MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine claims of Falklands’ ‘militarization’ is ‘unfounded and baseless’
Argentine claims that the UK is ‘militarizing’ the South Atlantic and the Falklands are ‘unfounded’ and ‘baseless’ according to a letter from British ambassador Mark Lyall-Grant addressed to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules”Dear Kim-moon,
Feb 24th, 2012 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why isn't Dokdo on the list of places to decolonise? It has two people living on it and you clearly stole it off the Japanese? with this in mind, why the hell is the UN going against it's founding principle of Self Determination and pandering to any old group of Nazis who turn up out of history and want to do some land-grabbing? and why is the C24 not doing what it's supposed to do??
Thanks in advance for actually clearing up these major points, rather than just sitting on your arse like you currently seem to be.
Thanks,
Mark LG
Thanks Ambassador Grant, Britain once again conforms to the letter of the law whereas Argentina digs itself into the deepest of holes. Argentina should move forward and form good relationships with the Falklands instead of backward with all that angst.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0The good thing about having an ambassador like Ambassador Grant is that he calmly lays down the facts, and lets you decide who is making up the truth.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Conversely, the one of the many bad things about Sr. Timerman is that you cannot trust a single word that comes out of the man's mouth. He just rants slogans and points at pictures of things he doesn't know about.
That's the difference between a good and a bad diplomat.
He lies what about the nuclear armed Orcas
Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The highly trained attack elephant seals.
Plus the vicious penguins they are evil litte barstards
Cuando el río suena agua lleva = There is no smoke without fire
Feb 24th, 2012 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5 that's not scientifically correct, as a lot of things make smoke without exhibiting a flame of any kind. e.g. modern electrical cabling.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no smoke without fire
Feb 24th, 2012 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Smoke Machine Hire from Pea Soup
http://www.smokemachines.net/hire-smoke-machines.shtml
Timerman is not bothered about smoke and fire because he only works with smoke and mirrors!
Feb 24th, 2012 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't see a fire with this purple smoke grenade:
Feb 24th, 2012 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Purple_smoke_grenade.jpg
The Lyall-Grant letter indicates that the principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter supports the UK's position on sovereignty over the islands
Feb 24th, 2012 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Totally false. The Committee on Decolonization and UN resolutions 2065 (XX) of UN 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) all declared the existence of a sovereignty dispute and sets the NO self-determination principle is applicable to the Malvinas Islands Question. The specificity of the conflict 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. This rules out the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that resolution 1514 (XV) in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of UN Charter ”.
Is copypasta all that argentinians are capable of?
Feb 24th, 2012 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN says that self determination is paramount. That's the UN we signed up to, if another UN has a contradictory claim that self determination isn't paramount, then that's not the same UN. Maybe the Argfags need to find a new UN to join where they can agree that 'presidential decree' is paramount.
I'm not reading any more Argfag copypasta... too tiresome.
In your answer show that you do not know anything about the operation of United Nations Organizations.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On 16 December 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2065 (XX). The resolution was approved by 94 votes in favor, none against and 14 abstentions
Argentina achieved with the statement that the United Nations should interfere in the Malvinas Islands Question, recognize the existence of a sovereignty dispute, the solution of the problem supeditasen to negotiations between the two countries taking into account the interests of the islanders, leaving aside the principle of self-determination required by Resolution 1514 (XV), because not asked the United Kingdom which would grant independence to the Falkland or take into account the wishes of the islanders.
On March 18, 1966 an information circular of the General Secretariat of the United Nations informed the UN members that from that date, the name of the islands in the official records of the agency would ”Falkland (Malvinas)“ documents in English and ”Falkland (Malvinas)” for documents in castellano.41
The resolution was ratified in 1973 by Resolution 3160, XXVIII, with 116 votes in favor, 14 abstentions and none against, 42 in 1976 Resolution 31/49 confirmed the above and said: 43
(...) Urges both parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are undergoing a process recommended in the aforementioned resolutions (...)
Added that motivated the United Kingdom voted against, was approved by 102 votes, with 32 abstentions.
Other similar resolutions were: 37/9 of the General Assembly of November 4, 1982 (37/9) adopted by 90 countries, 12 votes against and 52 abstentions, the resolution recognized that the war ended five months ago did not alter the force or the nature of the dispute. Annually, the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization, continued acting in the same direction.
Raul, You forgot Security Council Resolution 502 which your country ignored, and is binding.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The rest are not binding. they're some Committee that the UK refuses to engage with because it's not doing anything in it's remit.
End of story.
UN Resolutions
Feb 24th, 2012 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Security Council Resolution 502
Question concerning the situation in the region of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
3 April 1982
The Security Council,
Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,
Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;
2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);
3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Source: www.un.org/documents
13 GreekYoghurt
Feb 24th, 2012 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do not forget especially Resolution 502 paragraph 3 it says.
