MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina is back in the international arena “with participation and leadership”
United Nations Argentine ambassador Jorge Argüello said that the isolation chapter is over, “Argentina is back in the international arena displaying participation and leadership”, something that will be clearly exposed by President Cristina Fernandez when she addresses the UN assembly this week. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSovereignty disputes is not in the remit of the United Nations.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0As was said by the USA's Permanent Representative in 1964 - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1960-1966/
The result is that the UN has no power to dictate to the UK who it should negotiate with. Nor about what.
The UN is not a court nor an arbitration panel.
The UN can mind its own business :-)
“we are present all the time in all forums talking about the issue; we want Argentina and the UK to discuss what was decided by the UN, which is a bilateral and diplomatic negotiation regarding the sovereignty of the Islands”
Sep 19th, 2011 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bilateral, really whos the thrid party surely not the islanders? Also whats to negotiate when Argentina have made it clear they will not settle for anything less than full sovereignty. Like many have said Arg “we want the islands” UK “the islanders have the right to self determination over the islands and we will respect the islanders wishes.” The islanders “We wish to remain british” End of negotiations.
And as for “Argentina has become an example for the world of what is demanded to have a government and a country which effectively guarantees the compliance with human rights in all its aspects”.
Well if thats the case how about respecting the islanders human rights, you can not make such a claim to compliance when you only respect them when it suits your own interests. After all, how is argentina complying with human rights when they refuse to acknowledge the islanders human rights i.e. self determination?
Sorry but this is not news, but simple boosting by an idiot argentine politician with a silly “oh i am clever smirk on his face, that will no doubt be wiped off his face by the UK's UN ambassador with the simple statement off ”The UK respects the islanders rights to self determination granted to them under the UN Charter signed and rectified by Argentina - The islanders wish to remain british, therefore until the islanders say otherwise, there can not be and will not be any negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands. May we remind the UN that Argentina is engaging in an illegal economic blockade at this very moment which under international law is an act of war.”
l don't like his looks. Untrustworthy & sneaky, come to mind.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Malvinas Islands Question.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The specificity of the Malvinas question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow his return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Is ruled out then the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “breach of national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. ”Malvinas Question In the General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the people of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12) , 1984 (39 / 6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) Parties (Argentina and the UK) ”to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regarding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in order to find a peaceful solution, having due regard to the provisions and objectives of the United Nations Charter and Resolution 1514 (XV), and the interests of the people of the Falkland Islands. The issue has become permanent on the agenda and the paper by the Bureau of the General Assembly.
Rolly - self-determination applies to all. Nothing in any Resolution or, more importantly, the Charter places any limit on that.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is simply wrong!
The Islands have been British since 1765.
Nothing has changed. Old Resolutions are no use to you. The UN is of no use to you.
Get used to it.
“the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833”
Sep 19th, 2011 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry Raul but that is lie fed to you by your government as the UK already had settlers living on the islands for years when the garrison from BA showed up shot a few of them & took the islands by force. When the British warships arrived to reclaim the islands they found the self appointed governor had been murdered by his own men & the settlers welcomed them as liberators. Only the garrison from BA was ordered to leave the islands, The additional settlers were allowed to remain so in no way is the UK violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. You were invaders trying to take control of the islands against the existing population. You were the ones violating the territorial integrity of Falklands.
Good luck taking your claim to the ICJ, you will get laughed out of court when you present your government propaganda & the UK presents cold hard facts. Oh wait maybe that why Argentina refuses to take the matter to the ICJ.
Considering CFK or TImmerman can't get a face to face appointment with 2/5 of the Permanent members of the Sec Council (UK and USA) I don't see how their tantrums and whining will get anywhere. The US State Dept put them on blacklist last year I am pretty sure they will get booted from The G20 shortly so they will be even less relevant if that is even possible.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 06 Zool
Sep 19th, 2011 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good luck to take your complaint to the International Court of Justice, get laughed out of court when you file your government propaganda and the United Kingdom has cold hard facts. Oh wait maybe why Argentina is refusing to take the matter to the International Court of Justice.
