 1514(XV) to C24?”
Would they care? The c-24 doesn't even visit the people it's supposed to represent anymore.
@148 I showed it was still talking about it. Was not closed since 1850.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@150 We can start an endless discussion again.
Assuming valid the treaty of 1850, I can tell you that in 1823 and 1825, Britain signed treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation, and recognized the independence of Argentina.
What does international law say about peace treaties and possession of territories?
Anyway, true to its history, Britain did not respect anything.
UK de facto sovereignty.
@151 Yes, agreed there has been a dispute of the territory for at least 178 years. Sometimes effective, sometimes ineffectual. Sometimes sporadic, sometimes by peaceful and notorious occupation. Sometimes ended by treaty, sometimes restarted by force.
I'm an optimist, despite the difficult feelings on all sides nowadays. I'd hope that Brits, Argies & Kelpers can find a way to come to a common agreement, in all their long-term interests one day
They are all good people; whatever the mistakes of the past, today they are free to chose a mutually acceptable resolution. It is a matter of doing this in a spirit of friendship, cooperation & mutual respect.
Totally agree with you.
@150 We can start an endless discussion again.
Apr 26th, 2011 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assuming valid the treaty of 1850, I can tell you that in 1823 and 1825, Britain signed treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation, and recognized the independence of Argentina.
What does international law say about peace treaties and possession of territories?
Anyway, true to its history, Britain did not respect anything.
UK de facto sovereignty.
Malvi,
This is what international law says about recognition of states:
“Recognition of a state does not necessarily entail recognition of all the territorial claims made by that state. But in every case recognition or acquiescence by one state has little or no effect unless it is accompanied by some measure of control over the territory by the other state; failure to protest against a purely verbal assertion of title unsupported by any degree of control does not constitute acquiescence”
Argentina had no control of the Falklands in 1823 or 1825, so no recognition of Argentine sovereignty was made
Uti possidetis applies to peace treaties, those signed after a conflict, not to other types of treaties. With a peace treaty all outstanding territorial issues are settled, each side keeps the territory it has in its possession unless the territory is specifically dealt with in the treaty. It does not matter which side had sovereignty before or how the territory was acquired. The treaties of 1823 and 1825 are not going to override the 1850 treaty because the principle of uti possidetis applies.
“ ... a dispute between two countries for 178 years ...”
Apr 27th, 2011 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only two countries involved in this dispute were Britain and Spain. Argentina was never a factor!
there is a document,in which general juan manuel de Rosas drops all the claims on the Falklands in exange of political asylum in grat britain in case he is defeated.This happened in 1850 when he was defeated in caseros by general Urquiza.Thereafter he went on board a British vessel in the port of Buenos aires with his daughter Manuelita,and sailed
Apr 27th, 2011 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0to Southhampton,there he received a farm ,were he spent the rest of his life until 1870 when he died.
Were this document is ,nobody knows
@ 154 Dab, I do not agree with you but no matter.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0British lawyers do not agree with you.
“Argentina had no control of the Falklands in 1823 or 1825, so no recognition of Argentine sovereignty was made”
Since 1820 flew the flag of Argentina.
In 1821 Mason was appointed Military Commander
In 1821 he dictates imposed on foreign fishing.
In 1823 land was granted Pacheco.
In 1826 Vernet arrives in Falklands.
There is a story of 1828 for the celebrations of May 25 in the Falklands, Argentina's national day.
UK protests in 1829 after 60 years of Spanish rule and then Argentina.
In 1831 the Lexignton warship destroys the colony.
In 1833, Britain expelled the Argentine inhabitants.
It is possible that some people decided to stay, but this does not negate the fact that they lowered the flag of Argentina, was expelled to the authority of that time (Pinedo Captain) and the rest of the population.
As you can see there was nobody, Argentina had no control over the islands. (irony)
The weakness of the UK's arguments, is demonstrated by its refusal to talk to Argentina.
As a powerful country may not end this, showing the world their rights?
I'm going to watch a movie. Bye.
Where is Isolde? ☺
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH 153 AND 157 Malvinense just aforementioned. Well said, Malvinense (you a man or a woman by the way? you a lawyer?)
