MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Oil might lubricate the process to real dialogue in the South Atlantic
The second of a planned series of extended political articles written exclusively for the Penguin News web site by Deputy Editor John Fowler. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesgood article, but why are you always giving explanations? Cristina de Kirchner says something, and you immediatly give an explanation lol
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas are NOT, I repeat are NOT a recognised world State. It is an seized territory by a decadent colonial power where currently 2000 sheep herders and fishermen live in an island which happens to be too large for their occupants.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heck about 90% of the Malvinas population is gathered around Puerto Argentino a small village of 500 m x 500 m (if even) and they want to have a friggin voice!
Someone please get these people off their horse! I am all for respecting their way of life, which as the author states has been nurtured in that manner for over 150 years but going from that to claiming autonomy and a voice in world affairs is downright ludicrous. YOU ARE a bunch of fishermen who claim the South Atlantic islands because a decadent colonial power has EMPOWERED you to stamp your feet and the only reason they do this is because they know you CANNOT stand on your two feet on your own and GB wants control over the South Atlantic for too many reasons to count; starting with their claim to Antartica.
Get REAL people.
i am an independent honest man !!
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i always say the historic truths ..neither gossip nor lie !!
-- 1776 ... Brits expelled from region
-- 1806 ... Brits attacks on to invade La Plata
-- 1807 ... Brits are expelled from this region again
-- 1811/15 ... Spaniards withdrawn from region
-- 1831 ... Brits uses US warships
-- 1833 ... Brits invade the islands to revenge of 1806/07 .
The Argies are getting restless :-)))))
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0**4 stick
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think there are no any Argentine posters here ..
i don't think this web site is read & take seriously in Argentina...
Thanks for that Troneas, but the Falklands does stand on its own two feet. The Falkland Islands Government made a £19m surplus. Until you face the reality that we have our own autonomous Government and Democracy that is self-sufficient your argument is irrelevant.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Troneas - if anyone wanted to remove the people from the 500x500metres around you, would they not have a choice? Just because the Falklands are not connected to a large land mass, this does not mean they do not have a voice. EVERYBODY has a right to decide how and where they wish to live. The Falkland Islanders wish to remain on their Islands, governed as they see fit.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you been to the Falklands? Have you been to this mysterious place called the Malvinas even? If you had you would see a peaceful, happy, British way of life. And not just sheep herders and fisherman.
Think before you speak. Gather facts before fiction.
@ 6 no, you don't have your own autonomous government and democracy, because the one who really decides is in London, but you have been living in the islands for so many years that it's like the islands really belong to you, and you should enjoy it, but it's like you're always scared of something and giving explanations to Cristina.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6 Of course you made a 19 million surplus! You have no costs!! its called subsidized subsistence farming. You get your fishing ships and nets from the UK; you charge royalties to overseas fishing industries, the oil infrastructure you get it from IMCs which settle and pay you royalties, the UK pays for your defense at the expense of THEIR taxpayers. UK companies build whatever roads, harbors, airport and what not that you need....
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be that proud of your surplus as i say you are 2000 sheep herders that sit on a large chunk of land whilst royalties and tourism rain down on you. You only produce wool and fish and no royalties to the UK.
2 Troneas , has done well.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- About your rights: the right to continue with his life while respecting their way of life, culture, etc ... is not in question. So do not panic! Argentina takes this into account. The only right is not acceptable is the principle of self-determination.
- YOUR VOICE: Of course they have a voice, and his ears by those who should - and we believe it is - in point: the United Kingdom. I'm tired of hearing “We are British citizens.” As such, their “voice” is represented by the government that the British Government. Therefore, unless you are thinking declate independence from the United Kingdom, her voice was not heard as a party. If you believe that the world shoulder their voices heard better, you should ask the UK to speak louder.
As I mentioned a few times before ... if the world is urging both sides to sit down and talk to resolve the problem soveringty, is because they believe that there is something to be resolved. Denying the problem will not make it disappear. Sooner or later, will have to face.
Perhaps some of your replies may well make . John Fowler
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think twice, the problem with trust, is that it is a two way thing,
He gives a suggestion abt oil, and the oil companies,
And may well be correct, money and oil it seems, makes the world go round, and will open many doors including the corrupted ones,
Perhaps the oil, if eventually flowing may or may not be used by some companies as a lever to get things changed, perhaps, Argentina could be persuaded to drop everything for billion of cash,
But as her bloggers always can re relied on, to let the cat of the bag, so the same must be said of Argentina,
Can she be trusted, will she change her mind, to remove any obstacles in her way, then renegade on any agreement and re-jump when the obstacles have been removed,
As she has a history or tearing up and renigading on anything that suits her, I would only suggest that she cannot be trusted
Interesting article mr fowler,
,
“The only right is not acceptable is the principle of self-determination.”
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you like to prove that?
Self Determination is one of the rights outlined in not one, but TWO of the three treaties that makes up the International Bill of Human Rights.
Human rights are applicable to ALL humans.
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:19 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 their 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 Islanders 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. ”In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity taking into account 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 United Kingdom) ”to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Situation with regarding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, to find a peaceful solution to the problem, taking due account of the provisions and objectives of the United Nations Charter and Resolution 1514 (XV) as well as the interests of the people of the Falkland Islands.
@10 As I have pointed out a few times before........ the world is not urging anyone to sit down and talk about the “problem” of sovereignty. This is the way it works. Various Argentine numpties trot round the world mouthing their unsupportable claims to sovereignty. The people they are speaking to, outside of South America, are generally polite and make vague noises suggesting agreement. And the Argentines translate those vague noises into positive support. Meanwhile, no-one approaches the Falkland Islands Government or the British Government and tells either that they must sit down and talk. Not made easier by the slight difficulty that the Argentine government refuses to recognise the Falkland Islands. Can't negotiate with someone that doesn't exist. Unfortunately (for Argentina) the British government not only recognises the Falkland Islands but will not enter any negotiations without the agreement and support of the Falkland Islands.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Virtually every British Overseas Territory has its own government, only circumscribed by the necessity for the British government to remain responsible for foreign affairs and defence. Because each BOT is quite small and might be easily overcome by belligerent neighbours.
The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination. The United Nations says so. It's there in the Charter. Denying it only shows the lack of intelligence and maturity in Argentina. Argentina cannot have the Falkland Islands. Not now. Not in 10 years time. Not in 100 years time. Not ever. If the Falkland Islands ever move from their current status it will be to that of an independent nation. A status Britain will be happy to support as soon as the Falkland Islanders are ready and there is no chance of any belligerent neighbour attempting some imperialist colonialism. Will the FIG decide to change the name? Falklandia? Falklandes? Who knows? That's THEIR choice. One thing is certain. They will NEVER be officially called Malvinas!
@12 ya if 2000 people who's ancestors were pirates can claim self determination then my neighbourhood can do too.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are NOT native to the Malvinas, you are not a colony (as you like to remind us all every so often) and as such you are a disputed extension of GBs territory in the south atlantic.
WHAT in Gods name are you talking about “self determination”???
The serf-determination principle relates to the de-colonialisation of nations as per the UN. Now make up your mind - are you a colony? yes or no? and even if you are, you are occupying disputed territory and in your condition as european descendants who have not fought for their land but rather shipped there by the British Crown in times when those islands were Argentine sovereign territory gained from Spain and now all you do is sit there all 2000 of you claiming royalties and stamping your feet.
“the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.”
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So your entire argument stems down to the UK breaking Argentina's territorial integrity. Over 100 years before the creation of the UN and the charter we signed giving territorial integrity any legal right.
This law we supposedly broke, before it was even a law and we had even sighned it. You think takes precedence over the rights of living human beings in this day and age.
Laws arent retroactive. Never have been, never will be. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.
That's a poor argument, at best. Raul.
“taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the people of the island”
Would you like to define how you claim to be in the islanders intrests while not being what they wish? This is also a failiure of an argument.
Excellent article.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Usual bleating, crying and lies from the argies AND the underlying threats.
While the present people of the Falklands are there, Conqueror and the rest of us are correct: it will NEVER be Argentinian BECAUSE Argentina can never behave responsibly, irrespective of who is in power.
So the answer is staring us in the face, Argentina needs to grow in stature to meet the supposed First World status that it desires and aspires to.
With that comes proper governance of its own peoples and respect for all others, especially neighbours.
It is clear that presently Argentina has not demonstrated even the proper governance requirement and many decades and generations will need to pass without this constant whining and threatening before any country nevermind the Falklands will take them seriously.
@16. its not about breaking a law that didn't exist. Its about a law that its in effect now.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The de-colonisation committee was created precisely to handle cases of colonization in the Americas and elsewhere; with the intent of ending colonialism in the New World.
A bunch of experts in international law gathered up and determined the law that would end colonialism. In their interpretation, Malvinas did not qualify for the right of self-determination because of what Raul explained.
Its not that hard to understand. Try.
perhaps argentina should really declare her intentions of the falkland islands,
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0does she intend to
1, give them independence
2, keep them for herself, and add them to argentine growing empire,
just a thought ..
Let me get this straight, the auto determination rights are supposed to give de usurper the right to decide the sovereignty of the usurped territories?
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, that makes sense
The usual twaddle is rolled out by the Argentine posters, spouting the same crap their Government spouts every year at the decolonisation committee. Is there anybody with the capacity for independent thought in Argentina, they always swallow the same bullshit everytime.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514
The above is the text of 1514.
Clause 2
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
It says ALL, it doesn't say some, it says ALL. ALL PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
Clause 6.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Note 6, not 1, it is a sub-ordinate clause. The purpose of which was to stop colonial powers breaking up colonial territories. It does not exist to allow a potential colonial power like Argentina denying a peoples right under clause 2.
Note right at the start:
“Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights”
Self-determination is a fundamental human right under the UN Charter, Argentina's manufactured argument based upon a perversion of UN principles is utterly without any moral or legal authority. Every judgement from the ICJ since the 1960s says you are WRONG.
You claim to be a democracy but can't accept the islanders having a voice in their own future, you have tried everyway to coerce them against their will and blame them for hating you. Based on an imagined sleight nearly 200 years ago and the bogus claim of an expelled population (less than 30) that never happened and claiming this entitles you to be racist bigots and deny fundamental human rights. Pathetic.
lalalalala.... same old s*^*, different day.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Am I the only one who's sick to death of pompous Argentines telling me I don't have any rights?
Raul, the British government does represent us. They ask us what we want, we tell them, and then they tell you. Has anyone argued with that?
Oh and you are responsible for the fact that there are not any 'negotiations'. When you put the outcome in your constitution in a unilateral action (and mind- blowingly stupid own goal), you made that impossible so don't blame us.
Troneas: You're an ignorant fool. Our income goes on running a country. That's a hospital, schools, air service, ferry, roads.....and if you ever get your sticky paws on this place, which you won't, then I'll see you at the UN Decolonisation Committee. We will never submit to becoming a colony of Argentina.
And the only ones stamping their feet are you. We have a perfect right to a voice, and we'll express our opinion if we choose. Or is that not the way it works in Argentina?
The point is, not all group of individuals can be recognized as “peoples”.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How is that 30 persons any different than the 2000 islanders today?
Why should Argentina recognize self-determination of a small group of british that occupied the islands manu militari, when they didn´t with the argentines before them. Sounds to me pretty hypocrite.
Besides, it´s not true the ICJ rulings say Argentina’s position is wrong, they have failed against “self-determination” rights many times (honduras-el salvador, nigeria-camerun, etc) Because, not all groups can be considered “peoples” in juridical terms.
Clearly, one that didn´t even exist at the time of a territorial conflict shouldn’t. At least i don´t think is should. If that were the case, any territory could be won by force, repopulated and then the occupiers could play the self-determination card.
I think the Argentines have a good case in Falkland’s/Malvinas, though it´s been 200 years almost since the occupation.
@23. Precisely.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But you are wasting your time trying to reason with these people. They think anyone under that clause can wave a flag and claim self-determination. Even a single person might under their twisted logic.
Truth is they can get passed this eternal impasse and make peace with their ancestors expropriation of foreign land as well as with their own situation by just doing what Hong Kong did and become an autonomous territory under Argentine sovereignty much like Barcelona's status with Spain today.
There were no civilians who were expelled in 1833. Their descendents can be found on the islands today. The garrison was expelled, yes, but they do not constitute civilians.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 024 Troneas
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No we don't think that. Don't presume to tell me what I think. We have the right to self determination because we are not Argentine, and we are distinct from the United Kingdom.
The people who live in Barcelona have cultural similarities with Spain, and a border, and the Hong Kong people have the same with China.
What do we have in common with you? Err....nothing, except a very nasty past.
@26. But you need to be open minded and give it time. I am sure that in a year of Argentine sovereignty a stadium will have been built and your football team will join the national competition :-) its a start to something in common!
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 025) i think, they were civilians expelled in 1833, it´s quite well documented actually. Also there was a uprising of “gauchos”, that lasted a couple of months where they took the commandery until they surrendered. They were judged in a British ship and left in Montevideo.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Morning all - usual cr*p from the Argie side I see.
Nov 22nd, 2011 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Geo says he's an honest man then promptly lies! Britain used an American warship in 1832 = utter rubbish. That cock-up was the yanks alone.
Rolly is still referring to long dead Resolutions, failing to recognise that the lack of a Resolution since 1988 signifies that the UN are happy with the current state of the relationship. And again he tries to say that the islanders have no right to self-determination = more utter rubbish.
Not only do they have the right, they've been exercising it vocally since 1967.
You idiots never learn.
In a few weeks time we'll hit the 179th anniversarry of the reclamation of British rights.
That alone should tell Argentina something !
The Islands are British. For as long as the Islanders wish it.
Nothing Argentina can do.
Get used to it :-)
It’s always difficult to re-educate those who have been indoctrinated,
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The truth, is something you know not,
Things have to be simplified for children, that you adults find hard to understand,
[peoples] you refuse this, as not everyone is classed as peoples,
Perhaps the UN should have said [rights to all human beings]
You would then oppose this as some are not classed as humans, [am I right]
WHY is it ok, for the Spanish to invade a land and remove the indigenous people who have been their for probably hundreds of years,
BUT , not ok for the British to remove some illegal Spanish ,from the islands,
WHY do you claim things before you even existed as a country,
WHY do you claim parts of the Antarctic, by putting some argentines on their for less that a couple odd decades,
Why is it only the British that need to be open minded, and not you.
WHY does all these resolutions only seem to apply the rest of the world-
And not Argentina.
WHY do you want the islands, if not to placate your very own empire .
WHY then do you think you have a claim to negotiate something you have never owned,
After you illegally invaded it.
Justa thought .
.
There was no expulsion of a settlement in 1833. It did not happen it is a lie, a fabrication, an invention.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0It did not happen.
There was no “Gaucho rebellion”.
In August 1833, a group of former convicts and Gauchos led by one Antonio Rivero murdered the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement. There was no British administration to rebel against, it did not exist till 1834.
The “Gaucho rebellion” is a lie, a fabrication, an invention.
It did not happen.
And the ICJ has not ruled against self-determination, Argentina lobbied hard against the Kosovo judgement. It failed.
The only twisted logic I see comes from Argentina.
A simple example above.
In January 1833, the population is allegedly expelled - according to Argentina.
In August 1833, this population allegedly expelled - according to Argentina, allegedly rebels against the British administration (which didn't in fact exist.
If expelled, there is no one to rebel. One logically excludes the other.
This reminds me of the Orwellian concept of “Doublethink”, the ability to completely believe two utterly contradictory ideas.
Not to mention twisted logic, absurdly so.
31)
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let me get this straight: So, your saying the “gaucho rebellion” did not happen? You realize it´s a well documented fact, even by British sources?
His motivations, may be up for debate, but the event is well accounted for.
It did happen, you may not like it, because it proves some kind of civilian uprising after the usurpation of the islands, but it did happened.
ICJ, ruled many times against self-determination. I provided two examples, but i´m sure you could find more. Nigeria-Cameron and Honduras-El Salvador. Like I said, is childish to believe that all group of people disregarding the context have self-determination rights . At least ICJ doesn´t believe that. It´s False that all ICJ rulings “prove” the Argentine position is wrong, like someone said earlier. Theres plenty jurisprudence around.
Your last point, let me say with no disrespect, is plain stupid. No one actually believes that all the civilian population was expelled with the Argentine Garrison. No one actually claims so.
The key to the whole article is of course our friends quote “the much lamented Dr Guido Di Tella”
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well guys you had an Argentine foreign minister who was prepared to grovel but what did you do you spat on him and now the Chickens are ONLY beginning to come home to roost.
As Europe slowly collapses in a sea of social welfare debt Argentina booms.And now Guido is much lamented how funny is that
Troneas and Geo- bejesus when can either of you manage to get somethings called TRUE facts instead of fiction! Others have already pointed out to Troneas that the Islands are selffunding and have been for over a century now - except for defence. Troneas could of course himseld get all this info of the open Falkland Islands Govet website - but then what Argentine likes truth and reality.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for 1833 - Ok then name all those civilians who were allegedly forced out please - and tell us where they went to?
Tell you what - you will find it easier if you check records in Buenos Aires that show 2Brazilians and 2 Uruguyans left of their own free will with the expelled military Arg force.
All other s STAYED and accepted british Rule - this can be verified by checking the records of Charles Darwin when he visited the Islands in the 1840s -but then I guess Arg will say he was a liar as well!!! The last of those 1833 folks died peacefully in Stanley about 1880 and is buried in Stanley cemetery.
Troneas
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only state IN THE WORLD that does not recognise the soverignty of the Falkland Islands is Argentina FACT. Get over it, get a life and learn about democracy and freedom and the 50,000- 100, 000 youths your country MURDERED in the name of American corporate fascism!
30)Adoctrination: The idea is basically right, you can see it across the board. But what you don´t realize is that the same could be said to yourself sir.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) It´s not OK. Though The British empire could probably school Hitler on genocide.
b) Argentine´s you mean?And Why would they be illegal? And it´s not ok, it´s an act of war. It´s called stealing. Specially if you take into account the motivations/interst in the islands in the first place:
“Undoubtedly the key to the whole pacific Ocean. The island must command the ports and trade of chile, peru, panama, Acapulco and in one word all the Spanish territory upon that sea. It will Render all our expeditions to those parts most lucrative to ourselves, most fatal to Spain” Lord Egmont, the first lord of the admiralty
c) I don´t understand, the Argentine Claims on the islands start 1820.
d) Odd decades? Argentina holds the first permanent base in antartica (Base antartica orcadas) Since 1904, I believe 50 years or so, earlier than any other. Taking into account all permanent bases in antartica, Argentina has the biggest population.
e) ?
F) United kingdom has a permanent seat in the UN´s security council, therefore has veto power on UN resolutions and has used that veto on many of them (some which involve Malvinas/falkland islands)
G) British accusing others of imperialistic. Funny. When you believe so deeply something is yours and someone steals it, Profit-loss analysis doesn´t matter anymore. Something along this lines :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euvnlw7BSFQ
H) 1820-1833, effective, public, uncontested, pacific, inniterrupted possesion.
@ 35 and I thought I was the master of delirium tremens, but you are lol
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 035)
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0d) after U.S i meant
31 JustinKuntz “There was no expulsion of a settlement in 1833. It did not happen it is a lie, a fabrication, an invention”
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Suuuure
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
”The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
Betty - you need to get your facts straight.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ 1833 - August 26th, Antonio Rivero, a gaucho, leads a riot over pay. Dickson and Brisbane are killed. The survivors take refuge on Turf Island in Berkley Sound until they are rescued by the British sealer Hopeful in October.