No need to mock, and that the claim is by no means Argentine government propaganda, the claim is far back in time, is historic and all the Argentine political spectrum and throughout Latin America.
Read resolution 2065 (XX), 1965 and ratified by subsequent resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39 / 6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute.
From my point of view the International Court of Justice still does not give sufficient guarantees of impartiality and that it is influenced by the countries of greatest economic and military power like the U.S. and the UK.
Propose to raise the issue in the “Regional Arbitration Centre UNASUR” or the “Inter-American Court of Justice” or the Arbitral Tribunal of the OAS.
These organisms are more confident that the International Court of Justice.
Beyond this dispute, in the unlikely event that the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Argentina, there is no assurance that the UK complies with international resolutions. The fact proves that does not comply with UN resolutions such as Resolution 2065 and subsequent ratifications. To declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute.
Thank you very much.
yes, Argentina keeps borrowing money from the World Bank, lol debt rising once again, well done Cristy
Sep 19th, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is nothing more than a new toy to play with,
Sep 19th, 2011 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ever since the UN was created, leaders of countries have stood up and made speeches, there is nothing new in this, but here we are, Argentina gets her chance, and she goes wild, talking about total crap, and promising crap, and after Wednesday, it will be a fact,, that nothing will be done, no one will listen and no one will care, ,but hey, its election year, Argentina get to talk at the UN , its her birthday, and this will keep her happy for decades to come,
And despite all the crap on here, and the indoctrinated argie bloggers going wild, nothing with be achieved, and nothing will be done, and afterwards the UN will carry on as normal for the next 100 years,
[so it is said, so it shall be written]
,
@Raul - “No need to mock, and that the claim is by no means Argentine government propaganda, the claim is far back in time, is historic”
Sep 19th, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't half talk a load of rubbish Raul. You have no historic claim as the islands were never part of argentina, in 1833 your country did not even exist, until 1850's. We dicovered them, and the first man to land on them was English, we claimed the sovereignty back in 1770's and have never relinguished it. You Argentines think you inherited them from spain when you did not, as no such inheritance of lands took place - You only took land that you won from spain, nothing more. Spain did not even hold sovereignty of the islands when you fought for independence. So no Rual you have no historical claim whatsoever, how can you when the islands have never been part of argentine sovereign territory?
And as for the resolution, they support self determination - not a single resolution from the UN has placed territorial claims above the peoples right to self determination. Argentina knows that too, thats why they refused 3 times to goto the ICJ, no other reason, despite what you choose to believe. Also the resolutions called for talks, nothing more and are not legally binding unlike the UN charter that argentina signed and ratified, yet choose to ignore when it supports the islanders right to self determination, which is why Argentina refuses to negotiated with the islanders, as doing so means they would have to respect their right to self determination under the charter.
So the islands have always been British, they still are British and they will remain so for as long as the islanders wish, whether you like it or not. Infact it Argentinas own fault there's such bad feelings between you and the islanders, because if you had been nice right from the start (prior 1982) to the present day and not invaded or been aggressive to them, then maybe they might have choosen argentina instead. So stop pointing you finger at the UK you cry baby
and why even bother to get something, that you will be forced to give independence to , when you get them,
Sep 19th, 2011 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 will force you to give them up again, so how stupid can a nation be, that fights for something they don’t own, only to be forced to give independence to afterwards
Unless you know different, do you .
It seems like a utopia, it seems repetitive, but it is very important work of these years of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner to gamble as a state policy of disarmament and non-violence and opt for dialogue and peace among peoples, the implementation of resolution 2065 United Nations in the sense of sitting at the negotiating table with Argentina. This is its main strength and the fact is that Argentina has decreased significantly reducing its military spending merely to what is necessary. This contrasts with the aggressive policy and arms of Great Britain to maintain a base of over the Islanders and yet still with the humanitarian bombing civilians in Libya and Iraq. This has fallen badly in world public opinion.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's main weapon is dialogue and not violence, uphold the principle of territorial integrity, while the proposal of Great Britain is the threat of violence and covert military base. United Nations resolutions must be accepted by all, by emerging and developed countries, and even more developed, because the more power you have in all areas, provided the greater the degree of responsibility. Countries that are presented to the civilized world are the ones to lead by example.