3. Calls on the governments of Argentina and the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
United Kingdom failed to comply with UN Resolution 2065. One of the causes of the conflict. England does not comply with international law.
The resolutions are made to comply. Currently England failure in the security council in the case of the Republic of Syria. He appealed to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly to demand Syria. England with this procedure automatically recognizes that the resolution 2065 and all others are mandatory.
England therefore recognizes that binding.
End of story.
Pathetic and sad (shameful). In the absence of evidence and the global revulsion against colonialism and imperialism, cowardly flee as David Cameron. Are you afraid to face the truth. They have no valid argument to support English colonialism and imperialism.
And best of all, is not the end of history. It is only the beginning of history.
12 Raul (#)
Feb 24th, 2012 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you do not know anything about the operation of United Nations Organizations
I presume then that you know more abt the UN rules and regulations, than either British ambassador Mark Lyall-Grant, or UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
Either they lie, or you lie,
We think we will stick with the un,
.
@15 You're blaming the Falklands War on the UK hahaha. You're clearly mentally ill.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is, the UK has helped to depose quite a lot of ill-meaning dictators from their ivory towers, and saved a lot of lives in the process. All your country has done is create dictators, that typically ruin your financial system.
I think you forget that you want the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, and the South Orkney Islands... and most of Argentina. Given that those islands suddenly became Argentinian territory recently, how do you explain this colonialism?
You're swimming in hypocrisy, so let's see how long it takes before you sink.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100015225/argentinas-never-ending-trajedy/
Feb 24th, 2012 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And your government lies about its economy. Why should the world listen to a word you say. And glad to see your efforts for support have failed after your lies to the UN about nuke weapons. Your country is starting or has become a joke on the world stage. I wonder what the next trick deception or lie will be from the argentine government...we will wait and see
I just cannot see the point of trying to have a dialogue with the likes of the present bunch of Argies and this character called Raul and his 'totally false' rubbish.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They will swear black is white or whatever suits them at the time: which they will alter to suit new situations and commence swearing that is then factual.
Bunch of losers really.
Argfags tell lies. Do not trust the lies.
Feb 24th, 2012 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Do you think you can understand a few things, turd-face?
Feb 24th, 2012 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Security Council Resolution (binding) required the argie turdland to cease hostilities and withdraw. Did you do that, turd-brain?
NO General Assembly Resolution is binding. Do you understand that turd-head?
You want to see some fleeing? Keep it up, turd. Trident D5 missiles. Tomahawk cruise missiles. Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Brimstone missiles. Taurus missiles. Paveway IV bombs. Won't be us “fleeing”.
Please don't bother to flee. Just give us one valid reason why you should be allowed to exist!
I've been reading these and other postings on this site and apart from people very correctly quoting UN resolutions and their Interpretations of them (was it ever thus) and jingoistic name calling, I have'nt heard much constructive dialogue, really. Some Argentines call us war like and militaistic. Well thats true, we have had to be. What are we, we are an island nation, that despite our location and size, had an enormous effect on world history (hardly suprising if you read anything about our early history, try starting with the Roman invasion, a full 1800 years before their country even existed). Even later, we stood alone against an evil the likes of which humaity had never seen before. What did they do, they gave comfort and shelter to the survivors of that evil, (tell me I'm lying). So go ahead call me a war lover and a militarist and I'll tell you to your face and anyone else in the world for that matter, that in the circumstances I have aforementioned described, “your damned right I am, NO ONE WILL TAKE MY FREEDOM FROM ME WITHOUT A FIGHT.”
Feb 24th, 2012 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So there, you have just had a quick lesson into the mentality of an island race under threat, is it any suprise we empathise with the Falklanders
circumstances I have aforementioned described, “your damned right I am, NO ONE WILL TAKE MY FREEDOM FROM ME WITHOUT A FIGHT.”
Feb 25th, 2012 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0So there, you have just had a quick lesson into the mentality of an island race under threat, is it any suprise we empathise with the Falklanders
And uk took our freedom away in 1833..Shame on the uk.Treaty of commerce and frienship :1825.Ousting of the peacefull population living in Malvinas,without Argentina beign a treat of any kind to the uk.
uk policy is Vomitive....At least have the courage to recognize you did acted wrongly against a friend nation.
DOWN with The brits!
Are the Argfags still telling lies and refusing to say why they didn't comply with binding Security Council Resolution 502 and yet are expecting the UK to comply with non-binding GA resolutions?
Feb 25th, 2012 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0SC Resolution 502 is Binding - Argentina did not comply.
GA Resolutions are not Binding - UK doesn't have to comply.
End of Story. Now get back to your high-order faggotry.