“ .. here we heard an account of the shocking event and its immediate cause. Brisbane employed the Spaniard Antook as a shoemaker, and several Mestizos and South American Indians as herdsmen, bullock-hunters, etc. Failing to pay them promptly, from lack of means, as he said, they were angry, and determined to kill him and all his friends and plunder the village. ...
1834 - February 5th, Capt. Smith, with a party of 6 marines, finds the Antarctic and hears about the gauchos.
Smith arrests Antonio Rivero and eleven others, five of whom are Englishmen, for the murders and dispatches them to Rio de Janeiro.
1835 – March, Antonio Rivero, and the others accused of murder, are sent to London for trial.
May, in Britain, the Home Office seeks legal advice on the prosecution of Rivero
June 2nd, the Law Officers opinion is that the prisoners can be prosecuted under the legislation that was available, that the evidence appeared to be sufficient but, “ .. under all the circumstances it appears to us that in a case of a conviction the sentence could not justly be carried into execution and
therefore we cannot recommend a prosecution.”
June 16th, the Admiralty are asked to repatriate Rivero and the 3 other
prisoners.
September, Antonio Rivero is quietly put ashore near Montevideo. ”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1833-1849/
Now, tell me why you believe that the ICJ has ruled AGAINST self-determination. I'm so looking forward to reading that argument :-)
Morecrap - there was no expulsion. A trespassing garrison was ordered off - that's all.
And we can prove it :-))
And Argentina said nothing 1849 - 1888, 1888 - 1933 (to the Postal Union)
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1833-1849/dpress
@9. Troneas, you are completely clueless. You have no idea what is going on here, and you lecture me, a resident and born and bred Falkland Islander on how my country functions. You are clutching at a fantasy, and you are wrong. What you have described is false. That does not happenhere, and until you pull your head, either, out of your own arse, the sand or our of your President's arse, you and your arguement about my home, a place you are ignorant on (made make up lies), will always be irrelevant.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ . . a whole lot o' trolling goin' on”
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Let me get this straight: So, your saying the “gaucho rebellion” did not happen? You realize it´s a well documented fact, even by British sources?”#
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just to point yet another failed logic that you seem to have missed. Another twisted logic as justin has already pointed out.
Argentina claims that these gaucho's rebelled against the authorities. These gauchos killed Vernets lieutenant. Vernet was the authority on the islands at the time, with his lieutenant keeping charge for him.
Vernet is the man Argentina claims was there governor.
They rebelled against Argentina.
“Oil might lubricate the process to real dialogue in the South Atlantic'
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Investor comment
”It seems the market doesn't like the Falklands oilies, which is something to take heed of in these volatile times. Mr Market doesn't believe this is going to production, they don't see Sam Moody raising cash to go it alone in these markets and they don't see Big Oil wanting a piece of the action either because of Argy Bargy risks; too far from markets or no infrastructure with possibly the whole of South America shunning anyone who deals with the Falklands government”
Down again ? 231.00 -6.75 (-2.86%)
Share prices arent going to change the fact that there is oil there. But i suppose it's all you have now, isn't it? Pity.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 044@ like I said, you might question it´s motivations. But, it did happen. There is no doubt about it.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 040@betty? How old are you? 15?
Ive already pointed out some examples. You might find others. Bakassi region was handed out to Cameroon by Nigeria like the ICJ ruled, against the 200 thousand Nigerians (or so) self-determination rights.
Like I said, there is no such thing as a divine self-determination rights that includes all group of people.. that is just stupid. A childish idea. There is plenty jurisprudence around.
2000 british poeple, half of them being born abroad, who did´t even exist as a community at the time of the conflict, who live in a military enclave thousands of miles away of their metropoli might not have self-determination rights. Just saying
Latest news!! Large oil find sold to exxon.islanders claim they weren't consulted and that deal is illegal.can it be true?
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“like I said, you might question it´s motivations. But, it did happen. There is no doubt about it.”
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it did. They rebelled against vernets authority. YOUR governor(as YOUR government calls him).
47 Yuleno
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is that supposed to make sense? What are you blithering about?
The territorial integrity protected by resolution 1514(XV) is British territorial integrity because Great Britain is the Administering Country according Article 73 of the UN Charter. Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV)
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN Treaty recognises the de facto territorial integrity of its member states at its founding in 1946, i.e. British de facto sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia & the Sandwich Islands
In 1961 the UN General Assembly declared in Resolution 1514(XV) declared that the peoples of the Falklands Islands were subject to a colonial situation as a British Crown Colony because they were a non-self-governing territory. Resolution 1514(XV) was reaffirmed in resolution 2065(XX) to cover the case of the Falkland Islands
Today, the Falkland Islands are no longer a British Crown Colony. They are a British Overseas Territory by democratic choice & exercise democratic self-government, freely determine their own political status & freely pursue their economic, social & cultural development. The reason why the Falkland Islanders say they are no longer a Colony is because they have achieved self-government & free political association. The Falkland Islanders freely choose for the Falkland Islands be a British Overseas Territory
The Convention of Settlement was ratified by the Argentine Congress in 1850. This ratification legally ended Argentina's claim of Sovereignty for the Falkland Islands
In 1982 Argentina invaded a peaceful fellow member of the United Nation by its invasion of South Georgia & the Falkland Islands. UN Security Council Resolution 502 demanded an immediate withdraw of Argentine forces, which was illegally disobeyed. The British & the Falkland Islanders resisted the illegal invasion & occupation of their sovereign territories & exercised their right under Article 51 to collective self-defense. The AR was defeated & surrendered unconditionally
Falklanders freely refuse new negotiation & UK has no doubt of its sovereignty
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGUuc4_UyJU
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 050 Domingo. You said “UK has no doubt of its sovereignty”
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I say thieves never recognize that they stole something.
Speak for yourself.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uk doubts of its sovereignity because she tried before the war to make a transfer of it to Argentina...very easy to understand by everybody
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and this article the only thing that talks is of how to continue stealing but make it appear not...you know a lot of double standards
and Borges was an excellent writter but very bad on politics, right tendency as far as I know and supported the militars wouldnt care of what he thinks if it is not of literature
No Britain did not try and transfer to Argentina, it sought to find a means of resolving the dispute with Argentina. It failed because A) Argentina refused to compromise and demanded transfer of sovereignty and B) the Islanders did not wish to have Argentina foisted upon them.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In addition, there was NO GAUCHO REBELLION.
There were no British authorities in the Falkland Islands. The initial British intention was to persist with Vernet's settlement, supported by the annual visit of a warship. There were no authorities to rebel against.
The incident is known in the Falklands as the Gaucho Murders. It was a killing spree, with robbery as the motive. They thought Brisbane had silver and the intention was to steal it and leave the islands. It was not a rebellion and the absurd legend Argentina has constructed around the incident does it no credit; they laud the man who killed Brisbane who did more than anyone to further the aims of Vernet's settlement.
Same as the expulsion of 1833 didn't happen.
I note that not one single Argentine poster commented on the absurd logic, where they claim the population was expelled but 8 months later they're rebelling.
Its ludicrous, they can totally believe in two utterly contradictory claims.
Even if they were rebelling. They were rebelling against Vernet, Who Argentina claims was “there” governor.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either Vernet was there governor and there own citizens rebelled against Argentina or he wasn't and the entire question of Argentinas soveriginity goes out the window. Can't have it both ways.
(Yes, i do know neither are the case. Just pointing out the loopholes in there logic.)
@ 54 “Uk doubts of its sovereignity because she tried before the war to make a transfer of it to Argentina...very easy to understand by everybody” aaaaaaah look, so that means the UK have doubts of its sovereignty? It looks like the UK was the only one trying to give the islands to Argentina because the islands belong to the UK, it was not Argentina trying to give the islands to the UK. That's trepanation malen, what they have done to you, your brain is frozen.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0barilo dont bother me and look at the map how they are stealing sovereignity from everywhere they can....ahahaahahahah look well and trepanation its only you and your brain that never knows well the way....and im being generous
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is founded on the theft, rape and murder of the its indigenous peoples, the annexation of their ancestral lands by Spanish Conquistadors. What the Conqustadors started European immigrants finished. All indigenous peoples ancestral lands were forcibly annexed into the new state of Argentina through the forced subjugation and slavery of its indigenous peoples who would not choose to be slaves. Conquered, the indigenous peoples were out-bread & overwhelmed by mass European immigration to become a powerless minority in their own lands, their wealth & resources stolen by European immigrants
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Descendants of those European immigrants, indoctrinated by decades of successive totalitarian nationalist government fantastical propaganda, falsely claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands & its people, who refuse to be subjugated
Argentina has no rights in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia & the Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islanders freely choose to vest their sovereignty in Britain as a British Overseas Territory. This is why Britain has no doubt over its sovereignty. The Falkland Islanders refuse negotiation with Argentina over sovereignty. This is why Britain refuses to negotiate sovereignty with Argentina
Argentina illegally attacked a fellow peaceful member of the UN in 1982. Argentina illegally refused to withdrawn its invasion forces from the Falkland Islands & South Georgia in defiance of the legally binding UN Security Council Resolution 502. The UK & Falkland Islanders exercised their right to collective self-defense according to UN Charter Article 51 & defeated the Argentine aggressors. Argentina surrendered unconditionally. Argentina fought a war to win sovereignty over the Falkland Islanders. Argentina lost, Britain & the Falkland Islanders won their sovereignty
Argentina is impotent & exercises no sovereignty in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia & the Sandwich Islands
Britain maintains a military garrison to deter further Argentine aggression
Argentina my country is founded on the search for liberty and freedom of its mixed people. 200 years ago.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the war of 1982 doesnt give you rights to sovereignity as it was illegally occupied first. the territory is in dispute since 1833. argentina made on that same year a claim.
that map shows what are you are really looking for and your real intentions. its more clear than anything else.
Thank you Domingo - you seems have answered betty for me. Typically he/she would like me to formulate their argument for them, rather than actually putting forward a case based on the 'evidence' that they are referring to.
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Betty - try again when you actually have an argument!
Morning all - Falklands still British ? Yes? Wonderful. So God's in his heaven and all is as it should be.
:-)
Argentina was founded by the revolution of its original European colonialists, descendants and their successors against their ancestral mother country
Nov 23rd, 2011 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of modern day Argentina's lands were conquered & taken against the will of its indigenous peoples after 1833
The revolutionaries of 1812 were largely descendants of the original European immigrants y new European settlers
The official language of Argentina is Spanish, the language of the Spanish Empire Conquistadors
Spanish is a foreign language to Argentina's true indigenous peoples
Ergo Argentina is illegally occupied if the Falkland Islands are illegally occupied
In 1833, Argentina was little more than the current day Buenos Aires province. La Pampa, Rio Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz & TdF were forcibly annexed by Argentina long after Argentine independence from the Spanish Empire
The right of the people who live in the Falkland Islands to self-determination gives Britain the right to sovereignty because the people of the Falkland Islands democratically elect to vest their sovereignty in Britain as a British Overseas Territory
British de facto sovereignty of its South Atlantic Territories through its effective & notorious possession of 178 years is equal or better to Argentine sovereignty of Patagonia of 130 years through its effective & notorious possession of because British possession is longer & also recognized by the UN Charter as de facto inviolable territorial integrity the same as Argentina
Morally and ethically, if Britain should evacuate the Falkland Islands, then Argentine must evacuate Argentina, as Britain and Spain ended their Empires and gave the people of its Empires the freedom to choose their own destiny. The people of the Falkland Islands have their freedom and choose to be British. The people of the Falkland Islands have the same right to choose to not be Argentine and prefer to be British as the Uruguayans have the right to choose to not be Argentine and prefer to be Uruguayan
the mixed people killed the original europeans colonizators to get freedom, the difference in number between thew mixed was 6.000.000 against thousands of conqerors original europeans, we sent them home back to their home.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0the revolutionaries of 1810 (not 1812) were mixed get used to that, (myself ancestry is mixed). we dont occupy ilegally a land, another of your mistakes, this land is of all the indigenous that owned it before the spaniards came and the many mixes that occured before. so the land was recovered, and not dominated by strange people, but by its own people by its own way. nothing new that wasnt said before.
indigenous and mixed and descendants have choosen freedom on its land, called argentina (silver).
Cold War in the South Atlantic. , coupled with strong naval forces,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0as I said before we have HMS Enterprise on its way,
Now we follow up with
The Royal Navy’s new ice patrol ship, HMS Protector
http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/ships-mission-map-frozen-continent-53689.html
HMS Montrose anchored off the volcanic outpost of Ascension Island
She also is on her way to the Falklands .
http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/ships-mission-map-frozen-continent-53689.html
And even more good news,
UK’S FIRST NEXT-GENERATION JET FIGHTER COMPLETED23/11/2011
http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/ships-mission-map-frozen-continent-53689.html
its to be A nice British Christmas in the Falklands then ..
,
The British Empire
Nov 24th, 2011 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
Cold War in the South Atlantic. , coupled with strong naval forces,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0as I said before we have HMS Enterprise on its way,
Now we follow up with
Do you think we care about the use of force?/
It is obvious that uk has no legal arguments,except force...next time we will be stroger and send you home,were you belong: The North Sea!!
uk days are counted.....
Mad'un - in 1810 Argentina (what there was of it) declared for Ferdinand. That is not a revolutionary act. That was not 'independence'
Nov 24th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina only got around to declaring independence in 1816.
Why don't Argies know their own history ??
And Domingo is quite right, Argentin consisted of little more than Buenos Aires and the land to the west in 1833. They were nowhere near the Falklands.
MoreCrap - still quoting from the British Empire site? The one with the disclaimer for its own work.
The one with a link to - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/ ?
Idiot boy!
Spain relinquished nothing before 1836 - FACT!
Nothing to inherit before 1836 because 'father' was still claiming it !
Marvin - legal arguments are so much easier to enforce with a little muscle. Ask your local police force :-)
just patroling whats ours,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0and already you panic,
talk young man talk is all you can do,
and talking wont get you a bus ticket to paradice
[The record book perhaps] .
Essentially the Crillo nationalists who owned the land, capital & production rebelled against the Peninsulares to take power for their own selfish political interests. The Crillos exploited the mestizos as their cannon fodder to fight & die to gain political power for them. The Crillos became the dominant class owning the majority of land, capital & political power
Nov 24th, 2011 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Today Argentines have the right to live in Argentina because it is their home. Today the Falkland Islanders have the right to live in the Falkland Islands because it is their home. In 1850 the Argentine Congress ratified the Convention of Settlement which settled all differences between Britain and the Argentine Republic & declared perfect friendship between the two nations with no further disputes
The de facto territories of member states are protected by UN Charter when it was founded in 1946. However non-self governing territories were given the choice of free political association. The Falkland Islanders choose to be British & chose to be a self-governing British Overseas Territory
Argentina decided to dispute the Falkland Islands & South Georgia & lodged its claim at the UN. However, the people of the non-self governing territory of the Falklands Islands rejected Argentine claims & freely chose to be British. In 1982 Argentina illegally invaded South Georgia & the Falkland Islands & refused to withdraw its invasion forces. Argentina chose war over peaceful diplomacy & the UN ICJ to settle its sovereignty claim. Argentina lost
Argentina should take its claim to the ICJ. Instead the Argentine government conducts a systematic campaign of political persecution against the regional ethnic minority Falkland Islanders to repress their political freedom & development
Because of the illegal Argentine war of aggression & Argentine bigotry, the Falkland Islanders & the British refuse further negotiation. The Falkland Islanders chose to be British & the Falklands Islands are a British Overseas Territory
@ 63 malem, the brown native aboriginal zulu mapuche pond scum fanatic who hates everything that is not mixed. malem, will you please allow us to stay in our home Argentina? will you?
Nov 24th, 2011 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well the Argentines are in full spate. Never have l heard such rubbish, distortions or lies before! malen, troneas, beto. You deserve an Oscar for your performances! Bravo, bravo, encore!
Nov 24th, 2011 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still, it was all for nothing l have to tell you.
You do not own the Falklands, never have & never will.
There is nothing to “negotiate” & in fact we will not “negotiate”.
So where does that leave you?
lnternational Court of Justice or War.
Your decision.
Banana hoyt dont talk of our history because you dont get it well. The Cabildo voted for Cisneros 23 or 24 of may betraying popular hope or desires, so the people reacted and the 25 of may was designed our own first junta of government, that ignored the spanish authorities.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0its criollos not crillos.“today Arg has the right to live in Arg because its their home.” today no, always we have had that right. the ones that never had that right were the spaniards that invade us.
and barilo I have indigenous ancestry, they are protected by constitution on their rights of land and culture, etc. That they are forgotten by governments its another matter.
what do you think about the map redbanana???? no opinnion on that.....i see from the squatters
72 malen
Nov 24th, 2011 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I gave you an opinion on your pathetic map elsewhere.
The UK does not 'control' us, our territorial waters or our resources, and the same goes for the other OTs. Your map, therefore, is complete bollox.
I understand it well enough mad'un .. declaring for the King of Spain is hardly an act of independence.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Marcos #65
Nov 24th, 2011 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British Empire
“First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/index.php
#71 well said Isolde clearly you are getting emotional but please why lie.you do not own the islands you only live on them.hopefully you will live happily and peacefully in your argentine homeland
Nov 24th, 2011 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but I believe a British Empire site written by a British historian and not a blog written by an ex cop retired at the age of 49 in Thailand.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“About the Author
Nov 24th, 2011 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My name is Stephen Luscombe and I have been a teacher for many years.... my two teaching subjects of ICT and history....”
www.britishempire.co.uk/index.php
So no Marcos, not a historian. A history teacher. Something completely different. Get a dictionary.
78 And from where did he get those history facts? An Argentinean history book?
Nov 24th, 2011 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to see an honest Brit.
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
”The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
yawn yawn, xucking crap
Nov 24th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#80 is it that you know you are wrong or are you getting tired of your position as senior spokesperson for anything you post on.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 065 Marcos Alejandro:
Nov 24th, 2011 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still quoting a website that clearly states his work is not factual? Sad.
Not to mention a book which is demonstrably incorrect...
Nov 24th, 2011 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 081 Yuleno just tired of the losers who cant get over it,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you wont get the falklands, exept by skulldugery
as for spokeperson, if i was, we would not be in this mes,
i am but one of millions just like you,
By the way,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did anyone notice,
Statement A: The population was expelled in January 1833
is contradicted by
Statement B: The population rebelled in August 1833
And not one Argentine can explain this particlar conundrum....
thats because not argentine knows the thruth,
Nov 24th, 2011 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but only to insult the brits and change the subject .
They like to ignore the things they can't answer.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Statement A: Vernet was Argentina's govenor.
Statement B: They “rebelled” against and killed vernets lieutenant.
If an “Argentine” population was expelled, how can that “Argentine” population later rebel?
Nov 24th, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 'Expulsion Myth' is about as effective as the 'Inheritance Myth'.
Nov 24th, 2011 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have clear evidence that Spain did not reliquish her territorial rights in the Americas till 1836.
So how does Argentina manage tyo claim that she inherited in 1810 ??
no country can clain anything before they actualy existed.
Nov 25th, 2011 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain didn't let go of anything before 1836, and didn't recognise the Argentine Confederation till 1858. Not that Buenos Aires was a member.