@13 No Raul !!
Sep 19th, 2011 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0when you say: “Argentina has decreased significantly reducing its military spending merely to what is necessary..... ” I say, the K's are paying back to the Military for whatever happened in the 70's.
when you say: “the humanitarian bombing civilians in Libya” is called helping the rebels to remove a nut case like Gaddafi
Iraq, is a whole different story and I'm ready for a debate.
@13 Raul,
Sep 19th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would we sit at a negotiating table with you, Raul?
There is nothing to negotiate.
We have a clear title to & own the Falklands. You do not.
Why should we give you our land?
Would you give some of your land to your neighbours for no reason?
Why don't you give your most northern province to Bolivia?
Sit down at a “negotiating” table with them.
You have plenty of empty land, use it. You are not getting ours.
You have never owned the Falklands & never will, oil or no oil.
“. . . we are managing political conditions that will enable us to implement those resolutions and significantly diminish the resistance margin of the UK”.
Sep 19th, 2011 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read:
”We are trying blockading and economically strangling TFI, but, as yet, they are not blockaded and they refuse to be strangled.
But we will not be discouraged, we will carry on trying to blockade and strangle”.
I suppose this is what he means when he says “Argentina has become an example for the world of what is demanded to have a government and a country which effectively guarantees the compliance with human rights in all its aspects”.
Don't you want to weep for the man.
Dear Artillero601
Sep 20th, 2011 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is difficult for you, but I think our military should abandon the doctrine of national security created by the U.S. and Britain to stop being an occupying force in their own land to be transformed into an army attached to the national constitution. Remember the popular singer Víctor Heredia when he wanted a people's army even though there are no victories in the face of colonial usurpers of our islands in 1982. I think your way Cristina Kirchner has begun to reassess a new army that has to do with the national and popular attached to the defense of our sovereignty, that has to do with the UNASUR, committed to peace and nonviolence, differentiated and away with the proposals of war, imperialist and colonialist NATO, U.S. and UK to justify preemptive action, actions humanitarian side and the bombing of civilians in Libya beyond the atrocities of Gaddafi. We all know that the intervention carried out by NATO is similar to that carried by George Bush in the invasion of Iraq, when he acknowledges that the report was false the existence of nuclear weapons to justify the invasion It does not take much intelligence to know that it left the African Union to intervene to peacefully resolve the internal conflict in Libya. NATO is not seeking the welfare of Libya, on the contrary for the exploitation of its oil. The remedy is worse than the disease.
Dear Artillero601: Make up to its name and will not align with the Empire. Remind Rozas in the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado which occurred on November 20, 1845 in the face of French and British invasion in the Rio de la Plata.
Thank you very much: E-mail: face1354@hotmail.com
@Raul - “I think our military should abandon the doctrine of national security created by the U.S. and Britain to stop being an occupying force in their own land to be transformed” - Seriously Raul are you truely that much of a brain dead idiot, how on earth can our forces be an occupying force in our own lands, as for consititution well its the army that stands and protects a their countrys constitution idiot whether by protecting national security from invading threats, like we did in 1982 when you invaded the falklands (yes the islands have a constitution too). Oh and in 1982 the only wanna be colonial power was argentina, we were simply defending what was british sovereign terrietory. Only the agressor has colonial ambitions.
Sep 20th, 2011 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as for the rest, well your talking crap again, Saddam was a tyrant and murder 10,000's of his own country men, i can tell you know not a single iraqi is sad that he is gone, and unless you were there yourself you have no grounds or right to say otherwise. And same with Gaddafi another tyrant determined to destroy a cities to crush a rebel movement that were fighting to freedom and human rights and we helped them - Yeah the same rights and freedoms your dumb ass enjoys everyday. So who the hell are you to question us when it was the liybian people themselves that were crying out for out help. Or is that just another covenient fact you left out just because it doesn't suit your warped minded argentina agrument, just like the islanders rights to self determination under the UN charter.