Raul. The UK did negotiate a diplomatic solution to the dispute. It was signed in Madrid in October 1989 and is commonly referred to as the “sovereignty umbrella”. So the UK is in compliance with UN resolutions. That Argentina has chosen to withdraw from that and other agreements which flowed from it is a matter for Argentina.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are also entirely incorrect about self determination, which has not been limited for the Falkland Islanders in any way. Every single one of the resolutions you quote above reference the UN Charter either directly or indirectly via res 1514. Self determination is a key principle of the UN Charter. It is Argentina who is not in compliance with the UN Charter for not recognising the right to self determination of the Falkland Islanders.
Even IF raul was right(he's not) to limit the populations self determination, Argentina would first have to prove that there territorial integrity was broken. This has to be done in a court of law.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ.
The International Court of Justice.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0England will never accept the International Court of Justice because doing so will automatically recognize that there is a sovereignty dispute with Argentina.
The International Court of Justice shall immediately forward the proceedings of the Committee on decolonization conflict the United Nations, which is the most appropriate body for interpreting and understanding the concepts of colonialism and imperialism, their historical contexts and social processes, and has already extensively studied and reviewed and compared the arguments of both Argentine and the UK finally failed and it is a sovereignty dispute. NO self-determination. Just note that 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 population 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 as resolution 2065 (XX) Parties (Argentina and the United Kingdom).
In addition, every year, the Committee finds UN decolonization resolution using the criteria of Resolution 2065 of 1965, clearly states that the sovereignty dispute. NO self-determination
The International Court of Justice is based on their judgments of the committee of the UN decolonization. Remember that the international court of justice and decolonization committee of United Nations is supranational. Both have a lot of international prestige and complement each other.
@Raul the Argfag ”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).” None of these resolutions are binding, most of them don't mention the Falklands and draft resolutions from the C24 are drafts.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, Security Council Resolution 502 was binding and wasn't complied with by Argentina, no? why do you choose to tell UK to comply with non-binding and draft resolutions when Argentina doesn't even comply with binding UN resolutions? Care to tell us?
Raul, England cannot be a party to any case at the ICJ. As you are such an expert you should know that England is not a state, and certainly not one entitled to appear before the ICJ.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your assertion that “colonial” and “imperial” cases will simply be referred by the ICJ just shows your utter lack of understanding of what the ICJ or C24 committees are for, or how the UN works. Also your assertion Has even less foundation when ICJ cases concerning Western Sahara and East Timor are considered. You quite obviously don't have a clue.
In case you have not noticed the UK recognises that a dispute exists, and has done for decades now and not one of the UN Resolutions you mention limits the right to self determination in any way. In fact they all refer to the UN Charter either directly or indirectly, and self determination is a key principle of the UN Charter.
@27 Simple response. The UK has offered to take the dispute to the ICJ. Argieland never has. On the last occasion, argieland stated that it would not accept any judgement by the ICJ.
Feb 25th, 2012 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO GA resolution is relevant because NO GA resolution is binding. END OF!
The UN Decolonisation Committee has NO prestige. It is an argie puppet. END OF!
Got anything intelligent to say? Thought not!
Are the Argfags still telling lies and refusing to say why they didn't comply with binding Security Council Resolution 502 and yet are expecting the UK to comply with non-binding GA resolutions
Feb 25th, 2012 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No yogy.uk DID NOT COMPLY with REs 502.uk pissed on the resolution
They clearly interpreted the Malvinas issue as a colonial issue, and therefore did not see the British cause as a just cause, except that they disapproved of Argentina's recourse to force. Consequently in their eyes justice was not served by the restoration of the status quo ante bellum, with the subsequent refusal to negotiate, and the principle that aggression must not succeed was not effectively demonstrated as a moral principle; for them, after all, colonialism is the most serious form of aggression.
Furthermore, the text of Security Council Resolution 502 also undermines Britain's authority for military action with the purpose of law-enforcement. The Resolution recalls a previous statement by the President of the Security Council calling on Argentina and Britain 'to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)', then goes on to demand 'an immediate cessation of hostilities', and without a conditional link between the two demands, goes on to demand 'an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)'. In the light of the Argentine failure to comply with the latter part of the resolution, the British Government claimed that it was entitled to self-defence until such time when Argentina complied with the resolution. Whatever the merits of this argument, it seems rather difficult for Britain to claim that it was acting in the enforcement of international law, given the other provisions of Security Co
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/index.php/derecho-internacional/articulos/57-the-british-resort-to-force.html
I will like to ask the UN How are things going in Libya, and if UK and USA arer getting enough oil yet ? I always wonder if the UN's representatives have their homes and offices in Mars..
Feb 25th, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 haha, so Argentina specifically ignored Security Council Resolution 502 and that' all you have to say. R502 gave the UK right to Self-Defence and then got you kicked off the islands, all thanks to the UN Article 51.
Feb 26th, 2012 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep blaming it on the UK, but it's you folks who don't listen to the UN. FACT.