Nov 25th, 2011 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0The recognition of the Confederation wasn't complete till the treaties were ratified in June 1860, but then BA had joined the Confederation and were unhappy about the Treaty (surprise, surprise) so it all had to be done again.
Argentina, as it is now, didn't exist in the eyes of the mother country before 1863 !
And as the benefactor didn't give anything to any beneficiary before 1836 - the myth of inheritance is just that - a fairy story.
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1833-1849/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1833-1849/
What is needed is reconciliation, cooperation & friendship. What Argentina offers is bitterness, bigotry and bile. It is little wonder Argentina's rhetoric is rejected by the Falkland Islanders
Nov 25th, 2011 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is wrong that the Falkland Islanders are subject to repression of their political & economic development by Argentina. It is wrong that Argentina systematically conducts a campaign of political & economic persecution against the regional ethnic minority of the Falkland Islanders
Argentine authorities deliberately incite hatred against the Falkland Islanders labeling them squatters, sheep-farmers, kelpers & pirates in deliberate targeted acts to dehumanize them as a collective group in a calculated effort to secure their regional ostracism through repression of transport & trade links & normal relations. The Argentine authorities deliberately scapegoat the Falkland Islander home & abroad to justify their hostile acts against them using the big lie propaganda technique & rhetoric of past dictatorships to further their political goals
Argentina conspire with its allies to rig the UN Special Committee on Decolonization with repeated attempts to subvert its workings for their own political aims
Argentine's allies are complicit in Argentina's crimes & do so willing because their is a shared & deep-rooted bigotry against non-Hispanic cultures, which are different to their own
Argentina's bullying behavior towards the Falkland Islanders is both despicable & deplorable, all the more so because it is more vitriolic & spiteful coming from a nation which claims to uphold the values of liberty and democracy, whilst simultaneously acting directly against these principles in their overt repression of the Falkland Islanders rights to self-determination in direct violation of UN Charter Article 73
Bigotry against the Falkland Islanders has been created & sustained by Argentine authorities deliberate indoctrination of their school-children over many generations
Shame on Argentina
@76Yuleno,
Nov 25th, 2011 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0ln your dreams, amigo.
@79Marcos,
You can read & quote any book you like Marcos.
lt still doesn't change the fact that these lsles are ours,never have been yours & never will be.
Hope that this helps you both.
93#so happy for you in your happiness on living in the territory of Argentina.i dream of your happiness
Nov 25th, 2011 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yuk - no Argentine territory out there ... just British :-)
Nov 25th, 2011 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dream of an oil rich province stretching from the Falkland Islands to the South Sandwich Islands to the limits of British Antarctic territory.
Nov 25th, 2011 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dream of argentina suffering another humiliating defeat.
I dream of a free and independent Patagonia.
Raindrops keep falling on my head!
Nov 25th, 2011 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and you get wet lol.
Nov 25th, 2011 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Fowler suffers from the classic islanders' delusion, one that clearly replaces the political and constitutional reality of the FI with a fantasy of being either a Commonwealth Realm or Republic.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly, those islanders who subscriber either forget their place in Britain's pecking order, or takes Argentines for fools. It's not the Argentines who stand against Falklanders' having a voice, it is Britain's unwillingness to share its decision-making powers over the islands' sovereignty beyond mere non-binding referendums.
Cleverly, this allows FI politicians to play the human rights angle, pining “woe is me” for being excluded from a diplomatic process in which they themselves, and by British design, hold no political power whatsoever. LAUGHABLE!! You must think us quite the wankers for even trying this, yet the reality is that many who are reading these words (and he who writes them) were alive when the FI were legally considered a “Crown Colony”, and our memories do not fade so quickly that we'd be fooled by the presence in our seas of a colony all but in name.
Of course that designation has officially changed - helped along, and not in small measure, by the worst-laid plans of the worst-born generals from your easterly neighbors, for which I suppose it is them you should thank.
But know that, as housecleanings go, the Kirchners were quite thorough in ridding our nation of that right-wing blight. Indeed, just last week a career army officer was canned for some pro-dictatorship jibberish his wife uttered to Christina, by which I mean a thorough and ongoing purge shows no indications of abating for the time being.
As such, my countrymen put greater thought, and less emotion, on the issue of our Malvinas. Clearly,if you had political power, you'd be naturally entitled to take full part in negotiations. But, instead of seeking it from Britain , you wrongly continue to seek redress for that same injustice you support against Argentina: being ignored.
mmmm throwing mud to wind, again,trying to browbeat them,
Nov 26th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0if you fully understood the british system and the way it works, you would certainly not be arguing over words,
you may not be a power in the world, but talking none the less gets results if you push har enough, and that is what your leaders are trying to do [is it not]
by using [words] to browbeat resentment, breed in-contentness,
hoping to cause a rift or split, you can but try, after all, you have nothing to lose, but much to gain, if only, only, if only
it wont work, as long as they wish to remain british, your attempted indocrinated brainwashing will not work.
just a thought .
Words written on paper.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Papers which establish the legal entity of the FI within her Majesty's domain.
It is not us who browbeat resentment or hope to cause a rift, nor are we brainwashed.
We simply need know what BOT stands for and the simple reality of the situation dawns on us. And all their worries about being silenced show their true meaning, or should I say their inherent falsehoot - for it is not us who insist on silence from the islanders, it is Britain itself and is so written; that also they who seek redress of wrongs are not the brainwashed ones, rather, those who personify them as their opponents while blindly ignoring the party which controls the political reality and which will not cede or share it in any capacity, be it with Argentina or with its colonial subjects (though it will gladly placate their egos with other designations upon their civil status).
Yet we read what is written, and still we do not see the words “Commonwealth Republic” and “Commonwealth Realm”. Be just, then, and leave us to redress the wrongs done unto us, and abandon your revisionist historical fallacies and fantasies and instead put your energies in obtaining such status, and we will welcome then your justly warranted presence in any discussions. But as long as we read “BOT”, we read but a euphemism for “Crown Colony”, true in every sense as a janitor being elevated to the position of “Hygiene Engineer”.
You may be stupid, if you wish or feels better to be so. We are not. We do not ignore you out of malice, we ignore you as an instrument of distraction and an ongoing refusal to discuss the issue in good faith and honesty. Change your legal standing and this will change as well; we'd be happy to have it so.
But don't think us such vile tossers that you can shyte on a bun and tell us it's a frankfurter, and we'd believe it so.
@ 99 and 100
Nov 26th, 2011 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've got a competitor, I see. You write more sh*t than me! Something's not right and I must improve my skills but anyway, you can't beat me, you puffed up chicken sh*t!
I would suggest you read the following,
Nov 26th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0As any reply would almost certainly be disputed, as this are always interpreted differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories
some other answers .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories
some of those who left.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And once Again you revert
TO INSULTS
Before anyone replied,
Childish very silly childish school child prank .
Justa thought .
.
@ 103 it is not for you brittany, I just typed the wrong number. it's for 99 and 101. briton, if you're gonna get hurt everytime that people you don't know who they are write something you consider offensive, how do you manage to live your life? you don't know me *rsehole, why do you give so much attention to my words? it intrigues me :) are you in love with me or something? I'm not gay, I tell you, but who can say I won't ever do that! if you're not ugly, we can try something, we can start with an ice cream perhaps. what do you say?
Nov 26th, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0why do you give so much attention to my words
Nov 26th, 2011 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I dont
but i also dont like children who utter insults as a way of getting what you want,
insulting people is wrong. but i supose being a child you cant help it can you,
but as for your perversion YOU are a fucking disgrace
And yet the substance of the points raised still go unanswered.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 01:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've read your wikipedia articles, will you read mine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
Correct me if I'm wrong but I yet fail to see “Falkland Islands” listed in either, even though other islands such as Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda seem to make the list. Those COUNTRIES could indeed justly take part in any discussion which regards the sovereignty of those islands, as they are indeed countries in deed, fact, and law.
The reality of the situation is that Argentina did not write the Nationality Act of 81 nor the BOT Act of 2002. Clamoring for Argentina to then elevate the FIG to an entity that shares equal power with Britain, and is present in discussions as such, is likewise not for Argentina to do, but for PARLIAMENT to consider. Or would the people of the islands demand that Argentina be the deciding voice in determining British policy??
No, I think not. The reality is that Argentina has never wanted to determine Britain's internal policies with regards to how her Majesty chooses to govern her rightful lands; Argentina's claims regard acts of her predecessors that we consider illegal, and over which her Majesty by her writs or lack thereof have failed to grant royal assent to her Islander subjects to negotiate over it on their behalf. People in such a condition cannot, in any conceivable way, call themselves a “country” and expect to be believed or accepted as such, without so much as asking to hold those legal powers of self-determination from the authority which presently exercises them. Why?
Because you all are ARGENTINES AT HEART. All that Parliaments needs do is PLACATE YOUR EGO with a status that belies your true political shortcomings as a people, eliciting your hostility towards a third party which currently holds no sway except for the long wait to inevitable recuperation.
For, eventually you'll tire of them too.
MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 26th, 2011 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0But don't think us such vile tossers that you can shyte on a bun
[my reply was to you]
But the child got it confused .
My reply to you is as before, people will give a different opinion,
But the fact remain, that as long as they wish to remain British citizens, then that is how it will stand,
But intimidating behaviour from Argentina, will not help, but will just put relations back decades,
Just my opinion.
.
Well there you have it. This then is simply a dissonance between people who think laws and treaties govern the parameters by which nations and societies behave, and those who believe it is the opinion of those affected who matters even when there is no effort by the holders of such opinions to assert the rhetorical rights they claim - content that their rights simply remain the domain of rhetoric and the islands, if need be, the domain of her Majesty.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you're not thinking on a long enough timeline. We, on the other hand, do - and we're betting that the situation will be resolved in the way which history shows us happens over and over with British colonial possessions. Supposing you are prosperous economically - such by control of key energy production infrastructure - and thus begin to hold significant political power over British affairs...will you then be so content with your masters?
How many times has this scenario played out?
You say that as long as islanders wish to remain British citizens then “that is how it will stand” - I say HOORAY. Because the inevitable lesson of history indicates, without exception, that the day WILL come when you'll have to choose between being BRITISH and being FALKLANDERS. Do not deceive yourselves in that this lesson of history will not play itself again in your homeland, for it will and in your hearts you know that an eventual break from Britain, or its recognition of the Falkland's sovereign rights upon itself, is inevitable.
In the meantime, we will continue to assert out rights peacefully in whatever way we mean, extending always a peaceful dialogue to those who in fact are decision makers in the question of sovereignty, and do our best to build a nation that will one day, far from now, represent..
..a very attractive third option for Islanders, to ensure the islands' long-term stability and political power over parliament, safeguarding its language, culture, and yes, sovereignty - if they'd only see reason.
Marvin - Self determination means that the Falklanders can be what they want to be.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Independent
Independent and a Member of the Commonwealth
A British Overseas Territory
It's up to them. Whatever they want to be is protected by the UN Charter.
What they currently want to be is a BOT.
Nothing to do with Argentina.
And now the oil is looking good - who knows :-))
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/interest-in-falklands-oil-high/
In your list of options you don't seem to find the possibility that Falklanders could ever want to be a part of Argentina.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems a tad short-sighted. It takes many assumptions just to make a statement that eliminates that possibility altogether. In any case, the point I am trying to make is that as far as Britain is concerned, self-determination as guaranteed by the UN Charter is of no importance. What is of importance is self-determination with Britain's blessing, something they control in the absolute and which you don't possess except in a non-binding, advisory role.
You don't see a conflict now because your interests and the British interests are aligned. To think it will be perpetually so is....given the history regarding British territories, naive. One day, you'll have a problem with them. And then another, and another, until you'll find the British are making more problems for you than Argentina. And since the oil is looking good, you should be aware of the fact that the oil is certainly looking good to them as well.
It's only a matter of time before the same British negative to negotiating over your “issue of great import” is delivered to your doorstep, as they've delivered to Argentina's on theirs. When the British tell you there's nothing to negotiate over Falklands' control of Falklands oil resources, or lack thereof by that time, then we'll see then where your loyalties lie, and whether you've got what it takes to be a country and stand up on your own two feet.
Until then, considering that the FI is a “nation” or “country” is both factually and legally incorrect, nonwithstanding the UN Charter.
You either are, or you are not. The author of the above article claims you are. Yet I know the difference between a territory and a commonwealth realm, or republic for that matter, and you are neither. Unless I missed something, there is no other category under the British monarch that implies being a country or nation. It is you who must pick.
Some of the rationale and criteria that qualify the Falkland Islands to be correctly described as a country are, for example:
Nov 26th, 2011 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Entry and exit to the Falkland Islands has always been controlled by its own independent customs and excise control according to its own legal jurisdiction
2. the Falkland Islands are a distinct geographical entity
3. the people of the Falkland Islands are a distinct political unit
4. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV) Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, which covers the case of the Falkland Islands and was voted for by Argentina, affirms that the Falkland Islands was a non-self-governing colonial territory granted its independence as a country and people
5. Ask a Falkland Islander where they come from & what place they call home & they say the “Falkland Islands” based on 1-4 aboc
6. In the context of points 1-5, taken collectively these factors create a unique shared identity of belonging to a common community amongst fellow Falkland Islanders & it is for these reasons that Falkland Islanders call their home their country too
The Falkland Islanders have a free choice of sovereign statehood accorded & guaranteed to them by their UN Charter Article 73 rights; they consider that vesting their sovereignty in the Britain as a self-governing British Overseas Territory provides them with the greatest benefits & not least maintains their strong cultural ties to Britain & their British nationality which is a strong identity for them too, reciprocated by the vast majority of British nationals throughout the world
The Falkland Islands are British and form a British Overseas Territory, because they are a constitutionally, politically and geographical separate country from the British Isles & United Kingdom of GB & Northern Island for the reasons noted in points 1-6
The Falkland Islanders have already picked & freely chosen their political status to be a British Overseas Territory
One day, you'll have a problem with them. And then another, and another, until you'll find the British are making more problems for you than Argentina.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0now you are Jumping the shark :-))))
I didn't include being a part of Argentina because that is more fantasy than reality. My imagination doesn't fly that far.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some would argue that the Islanders are more British than the British now are.
As for the future, who can tell.
Maybe they'll opt for real independence one day. It's likely to require them believing in their safety. And that's the funny thing. The threat of Argentina is keeping them British.
Argentina is keeping the Falkland Islands British.
Ironic -no ?
#110
Nov 26th, 2011 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falkland Islanders ever desire to become part of Argentina, then Britain will not oppose that. Frankly all the British care about is the Falkland Islanders choose their own destiny. It isn't ruled out as an option by the UK, Argentina does that for itself with its actions.
#108
See reason? You don't get people to agree with you through threats, abuse and nascent racism, which is essentially the Argentine approach.
Under the UN Charter the islands have 3 choices.
1. Independence
2. Integration with another state
3. Free association with another state
So far they've chosen 3, to associate with the UK due to the threat from Argentina. Nothing to stop them choosing 1 one day. Or they could even choose 2 as a Crown Dependency, like Jersey. Who knows.
I doubt they'd choose to integrate with Argentina - you see to that yourselves.
The islanders are more British than the British...... Already the islanders are no longer British then.only territorial issues are outstanding with the British colonialist
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0110 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0We know what we are. We are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. That gives us a complicated constitutional relationship with the UK which I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand very well. Why would you? It doesn't affect you really, does it?
You did miss something. The Falkland Islands functions as a distinct entity within the Commonwealth, as you would know if you took the trouble to find out. We take part in the Commonwealth games and other Commonwealth organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in our own right.
That's because we are in a unique situation; not independent yet,but with the potential to be one day.
We don't have the right to self determination just because Britain keeps saying so. We have it because that is the position of all non- self governing territories recognised as such by the UN.
You can choose to imagine that Britain is hanging on to the Falklands for the oil if you like, but that is just your sad fantasy invented to make you feel better.
Falkland Islanders don't want to be part of Argentina, and we have full control of our own natural resources. Whether we become independent or not one day will be completely our choice.
If you think an independent Falklands is an attractive option for you, then you'd better transform yourselves into attractive neighbours. You can start with taking your colonial ambitions towards my country out of your constitution.
Err no ... it's the British who aren't now British, and the Islanders who are, in fact, more British than the British :-)
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Simple !
MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 26th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0115 Yuleno
As you see,
They still favour being British,
But may I suggest,
If Argentina started to treat them as human beings and respect their rights and self determination,
Be more friendly and polite, and perhaps make an effort to show them that you can be friendly,
Then who knows,
Until then British it is
after all being nice, costs you nothing .
You can choose to imagine that Britain is hanging on to the Falklands for the oil if you like, but that is just your sad fantasy invented to make you feel better.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islanders don't want to be part of Argentina
Do you think we really care about 2000 MAlvinenses?/
Too bad the Chagosian did have a choice with the brits!!
Tomorrow,Argentina gives a good deal to uk,and you Malvinenses are history!!
Stupid bloody brit empire!!
You've tried buying them before ..... there's no 'good deal' that you can offer that would be acceptable.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dream on !
It always amuses me when the Argies bring up what the UK did to the Chagossians to support their position. Yet at the same time their position advocates the UK doing to the Falkland Islanders exactly what it did to the Chagossians. Another of the many examples of Argie doublethink...
Nov 26th, 2011 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0120
Nov 26th, 2011 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody wants another war.
Sensible people (not facists like Think et al) want to see if we can resolve this dispute without young men and women from both sides having to sacrifice their lives.
Don't see why we shouldn't hear what the RG's have to offer. If its reasonable, sensible and takes into account all interests then why not go to the next stage and start formal talks?
I'm sure the pragmatic Falkland Islander “Stakeholder” would understand and want to know whats on offer as well!
So 119, go on make your offer.
I understand it quite well.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the FI functions as a distinct entity it is only because such independence is granted by Britain. Participation in the Commonwealth games and parliamentary association is not by any measure an indication of statehood apart from Britain, and 14 other BOTs, none of which are
considered “countries”, means the FI is not in any way unique. The disconnect here is that the UN grants the FI certain rights which the British have failed to observe or formally implement insofar as constitutional framework is concerned.
This creates a set of contradictions, e.g. 1514 affected colonies but you maintain you are not a colony, yet claim 1514 applies to you; you claim you are a country and yet you claim you are British; etc. No Australian or Canadian considers himself “British”, they are Australian, or Canadian. This indicates a lack of national identity for islanders.
When these contradictions are seen within the context of the sovereignty debate, it becomes clear that the issue of colonialism or nationality becomes merely a distraction, as the party which seeks inclusion or recognition (islanders, per the article's author) seeks it not from Britain (who has actual power to grant it by virtue of its de facto administration), but rather they seek it from Argentina who currently has no power whatsoever in the situation, as if Argentina could set British policy. This further benefits the continuation of the status quo, as islanders can claim to be one thing or the other depending on what is convenient. 1514? Oh yes we're a colony. Energy production? No, no, we're a country.
Please. Which is is mate? You can't be both labor and tory. You can't be both field and stanley. You can't be both a Falkland national and a British national. For all the faults that Argentina has...at least we are consistent and unwaivering in our position. Where are your embassies? Where's the “uniqueness” when there are 14 other BOTs, none of which are countries? Please.