Congratulations Rual your name has now been added to my list of argentine hypocrites on here.
@4, 8, 13, 17 Raul, I realise from your comments that you are only about 14 years old, so I'm going to explain a few things to you.
Sep 20th, 2011 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain discovered the Falkland Islands in 1690. At the time, the only other occupants were the French. A little later, the French sold their settlement (just the settlement you notice) to Spain. In 1770, Spain expelled Britain from the Islands. Britain threatened war. Spain capitulated and Britain returned in 1771. Neithert Spain nor Britain relinquished their claims to sovereignty. In 1776 Britain withdrew from the Islands for economic reasons (American War of Independence) but did not relinquish sovereignty. Spain withdrew from the Islands in 1811 but also did not relinquish sovereignty. In 1828 Luis Vernet established a settlement after obtaining British permission and provided reports on his venture to the British Consul. In 1829 the United Provinces appointed Vernet Governor of the Islands. There was no legal basis for this as the sovereignty was still in dispute between Spain and Britain. Vernet then descended to what the Americans considered piracy resulting in the visit by the USS Lexington in 1831. Vernet returned to BA and several members of his party were removed by the Americans who declared the Islands to be under no government. Britain returned in 1833 and required the removal of the garrison operating a penal colony. Settlers were encouraged to remain and most did. A rebellious colony (i.e. United Provinces) cannot “inherit” territory from the previous occupant. Britain returned to claim its own and Spain's claim lapsed. That's it (although there were later events that confirmed the situation). Also UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding. They are, at best, advisory. Self-determination is a principle of international law. See Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN Charter. Also the ICCPR and the ICESCR. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.
International law is against Argentina.
@ 19 boring pamphlet, who reads it?
Sep 20th, 2011 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 08 Teaboy2 (#)
Sep 20th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With all due respect you deserve, you do not understand anything at all what I'm talking about. Totally ignores the context to which I refer and its characteristics. I recommend reading and studying Latin American history and its social processes. Once you read something MEANS is only what I mean about the concept of national security doctrine in Latin America.
As for the rest read the following link and you will notice and see what I mean is not no garbage:
www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-GMMR-Project-Libya-s-by-Frances-Thomas-110901-229.html
20needs www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=40441&title=Africa%%% 20a% 20system Defence
Congratulations Rual his name has been added to my list of Argentine hypocrites here.
No problem, I am proud to be Argentine, and to express my point of view without falling into the adjectives and insults. I can write here my point of view and you yours. Vehemently earnest and front itself. I find it interesting to hear that probably will not write the story that their voices are heard and that they are weaker. They are saying something important to be heard and not being heard.
@Raul - why on earth would i want to read south american history i already know everything i need to know about the history or argentina and the falklands and that is all that matters in this debate. I do not see how the entire history of the whole south american continent makes any difference to the history of argentina and the falklands.
Sep 20th, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What i said about libya was true, the rebels want their own freedom and democracy they faced being annihalated in their thousands and you said this about abit “differentiated and away with the proposals of war, imperialist and colonialist NATO, U.S. and UK to justify preemptive action, and the bombing of civilians in Libya beyond the atrocities of Gaddafi.” - Well one we only went in as a preventive measure to protect the civilians your refering to as us attacking from gaddafi and his forces. We did not target any civilains only military targets. Am not saying civilains in the vicinty of such military targets where not killed or injured, as they no doubt were a few, but that does not justify your comments, because if we did not do what we did, which is what the People of libya were begging us to do, then i can tell you now, 10'000's of libyian people will have been slaugthered by gaddafi.
As for not understanding you you and ignoring the context of to which you were refering - I can tell you now i understand perfectly that you are calling us imperial colonial powers occupying our own lands by military force with military that enforces natinal security (just like your own and all others). And i was responding directly to the context of your post.