Apr 27th, 2011 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, agreed there has been a dispute of the territory for at least 178 years. Sometimes effective, sometimes ineffectual. Sometimes sporadic, sometimes by peaceful and notorious occupation. Sometimes ended by treaty, sometimes restarted by force.
I'm an optimist, despite the difficult feelings on all sides nowadays. I'd hope that Brits, Argies & Kelpers can find a way to come to a common agreement, in all their long-term interests one day
They are all good people; whatever the mistakes of the past, today they are free to chose a mutually acceptable resolution. It is a matter of doing this in a spirit of friendship, cooperation & mutual respect
Usual cr*p from Marvin ! Who flew the Argentine flafg in 1820? Nobody, that's who. And who gave Vernett permission? The British, that's who !
Apr 27th, 2011 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0The dispute lay between Britain and Spain. Argentina was never a party to the sovereignty dispute.
And still isn't !!
Hello All, l have been watching & thinking, Malvinense. Not much point in commenting as the boys have said it all. You'll just have to accept that they are our lslands, Malvin & we are here to stay. Why don't you use your boundless energy to develop your own country & just forget about the Falklands? You have plenty of land & resources. Argentina SHOULD be a very rich country with a high standard of living. You'll just have to accept us as neighbours.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@148 I showed it was still talking about it. Was not closed since 1850.”
Apr 27th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Talking about something is one thing. Raising it officially through the correct channels is another. The matter was officially closed in 1850 and did not reappear officially until 1945 when Juan Peron raised officially through the official and correct channels. So stop peddling the myth that Argentina kept the dispute alive for 178 years because it is simply untrue.
@144: Has UK/FIG declared full compliance with 1514(XV) to C24?
WRT the Falklands, the UK is in full compliance with 1514 as far as I can make out.
Anyway, surely it is up to the Falkland Islanders, through their elected representatives, ie FIG, to declare whether or not they have been decolonised - and not the UK?
Usual cr*p from Marvin ! Who flew the Argentine flafg in 1820? Nobody, that's who. And who gave Vernett permission? The British, that's who !
Apr 27th, 2011 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The dispute lay between Britain and Spain. Argentina was never a party to the sovereignty dispute.
And still isn't !!
Usual lie from a sinking island like uk!!
lady bug: Cares what it is going to happens to uk,not some remote island that anyway uk will loose!!
Regards from the most important country is the S Atlantic!
Brazil?
Apr 27th, 2011 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The obvious reason for Argentina's silence is that it had ended the dispute by ratifying the 1850 treaty, but by 1945 had forgotten
Apr 27th, 2011 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seems both Britain & the Islanders' government have hesitated up to now to formally complete the full implementation of 1514(XV). NOT reporting it to the C24 & UN GA is a conscious decision to let sleeping dogs lie as it were
Rather than open old wounds directly, the FIG chose to test the water by freely attempting to dispose of their natural wealth & resources in accordance with the Joint Declaration on Cooperation & Exploitation of possible offshore oil and gas deposits between Britain & Argentina
However the change in government in Argentina has brought a unilateral change in policy, whereby the Islanders rights under 1514(XV) to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development are now subject to additional repressive measures by Argentina & her allies contrary to 1514(XV)
In that sense, the actions of Argentina and her allies are preventing the full implementation of 1514(XV) by preventing the Islanders exercising peacefully & freely their right to complete independence, for which acts & omissions Argentina & her allies are accountable to the UN General Assembly & UN Security Council
However, if impediments exist to the proper implementation of 1514(XV) & the exercise of their rights by the Islanders are so impeded, then it must be properly reported to the C24 and then the UN GA, so the matter can be dealt with. The C24's main purpose is to report 1514(XV) implementation progress & issues to the UN GA
From what I have read, the C24 wrongly wastes the majority of its time hearing Argentina's claim and arguments, which are properly the business of the UN ICJ & should be so directed to the ICJ
The C24's first duty is to listen to & act on voice of the dependent people being granted independence
Argentina has no right of audience at the C24 by virtue of resolution 2065(XX), it is time to stop the indulgence
I'm not a particularly patriotic person, so perhaps I don't understand. Why is it so important for Argentina to have the Falklands under their flag? All right, in the past few years I guess oil has been the driving force, but surely it was not so in 1982. What is so much more important than the unanimous wishes of a peaceful community? I ask of each of the pro-Argentine posters: why does it matter to YOU? Not to your government, your laws, your maps, but YOU, as a person? What would you gain if Argentina were to have sovereignty over the islands, and what are you missing out on by this not being so at the moment?