You're under the impression that they have to be either, or have to care what you think. This is not the case.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0^__^
Well, only if they have qualms about appearing to embrace hipocrisy. I think the FIG cares very much what others think, as demonstrated by both recent visits abroad to Uruguay and the Caribbean as reported in this site. Brazil's cooperation with Argentina certainly doesn't help either. One would think in such a situation, the best course of action would be anything other than outright self-evident duplicity. Why, would Brazil say, would we consider the FI a country whose energy production concerns would be so negatively affected, when such obvious questions about the FI persist? You might not care what Argentina thinks, and that is expected - but as for whether or not others think just like Argentina, it behooves you to not make it easy for those third parties to side with Argentina against you.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which is why these are valid questions I've raised. Under the current political framework - a British constitutional framework - the FI is not a country any more than Bermuda, BVI or Gibraltar. These are not considered nations by the
British, only territories, which is to say as far as Britain is concerned, 111's
points 1-5 are of no consequence to the British, though they may indicate peculiarity. Likewise, having a team in the bloody games makes not one bit of difference insofar as the British constitutional framework is concerned, and the same holds true for the UN. The fact remains that the FI never declared independence from anyone, and there are no FI embassies, like Australia or Canada have, for example. And 14 other BOTs means the FI is not unique - perhaps the relationship is peculiar, yet a peculiar situation does not a country make.
You make your points with certainty in the current climate when interests are aligned - that's all well and good, but if oil is abundant and in 25-50 years actually becomes a key energy source for the UK, it will become a wedge issue between the FI and Britain. It always comes down to a power struggle where energy's concerned.
Which is why these are valid questions I've raised
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Valued to whom
you or Argentina,
The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory BOT,
That is the answer to your question, anything else that the islands agree with the British government, is between them and the government, and not Argentina,
The only wedge being pushed is yours, the running of the islands is
Not anything to do with Argentina, full stop.
@123
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 01514 affects non self governing territories, and the Falklands remain a non self governing territory, so 1514 does still apply. The only reason the Falklands remain on the UN list of NSG territories is because Argentina blocks their removal. That doesn't change the fact that the FI consider themselves decolonised.
Which UN granted rights has the UK failed to observe or implement wrt the Falkland Islanders?
It's entirely possible to hold Falkland Island Status, ie Falkland nationality and British Citizenship. That are not mutually exclusive. Just as European Union citizenship does not preclude British citizenship and visa versa. The Dominions did not get their own citizenship until 1948, and they had all been independent countries since 1931. There was a common citizenship until then, they were all “British subjects”.
Whether the Falklands are a “country” or not, by your or anyone else's definition is an irrelevance.
More like full ahead flank. From the Argentine perspective you're attempting to extract natural resources which rightly belong to Argentina. Having illegally usurped Argentine territory for over 100 years you think the GOA will idly stand by while the FI develops finds underneath Argentina's continental platform?
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, they might not be able to deter you militarily, but they will slow you down and they're certainly not going to make it easy for you. Seemingly duplicitous statements, calling yourselves a colony or a country depending on what benefits the status quo, and calling for inclusion, as Mr. Fowler does, not upon the British who control your status but rather upon powerless Argentina - these are all self-detrimental positions.
The fact of the matter is that the FI aren't a country, they never were a country, and if the FI wants to be a country there are steps to be taken not with Argentina but with the British in order to become a country, which so far have not been taken by the FIG at all. Calling on Argentina for inclusion or recognition is like asking a baker to fix your car, we simply have nothing to do with it. Our problem is with Britain, and we deal with Britain until such time as Britain chooses to empower the FIG to speak for itself - currently it does not.
This is not racism, bigotry or bile. These are simply the parameters set by the British, which not at all benefit the people of the FI. Unexplainable and seemingly duplicitous or distractionary statements and accusations like Mr. Fowler's above can only elicit more suspicion on the part of Argentine people upon islanders.
Statements such as “we are a country and therefore you shouldn't X, Y, Z”, the basis of which (“we are a country”) can't be backed up by fact, will never lead to recognition, reconciliation, or cooperation.
Or, don't you distrust Argentines because you perceive from them open hipocrisy and contradictory statements that make you doubt their honesty on history?
See their you go again changing the subject,
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They try to enlighten you, but Argentina just do not under stand
How you can be British, and still run your own affairs,
Their are and will be things that you will not be told,
What countries get up to is for them, and them only,
,
I would imagine the reason the islanders do not trust you, might have something to do with the way you treat them,
If Argentina ever got their way, [please feel free to prove me wrong]
they would not only take over the Falklands, but would either de populate the place, change the law, to make it imposable for them to live their, or most likely flood the Falklands with thousands and thousands of argentine citizens, and most like, ,and likely change everything the islanders ever know or believed in, they would in time destroy everything British,
Because from that day they would be argentine citizens, and would almost certainly be out voted by argentines,
Justa my humble opinion.
The FI were never Argentine territory, and they were certainly not “usurped” illegally or otherwise. Any resources there belong to the Falkland Islanders. Not Argentina and not the UK. Oh, and the Falklands do not sit on Argentina's “platform”, any more than Chile sits on Argentina's “platform”.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whether the FI are a “country” or not is completely irrelevant. It makes absolutely no difference. England does not have embassies, yet England is widely considered to be both a “country” and a “nation”, just not a sovereign one... All this stuff about whether the FI are a “country” or not is just a red herring.
The FIG has been empowered by the UK to speak for itself, in those fora where it is able to, and represent itself where it can - you even point out above FIG visits to Uruguay etc. You'll be seeing more of that sort of thing in the future. They need to counter the aggressive lies peddled by the Argentine government.
The FIG is not calling on Argentina for “inclusion” or even recognition. They simply point out that if Argentina wants to talk sovereignty then it must include all stakeholders - and that includes the Falkland Islanders, speaking with their own separate voice. Argentina does not accept this, and that is Argentina's problem. Argentina wants the Falklands. The Falklands want nothing from Argentina - although normal relations would be good, but the the FI can live without Argentina and have done for decades.
Parameters set by the British? What parameters?
The fact is they distrust you because of they way you have treated them since the 1960s, and because of your armed invasion of 1982. Perhaps you should stop to consider that for a second.
By the way, you didn't spell out which UN granted rights the UK has failed to observe or implement wrt the Falkland Islanders?
125 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sorry, but did anyone say we were a 'country'? I don't think so. I didn't. You're arguing with yourself.
We can speak for ourselves in whatever forum we wish, in consultation with the UK if it has a bearing on foreign relations.
Britain doesn't 'control' our status. That would be very wrong of them in this post- colonial age.
They ask us what we want and then they help us to achieve it.
You might not like that, but that's how it is. It therefore makes no difference to the outcome whether you recognise us or not. As you say, the only recognition we need comes from Britain.
It's kind of you to be so concerned for us, but there really isn't any need. If Britain ever failed to respect our rights we would appeal to the UN.
The Islanders are exploiting their own resources. An act fully supported by 'live' UN Resolutions.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's attempt to 'spin' it as a unilateral act of Britain's is just that. The UK supplies the UN with full disclosure under Article 73, and the UN GA has made no comment on the subject, suggesting that it regognises that the Islanders' actions are perfectly legal.
Historically Argentina has 2 Myths:
1. The Inheritance Myth: whereby they inherited the Islands, and pretty well eveything else from Spain in 1816 (which they backdate to 1810). This in spite of the fact that Spain did not reliquish any teritory before 1836 and in spite of the fact that the POLITICAL agreement call uti possidetis juris wasn't reached until 1848 (backdated to 1810).
2. The Expulsion Myth: this has the British throwing off the Argentine settlement which was legitimately established either by uti or via an effective claim wrought through Jewett/Vernet. The reality of course is that any expulsion was perpetrated by the US which declined to recognise Argentine sovereignty, and when BA had a second go at establishing the sort of authority sufficient for a claim, the British turned up. We RECLAIMED that which we already had an argument for, and it was not Argentina we feared with regard to our right. We suspected that the US had its own designs. In 1833 the British invited (horses head job) the trespassing garrison to leave. The settlers remained with the exception of 4. Vernet even continued his trade there for a few years after.
Now all of this is proveable, which makes it faintly ridiculous that Argentina sticks to a position originally made out by Vernet in his 'Report' in 1832.
Argentina has other myths, more modern ones surrounding 'Self-Determination', 'Territorial Integrity', Exploitation of Resorces' etc.
Argentina likes its fantasies :-)
How am I changing the subject? I'm responding to Mr. Fowler, who claims in parts 1 and 2 of this series that Argentina is wrong for refusing to include the FIG in any possible talks, or even recognize the FIG's existence, based on assertions that the FI are a “country”. We're not talking about what the FIG is doing, we're talking about what Mr. Fowler said. Who's changing the subject, then?
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not about running your own affairs, it's about being PERMITTED to run a certain PERCENTAGE of your affairs, and on those grounds you'll find deaf ears in South America for bolstering your claim of being a proper “country” such that Argentina's actions are unwarranted and should not be supported. As long as this is the case, Britain's efforts to create “long-lasting, meaningful relationships” in SA will continue to be frustrated - and, by extension, FI's ability to profit. Indeed, Argentina's adjacent facilities would make it much easier to establish a framework of both profit and peaceful cooperation, in return for diplomatic negotiations which is what civilized nations do when there is a conflict.
Yet your approach is to dismiss even the existence of a conflict, after which you go and complain about how Argentina “treats you”, saying we dismiss your very existence or oppose your inclusion in dialogue when, in fact, we only dismiss THE SAME THING the British have dismissed about you: that the FIG has absolutely ZERO power of negotiation over sovereignty, beyond non-binding referendum: the very same UN rights of self-determination which, as a BOT, the Falklands clearly do not legally possess (need I spell it out more?).
Those are the “parameters” to which I am referring. So, why do people like Mr. Fowler ask that we include you? Get the British to empower you under whatever constitutional framework you wish, and we'd be happy to speak with you. Whether you are a “country” IS relevant to the FI because it's a claim you are making, and one you can't back up with fact.
Please don't spell it out any more. I think we get the picture.
Nov 26th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Fowler isn't asking you to 'include' us. He's telling you you'll get nowhere unless you do. And he's right. The British already did empower us to determine our own future.
And no-one said we were a country.
Fowler did, pt. 1 of this article series: http://en.mercopress.com/2011/11/10/the-falkland-islands-in-search-for-a-voice
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falkland Islands, with its capital Stanley is an actual country inhabited by a predominantly English-speaking population including many families who have been here for over 160 years.”
Sorry, no - and I don't think you do get the picture.
A country isn't “largely” autonomous, a country isn't permitted by another country to run a percentage of its affairs, a country doesn't simply represent a non-binding referendum when it comes to self-determination. A country IS autonomous. A country runs ALL of its affairs and needs no permission from a monarch or her government to do so. A country represents THE ENTIRETY of all factors regarding its own self-determination, without having to give a referendum to anyone.
Are you saying that a non-binding referendum to be taken under consideration amounts to being “empowered”?
Fowler says - and I believe many of you agree, correct me if I'm wrong - that “If its very existence is ignored by the Argentine Government, it is difficult for the Falkland Islands Government to be able to respond to the lies told about us by them, except through the medium of the British Foreign Office.”
Yet Mr. Fowler completely ignores that this is a BRITISH constitutional framework, not one imposed upon the FI by Argentina. He points to Argentina as the cause of the impediment when in fact Argentina has nothing to do with it. Well facts be damned, he just continues piling on:
“to the average Falkland Islander, who has no access to whatever may be going on behind the scenes, it can only seem that we are losing the global PR battle” and so on.
Don't tell us!! Tell the British, who imposed the BOT framework of administration. Did YOU get a vote in 81? Or in 2002? An actual vote, not a suggestion to parliament?
And you might consider that it's equally an impediment to Argentina to address islanders' lies about history.
The falkland Islands are not a 'country'.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are a 'non-self governing territory' for the purposes of Article 73 of the UN Charter.
As such a Territory they have certain rights under the Charter.
In addition the UK, as the 'Administering Power' has certain duties in relation to the Islanders. These include assisting them along the road to whichever future they choose.
The UK has now given the Islanders autonomy over every aspect of their lives except Defence and Foreign relations. The latter will go their way too when they are ready.
And they are practicing and honing those skills now.
Defence is always likely to be the duty of the Administering Power, unless the Islanders choose independence. In such an instance, a defence treaty with the old colonial power may be sufficient. Alternatively the support of the UN may also be required.
In the meantime, the choice still rests with the Islanders.
They have been vocally exercising the right to self-determination since 1967.
The truth is simple.
Argentina's spins are convoluted :-)
This is all nonsense.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you know what, it doesn't help your cause at all.
The only possible change in the Falkland Islands relationship with the UK would be it we were to become independent, perhaps with free association with the UK.
And if that happened, then Argentina wouldn't have any need to tell lies about us any more.
The truth is, I haven't a clue what you are arguing about. We aren't asking you for anything and we don't want to negotiate with you or argue with you. Our search for our own voice is our own business. We don't have to ask you or anyone else.
I don't even understand the words you are using. A ''non-binding referendum''?? What? What referendum?
Why are you getting your panties in a twist over this anyway? It wasn't written for you. It was written for the Penguin News and intended to stimulate debate in the islands. If John Fowler thinks there is a case for re- negotiating our relationship with the FCO, then lets have the debate. It has nothing whatever to do with you though.
Hmm .. and no, this wasn't me.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kinda funny mind :-)
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Argentina
So how do you view gibralter or the chanel islands
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0or the isle of man, western isles outer hebradies
do they not have an amount of autonamy,?
There's nothing convoluted about it and we're not spinning anything.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are not the ones complaining that the FIG is being ignored by Argentina, it is the islanders who so complain. And yet the very reason is the constitutional framework, a British framework, which precludes the FIG from having an actual say regarding any negotiations outside of a non-binding advisory role.
Why then do you complain that we ignore you? Are we not restrained by your BOT status from including you insasmuch as you are restrained by your BOT status from any decision-making power?
Why then complain that Argentina's ministers say there is “no more point in talking to the residents of the Falkland Islands than to the residents of Watford, or some other English town” when we both know this is the case under the British-imposed BOT status?
Where is the spin? You accuse us of racism and hate as the cause of your being ignored, yet you make no acknowledgment of the political reality in which you live as the true cause of your marginalization.
Nor do you make any attempt to remedy it with those who truly hold power, your “administrators”. Yet you are offended when you are labeled a “colony”, despite the fact that it appears you are so in all but name, and demand you be treated as a sovereign country by other countries in opposing Argentina's initiatives to negotiations - to which you would certainly be welcome to partake, if the British allowed you the smallest measure of self-determination guaranteed to you by the UN and amounting to no more than non-binding referendums (vocal ones, albeit, since 1967 as you say) for parliament and, ultimately, your monarch.
It is not Argentina who acts to block direct cooperation with the FI, it is the British who set up and maintain the framework that everything has to go through the FO, which is to the detriment of islanders. Why do you think Brazil and Uruguay are turning a blind eye to your requests? They can only deal with the FO, not you.
And its not the Argies that stated to the world that the British were holding them hostage
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Against their will,
Who is banning them all over the place?
Who gets others to also block their shipping?
Who is effectively blockading them?
U r still using a ruse,
But I bet if the Falklands were Argentinean, we would not be having this conversation would we,
Can you answer what would effectively happen to everything British, if Argentina ever got them,
How they would be treated, ect
Just a thought
140 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0What would the British have to do to 'allow us the smallest measure of self determination'?
They have already said, repeatedly and in every public forum, that 'there will be no negotiations about sovereignty unless the islanders wish it'.
They have already agreed to our constitution, written by islanders, that has the right to self determination at its heart.
It is our constitution that defines our relationship with Britain.
We aren't demanding anything from you. You are the ones asking something from us. You can't invite us to 'partake' in negotiations because there won't be any unless we agree.
To answer that question I could only offer my personal opinion. I would not want a reunification with Argentina that did not include a guarantee to islanders to continue to hold British citizenship if they so choose; to continue their self-government autonomously from Buenos Aires in a matter compatible with the federal framework; to protect their language, culture and traditions; to keep an independent judiciary; to set population limits; to guarantee the continuation of a democratic representative government and election of its own authorities with the ability of islanders to demarcate its own electoral districts as it sees fit; to be exempt from federal taxes if one chooses to remain a British citizen; to unencumbered travel between the islands and any commonwealth nation or territory; to free and unencumbered trade with any part of Argentina, exempting from federal tax any good or service to the extent it is produced or manufactured on the islands or its contiguous waters, and many more other right that I think would not be unreasonable were the islands to come under Argentine control.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would even favor UK troops remaining on the islands, contingent upon a land lease treaty for military areas used jointly by UK and Argentinian forces in the pursuit of mutual advantages. In short, a permanent treaty of peace that removes any semblance of black clouds hanging over any islanders' heads.
The only impeding factor to something like this, in my opinion, is that, as Fowler says, “Whether this insult to the barely emergent nation that is now Argentina happened or not matters little. Historically we believe that the Argentine sovereignty claim is unfounded...”
Were the FO and BOT status not present obstacles to direct communication between the FIG and the GOA, one could certainly envision some framework by experts from both sides to expand & study those beliefs and come to at least some conclusions, a first step to lead to others which the British won't permit.
Argentina is wrong not to recognise the Falkland Islanders' rights (whether they consider their homeland a “country” or not). This is what the Falkland Islanders complain about. Argentina is utterly wrong, and in contravention of a raft of UN Resolutions to boot for not recognising their rights. One byproduct of this for the FI is that they cannot get themselves removed from the C24 list. Argentina is actively blocking this in contravention of UN Resolutions. That is what the FI complain about. Not that Argentina “ignores” them, which it certainly does not. They can't do anything without Argentina complaining at every opportunity and in every forum going.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0By your definition above in comment 135 England would not be classed as a “country”, yet it is widely classed as such. It is even considered a “nation”. It just shows the irrelevance of your argument. They can call themselves whatever they like, “country” included.
The FIG has zero power over sovereignty negotiations? In case you hadn't noticed the UK is refusing to enter into any such negotiations specifically because the UK will not negotiate without the FIGs agreement. And as for being “permitted” to run their own affairs, I think you'll find the Falkland Islanders will disagree. They are in charge of their destiny. They hold the cards. If they wanted independence tomorrow the UK would grant it. If they wanted to integrate with Argentina tomorrow the UK would not stop them (although I'm sure hell will freeze over before that happens). This is because the UK obliged under international law to go along with whatever the Falkland Islanders decide. You just don't seem to get that. BOT status is not “imposed”. Equating the residents of Watford to the Falkland Islanders is specious. The Falklands have always been a legally separate entity to the UK. The FI might have British sovereignty, but it is not part of the UK any more than the States of Jersey (and Jersey is not a BOT).
It isn't the British that 'won't permit'. It is Falkland Islanders.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain would hand us over to Argentina tomorrow if we wished it, but we don't. We'd rather have the 'black clouds' and our freedom, than any kind of Argentine rule. And we don't need 'experts' to tell us what to think.
Malvinero, what you and your Argentine compatriots want is irrelevant. The only people who can decide the future of the Falkland Islands are the Falkland Islanders. See the UN Charter plus the raft of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands and NSG territories in general. Every single one references the right to self determination.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is absolutely nothing stopping the GOA from dealing directly with FIG. FIG is not prevented from doing so by the UK, and deals directly with other SA countries like Chile and Uruguay. The only thing stopping the GOA from dealing directly with FIG is the GOA, because to recognise FIG would mean recognition of the Falkland Islanders existence distinct from the UK.