As for the articles, well the one in africa proves nothing at all. the second one is a load of nonse made by Frances Thomas is complete nonsense and nothing but conspiracy theory. hell the site is not even a news site but an opiniative news site that allows members to post their own articles. Shes from New Zealand and probably has not been to libya let alone know whats happening there.
19 Conqueror
Sep 20th, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 4, 8, 13, 17 Raul, I find his comments that only about 14 years, so I'll explain some things to you.
Response is not understood what it means to you 14 years? or you meant evil expression. Remember that thinking differently is the most normal thing in democracy and freedom
With all due respect I have carefully read his arguments, but unfortunately I do not believe. You are nourished by English training and is the part of the truth. You think as colonialist and imperialist and I do not agree with that concept. But I am Argentinean and try to form and make critical judgments Argentine sources, Latin American and foreign, and even with those who are not and according to Argentina and all conclude that Argentina's claims are very fair and accurate.
International law is against Argentina.
Not true, not be so sure
The specificity of the Malvinas question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow his return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
Read resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39 / 6) 1985 (40 / 21), 1986 (41 / 40), 1987 (42 / 19) and 1988 (43 / 25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute.
Remember that the General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX), 1965
Thank you very much.
can you prove the UK occupied the Falklands by force.
Sep 20th, 2011 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prove it
Show us a link that clearly states legally that the uk, held it by force,
Or please use the zip code .
“Isolation is over. Argentina is back in the international arena displaying participation, leadership and relevance.”
Sep 20th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0•Why was AR isolated and by whom?
In which international arena is AR relevant, let alone in pole position?
“Acknowledgment of Argentina’s ‘growing process’, in international affairs and US domestic interest”
•Does this mean AR is becoming a mature country in international matters and in US domestic policy?
Does the USA know this?
“US growing interest in how Argentina has managed its economy, insulating it from the consequences of the world crisis”
•Are the USA and the developed world really seeking solutions to the world financial crisis by following AR’s lead?
“Argentina has become an example for the world, effectively guaranteeing compliance with human rights”
•What is it about Argentina’s human rights that the world’s countries should follow the AR model?
The 2010 'Human Rights Reports: Argentina' shows the sordid realities of non-compliance: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/wha/154491.htm
“Unasur attracts the attention of the international community”
• AR’s blocking contribution to Mercosur?
“CFK calls for a more democratic UN, with a reform process that contemplates reality and the new globalized world.”
•This will go down well: “The UN is undemocratic, outdated and outmoded.”
“There has, since 2003, been a push on the Falklands issue. We are present all the time, in all forums talking about the issue; we want Argentina and the UK to discuss what was decided by the UN, which is a bilateral and diplomatic negotiation regarding the sovereignty of the Islands.”
• AR's own Constitution precludes this.
CFK will not say that AR is prepared to go to the ICJ,
or explain ARs illegal economic blockade of TFI.
@23 What's the matter with you? How is it difficult to understand that I attribute to you a physical and/or mental age of 14 years? Are you just thick? Or just deliberately stupid?
Sep 21st, 2011 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Advice: Get some English/British history texts written by English/British authors. Notice how they recount the defeats as well as the victories. The errors as well as the correct decisions. Can Argentine history texts say the same? I don't think so.
Turning to international law, let me help you again. You have quoted 11 General Assembly resolutions. How nice. General Assembly resolutions are advisory. They are not binding. I'll put the next bit in big letters to try to help you. THEY ARE IRRELEVANT. UN Security Council resolutions, on the other hand, ARE binding. Your country signed and ratified the UN Charter that sets this out. Please explain your country's response to UN Security Council resolution 502?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that you, as a country, are self-serving, mendacious, thieving hypocrites? And that you are short a number of useful characteristics. You have no intelligence. You have no honour. You have no morals. No wonder your capital has become the homosexual capital of the world. You are warped. Conceivably, you aren't really human.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!