Apr 27th, 2011 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0stakeholder:
Apr 27th, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0They're taught from young children in school that the islands are Argentinian. Social conditioning.
Why do you think 1514(XV) 1960 has not been fully implemented by the UK Domingo?
Apr 27th, 2011 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of the declaration points, 1 & 2 are statements.
Point 3: Inadequacy of preparedness in the fields mentioned is not being used as a pretext to delay independence.
Point 4: The UK does not use armed action or repressive measures vs the Falkland Islanders
Point 5: Powers have been transferred and in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Point 6: The territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands has not been disrupted.
Point 7: The UK does not interfere in Falkland Island affairs.
This has all been reported to the C24. FIG send a petitioner every year to tell them this and the UK reports under it's Article 73 obligations.
How can you say that 1514 has not been fully implemented?
Since post 126, there has been a good back and forth, one that I never thought it was possible on Mercopress. A debate that excludes xenophobic slurs and the usual insults. Funny that the good and intelligent debate started as Alejomartinez leaves....
Apr 27th, 2011 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no doubt that the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination. Th UN have never said otherwise, and no matter how much Alejomartinez claims otherwise, his pure failure to prove his 'interpretation', says it all. The people of the Falklands, as with any other nation and its people, has the unconditional right to choose its future. That is the bottom line, thats all that matters. That is the end of the story. Now lets get on with our lives...no wait, Argentina still want to colonise us.
@167:
Apr 27th, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the UK government needs to formally declare it has fully implemented resolution 1514(XV) in the Falkland Islands to the C24 and the UN GA. Also the UK needs to formally transfer power and sovereignty under 1514(XV) to the people of the Falkland Islands by act of Parliament.
What happens next is up to the people of the Falkland Islands. The FIG should hold a referendum supervised by the UN offering the people a choice to:
a. Become an independent self-governing territory
b. Unite with Argentina in accordance with Argentina's Constitution
c. Unite with the U.K.
I think if b. is chosen Argentina should again formally undertake to respect the Islanders way of life and property.
I think if c. is chosen the Falklands should be provided its own devolved Assembly, representation by a seat in Parliament and the House of Lords and also an EU MEP. Or alternatively, follow the model of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
Taking these steps would be good for the Islanders, the British and the Argentines.
For the Islanders it would complete the process of implementing 1514(XV) and achieving formal and unconditional self-governance and would require the Falkland Islands to be de-listed from the C24 list.
For the British it would end its obligations under resolution 1514(XV) to the C24 and the UN GA.
For the Argentines, it would end the deadlock of sovereignty dispute and provide firm grounds for the dispute to be heard by the UN International Court of Justice.
Perhaps all this has been discussed before and there is good reason to hold back. Perhaps it is too radical at this stage. Perhaps there are conflicts of interest which prevent these options being discussed or pursued?
I know the FIG & the UK have made clear reports to the C24 regarding the implementation of 1514(XV) to date, however, I am not aware that any one has said that the implementation of 1514(XV) is complete on the Falkland Islands.
Sounds like a good idea to be honest.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unless it's already happened... and I didn't notice!
Apr 27th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the referendum choicex, perhaps they would be more accurately stated as:
a. Secede from the UK and become an independent self-governing territory
b . Secede from the UK and request union with the Argentina Republic in accordance with the Argentine Constitution
c. Affirm free association with the UK and the Falkland Islands status as a British Overseas Territory
-@ 154 Dab, I do not agree with you but no matter.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, A fact's a fact. It doesn't depend on your agreement
-British lawyers do not agree with you.
Which British lawyer doesn't agree the uti possidetis principle applies to peace treaties?
-“Argentina had no control of the Falklands in 1823 or 1825, so no recognition of Argentine sovereignty was made”
Since 1820 flew the flag of Argentina.