144 J.A. Roberts
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0145 Monty69
i do belive that you will never convince him,
it is hard to convince him that if argentina did not invade,
and was not treating you badly, and telling obhorent lies everywhere they go, things may well be different,
I should add my last post was in response to 141's question.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I fail to see how you inferred that any interpretation of my #135 above would disqualify England. I mostly quoted Fowler and expanded.
Now I did indeed notice the UK would not negotiate without the islanders' ok - yet I also noticed the islanders can't negotiate on their own. Nor does a positive response from the FIG amount to anything other than a suggestion, devoid of any force of law by itself. People who are in charge of their own destiny are not usually so encumbered.
As for the UK being “obliged” by international law, clearly, Britain historically adheres to the notion that only might makes right and currently does so as well, in which light the plight of the Chagossians is not to easily dismissed. The most one could say is that the interests of islanders and the interests of the UK are aligned, yet on paper you have no real power besides the measure Parliament grants you.
What would the British have to do to 'allow you the smallest measure of self determination'? Something akin to the Canadian Constitution Act of 82. Does is really matter that the FIG wrote its own constitution, when in fact the legal authority for its very existence lies with the Monarch, the Privy Council, and Parliament? Where, I ask, does this framework allow for any input whatsoever from the FIG, except in a purely advisory capacity?
And how advisory will that capacity remain if or when the interests of the FIG and the interests of Parliament are no longer perfectly aligned? You depend on unwritten rules for your clout, yet naively choose to ignore the impact that an abundant energy source might mean for the UK and Europe in the near future.
When their interests conflict with yours, and they will eventually, will you remind them of their obligations under the UN?
Or will you weigh your options and put their “deferrence of sovereignty” stance to the test? Time will tell.
If it wasn't convoluted, you'd use less words.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I wasn't aware that the Islanders were complaining about Argentina ignoring them. Indeed, as I understand it, the positively relish the prospect.
Might and right are irrelevant.
The Islands are undoubtedly British both historicall and legally. Article 73 clearly makes out Britains obligations, as clearly as Article 74 makes out Argentina's. The Charter is a Treaty enforceable in international law and Britain is fully meeting itsobligations.
Argentina is in breach of Article 74.
So for all the BS about Britain maintaining its position with the threat of force, the reality is that Britain complies where Argentina does not.
In compliance with 1514, and the Chater, Britain fully recognises the Islanders right to choose their own future. The day they decide that they want independence, is the day they'll get it. Possibly with a sigh of relief from the British Government.
Until then, the power lies with the Falklanders, and yes, its political spin to suggest otherwise.
Our 'unwritten' constitution has worked pretty well for 800 years. Ifs, buts and maybe's are just an attempt to muddy the waters.
The Falklanders rule the Falklands.
Nothing Argentina can do.
There's nothing to stop the FIG negotiating on its own, and considering FIG makes the laws in the Falkland Islands your assertions are way off the mark.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Most thinking Brits would agree with you regarding the Chagossians. But what happened to them is exactly what you are advocating for the Falkland Islanders, completely trampling over their rights. Surely, if you support the rights of the Chagossians, you would also support the Falkland Islanders? Surely? Just raising the plight of the Chagossians as some kind of justification for the Argentine position in fact holes the Argentine position below the waterline - an classic example of Argentine doublethink.
FIG acts in more than a purely advisory capacity. I would have thought that was self evident, but we can't force you to accept that. New Zealand referred cases to the Privy Council Judicial Committee until as recently as 2003. Yet the whole world accepted New Zealand as a fully independent country for decades before that. There are 16 independent countries which share the same Monarch as the Falkland Islands yet nobody questions their independence. Why all of a sudden do the Privy Council and the Monarchy mean FIG is somehow incapacitated? Any other residual powers the UK retains are entirely consistent and in fact in compliance with her international and UN obligations as the Administering Power for the FI. Your arguments really are looking rather flimsy.
If it wasn't so convoluted I would. Then again, we didn't decide the FI should be a BOT.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps most islanders do positively relish the prospect of Argentina ignoring them. Mr. Fowler, however, does not seem to be one of them. Nonwithstanding this, your very assumption that the islands are undoubtedly British both historically and legally is exactly the kind of attitude that call into question islanders' very ability to discuss in good faith. It does nothing for trust and mutual cooperation, let alone to speak of islanders' claim that argentine people are brainwashed from youth when you so easily accept the British version of events without so much as questioning it. As it stands, only one party, Argentina, continues to employ an open and honest approach, encouraging criticism of its conclusions regarding historical events as well as further study, while both islanders and britons stick to their bottom line, offering no dialogue whatsoever.
Instead of jumping to conclusions, why don't we choose to operate within the confines of rigorous analysis of history and study of documents? There seems to be a lot of opposition to this, unlikely for a people who think they are so sure that Argentina has not been wronged in any way and its demands are baseless. Why then is there a knee-jerk denial whenever it comes time to defend your claims and conclusions upon rigorous examination?
Or is it rather that the facts don't matter, because your bottom line is that might and right are irrelevant only to those who use might to establish right. There's nothing stopping the FIG from negotiating on its own, except of course any legal authority to do so or to by itself empower any conclusion. You still don't see that, in the Chagossian analogy, you're not the Chagossians - you're the Americans, deposited by a foreign power by force of arms.
But at least you didn't dub the Chaggosians “murderers” when you kicked them out. I suppose that's what passes for progress, unfortunately.
The truth ISN'T convoluted - remember?
Nov 27th, 2011 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0What good faith are you talking about. You immediately assume that a conversation has to take place. This is incorrect. The Islanders are under no obligation to enetr into talks with Argentina. No more than Britain is, and please, don't quote all those long dead Resolutions. i did enjoy that bit about the honest and open approach however, I do enjoy a good laugh first thing in the morning ;-)
My rigorous analysis is here - it's simple, not convoluted it's my 'very assumption' (with a lot of hard work) -
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
and yes, I believe that Argentina has not been wronged and that its demands are, indeed, baseless.
The historical facts are fun - but the Charter was the game-changer.
The Chargossians are irrelevant to this discussion. Merely an attempt to gain some moral high ground. As for the Falklands, we only kicked out trespassers, no-one else :-)
You are right, the islanders are under no obligation to enter into talks with Argentina.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Likewise, Argentina is under no obligation whatsoever to sit idly by and continue to watch while its territories and natural resources are illegally usurped, and its requests to peacefully remedy the situation are continually ignored. Along those lines, Argentina is also under no obligation to facilitate the continued illegal exploitation of said resources by allowing foreign-flagged vessels to enter into its territorial waters for such purposes. Neither is Brazil, Uruguay, or any other nation under any obligation to facilitate access of their ports to said naval vessels, nor any other vessels of war, nor is any South American nation under any obligation to hold good, long-term meaningful relations with the UK.
After all, the Chinese will still be quite hungry for both foodstuffs and oil, lest I fail to remind you they have substantial investments in South America and these investments will only rise in importance in the future. A polar shift of allegiance will greatly depend on the issue of sovereignty, as will be your ability to capitalize on the opportunities you now see before you. I assure you that China will take steps to safeguard and improve the viability of its investments in South America, and if your ports are open to British warships I dare say ours are open to the Chinese.
So we can play it that way if you like. It would however be mutually beneficial for those islanders who consider themselves to have a certain amount of intellectual capacity to work together with their Argentine counterparts, highlight the places where we can find some middle ground, and go on from there - recognizing what each party can or cannot conclusively extract from history, as I'm sure we have things you don't know about and you have things we don't know about.
Continuing to behave in this manner will, in the long run, prove detrimental to islanders.
China ! Unlikely.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0China has an avowed 'hands off' policy. China also has extensive investments in the UK and Europe. It also the largest holder of US bonds. Argentina is unlikely to be as important.
You are correct about you neighbours however, all of whom already openly and publicly support Argentina's arguments. They have to. Uti possidetis juris is as important to them as it is to Argentina. At least at a historical level, if not a political one.
Of course, like most political support anywhere it's all smoke and mirrors.
I am reliable informed that equipment for the oil industry still passes through Brazillian ports. And that Argentina's support in Chile is more rhetorical than substantial.
As for whether negotiations would be 'mutually beneficial', well that's a moot point. The Islanders don't trust Argentina enough, and after 1982 it'll be many a generation before they do.
As for what we know. I know a man who has spent much of the last few years going through the Archives in both London and Buenos Aires. I doubt that anything very exciting remains hidden.
And political alliances shift, particularly in this ever-changing world. I could easily take your last sentence and turn it around.
If you weren't blinkered, you'd see that!
I do see that, and I also see that we've lost everything we had to lose already. There simply is no downside for us to keeping up the pressure. As for China's hands-off policy, that all depends on Taiwan. The fact that China is the largest holder of US bonds works to China's advantage; once their domestic spending is up to par the bonds won't be needed and will be but a bargaining chip to be used to further Chinese ends on K street. Some equipment may pass through Brazil, but not the heavy equipment you need. Even if you get it, there's still the small matter of transporting crude for processing, and without South American support that is a long and expensive trip that eats up substantial overhead. That's your half of the “mutually beneficial” that pays for it, by the way.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yet for all the grandstanding and self-victimization of Mr. Fowler and his adherents, islanders fail to recognize that at the very core of the argument lies the acceptance or rejection of Uti as a legal principle. It boggles me to think of islanders complaining of Argentina's denial of the legitimate existence of the FIG when the FIG's position entails, in and of itself, a denial of the validity of the legal principle by which Argentina and all countries in South America are founded. You depend on too many external factors to survive, let alone run things smoothly, and you know it.
Trust in Argentina is irrelevant - what is relevant is a trustworthy framework, that establishes safeguards and guarantees for both sides. As long as islanders question the legality of Argentina's own existence, and the legal principle by which Argentina's territory is established, no such framework can come to fruition. I posit that in the long run, you'll have much more to lose than we do, and for what? Not much more than to uphold largely discredited British sovereignty rhetoric, when both sides could respect each other's rights, share, and prosper together.
Shame.
Crude does not have to be transported for processing. There are both off-shore and on-shore options.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uti possidetis juris is not a legal principle. It never was. It was a political agreement reached between the representatives attendant at Lima in 1848. (Argentina only sent low-level observers). Typically the agreement was dressed up in quasi-legal terms, given a latin name and backdated to 1810.
Like all treaties however, it only bound those who signed it. And then not very well apparently.
It is not widely recognised and was treated with some contempt by the Beagle Channel arbitration panel in 1977. The arbitration that Argentina signed up to, but then didn't like the result and so backtracked on its original agreement. Shame.
Britain does not accept uti, and the lack of inheritance from Spain (which in any case did not cede any territory legally till 1836) creates a huge gap in Argentina's argument.
They know no such thing.
To respect each other's right, both sides must have rights. You are still making that presumption.
Argentina's only hope of resolving the legal/historical case is to take it to the ICJ.
Like Rome, all roads lead there apparently.
No ICJ = no endgame and Argentina can only hope that Britain gets weak enough not to be able to defend the Islanders. You have few guarantees in that area.
We don't actually employ much in the way of rhetoric, usually just the same bland statement. Argentina on the other hand ..... without the Falklands, just what woud unite Argentines ??
Modern Argentine territories were founded on the 'Might is Right' principle; through war with the indigenous peoples and through wars amongst the colonisers. In fact the truth is that if we go far enough back in all nation states history we find that mankind migrated around the world fought one another until the current nation state status quo developed & the UN Treaty was founded
Nov 27th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina and its fellow South America supporters are under obligation to the UN Security Council & the Falkland Islanders. That obligation is provided by UN Charter Articles 2, 73 & 74 rogether with the terms of resolution 1514(XV) which specifically forbid the repression of the Falkland Islanders political and economic development and provides the Falkland Islanders with the unconditional right to freely determine their status, yet Argentina represses the Falkland Islanders contrary to its treaty obligations. In addition Argentina undermines international peace & security by seeking to threaten & subvert British territorial integrity
As for the objection for the use of the word country to describe the Falkland Islands I gave you a answer to your question on how could Falklanders possibly describe the Falkland Islands as their country, i.e. a common collective identity, recognition as a distinct political and geographical entity and not least independent control of its borders under its own jurisdiction. Statehood & sovereignty are most frequently associated with the word country, but that is an assumption of the part of the reader, it does not necessarily follow that sovereignty sits with a country if that country elects to pool its sovereignty in a wider free association. Such is the case for the Falkland Islands. The reason the Falkland Islanders choose to be British is because they are British, feel British & want to be British. Let them be
I would be interested to understand the case for the inclusion of South Georgia & the Sandwich Islands in Argentina claim. Please explain
(138) Redhoyt
Nov 27th, 2011 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the tip..........
Kinda funny mind :-)
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/United_Kingdom
Oh, what rubbish. Uti dates from roman times - do you really think they just made it up in 1848 and just gave it a fancy latin name for show?
Nov 27th, 2011 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I really wanted to look, how many instances of the concept would I find prior to 1848 in Lima? Not the least of which is the United States inheriting territories formerly belonging to Britain - your argument precludes the validity of the original 13 colonies being part of the USA, yet I hear no criticism of that “inheritance”. You see, you do employ a good amount of rhetoric - and as with any weak rhetoric, it falls apart when applied to other circumstances elsewhere when its inherent arbitrariness is shown.
Likewise the Spanish not ceding until 1836 - let's use the same method up north. Is US independence celebrated in 1776 when declared, or in 1783 when the British formally cede in the Treaty of Paris? Once again, your interpretation falls to pieces in the face of scrutiny, its arbitrariness laid bare for all to witness. You can't knock Argentine independence as of 1816 if you don't likewise dismiss US independence as of 1776. Perhaps picking and choosing your facts helps you feel better about yourself, and that much I can certainly understand.
Which, as impressive a body of work as it is, I see your website is missing certain key events in the timeline - the absence of which would corroborate the narrative that Argentina has never been wronged and its claims are entirely baseless. Although I will admit I have learned new facts I did not know about before, and found it an overall interesting read, albeit inaccurate by way of omission.
As for presumptions, I make none. I only read what is on paper and say “this is written”, nothing more. Truth has a way of rooting out arbitrary positions, no matter how convoluted or entrenched they are. Argentina cannot repress what it does not possess - let Britain grant islanders rights guaranteed by the UN, something that to date has not been done, nor is for us to do for you.
“what rubbish. Uti dates from roman times - do you really think they just made it up in 1848 and just gave it a fancy latin name for show?”
Nov 27th, 2011 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're confused. Uti possidetis is roman, and means “as you posess”. Uti possidetis juris is a new term. They are very different.
Also, they aren't law.
Utis Possidetis is not the same as Utis Possidetis Juris.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Several problems.
1. As has been pointed out Utis Possidetis Juris was an agreement between Latin American states achieved at the Conference of Lima in 1848. Argentina did not sign.
2. Britain has a system of Common Law and does not recognise Roman Law such as Utis Possidetis.
3. Utis Possidetis Juris is not recognised as a universal principle of international law. In a dispute with Britain, which does not recognise it, it would not apply.
4. And this is the real kicker. Utis Possidetis Juris was an agreement with South American states to settle border disputes by fixing the borders at 1810. In 1810, the rump of the penal colony largely abandoned in 1807 was under the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del la Plata based in Montevideo. The very principle under which Argentina claims inheritance would actually confer a claim upon Uruguay not Argentina.
But #4 is just another inconvenient fact to be ignored.
As to your claim America inherited the 13 colonies. No it didn't. They were formally ceded by the Treaty of Paris in 1873.
I notice you also claim Redhoyt's timeline is missing key events and airily dismiss it. What's missing then?
Anyone wanna bet he won't answer? Who'll give me odds?
Think - nobody escapes:-)
Nov 27th, 2011 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin - yes, you just made it up. The legal tenet is/was uti possidetis de fact ( to the winner the spoils). Uti possidetis juris is a politica arrangement dressed up as a legal one.
So yes, South America did indeed, just make it up..... and the backdated it!
Much the same as they did with independence. In 1810 BA decares for Ferdinand. In 1816 they declare independence, and then backdate it to Ferdinand's abdication.
Seeing a trend here ?
there is no uti possidetis juris. Britain does not recognise it. The world hardly recognises it.
A useful political tool in South America, nothing more.
No inheritance the, which makes the de juris side of Spain's recognition important. And there was no transfer - de juris- from Spain to South America, till after 1836.
Legal reality.
And I don't knock Argentina's independence in 1816. I do knock it for 1810.
Please let me know which key events are missing - I'm a little surprised you didn't immediately point them out :-) let me know about the inaccuracies - I am perfectly prepared to make additions if you can back up what you say with some source material.
I am, after all, in pursuit of accuracy.
Wait till the pdf comes out in january - its' twice the size, full references too :-)
To Mr. MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 27th, 2011 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A pleasure reading your posts...........................
Excellent debate skills, relevant issues and topics, good, concise English and no insults.
As you maybe already noticed, the position of the other side is quite obdurate and ”haughty”…………….. to put it mildly.
In my humble opinion; the only option left for us Argentineans is to continue our successful current policy of diplomatically, politically and economically pressuring Great Britain to disappear from the South Atlantic, leaving us in peace.
As Mr. O’Gara, Irish blogger and friend so correctly advises us:…….: Hit London where it really hurts them; hit them in their wallet.
As a matter of fact, the “Malvinas Issue” has evolved in the last couple of years from being quite a “Lost Cause” to becoming an functional instrument for Latin-American union and solidarity against an “Intransigent Atomic Bully from the North”.
Hoping for your continued participation in this forum…..
Respetuosamente
El Think
Chubut, Argentina
As Think states, Argentina does repress what it does not possess in direct violation of UN Charter Articles 2, 73 and 74. However political and economic pressure is not applied to Great Britain -Argentina lacks the means to do this - rather it is applied to the Falkland Islanders despite its prohibition in resolution 1514(XV). Something the Committee of 24 should condemn
Nov 27th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil has much to gain over the next 50 years, Argentina does not figure highly in that gain whilst Brazilian and Argentine interests are not the same
Think is wrong when he advocates further escalation of repression of the Falkland Islanders is the only Argentine option. This is no option. It is contrary to the UN Charter and shall eventually lead to action by the UN Security Council, to which Argentina is obligated to obey. Rather Argentina's only lawful option under international law and UN Treaty is to put its claim before the ICJ
What Mr. O'Gara's strategy fails to consider is that if London can be hit in its wallet, so can Buenos Aires
It is ridiculous to attempt to portray Great Britain as an “Intransigent Atomic Bully form the North”. If Britain chose to bully, Argentina would have no choice but to obey. It is much weaker politically, economically and militarily. Think, be careful what you wish for, it might come true
164 “Domingo” definition:
Nov 27th, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Thug, a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire”
Thuggery is an apt description of Argentina and its LatAm allies persecution of the Falkland Islanders
Nov 27th, 2011 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I simple read the situation differently. I see a British Executive who are untroubled by Argentine diplomatic tantrums. They turn a blind, offer the other cheek. Simple put, whist annoying like a fly, it is not worth the effort to swat. Rather the British concentrate on more strategic issues of real import
I see a Brazil that admires and covets the advanced navy and the technologies, skills and experience and know-how to use it very effectively that the British Royal Navy possesses:
Type 26 Surface Combatant, Type 45 Anti-Aircraft Destroyers, Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft carriers with Low Observable F35C, Astute class attack submarines, Vanguard class SSBNs and its advanced replacement and many other developments which are work-in-progress. Looks like Brazil likes the look of the big league and wants its own team. Don't think Argentina can help there; although perhaps Great Britain can...?