@32 Pirat-Hunter
Feb 26th, 2012 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hasn't the RCMP caught up with you yet?
“I will like to ask the UN How are things going in Libya, and if UK and USA arer getting enough oil yet ? I always wonder if the UN's representatives have their homes and offices in Mars..”
What are saying that Gadhafi should still be in power?
25 J.A. Roberts
Feb 28th, 2012 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, England can not be party to any case in the ICJ.
Perhaps England is of a superior race, like the Nazis, did England is God?
... Just shows his total lack of understanding of what the ICJ, or committees of C24 are, or how the UN works. Also, your statement is baseless even less when cases of the ICJ on the Western Sahara and East Timor are considered. Quite obviously have no idea.
Dear Roberts.
Why do you lie? All who know how to study elementary knowledge of colonialism where the International Court of Justice in its judgment is based on the resolutions committee of the UN decolonization. Remember that the International Court of Justice and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations is supranational. Both have an international reputation and complement each other.
You being the great champion of intelligence, not even realize something very basic and fundamental: Western Sahara and East Timor are different cases, with a different historical context and a different social process, which is what distinguishes the committee decolonization if it is a problem of sovereignty or self-determination. Obviously you have no idea. ... You have not read the resolutions of the General Assembly and the resolutions that every year the committee on decolonization issues. Even the England uses and supports the United Nations General Assembly, in the case of Syria, when it suits and fail in the Security Council by the veto of China and Russia. In addition, each year, the Committee considers the UN resolution decolonization with the criteria of Resolution 2065 of 1965, clearly states that the sovereignty dispute. NO self-determination.
.
You do not like the decolonization committee because it is the United Nations agency that exposes the lie of self-determination and the lack of arguments to support this fallacy.
Remember the 16 cases of colonialism, 10 correspond to the UK. The evidence speaks for itself.
Abandon pride and be humble.
Thank you.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about England, Nazis and superior races Raul. Very odd? What is obvious is that you can't tell the material difference between England and the United Kingdom. Once again you make the same mistake with this sentence “Even the England uses and supports the United Nations General Assembly, in the case of Syria...”
Feb 28th, 2012 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you can't even tell the difference between England and the United Kingdom, and if it has not yet dawned on you that England is not a member of the United Nations, so cannot “use and support” the United Nations General Assembly, then there is very little chance that you will be able to figure out the functions of the C24 or the ICJ. You even confuse the General Assembly with the C24. It's blatantly obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's not a matter of intelligence Raul, but rather a case of acquainting oneself with the facts, which you plainly have not done.
As for the 10 British Overseas Territories on the C24 list, perhaps you should recall that the UK voluntarily placed all of those territories along with many other colonies and territories on the all of which are now independent. The Falkland Islands themselves ask every year to be removed from the C24 list, yet ever year Argentina blocks this process. So perhaps have the humility (since you ask it of me) to admit that the Falklands remain there only because of Argentine aggression.
Why are some bloggers still confusing the present regime in Argentina to that of the thoroughly discredited military junta (1976 - 1983)?
Feb 29th, 2012 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Many of the death squad commanders are now serving lengthy jail terms. Quite a few will die in prison which is were most belong,
CFK still associates withe some discredited dictatorial regimes such as Iran and the Venezuela of Chavez. Argentina's economy is in a mess according to The Economist. The government manipulates or massages the CPI. Surely the people deserve better?
Britain is no longer the world power that it once was and is recovering from the economic mess the country is in which was caused by the government of Gordon Brown.
Power is slowly but inexorably shifting to Asia. There you will find the new world order.
Ozgood
Feb 29th, 2012 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's easy to see how some confuse the present Argentine regime with the Junta in the 1970s. In spite of proclaiming itself to be democratic the current regime wants to walk all over the Falkland Islanders democratic wishes, and in spite of proclaiming to be peaceful it is waging which amounts to nothing less than economic warfare against the Falkland Islanders.
Even if power shifts to Asia, that doesn't change the material fact that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination and should be able to choose their destiny without outside interference or threats from Argentina or anyone else.
J.A. Roberts
Feb 29th, 2012 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am not confusing the present regime with the evil juta which caused untold misery in the name of fighting comunism. In fact this government was leftwing during the “Dirty War”.
The islanders do have a right to self determination. Why they cannot come to some amicable agreement I will never know.
However, CFK seems to have some Latin American leaders on her side. This includes the Venezuelan despot, Chavez who will not be here on this earth much longer. He has ruined his own country. Some example to follow
Ozgood. Why is an agreement necessary? What does Argentina need to agree to? That one of her neighbours can do its own thing?
Feb 29th, 2012 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The SA support for Argentina is very vague and verbal. All words. No concrete action by any of Latin America. FI flagged ships banned? The reality is they can still sail into Chileno, Uruguayo ports etc. It's all hot air and costs those countries nothing.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!