1820 isn't 1823, and a flag's not control
-In 1821 Mason was appointed Military Commander
In 1821 he dictates imposed on foreign fishing.
Mason left in 1821, so no Argentine control in 1823/1825
-In 1823 land was granted Pacheco.
But Areguati's settlers didn't arrive in the Falklands until Feb 1824 and left in 1824, so no control in 1823/1825
-In 1826 Vernet arrives in Falklands.-
Not 1823/1825
-There is a story of 1828 for the celebrations of May 25 in the Falklands, Argentina's national day.
So? Not 1823/1825
-UK protests in 1829 after 60 years of Spanish rule and then Argentina.-
Argentina isn't the successor to Spain in the Falklands.
-In 1831 the Lexignton warship destroys the colony.
American
-In 1833, Britain expelled the Argentine inhabitants.
It is possible that some people decided to stay, but this does not negate the fact that they lowered the flag of Argentina, was expelled to the authority of that time (Pinedo Captain) and the rest of the population.
No, not some people. Not the rest of the population. Most of them didn't leave. They stayed.
-As you can see there was nobody, Argentina had no control over the islands. (irony)
No control 1823 or 1825, so no recognition of Argentine sovereignty in 1823 or 1825.
-The weakness of the UK's arguments, is demonstrated by its refusal to talk to Argentina.-
Argentina only wants to talk about the handover to itself. And the weakness of its position is that it did not inherit the Falklands, never established sovereignty, and under the uti possidetis principle relinquished its claim in 1850.
however, I am not aware that any one has said that the implementation of 1514(XV) is complete on the Falkland Islands.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This sets out UK policy on OTs:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/regional_seminars_statements_08/united_kingdom.pdf
I don't know if the current UK government has or is going to make any changes to it.
I don't think integration with the UK is an option any of the territories want, but something similar to what the Dutch territories have might work. They are not integrated into the Netherlands, but they are constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands which is the metropolitan state.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/regional_seminars_statements_08/united_kingdom.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/regional_seminars_statements_08/united_kingdom.pdf
@173 dab14763, extremely well put, dab. But the Argentines will just ignore it, for they cannot refute it.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde 'calm down, dear'
Apr 27th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8476624/David-Cameron-accused-of-sexism-for-calm-down-dear-comment.html
@173: Thanks.
Apr 27th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So if I understand correctly; the UK believes a full measure of self-government has been reached by the people of the Malvinas according to Un GA resolution 1541(XV) Principle VI para. b. and Principle VII para a. but not Principle VII para. b.
I do not see how the UK's vote or otherwise for this resolution matters, the fact is the resolution was carried by a large majority, i.e. 69 for, 2 against and 21 abstentions. Thus, if the UK wishes to de-list its now self-governing territories, it must:
(a) make sure the decision to retain association is free by public vote
(b) ensure that the people of the Falklands have determined their internal constitution without interference by the UK and in accordance with the expressed wish of the people of the Falklands
(c) limit its influence on the internal constitution to pure consultation with the terms agreed for free association
I think the UK has possibly confused the external constitutional arrangements of free association (in which the UK has an equal say to the other party) with the internal constitution of the other party within the other party's territorial limits.
I think 1541 makes this distinction, i.e. both parties retain the right to secede and a constitutional mechanism to secede.
At the end of the day if both the UK and FI want to be delisted, they shall need to demonstrate compliance with 1541.
A position paper by the UK on this issue cannot change resolution 1541. Either the UK asks the UN GA to supercede 1541 and 1654(XVI) or it simply complies. Compliance seems most simple and both the UK and FIG can be satisfied, if they so chose.
-So if I understand correctly; the UK believes a full measure of self-government has been reached by the people of the Malvinas according to Un GA resolution 1541(XV) Principle VI para. b. and Principle VII para a. but not Principle VII para. b.
Apr 28th, 2011 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, Sorry Domingo, you misunderstand. As you say, UNGA Resolution 1541(XV) does provide for 3 ways of achieving self-determination
Principle VI
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.
But in UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 a 4th way of achieving self-determination was added
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
(my letters added):
(a)The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, (b) the free association or (c)integration with an independent State or (d)the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Option (d) is what the policy paper is referring to on page 6. That British territories have been decolonised on the basis of the 4th option and should be removed from the list.