As long as Argentina has this deluded obsession with the Falklands
Nov 27th, 2011 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She will always play 2nd fiddle to others, more advanced in forward thinking
For a government to be more concerned about a piece of land she does not even own 300 odd miles of her coast,
Must be having more problems at home, than we are all led to belive.
You cannot be permitted to win by negotiation,
That you lost by an illegal violent act.
Just a thought.
.
Fundamentally, I think Argentina miscalculates.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina were to make Great Britain it's firm ally, it would prosper.
How to do it?
~168 Very, very, difficult.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much like the labour of Sisyphus without the foregoing intellect: you know the Greek, who after death, to appease the gods had to roll a boulder up a steep hill, but each time it rolled back.
It seems the same with the Argies - when one of them seems to want to join in constructively with the discussion the old hatred of the UK seems to spring out of his chest (much the same as the baby Alien).
I just cannot see this generation under the thrall to CFK shaking off the Peronist baggage and climbing out of the third world they are in.
If Argentina were to make Great Britain it's firm ally, it would prosper.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How to do it
Argentina was a firm ally of uk for most part.Did it prosper?
MInd you the Argentine military were very pro brits.
Did it help Argentina???
Or it was better off in WWII when the brits were out of the picture???
'Argentina was a firm ally of uk for most part.Did it prosper?'
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, yes. The Argentinian 'glory years'.
Sorry for you thinking the hate is from Argentina.its the British who are the haters and there is plenty of here most of the time. As I've said previously the Brits are always looking outward and never at themselves and do not see other ways of living as anything other than an affront to the British way. They only look for fights unless they're getting money.they don't leave their heaven for the good of others but for money,wealth or a fight to get to the money.the first capitalist state you know(exploiters)
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the Brits understand the Argentine position and sympathise with their yearning. I think they understand. What they do not agree with is hostility against British people. Go down this route and there is no sympathy, only anger. Anger which can turn into violence; violence that Argentina and its allies cannot sustain without the end of their own very existence. A massive risk, that few but the foolish irrealists would enter
Nov 27th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Better that Argeniria and Great Britain and the Falkland Islanders decide to put aside differences and agree to work together for mutual benefit. With such a strategy, Argentina could achieve economic and social progress that had previously been unimaginable
Allied much could be achieved, beyond the wildest scope of Argentine planners hopes and dreams, as enemies it only bodes the destruction of Argentina as we know it
I don't think they do understand, in that they are the ones who began their hostility. There is abundant misinformation about history on either one of two sides. From everything I've read to my last response I can clearly see that the Argentine position entertains every single one of the timeline points of the British position; rather it is the British position which ignores events in the Argentine timeline.
Nov 27th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is this absence, this omission, of key events which rationalize their usurpation and nullify Argentine claims. Indeed, had these events not happened, they would be correct - but they did, and for that reason the British point of view remains factually wrong. I have read British omissions of facts insofar as the islands' discovery; the several treaties the British had with Spain which established their withdrawal from the islands and the limited rights of British subjects in the islands thereafter; a willful ignorance of the principle of Uti be it legal or factual when no such objection is raised when the same principle is applied to other nations such as the United States.
Likewise I've seen since my last post a comment which, ludicrously, states Argentina's independence doesn't “count” until Spain's cession; yet no one has responded to my claim that the US's independence is not commonly regarded as taking place by Britain as being legally effective from the Treaty of Paris onward, rather, from July 4, 1776. Another instance, first you claim Argentina wasn't signatory to Lima, then you say that due to Lima's stipulations the islands should belong to Uruguay. Which is it? You've lied to yourselves so many times you can't even make up your minds.
Complete hogwash, arbitrariness when it comes to established facts. Not to mention the total lack of acknowledgement for the numerous commissions of Argentine officers; or the outright changing of history branding those who resisted British rule as “murderers”.
In short: facts be damned, right makes might.
You cannot change history,
Nov 28th, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0but you can alter the future, so far as its poss,
and to be fair, the only fact of interest,
is that the islanders wish to remain british ,full stop.
but the ICJ may alter this possition,
but who will be the first to try ??
delboy says, those who dares ?
Sorry for you thinking the hate is from Argentina.its the British who are the haters and there is plenty of here most of the time. As I've said previously the Brits are always looking outward and never at themselves and do not see
Nov 28th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yuleno: Do you think I really care what the brits thinks?/
The system that we have in place now is crumbling fast.17 century system,is old.Is not possible to fix it!
The only problem is: How the transition is going to be.Peaceful or violent?
MY guess,is that the transition process,will have to destroy the old structure...then the new,probably a more spirtual and less materialistic system will emerge....So I do not think much,what is happening in Europe,USA,etc.....
The key will be,where is going to be the safest place to be when these transitions happens.....Argentina I think will be fairly safe.....
@M.Argentinas,
Nov 28th, 2011 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You put quite a lot of work into your interesting posts, somewhat like we heard from Alexandro Argerich @ the lcelander.
Such dedication. What a pity that it's all based on lies.
This is not your land & these resources that we are exploiting are not yours either.
Of course you are continously ignored, you have no rights in the Falklands, so why should we give you what you want? We will continue to ignore your demands. And demands they are too. How would you like it if a foreign power “demanded”that you hand over your country?
As you well know, Argentina wants the Falklands & other British lslands because they don't want any competition in the carve up of Antarctica.
l would be interested to know what you personally base Argentina's claims on South Georgia & the South Sandwich lslands, bearing in mind that the British were there first & Argentina has NEVER owned these lslands.
Eagerly awaiting your prompt reply. Thank You.
“How would you like it if a foreign power “demanded”that you hand over your country?”
Nov 28th, 2011 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right, see, that's just it - it's not a “country” at all.
Monty at #131 above seems to disagree with you on this, “I'm sorry, but did anyone say we were a 'country'? I don't think so. I didn't. ” Well there you go Monty, Isolde did. Not enough? Ok Redhoyt at #136, “The falkland Islands are not a 'country'.”
So why the break in ranks? Why the dissention among your ranks - such a shame, and after all that convoluted “logic” to present a united front.
Your actions only demonstrate your arbitrariness when it comes to picking and choosing facts, positions, third party entities to hide behind depending on whose stance benefits you the most at any particular point in the debate. We're a Country! No, we're not! We're a colony, where 1514 is concerned! We're a self-governing territory! Yes, that's it! No! We're a country again now! On and on you go. No wonder your credibility on the issue is less than zero.
Take that attitude, add the numerous instances of omissions of historical events which you continue to ignore (and call us “brainwashed” while your at it - brilliant!), add your unreasonable and given the history dangerous doctrine of no negotiation under under any circumstances (oh, intransigence - always the mark of a wise people) and you basically get the mind of every single individual who's ever defended British sovereignty.
So advanced are they in their delusions that even when you point out the fact to them that Britain no longer claims the islands on the basis of prior discovery, a fallacy so vile they could no longer continue to deceive the international community with, they still will not even admit the possibility that the islands were taken and are currently possessed illegally.
Nor would they entertain any diplomatic discussions as to the historical facts, for they can't defend their position academically in any way. How I would feel is to at least SEE THE PROOF.
Sorry lad - no banana.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You claim that there are gaps in the timeline without identifying what gaps you refer to. Reveal them, support them with some evidence and I'll happily fill in the supposed gaps. You are too vague.
As for uti, it remains a largely untested theory of constructive possession. Uti possidetis de facto is certainly an old legal tenet (to the victor the spoils), one that Argetina had, to a greater or lesser degree, in 1832 in that it held territory - albeit not as much as it would subsequently claim.
The de jure right still vested in Spain at that time.
Now this is one of the issues. At what point does the 'de facto' become so uncontestable that it is, in reality, also 'de jure'.
Argentina's problem is that if it manages to show that the de facto occupation of spanish territory, eventually became the de jure country that it now is, the the British are likely to have exactly the same argument over the Falklands.
Argentina argues that Britain only has de facto rights, but that de jure rights still vest in them, without ever showing quite when they gained a de jure right over what is now Argentina, from Spain.
See, I told you ... the truth is sooo simple :-)
Sometimes people use the phrase “country” to describe the place they originate from in the same sense of word “homeland”. As previously discussed, being a country does not necessarily mean exercising nation statehood or sovereignty. Border control suffices
Nov 28th, 2011 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, a person from the people of a once non-self-governing territory could quite legitimately describe their lands as a “country” in either sense depending on their political and apolitical views
In an open society it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to hold different views
The recent history of the once non-self-governing territory is clear: The Falkland Islands people transitioned its political status from a Dependent British Crown Colony to a self-governing British Overseas Territory by free choice in accordance with Article 73 and resolution 1514
A historical fact is that 151 years ago Argentina ratified the Convention of Settlement that ended all existing differences between Great Britain and Argentina and restored perfect friendship between the two states
Another historical fact is that the Falkland Islands have been British Territory continuously for 178 years and this provides the people of the Falkland Islands their identity
Another fact is that the United Nations Treaty provides that territorial disputes are settled peacefully outside of the UN organs or through the UN ICJ. Both the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government and British Government decline the former option in accordance with the Falkland Islanders democratically expressed wish, but the ICJ remains an option to settle the dispute
Argument and escalation promises only more strife. Rather reconciliation is needed between all parties together with good will, cooperation and friendship. I think all sides should embrace that path and start on the journey to true friendship, so they may live happily ever after together in peace
BTW did anyone notice he claims there are “omissions” in Redhoyt's timeline but despite a lot of verbiage and distraction, actually hasn't pointed out these omisssions.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Omissions, thats an interesting topic.
For a start, it is conveniently forgotten in Argentina that Vernet sought British permission for his venture, provided regular reports to the British, denied his interest was anything other than commercial (following the proclamation that named him Governor), urged the British to set up a permanent garrison, sent a representative to the islands in March 1833 to continue his venture under the British, provided the British with advice and at one time was seriously considered by the British as the ideal man to head up the settlement in Port Louis.
Interesting.
MalvinasArgentinas is btw, Alejandro Argerich, formerly of the School of the Americas, Fort Benning. Strange bedfellow for El Thicko to admire. You may also know him as Alex79818.
Forgot to address the distractor of 'First Discovery'. International law develops. It grows. What was recognised as true in 1700 is not necessarily still so in 1800.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now, it was recognised that mere discovery, without an application of authority was unlikely to be sufficient in the 1760's, which is why Byron was quickly followed up by Macbride.
In 1774 marks, sign, plaques, flags, coins and even, - what was that Spanish version - iron crosses, were an acceptable way of marking one's territory and not abandoning sovereignty. Still was in 1811 when the Spanish did it.
Simply turning up, firing a salute and sailing away again was long gone even when Jewett did exactly that :-)
But even plaques, etc had become contestable by the 1850's.
International law had moved on, and much of it in relation to issues of sovereignty were dealt with by cases such as Islas de Palmas in 1928 (goodbye geography).
So, recognising that one has to change with the times, Britain has developed its arguments along with the law.
A little strangely, Argentina has not.
No banana :-)
Still, all good fun and not to forget that the UN Charter changed EVERYTHING !!
maybe the british shuld listen to their country men, they got nothing in common with Argentine's they are Pirats and we are proud Argentine's we are not trying to divide Argentina into many different nations, we try to keep it together. while this thieves and ilegal aliens think they can push people around I cheer them go to UK and ask them to represent your people. we represent a country recognized by the world Argentina, if UK doesn't want to recognize fakland is not Argentina's faoult. ask your government to speak for you at the UN, last time I heard this isssue it was UK who didn't want to represent fakland, why blame Argentina in this report when we all know the facts are that UK does not wish to take the illegal aliens back that is sad when even your own country doesn't want you..
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0178 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 28th, 2011 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0'Break ranks', 'united front' ???What is this tosh and who do you think we are? Argentines?
I already told you that John Fowler's articles were intended to stimulate debate, and they are. And the essence of debate is that not everyone parrots the same rubbish without thinking about it. And the fact that we do have differences of opinion doesn't weaken our opinion. Good grief, what kind of a place and people are you? You're not making yourself very appealing.
And you have the barefaced cheek to call us intransigent, when you can do nothing but parrot the same crap that you were taught at school.
I'll offer you this personal opinion for nothing. I know it differs from what some other people think.
I couldn't give a stuff about whether or not you have three men and a dog here for five minutes in 1833. And I couldn't give a toss what happened to them. I think that something that may or may not have happened to a couple of people 200 years ago has no bearing on our situation now and is no basis for ruining a settled community of long standing such as ours.
I know other people disagree with me and are willing and happy to look for the historical sources to back up their arguments. Personally, I don't think it will or should make any difference.
''Nor would they entertain any diplomatic discussions as to the historical facts, for they can't defend their position academically in any way. How I would feel is to at least SEE THE PROOF.''????
Proof of what? This isn't an academic discussion and never will be. Get over it.
I quite liked the bit about brainwashing.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0To be brainwashed to have to have information 'pushed' into you.
But the British Government doesn't say anything.
Nothing in the schools. Nothing outside.
If you wish to be informed then you have to enquire and dig.
Brainwashing ! It's a game for Argies :-)
Mr. Fowler:
Nov 28th, 2011 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Real dialogue translated into Argentinean language means:
NEGOTIATE IN ORDER TO OCCUPY, nothing more, nothing less.
Please save your ink.
Philippe
I would like MalvinasArgentinas to answer lsolde's question
Nov 28th, 2011 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l would be interested to know what you personally base Argentina's claims on South Georgia & the South Sandwich lslands?
“In short: facts be damned, right makes might.”
Nov 28th, 2011 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(#174, MalvinasArgentinas)
Nice post, don't want to enter this debate right now, but on the small point above - it is usually accepted that 'might makes right';
hence China and Tibet, Russia and South Ossetia, SriLanka and the Tamils, etc.
It's pretty rare that to be 'right' means you become mighty, though many a demagogue has used this argument in a harangue of justification, and many a (eg Christian) king has gone to war with the 'right' of God On His Side.
Just very occasionally the disparity of might brings world opinion into the argument - like Israel and the post-war controlled 'palestinian territories'.
But this is - frustratingly for the one party - not the case in the dynamics of argument between Argentina, the UK and TFI.
if it is true that argentina is the nice guy,
Nov 28th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then what are the reports of argies boarding spanish ships in falkland waters,
189, We are just advising them not to enter our home without knocking, otherwise they will be perceived as thieves and/or British.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should try the same with a British flagged ship. Should be interesting...
Nov 28th, 2011 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Instead 184, I would pay all my attention the way people acquires territory in this case in 1833.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And in 1833 the islands became a british colony by the use of force, sth they werent before. Population and legal authority were expelled.
and argentina has a decreee 256/2010 all vessels trying to transit between Arg continental ports and islands ports or cross arg maritime spaces heading to a port in the islands must request prior authorization from arg government.
If might makes it right we are all Yanquis.I think something is wrong there.everyone knows it's not right it's just what Mao zedong would have called posturing.occupation is occupation ask any Palestinian.
Nov 28th, 2011 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Argentina was a firm ally of uk for most part.Did it prosper?'
Nov 28th, 2011 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, yes. The Argentinian 'glory years'.
really geoff? Who indoctrinated you? churchill? Why do you think Peron was soo popular? Because the people living after his policies,lived a LOT BETTER!
Higher wages,better benefits,health,education....and a long list of improvements......SO that fairy tale,they told you is a LIE!
#194, Malvinero1
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina increased in prosperity and prominence between 1880 and 1929 and emerged as one of the ten richest countries in the world, benefiting from an agricultural export-led economy as well as British and French investment.
Driven by immigration and decreasing mortality the Argentine population grew fivefold and the economy 15-fold.
. . .The Concordance regime strengthened ties with the British Empire ” Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Building_of_a_nation-state
No additional comment is needed.
nope
Nov 29th, 2011 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0To answer the question posed to me I don't believe Argentina has a strong case for Sandwich/Shetlands as an administrative dependency, but in all honesty I haven't looked closely at the issue. Personally I think Argentina could live without them, but given the British penchant for misinformation I think those claims are more overkill than anything else.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0What each one of you fails to realize is that islanders' intransigence is the very reason why recuperation is inevitable.
Suppose for a moment, for the sake of discussion, that Argentina comes up with undeniable historical proof that the islands did belong to Argentina and were so recognized by the UK prior to 1833:
What would the nations of the world believe you'd do then?
Recognize your mistake? Say “oh well sorry mate here's a royal deed for you RGs and 100+ years of backlease we'll be going now no hard feelings..”
Of course not. As a matter of fact I'm willing to bet my very life on the fact that islanders wouldn't even agree to see such evidence even after the UK formally accepted its validity. What then?
You're so invested in your fantasies and omissions and narratives about how you're the good guys that you'd continue your intransigence even in the face of irrefutable proof. What, then, is the reason why Argentina should acquiesce to Mr. Fowler's reasoning, when by all apparent measures not even the most undeniable proof would sway you?
Do you deny you would react in this way? Do you deny that even under the most optimum historical position favoring Argentina's lawful claim, you would still be unable to conceive of any possible circumstance under which you'd willingly allow for reunification?
That's the truth - islanders are beyond study, beyond facts, beyond rationality, beyond understanding. If our educational system has served us to remember a truth they'd just as soon see us forget, then it has done its job in at the very least empowering any average citizen to offer defence from falsehoods.
....and note yet again claims of omissions but he can't identify them. The defence rests milord.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Amazing how many words he can string together and say sweet FA.
Yes Malvinas“Argentinas”. We're all waiting with baited breath to see what you've got on the “omissions” in Hoyt's timeline...
Nov 29th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@197M.Argentinas,
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well you did at last answer my question about South Georgia & the SS.lslands, thank you.
Think didn't give a satisfactory answer & malen just ignored me, so l salute you for that.
So why, in your opinion, does Argentina claim these lslands & the Antarctic peninsular, knowing full well that the British claimed them long before Argentina.
There were no people in these territories until Argentina “populated” the Antarctic peninsular, even going to the extreme & flying a pregnant woman to the peninsular so that an Argentine baby would be born there!
Sounds like an “implanted” population to me.
As for “intransigence”, thats us! What do you want? Abject surrender?
We know that we are in the right. And there you have it.
Finally, what's all this uproar over how we class our“country”? Merely a term to describe OUR land. There's no breaking of ranks(as you'd wish).
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
197 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think there's much point discussing this with you any more.
You have got it absolutely right when you say that islanders would not abandon their home on the basis of some 'evidence' cooked up by the Argentines about something that happened nearly 200 years ago.
Your 'rights' are absolutely nothing compared to the eight generations worth of hard graft that have turned this country into what it is today. If you think we would just let you waltz in and take it you are deluded.
This is a perfectly rational position. You want to abuse us because we don't agree with you? Go ahead.
Your whole tone towards islanders, and the fact that you don't even address us directly, is quite incredibly patronising and, well, colonial. Even the word 'intransigent'......so the naughty islanders won't do what their betters tell them. Too bad.
As I said, the responsibility is with you to make yourself more appealing, and you're not doing a very good job of it are you.
I think MalvinasArgentinas is *adding* something to the debate that has been missing - an unheated attempt to present issues from Argentina's point of view with a certain detachment. For me, he is most welcome on this site.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite frankly, the number of words written on the issue *on this site* are probably a lot more than those written by Argentinan, UK and TFI officials put together.
Mercopress is a good ranting-board and counter-ranting-board, and it allows those with a need to shout - especially those that personally experienced 1982.
Perhaps this is the main purpose of Mercopress.
I could certainly 'pick the bones' out of the many postings and comments and, from them, prepare the best cases for all three parties for the UN, for C24, and for the ICJ.