Domingo,
Apr 28th, 2011 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The UK has already formally transferred power to the Falkland Islanders.
The Falklands Islanders freely choose to retain British sovereignty.
A free association, which is the current situation is an acceptable outcome to decolonisation under UN law.
These facts have been put before the C24 by the UK and FIG repeatedly.
Argentina and her allies consistently block the C24 from making a recommendation to the GA&SC that the Falklands be removed from the C24 list.
Stalemate.
What more do you want the UK or FIG to do? Even if they make the declarations etc that you suggest, do you really think Argentina is simply going to roll over and say OK.
@177: Thanks Dabs
Apr 28th, 2011 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So according to resolution 2625 (XXV) as long as the current political status is freely determined by the people of the Falkland Islands, then it is a valid exercise of their right to self-determination & must be respected by all member states of the United Nations in accordance with its Charter?
I did take a peek at the Constitution of the Falkland Islands; it appears comprehensive. The only item I thought to be potentially problematic is the limitation of some protections by other “reasonable” laws with the use of the phrase unless “the thing done under its authority is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”
A very British legal concept. Reasonableness. Also different for all kinds of situations. It strikes me this puts an unreasonable onus on the individual whose protection is being limited to prove the thing done is unreasonable. Personally I would prefer a system which presumes the supremacy of the protection and requires the authority to first prove to a constitutional court why its wish to impose a limitation is reasonable, in every instance
Still the FI Constitution is probably better than the UK Bill of Rights!
The FIG MLA representative asserted an opinion to the C-24 last year based on the people accepted the 2009 constitution
A referendum asking:
i. do you accept the current Constitutional arrangements to meet the requirements of the UN Charter and 1514(XV) to be a self-governing territory having freely determined your own political status? Yes/No.
ii. do you agree the FIG and MLA should require the C24 to de-list the Falkland Islands because it is now self-governing?
turns an opinion into a matter of fact
I say this, as diplomatic stalemate is one thing, the direct democratic will of the people is another. If the C-24 or UN GA or splinter UN member states were to ignore the express democratic will of the people of the Falkland Islands then they act against the Charter of the UN which is illegal
165 and 166
Apr 29th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 01- Patriotism counts and is just one factor in this issue. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS is the main motive in the ARgie mind.
2- WHY? I just wonder, WHAT feelings/thoughts moved all the English gov´ts to keep the Ulster all the way??? to defend the self -determination of the Irish nation???
Why is it important for ME as a person? Because I am an Argie, and believe and understand the Malvinas were seized by the UK from Argentina in 1833.
3- Social conditioning or a Reminder for the new Argies generations not to forget that after all the 1833 seizure did happen? And it is Not any more than the social conditioning you imposed on your subjects when singing “God save the Queen”. I ask the British in the UK: why each of you as individuals separated from all your national background, still feel it is important for you to HAVE our islands (whether you do this by wanting full sovereignty or partial one by having FIG associated thru commonwealth?
180 Gotey: Few points i'd like to make.
Apr 29th, 2011 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Social conditioning or a Reminder for the new Argies generations not to forget that after all the 1833 seizure did happen? And it is Not any more than the social conditioning you imposed on your subjects when singing “God save the Queen”. I ask the British in the UK: why each of you as individuals ”
History is reminder of the past. Social conditioning is teaching your children a blatant political point of view from a young age. “Malvinas son argentinas” You teach your young children and a warped view of history.
Would it be social conditioning if we all taught all our young children “God save the Queen” and made them sing it all the time? Absolutely... but we don't. I have never once in my entire life been told or even asked to sing God save the Queen, i barely know the words.
“still feel it is important for you to HAVE our islands ”
We believe that they belong to the current residents who have been living there for longer than any group of people in the history of humanity. It's there rights, they get to choose what they want.
@Exist a work of Vernet that recounts the major events of the islands from 1823 to 1831.
Apr 29th, 2011 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The control of Argentina is shown with appointments and acts of government in relation to the islands. At any moment they will say stayed there all the people. And the Captain Pinedo drank mate with Onslow.
The recognition of independence by the UK, involves recognition of the succession of a State by another.
Argentina succeded to Spain. U.K. recognized him.