If MalvinasArgentinas presents new perspectives, then welcome them; not least because they help his opponents to hone a better counter-case for the real forums of decision-making.
And if the British came up with some undeniable proof ..... ?
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
. . . . then you would have even more trouble getting Argentina to the ICJ.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although Argentina's claim for the South Sandwich & South Shetland Islands is due to the pugnacious territorial greed of its rulers; Argentina has always sought to expand its territories by annexation of other peoples land throughout its history, its dictatorships & totalitarian regimes being the worst proponents of their expansionist policy. These islands are claimed simply because Argentina covets them. In fact Britain discovered & claimed them since 1775, with supporting formal letters of patent continuously for the past 226 years
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To motivate and control the mob, Argentina's rulers employs politically motivated myths using the big lie propaganda technique. They began with the invention of the myth of expulsion, followed by the invention of myth of inheritance for the Falkland Islands, when in fact this difference was settled by Argentine Congress ratification of the Convention of Settlement
Then Argentina invented the whaling station myth for South Georgia & finally Argentina has invented the continental shelf myth for any other territory it covets
After all, Argentine rulers know as long as one can provide a narrative to the claim, then the big lie propaganda technique will ensure the mob is satisfied
MA has produced a self-induced hissyfit over a self-imagined hypothesis; I note officers of Spain have never reported a complaint to its court under the terms of the Nootka Sound Convention. This is probably because Patagonia wasn't occupied by Spain, expansion into Patagonia was prohibited by Nootka & the Falkland Islands were not adjacent to Spanish occupied territory
France, Britain, Spain, Argentina all had some claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands by virtue of their settlements. The Argentine claim rests primarily on the Mestivier's failed attempt to establish a colony in 1832; the rights of the Spanish sovereignty claim remained with Spain in 1833. However Britain exercises effective occupation & sovereignty
The ICJ is the best bet
202 GeoffWard2
Nov 29th, 2011 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.....
''That's the truth - islanders are beyond study, beyond facts, beyond rationality, beyond understanding.''
This isn't new; it's the attitude that led to the events of 1982. When you stop seeing people as human beings and stop trying to see things from another point of view, then any kind of inhumane treatment becomes possible and I find that quite frankly scary.
The idea that the only thing that matters is what happened in 1833 is also not new, and neither is using it as a reason to deny islanders any rights.
True, very true. Modern international law is vested in the UN Treaty and sets out clear requirements on member states with respect to Articles 2, 73 and 74 together. There is no doubt that resolution 1514 (XV)covers the case of the Falkland Islands, as resolution 2065(XX) confirms this explicitly. In the absence of agreement to negotiate further, the ICJ is the only legal option
Nov 29th, 2011 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I notice that great import is assigned the notion of the supremacy of the legal principle of uti possidetis. Argentina decided to use the legal principle of uti possidetis in its invasion and occupation of the Falklands Islands in 1982. However, Argentina lost that conflict, Great Britain won and also won the rights of Uti possidetis, ita possideatis
To the victor the spoils... this is a strong argument against Argentina's claim at the ICJ
MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 29th, 2011 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a major flaw in your argument.
You say Argentina can't negotiate with the Falkland Isalnders as they are not independant therefore you have to go via the British government.
BUT
If the Falkland Islands were independant, in order to have formal negotiations with the Falkland Islands government Argentina would have to recognise that government and in so doing their independance and sovereign status.
The simple fact is Argentina does not want to negotiate directly with the islanders now or in the future for to do so would be a recognition of their right to chose their own destiny.
You are correct #208 but only in as much that it would add complications to negotiated conclusion.but the point is only Argentina could grant the Malvinas independant status.it is this failure to respect argentina's justifiable claim to the restitution of it's territorial integrity that is revealed in attempts to dodge the real point
Nov 29th, 2011 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Domingo - I believe the 'critical date' for the purposes of a dispute would be 1829, in which case Mestiveir was too late to count.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Check out Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh Case 2008 - ” As the Court explained in the Indonesia/Malaysia case, “it cannot take into consideration acts having taken place after the date on which the dispute between the Parties crystallized unless such acts are a normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of the Party which relies on them”
( Not on the Blog - coming soon in a PDF Jan 2012 ;-)
Ah, I see, Red
Nov 29th, 2011 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I presume the June 1829 announcement by General Lavalle's Buenos Aires coup government of the Political and Military command initiated the dispute and its formal protest by Britain in November 1829 crystalized the dispute in the sense of the 2008 ICJ explanation
So in 1832 the appointment of Mestivier by decree, the ignorance of the second formal British diplomatic protest and Mestivier's failed expedition, was an attempt to improve the position of the party relying on them after the dispute had already been recognized by both parties three years prior?
I understand that the Argentine garrison was simply told to leave by the British and that the Argentine command initially protested but agreed. No threat of force was applied, only instructions that the Argentine garrison must leave were passed to the Argentine commander from the British. No attempt was made by the Argentines to defend their territory. I gather this decision saved the crew of the Sarandi from capture by the USS Lexington
Nonetheless, 1982 seems quite a key date in the dispute to me though. Let me explain why: Argentina carried out an unprovoked attack on a peaceful fellow member of the UN, i.e. Great Britain, contrary to the UN Charter. The British military units on the Falkland Islands resisted the Argentine occupation in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Argentina refused to obey the legal authority of the UN Security Council when they were ordered to remove all invasion forces in UN SC resolution 502, to which Argentina is obligated by treaty to obey. Rather Argentina was intent on retaining the Falkland Islands according to the principle of uti possidetis.
Argentina failed when Argentina unconditionally surrendered to the British without treaty provides for the principle of uti possidetis, ita possideatis to prevail for the British sovereignty
209 Yuleno
Nov 29th, 2011 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, wrong, and wrong again.
The UK are the administering power recognised by the UN so they have the power to grant us independence.
This is not an integral part of your territory. You are the only ones who say it is and that doesn't make it true.
209 Yuleno
Nov 29th, 2011 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your comments completely conflict with those of MalvinasArgentinas. He/she states that Argentina can't talk directly with the Falkland Islanders but only to the British government yet you say that only Argentina can grant independence??? How can you if you won't talk to them?
Also if your claim is justifiable why not take to the ICJ? Only they can decide if it is in fact a justifiable claim as you put it.
go with your proves to the UN
Nov 29th, 2011 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0with such proves...................
We don't need to prove anything to the UN. We aren't asking them for anything we don't already have.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe I do contradict M/A but then what he puts forward for discussion is only a proposal for discussion.nothing more and nothing less.that it might seem appealing is the only reason you wish to pursue it.as for Argentina wishing to start a process to give the Malvinas independence I'm sure on reflection,you will agree with me,that is not feasible both in argentina's desire or as an alternative to the pursuit of territorial integrity #212 I would predict your post but I hear about stubbornness in defending argentina's rights as a fault you can obviously imagine that you are the reverse of that criticism but that's how it is
Nov 29th, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's just a thought, but oil might lubricate the process to real dialogue in the South Atlantic.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then again, it might well be the spark that S/A does does not want.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've already identified omissions, read up. The other islands, I think, are more about rhetorical overkill or a negotiation tactic. I don't want abject surrender, but a recognition that a wrong was made by ancestors is the first step towards a mutually beneficial way of righting that wrong and a state of permanent cooperation and friendship with mutual respect. That is the goal, irrespective of any actual “ownership”. I think most Argentines would be willing to accept islanders' sovereignty if islanders acknowledge a wrong has been done and allow Britain to make amends. We don't want to abuse any islander; we only (rightly) object to being abused ourselves.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet the fact that we denounce a situation that is, to us, abusive of our rights in no way a reclamation to expropriate eight generations of hard work, which we have great respect for. I don't know which of you are islanders or which are not, for that reason I haven't directly addressed you. I do so now: I think at heart you are a good people and that Falklanders and Argentines have much in common. I would add that Argentina has a rich history of incorporating and celebrating not only English but Scottish and Irish culture, with significant immigration and descendants from each. How many of you knew that Buenos Aires has a Scottish Guard, for instance? If reunification were to take place I would not see Falklands culture and customs disappear, I would see them PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY and for my part I cannot overstress that.
Nonetheless I still believe that a wrong was done and that it should be righted. I believe two civilized peoples should be able to have experts from both sides sit down and come up with shared conclusions regarding historical events, examined honestly and without arbitrariness.
And if the British were to offer irrefutable evidence, devoid of arbitrary judgments or subjective logic, I would accept it and bid all Argentines to do so as well. We are always open to dialogue.
I don't want abject surrender, but a recognition that a wrong was made by ancestors
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[yes your ancestors when they invaded Argentina and slaughtered most of the inhabitants in part]]
”. I think most Argentines would be willing to accept islanders' sovereignty
[and im sure the islanders would accept sovereignty, over Argentina
]] allow Britain to make amends,, for what, it was Argentina that started all this,
By illegally invading a defenceless peaceful little island. ]]
We don't want to abuse any islander; we only) object to being abused ourselves
The pot calling the kettle black [again]
I would see them PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY and for my part I cannot overstress that.
[][ brain washing full stop
Nonetheless I still believe that a wrong was done and that it should be righted
[][ when you except that you are wrong, , and publicly apologise, stop telling adjective abhorrent lies abt us,
Stop threatening and abusing the islanders, stop blockadinging them,
And then you might, just might, be able to say hallo over the garden fence,
Just my opinion.
.
“Nonetheless I still believe that a wrong was done and that it should be righted.” #219 MA
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The big wrong that was done was invasion that led to war.
This cannot be overlooked and discounted in any discussions today or any date in the forseeable future. This changes the context of EVERYTHING that went before, and there is no getting around that.
The outcome for the Islands, and the future for the Islands' populations, was decided through force of arms in a war of Argentina's choosing.
It was a profoundly wrong call, and Argentina has to live with the consequences.
See, there you go again - always with the arbitrary considerations. Did not the Romans invade and slaughter Celtics? Did not the Hun conquer and slaughter what remained of them, enabling the Anglo-Saxon culture to flourish into what it is today? If you go back long enough on any nation's timeline you'll find invasions and slaughter.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So don't be surprised if that particular valid criticism about Argentina doesn't exactly ring as relevant to the topic at hand. We recognize our faults and our wrongs within our history; yet for your part I'm yet to find a judgment about Argentina that you make with the same objectivity and fervor as with their counterparts in the timeline of the US. Two such examples of comparative arbitrariness I've already pointed out - military campaigns against Native Americans seems the third one, and I thank you for facilitating yet another example of your lack of objectivity.
If you perceive we threaten, or abuse, it is only because your intransigence has impeded you from holding proper discourse. This is not our fault, neither is it our fault if you choose to ignore historical events and cherrypick your way into a timeline that supports your factually incorrect narrative of Argentina as the bad guy.
#219
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I've already identified omissions, read up.”
No you have not, you have produced a load of verbal diarrhoea but not one single “omission” has been identified.
As regards #222, all we hear from Argentina is threats and abuse. What intransigence for example? Britain sought to negotiate in good faith, that negotiations failed to find a solution was down to Argentine intransigence, that a solution eludes everyone has a great deal to do with Argentine attitudes. There was a generation of islanders born after the war, that had started to have a less jaundiced view of Argentina, the Kirchners saw that soon came to an end.
Another generation alienated, Argentina has a knack of defeating itself.
MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 29th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Come come old chap adjectives
, Did not the Romans invade,, I wont copy it all, as you are a bit confused, do you mean britainica or Europe,
Yes the Romans invaded us, and had fights,
But we did not then claim that they should apologise and say sorry,
If you go back long enough on any nation's timeline you'll find invasions and slaughter.
Agreed, but we did not demand they say sorry as an excuse to re-invade them,,
But Argentina did a very bad thing, within living memory,
That’s the difference,
We recognize our faults and our wrongs within our history;
You may recognise them, but you have done little about it .
in the timeline of the US
,,the US is nothing to do with the Falklands problem .
If you perceive we threaten, or abuse, it is only because your intransigence has impeded you from holding proper discourse. This is not our fault.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So you think we imagined the whole thing,,
neither is it our fault if you choose to ignore historical events and cherrypick your way into a timeline that supports your factually incorrect narrative of Argentina as the bad guy.
So you think we are cherry picking bits and pieces,
Please name these cherries, between 1982 and 2011,
And I think you will find that Argentina is the bad guy,
The Falklands are the victims of your aggression,
And the British, had to come down and remove the bad boy,
That’s not objective, it happens to be what happened, is it not.
.
I hope mercopress print a booklet of these posts.I for one would not buy it.how we get to the romans can only be by thoughts of empires and wars.it's not about wars or empires is it.but of course the Brits live the dream and so it goes.the current occupiers of the Malvinas are Brits the same as the poeple on the isle of Wight are Brits.pawns of a declining empire that will not reverse that decline just like the UK's place in the world is declining and irrespective of the roman or gengis khan etc that declining is encouraging for argentina
Nov 29th, 2011 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Domingo - I'd go with most of that.
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I also believe that the UN Charter was a 'game changer' in that everything now flows from that International Treaty, leaving history largely irrelevant.
Politically, Argentina's arguments died as a result of 1982 and that war certainly killed off Resolution 2065, which had been Argentina's only real diplomatic success.
MalArg - sorry, cannot find those ommissions that you say you've mentioned. A simple list would be good. There's plenty of room on the Blog for criticism or comments, please feel free :-)
As for the other islands, part of Argentina's problem is that she takes history both out of context and in isolation. The timeline is a history of the Falklands (which inc.luded the Dependencies for a length of time) and is not soley about the dispute.
However the growth of the whaling industry from the 1770's clearly demonstrates that whilst the garrison had been withdrawn, the British were still on the islands. This is relevant.
The RN even surveyed Falkland Sound right in the middle of the period that we were supposed to be absent.
So no, I do not believe that any wrong was done to Argentina, or that any redress is necessary.
Argentina tried to take the islands in 1832 and was properly ejected.
178 years of acquiesence (remember restrictive presecription?) ....
.... by Spain !
Of course the US has nothing to do with the Falklands problem, I never said it did but bring it up to prove a point about your arbitrary notions of history. The specific comparative examples that have been brought up in this thread, that still go unanswered by anyone, which demonstrate your arbitrary views as regards historical events: 1. Can a former colony inherit territory from its former mother country? 2. When is that inheritance effective? 3. How does the manner in which natives are treated in the post-colonial period seen? Here are your responses thus far:
Nov 29th, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-You consider the US rightly “inherited” territories which were former British colonies, be it under whatever legal or factual machination, such that all former 13 colonies and the territories they encompass you'd agree rightly and legally belong to the US, by virtue of the fact that they were in the same colonial jurisdiction.
But Argentina? You say most of it. The fact that the islands were under BA jurisdiction, you seem to ignore altogether. Double standard #1.
-You consider the US gained British territories as of its declaration of independence 1776, not the later Treaty of Paris where Britain actually ceded the territory.
What do you say about Argentina? That whatever territory it inherited from Spain, such inheritance was only effective as of Spain cession (conveniently after 1833 of course). Double standard #2.
-Native Americans. Domingo certainly seems to think the way Argentina has treated them reflects poorly on Argentina's moral integrity - and I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent. Yet I've brought up similar slaughters of natives in the US - so far in this threat not one individual has condemned the US' own actions, far greater in scope and territory than Argentina's own indian campaigns.
Where's the anti-yank outrage?? After all, if it's wrong, it's wrong, right? Guess not. Double standard #3.
True dialogue can't happen when one side always cherrypicks facts' validity.
how we get to the Romans can only be by thoughts of empires and wars
Nov 30th, 2011 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually old chap it was, an argentine 222 MalvinasArgentinas (
Did not the Romans invade and slaughter Celtics,
He mentioned it, we just replied,
The Americans are nothing to do with the Falklands,
That’s the end of,,,
I understand you try to compare, but if you compared every massacre, in history we would still be here in a hundred years time talking abt it,
The part of interest [surely]
Is that Argentina illegally invaded an innocent peaceful unarmed island,
Without provocation or excuses, [argentines fault] full stop
Therefore it is Argentina that needs to recognise their wrong doing and publicly apologise, and try to put right , what they illegally done wrong, and the first step would be to drop her claim, and recognise, the Falklands have a right to self determination,
That’s it .
Just a historical thought.
.
Of course and I agree with you there completely, we have to recognize our wrongdoing inasmuch as we want Britain to recognize its wrongdoing or we would be hypocritical in our goal. I won't make excuses for a dictatorship or the fact it was a de facto government, other that it being the basis for the war being an illegal act. Argentina however was founded as a democracy and if that democratic process was allowed to be abandoned or taken over, the responsibility in my view lays with the citizens of Argentina during those times.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I also believe that the majority of this was due to a society to a great extent controlled by a primarily conservative, pro-military elite (great friends of Britain by the way), while much of the working class suffered in the extreme. You must know our history of coups over the 20th century is closely related to the plight of labor conditions, a great cause of domestic controversy even to this day. I for one don't wish the issue of recuperation to be a political distraction to the necessary domestic political reforms that will enable Argentina to fulfill its true potential as a nation.
The violence has stopped at last and, as a people, we repudiate it. Today, Argentine society is one of the most progressive liberal societies as old-world strict conservative values characteristic of our earlier society have faded away. After 2001, I don't see any conceivable way that there could be another coup at any time in the future. And those who are responsible for launching wars - both against the British and Argentines themselves - are either dead or behind bars, and this is the reality.
But what you want is to do is ignore history altogether, pass over the fact that a wrong has been done to us which has neither been set right nor compensated for. Further it has been publicly denied it ever took place, yet every official action indicates its having taken place. If grandpapa stole a car, and now you're denying it - would YOU want to talk to cops?
MalArg - I think that you are cofusing yourself.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 01. I do not say that the US inherited anything from GB. At the time of the Lexington raid, it was the US that made a claim wth regard to the British fisheries. I neither confirm nor deny, merely state the position taken by the US. If anything the British authorities were somewhat surprised by the notion. But then we also fell out with the US over the same issue later. The US was still arguing over its rights to the fisheries in 1870. Only they were arguing with Britain.
2. The Islands were never under BA jurisdiction. The first serious attempt to impose authority by BA was in 1829 when it made Vernet 'Governor'. nothing before then. Obviousy Vernet's attempts to impose authority were compromised by the US. Anything after 1829 is stopped by the 'critical date' concept of curent international law.
3. I have made no statement at all as to when I think the US gained its territory. Its de jure rights would stem from the Treaty, its de facto from its victory.
4. No idea what you are talking about viz a viz 'double standards'. You're not making sense.
Argentina, in its various guises between 1816 and 1858 seized what did not strictly speaking belong to it. To then claim it as an inheritance is a legal nonsense. The de jure right to what it held passed in 1858 (albeit again in 1863 when BA joined in). Prior to that Argentina has de facto rights merely over what it held . No more. De jure remained with Spain untill Spain recognised otherwise.
Uti possidetis juris is a political arrangement between various parties agreed in 1848. It talks about boundaries. It makes no mention of inheriting the motherland's 'claims'. It only binds the signatories, and was 15 years to late for the Falklands.
Now where's that list of ommissions - with dates and a little supporting evidence please :-)
I think you're confusing me! Let's see if you understand the inherent logical implications of your statement. You believe:
Nov 30th, 2011 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The US, if not through inheritance from Britain, obtained its original territory....how? (accounting for Canadian borders?) Or, do you mean to say, the US doesn't exist at all? Also, the US claim according to your timeline was for fisheries that the US believed were free from any title, “terra nullis”.
2. You deny that there was ever Spanish presence or claim? Or are you denying their claim was administered from BA? Or are you denying the presence of an official appointed by BA between 1816 and 1833? I disagree that the critical date be 1829, I would posit this as taking place in 1934. For critical date to have passed the positions of both parties must have crystalized. Changing the basis of British claim from prior discovery to prescription, after finding that the prior discovery theory did not give rise, is a pretty damn large crack in the crystal I would say.
3. Well so there you have it. Our de jure rights to Spain's former territories from the treaty, our defacto from our victory. We did beat Spain, did we not? There was no British presence on the island at the time, was there not?
4. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. Think up a response worthy of your intellect. You want my list, don't shortchange me.
De jure remained with Spain until Spain recognized otherwise. Uti be damned. We broke away from Spain, islands and all, in 1816 when there were no British to be found. Eventually Spain recognized this. International law generally holds the date of independence of a country as of its declaration, not its recognition. 1816 is the date of independence for all the United Provinces territories formerly under the Virreynato, this is what is internationally established and recognized. The islands were administered by the Virreynato up until 1816. No British were present, their sovereignty rights forefit long ago by treaty.
1. The US gained its title by revolt. The 13 colonies fought and gained de facto title to the lands that they possessed at that time. Later they expanded. Each of the expansions were achieved in different ways although brute force predominated. Where the land was terra nullius (lets ignores the indians), they gained both de facto and de jure title by their victory.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where they took land that was owned by another then they gained de jure title when a Treaty/Contract was agreed.
2. Spain administered East Falkland from BA / Montevideo until 1811. No problem with that.
BUT- there was no official/ authority between 1816 and 1829. In 1829 BA made its move to acquire a title to the islands, still claimed by Spain and Britain. Britain protested which provides a 'critical date' between Britain and Argentina's claims. Spain did not protest, but still held de jure rights over the islands. Spain could not protest as it did not recognise the party it would have to protest to!
No crack at all. The critical date comes down to a recognition by the parties that each is making a claim. That colours their actions from that time onwards.
The critical date is 1829.
3. You never gained a hold over the islands. You did beat Spain, although it was a one sided battle considering what was happening there. Argentina/BA gained effective (de fact) contro, over the lands it held. It did not hold the Falklands. As stated above, its first real attempt to do so was 1829.
4. Still not making sense there lad.
You are correct in that Argentina/BA can claim their independence back to 1816. But if you look at what they held, it was nowhere near the area it is now.
That was the purpose of the 1848 Lima conference, because the failure to hold any clear right (de facto or de jure) over the unconquered territories, such as patagonia, was recognised as a potentially huge problem for the revolting States.
Hence the political agreement ! You did not hold the islands in 1848. You did not in 1829.
Yes but what you fail to prove is how, according to your own understanding about how a newly independent nation acquires its territories, you come to the conclusion that “there was no official/ authority” starting in 1816.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the preceding paragraph you state “The US gained its title by revolt. The 13 colonies fought and gained de facto title to the lands that they possessed at that time.”
By that logic you could just as well state “The UP gained its title by revolt. The 22 provinces fought and gained de facto title to the lands that they possessed at the time”.
So, if you believe statement #1 is true by virtue of the mechanism you described, the same should be true anywhere else that same “fought and gained” mechanism takes place, making statement #2 equally true by your logic. Am I incorrect in stating that Spain possessed the islands up to and including the second immediately preceding the “fighting and gaining” of all former Viceroyalty territories?
That's a big hole in your logic. Your first and second paragraphs contradict each other, in the first you acknowledge the validity of the “fight and gain” explanation for the loss of territory from party A to party B, and in the second paragraph say that same process which you acknowledge took place in 1816 had no effect whatsoever. Which is it?
As for the critical date, again this is defined as the time from which both parties crystalize their positions, not simply “colouring” a party's action from then onward. Critical date means the party will make no change to their position going forward. Changing the nature of the actual claim is an act of amendment to one's position, one far greater than a protest (one of several). So, critical date - 1934, not 1829. If, as pointed out before, we were not signatory to Lima, what interest is it of ours? Nonwithstanding the failure to hold patagonia, the viceroyalty had outposts there which the UP gained after independence (outposts more southern than the islands BTW).
No hole.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Unitied Provines revolted and gained de facto rights over what they held in 1816.
They did not hold the Falklands in 1816.
The Falklands were terra nulius between 1811 and 1828/9. The US would argue that they were actually terra nulius until 1833.
The critical date remains the point in time when all further actions are biased by the knowledge of another claim.
Of course, in 1833 Britain gained de facto control.
Are you now suggesting that de jure rights automatically followed ?
@219M.Argentinas,
Nov 30th, 2011 - 05:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, l repeated myself there. l was being pestered by children & wasn't concentrating. No matter.
l don't think any wrong has been done to you. lt isn't your land & your garrison was trespassing so it was ejected & rightly so.
Our biggest mistake was our tardiness in returning. However it is still our land, whether we are home at that moment or not.
How would you like it if someone moved into your house when you were out on business or on holiday for example?
Afraid not, mate. lt's our land, not yours & we're hanging onto it.
(missed a couple of things)
Nov 30th, 2011 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Lima is of no concern, then uti possidetis juris isn't either !
You have clearly misunderstood the point of a 'critical date'. All the actions after 1829 are those of a Government desperate to secure its title in the knowledge that they are challenged by another power. It would, of course, be up to a court to decide - fancy the ICJ ?
Outposts are not sufficient for the imposition of authority over huge swathes of territory. The application of authority has to be actual, not illusory.
But please tell me ... which 'outposts' are you referring to ?
233 MalvinasArgentinas
Nov 30th, 2011 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your argument is based on the assumption (Incorrectly) that Spain held UNCONTESTED sovereignty of the Falklands Islands. It did not, Britain also claimed sovereignty of the Islands and had done so since 1765.
Louis Vernet was well aware of this and asked Britain for permission to settle on the islands. It is also worth noting that Louis Vernet also accepted damages from a British Court for his loses, there by LEGALLY recognising British sovereingty.
235 you were out on business or on holidays in 1800 jajajajaja
Nov 30th, 2011 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0and then you made a claim of sth you abandoned?
and then you needed 5 years to come back and annoyed with the situation expelled people?
out out out out pirates out
@238 malen,
Nov 30th, 2011 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0lt was only an example malena. So you say we abandoned the lslands? Not so, we were busy elsewhere & had many other things to do. Alright, we took too long to return(get that, malen, return)but eventually we came back to OUR lslands. And what do we find?
Trespassers. People who shouldn't be there.So we ejected the garrison, who were pirates(your words, not mine).
l believe that they captured a Portuguese ship, which makes them pirates, no?
Yes, we threw them out out out out. lt's what they deserved. They were trying to steal OUR lslands.
Hope this helps.
I understood from Justin that the American War of Independence ended by treaty of Paris in 1783 and its final ratification by all parties in 1784. That is, sovereignty of territory was won by force of arms of former colony's people but settled by treaty with the former holders of Sovereignty, not simply by application of uti posseditis
Nov 30th, 2011 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Similarly, Argentina's independence was formally settled by treaty with Spain not actually by uti possidetis until today
1850 and the ratification of the Convention of Settlement also seems a key date, as presumably the ICJ would have to conclude the matter was legally settled then. Subsequent revivals of a claim have no force in international law
Also due regard for the UN treaty, the duty of the Administering power to its non-self-governing people, and the fact of 178 year of effective occupation by Britain and uti possidetis after 1982 for Britain would also need to be considered together with Falkland Islanders democratic choice to be a BOT and request to be delisted from the committee of 24's list of non-self-governing territories
The mind boggles to consider how third parties to bilateral treaties can automatically inherit rights and obligations in the place of one of the original bilateral signatories, nor when the treaty is broken by the party they assume to replace, expect the protection of that treaty to a situation neither of the original bilateral signatories agreed the treaty could address, whilst the treaty specifically provides for performance of the subsequent actions of the original injured party but then the dispute is settled by a further treaty anyway. This seems a convoluted and flawed logic to me. If you follow my drift Red/MA + all?
About Borges' silly comment:
Nov 30th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed, there was only ONE bald “man”!
Philippe
The issues are 'complex', and sovereignty needs to be analysed properly.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is a game with 3 players.
Spain v Britain (1764 - 1863)
I'm being kind on the first date, which is the French settlement, and harsher on the second, which was the official visit to the islands by Spanish Admiral Pinzon.
Argentina v Spain (1816 - 1858)
The first date is the declaration of real independence, the second the Treaty date for the Argentine Confederation.
Britain v Argentina (1816 - 1829)
The first date for the same reason as above, the last as the 'critical date' for the purpose of a tribunal.
Now the question is, in each case, who got the better title in the period.
Of course, just to complicate matters, Spain, in its final act of leaving only claimed East Falkland, so every question is now doubled as each of the 2 main islands needs to be consideredn seperately.
Isn't this fun :-)
Which outposts I'm referring to...Nombre de Jesus and Rey Don Felipe if memory serves.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With regard to Spain v. Britain - treaty stipulations are clear. Spain retained full sovereignty which Britain renounced, while British subjects retained limited rights. I note Wellington's reply in your timeline: “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
The most poignant example of a wrong done to us by the British follows: “in August, Lord Aberdeen instructs Parish to formally demand that Buenos Aires rescind its claim, and states, '… the acts … had been done without reference to the validity of the claims which His Majesty had constantly asserted to the sovereignty of the [Falkland] islands'.”
Not just Egmont to which the British were “restored” - ALL the islands. Note Wellington's vocabulary: the acknowledgment of abandon; the uncertainty of sovereignty of anything other than Edgmont, and then only after being “restored” by the Conventions (Nootka I believe); his description that taking possession would amount to “seizing new territories”.
SEIZING. Not recovering.
NEW. Not pre-existing.
Wellington continues:
“But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port [Egmont] is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable [sic] to avoid such acts.” His recommendation is to tell BA that Britain has claims, without being specific as to what they are. This was 1829, your critical date (I still disagree and believe it's 1934).
So, if were to be proven today definitively that Britain enjoyed from Spain, prior to UPs' independence, restoration of its sovereignty to Edgmont, then it would seem Spain's sovereignty was limited and only that portion Spain controlled could pass to the UP's control after independence. This would see a British Edgmont today, and the remainder being Argentina's.
Election is over,
Nov 30th, 2011 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0things have been pretty quiet dont you think,
i wonder why,
even the big talk has stopped,.
Oh dear - no banana.
Nov 30th, 2011 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which Treaty are you referring to - Nootka?
It didn't apply to the Falklands which are not 'adjacent' to the mainland under any 18th C definition. Paris was not considered 'adjacent' to London was it ?
And Nootka doesn't specifically mention the Falkland Islands. Any more, indeed, that the 1849 Treaty between Argentina and Britain specifically mentioned the Islands.
Of course, if Nootka HAD applied, then the secret clause was sufficient to justify Britain's action against 3rd party Argentina. But not to worry, it didn't apply.
Please show me where Britain 'renounced' its sovereignty claim ! Any renunciation would have to be very specific.
I am very aware of Wellington's language and you are giving it more weight than it deserves. The 'all' is important as it denotes that West Falkland is out of the question. He recognises that the matter was never settled, which is quite correct, and he expresses his reluctance to get into another dispute. But then he goes on to give the order that Buenos Aires should be warned, a clear indication that he felt Britain had the right to do so.
And again No, regarding your last paragraph. Your reasoning is fine but has two errors. Firstly if we only got Egmont, Spain would only get Louis. A better argument is that West Falkland was British and East Falkland was Spanish. Although a more thorough reading of the evidence from 1770 will show that Britain still claimed all the archipelago.
There's some good work by a G.Rice which debunks the myth of Spain winning anything in 1771. It's on the internet - if you pay sadly!
But then, as Argentina, did not 'inherit' anything from Spain until 1858 then ALL the islands had long been lost to Britain.
After 1833 Spain didn't protest ot attempt to pursue the claim it undoubtedly had against Britain. Spain's claim was therefore lost through acquiesence.
1858 was too late for Argentina to inherit a 'dispute'. The dispute was over by then !
I was quoting Wellington. He said “convention”, I'm assuming he meant Nootka. Isn't that from your website?
Dec 01st, 2011 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, the old “adjacent” semantics game. I've seen it played out in many a blog page and I don't intend to partake, I'll only say that I see a map and I see the islands adjacent to the coast of south america. If only common sense would yield to convoluted explanations for why facts “shouldn't count”, when it is so patently obvious they do, this dispute would be a much simple issue.
Regarding the application of Nootka, I would point out the Argentine claim is not one of a third party external but that of a party that took over for one of the original signatory parties, in the same way as a signatory party could sell its claim to a third. That buyer “third” isn't coming out of the blue, it's taking over the administration of the second, which could only sell a limited portion of the claim. Under that circumstance the buyer “third” would still have responsibilities to meet under Nootka despite being non-signatory, having bought rights to territories regulated by Nootka. Substitute purchase for revolution and the same still applies.
And once again I feel I must point out contradictions. You believe Argentina didn't inherit territory until Spain ceded it, indicating that you support the principle that the territory doesn't officially change hands until it is ceded. Yet you still haven't answered why you don't believe that principle applies in an analogue example such as the US, since above you say “the US gained title by revolt”. Which is the valid mechanism of obtaining title then, declaration/revolt or cession/treaty? Double standard, still unanswered.
Supposing the act took place in 1858, you'd have to prove that Spain renounced its sovereignty to Britain after Nootka's 1814 insofar as the bilateral sovereignty deal was concerned. Spain ceded to Argentina, you must prove they had nothing to cede. 60 years of British acquiescence & abandon was much longer.
1. No - he was referring to the agreement of 1771
Dec 01st, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 02. Semantics are indeed a lawyers game. And your argument can equally be applied to the 1849 Treaty that resolved ALL issue.
3. You are still making the assumption of 'inheritance' so no - Argentina would have been a 3rd party for the purposes of Nootka. Spain did not 'morph' into Argentina. It is a seperate player. I should point out that Spain repudiated Nootka in 1795, and no, it was not reinstated in 1815. It was only partially reinstated and on the provison that other Treaties would be agreed. It was dead long before 1833.
4. 'Inheritance' - yet another game of semantics. The US gained de facto title to the 13 colonies (only) through its revolt. Not de jure. No double standard at all ! Argentina gained de facto title to the lands it held in 1816. It did not hold the Falklands.
5. What event? Independence? If Argentina had declared itself independent in 1858 and effected a transfer of that which Spain held then it would have gained both de facto and de jure titels at the same time. Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1858 so could not transfer title. It is arguable whether they could transfer the 'dispute' with the UK. Somehow I doubt it, but for the sake of argument lets say it was possible.
Then Argentina would have the 'dispute' but, as Spain has done nothing about Britains presence in the 15 years before, Argentina would immediately be on the back foot. Under English law at least, only 12 years are required to attain good title under restrictive prescription.
The applicability of that under international law is at least as moot as uti possidetis juris.
You misunderstand the term 'abandon' - more semantics ! Language changes over time and if you do a little research you'll discover that the term is often used in the same paragraph as terms to maintain sovereignty. Abandon is now used as an absolutist term, the end, finished. This was not the case in 1774 when the garrison left, hence the plaque, and
Forgive me. Semantics considered, adjacent usually means immediately next to, i.e. one side almost touching the other side. Their is a strong meaning of closeness like adjoining. The distance is understood to be very small. If something is physically separated beyond sight,i.e. beyond the horizon, by hundreds or even thousands of kilometers and many days travel, then adjacent would not be the correct word to describe such distances and associated travel times, rather there is the need to say within 500km radius, or within 1500km radius, depending on what one wished to encompass. If adjacent is to be used over such scales, then using such scales Buenos Aires could be described as adjacent to Santiago. Clearly it is not in any proper meaning of the word adjacent
Dec 01st, 2011 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no mechanism for Argentina to magically acquire treaty rights and obligations from Spain with Great Britain by means of violent revolution against Spain. Spain would retain them for as long as the bilateral treaty stood between Spain and Great Britain. That is what happened
... in the old terminolgy 'abandon' was closer to 'left alone'.
Dec 01st, 2011 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry- ran out of words.
The point remains, the gap between 1774 and 1811 was a Spanish/British gap, irrelevant to Argentina. Also, although the garrison was removed the British presence remianed in the form of the ever-growing whaling/sealing industry. That included the Americans which is why they were so annoyed in 1831.
What occurred between Spain and Britian only concerned 2 players in this 3 way match.
Argentine didn't 'inherit', so Argentina has to stand alone.
3 players, 3 judgments.
I must be getting old, I'm certainly getting long winded :-)
Domingo,
Dec 01st, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0semantics rule, OK?
China is next to Russia - adjacent, attached, adjoining (Dead Parrot Sketch, Monty Python)
Russia is unambiguously a Northern country; it borders the Arctic Ocean.
China is aaatached the Russia.
But China is semantically considered 'South', not North.
Geography isn't everything.
Some 'nations' are aaadjacent but far distant;
Chile and Argentina (Andes);
The tribes of inland New Guinea (language, warfare, tribal boundaries);
North and South Korea (politics);
England and Scotland (oh, so many things ;)
#250
Dec 01st, 2011 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Geoff: you left out the Welsh!
But I suppose you wanted to keep it short. :
Agreed Geoff. All absolutely adjoining! Distance between them all? Zero km. The furthest apart places, i.e. the far edges, of any adjoining countries are patently not adjacent
Dec 01st, 2011 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0North-South? Check out longitude! East-West? You get my drift. Adjacent and long/lats. are the same!
Thought did occur to me that the nearest thing to something might be considered adjacent in the broadest sense, but the next nearest thing isn't by definition, because it's but one removed, e.g. a chain of islands of a coast. How's that for semantics?
Webster sez: ”Adjacent: Not distant. Nearby. From Latin - adjacent, present participle of AD JACERE (to lie near).“ Does this relate to the Falklands? I think so. Once certainly couldn't say they're ”adjacent“ to Africa, for example. The seafloor topography clearly shows the islands lie in Argentina's continental shelf, they are physically a part of South America. Were the islands closer to another continent than they are to Argentina, or part of another continental shelf, I could certainly say the islands are ”adjacent” to that country or continent. The term, in the absence of variables or thirds, is not relative but clearly descriptive of the distance relationship between two points, that is to say in the absence of a third point to which one of the two would be more adjacent, two points would be adjacent to each other. The etymology has nothing to say about coordinates or distance thresholds; as used in Nootka common sense would dictate the Falklands fall under its jurisdiction.
Dec 01st, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Insofar as the title, I think the mistake being made is that the acquisition of de facto title (as the term has been used) is incorrectly being viewed as a state's condition a posteriori. Independence, and territories gained therefrom, are not defined a posteriori but rather ex post facto. The question is not “what territory did the UP control in 1816”, but “what territory did the VICEROYALTY (i.e. ”the Spanish Crown”) control in 1816 up to the UP's independence“.
Another one, ”the British presence remained in the form of the ever-growing whaling/sealing industry.“
YET in #236 you say ”The application of authority has to be actual, not illusory.” If so, unless those whalers and sealers had at least a letter of marque from the British crown, that British claim's only representation between 1816 and 1833 is the plaque (which was gone by then). The only plaque there at the time was Spain's, placed before 1816 under Viceroyalty control.
The whole Viceroyalty, islands & all, became UP.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!