You question the acts of Argentina. I ask you: where was U.K.? What were their rights to capture the islands in 1833? Discovery? Not discovered.
Occupation? Were the French. Why they kept silent about the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain?
Since arrived, until they retired, were never alone in the islands.
An lead plaque is a titer greater to an agreement signed in Europe and where England accepts Spanish sovereignty?
ACCEPTANCE: http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC&pg=PA210&dq=The+struggle+for+the+falkland+island&hl=es&ei=FtagTbrpN-Pj0gGAm_CHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20struggle%20for%20the%20falkland%20island&f=false
An lead plaque is a titer greater to 60 years of exercise of sovereignty of Spain and then Argentina, peacefully and without protest from any country?
Before 1833 had never owned the entire island.
Had only been on the small island Trinidad (Saunders).
Incredibly Port Stanley is not there now. Were never in the Soledad Island (East Falkland). Strange no?
Questions:acts of sovereignty that made U.K. while Spain was alone in the islands.
Question: acts of sovereignty that made U.K. while the islands were empty?. (1811-1820)
Question: acts of sovereignty that made U.K. while Argentina was in the islands?
Everything is “propaganda” and “indoctrination” that began with the first protest on January 15, 1833.
Manuel Maza was responsible for spreading this propaganda in the distant year of 1833.
Marvin - Vernett sought British permission and reported back to Britain on what was happening. He was Britain's man.
Apr 29th, 2011 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0What BA did as far as fantasy appointments is concerned is irrelevant. In any case they were objected to by the British consul so BA knew of the British claim.
The only dispute lay between Spain and Britain as proven by the events of 1770/1 and Spain has not attempted to resurrect its claim since Britain reasserted its in 1833.
Agentina inherited nothing from Spain !
Argentina is irrelevant !
181 Zethee “History is reminder of the past. Social conditioning is teaching your children a blatant political point of view from a young age”
Apr 29th, 2011 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are right! Brits never invaded any land outside Britain. :-)))
When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves”
:-)))
Well done MoreCrap ... a cracking tune ... written in 1740. That would be what? 70 years before Argentina was even a twinkle in a revolutionary's eye :-)
Apr 29th, 2011 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0”You are right! Brits never invaded any land outside Britain. :-)))”
Apr 29th, 2011 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trying to look for the part where i said we didn't, Or said anything relating to what you said.
Anyone?
-1- Patriotism counts and is just one factor in this issue. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS is the main motive in the ARgie mind.
Apr 29th, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is fair about claiming the entire Falkland Islands when neither Spain nor Argentina ever had any presence there outside Port Louis? It's Falkland Islanders who have settled and developed the Islands.
-2- WHY? I just wonder, WHAT feelings/thoughts moved all the English gov´ts to keep the Ulster all the way??? to defend the self -determination of the Irish nation???
Because it's about the self-determination of the Northern Irish nation, not the Irish nation. The Irish nation has self-determination in the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Irish nation has self-determination in Northern Ireland.
-Why is it important for ME as a person? Because I am an Argie, and believe and understand the Malvinas were seized by the UK from Argentina in 1833.
But Argentina had not yet established sovereignty in 1833 and relinquished its claim in 1850.
3- Social conditioning or a Reminder for the new Argies generations not to forget that after all the 1833 seizure did happen? And it is Not any more than the social conditioning you imposed on your subjects when singing “God save the Queen”. I ask the British in the UK: why each of you as individuals separated from all your national background, still feel it is important for you to HAVE our islands (whether you do this by wanting full sovereignty or partial one by having FIG associated thru commonwealth?
-They are not your islands, and we don't feel it's important to have the Falklands. We feel it's important for Falkland Islanders to decide what happens to their country.
They are not your islands, and we don't feel it's important to have the Falklands. We feel it's important for Falkland Islanders to decide what happens to their country
Apr 29th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0really dab...
Why did you kick the Argentinians out in the first place...
What a bunch of liars thes pro brits...
SiEster - in the first place we argued with the Spanish. In 1833 we threw out some squatters. There was never any dispute with Argentina because Argentina was never a claimant. The argument was between Spain and Britain. Britain won. Your lies do you no good at all.
Apr 30th, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0#187 - Dab - well put. If they don't understand the Northern Island issue then they'll never grasp the realities of 'self-determination'. It always amazes me that so many people believe that we wanted, knowing all the problems that would occur, to keep Northern Island.
to relax a bit, here´s a joking comment:
Apr 30th, 2011 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe the London gov´ts persistently and stubbornly clung to keeping the small Ulster at all costs just for the sake of one single reason: ”so that you did not have to alter or make changes to the Union Jack! ha, ha, ha, coz without any Irish territory there would be no St Patrick flag in the Union Jack! Had you left the Ulster to itself (as you should have) the UK flag would look different now, no red diagonals in it! ha, ha, ha!!!
” ... Had you left the Ulster to itself (as you should have) ....”
Apr 30th, 2011 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which only goes to show that you have no real understanding of the concept of 'self-determination'. The people of Ulster decide the matter and the moment they opt for independence, the British government will give a massive sigh of relief.
It is too bad,you did not ask Pinedo what they wanted to be.
Apr 30th, 2011 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0ladi bug: You are a LIAR!!
You stole the Malvinas from Argentina!
Pathetic liar lady bug.....
You can join the master clown liars of SALT & pepper!
pathetic,really pathetic..
Not my fault if you do not know the real history of your country SiEster ....
Apr 30th, 2011 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0WE didn't steal anything ... you have tried twice, but failed. Not even an effective thief !
Not my fault if you do not know the real history of your country SiEster ....
Apr 30th, 2011 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WE didn't steal anything ... you have tried twice, but failed. Not even an effective thief !
Really pathetic criminal,LIAR,lady bug red...after they do not know why the brits are hated half of the world.......still you are a LIAR to the cube!!
So it is your,not to the islanders?....
Ethinically European immigrants to South American displaced the indigenous Amerindians. This includes descendants of the original Spanish, Portuguese, French, American and British.
Apr 30th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With exception of Spanish colonies on the Rio Negro, Argentina expanded its borders from the Mar del Plata in present-day Buenos Aires Province to its current borders between 1819 and 1884 and ultimately expelled and disenfranchised native Amerindians from their ancestral lands
Much in the same way Native America Indians in North America were treated by European Immigrants (principally British, French and American/Canadian colonialists).
Movement of peoples in search of land and competition for land and resources has long been a feature of human history. Sadly there have usually been losers as well as winners
Hopefully today different peoples can be good to one another and resolve problems amicably
195@Domingo
Apr 30th, 2011 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TRUE WORDS, each and every one word you have just written above.
WELL SAID, it is sad but that is how it REALLY was.
Please, everyone read the post above and take stock of it.
Thank you, Domingo, you saved me some lines there.
Very Good Domingo ,you only forgot something ,the native north american indians were also displaced by the Spanish in Florida,New Mexico and California.
May 01st, 2011 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding the thoughts of Estevez ,in Argentina yesterday 5 TV stations were transmitting the Royal wedding simultaneously,and most argentines liked it,except the usual nationalistic dreamers.
With you people,really,why do not take this strong case to th UN?
May 01st, 2011 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go with salt &pepper and brush Argentina case!
Tell Brazil,32 latin countries that Argentina is wrong.Go head,if your arguments are so solid.
There is very little reference to the bad work of Salt & pepper in international law journals
I showed earlier,that even the discovery of the island,claimed by the british are lies.
Royal wedding? Yes my wife told me to record it.What has anything to do with the topic?A girls dream to be a princess,that is all.Normally men do not care about it.
Coments?,I heard,they spend 1 million pound in flowers,which is wrong,since the economic situation in uk is bad.
We do SiEster - every year...... take a look at the records of the C-24.
May 01st, 2011 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0But if you are refering to the ICJ, well Argentina hasn't accepted that the ICJ has jurisdiction so we cannot take you. We are awaiting you to take us :-)
Do some research ! Learn something other than what your old school told you !
this is typical hispanic “machismo”of Estevez ,as a matter of fact most of the journalist on tv during the wedding where margentine males.
May 01st, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding the economic situation in UK,I dont think it is as bad as in Argentina where s0me people die of hunger or eat only polenta (this is a maiz derivate)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!