MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 1st 2023 - 16:34 UTC



“Falklands have a right to self determination and to be British”, no blockade is going to change that

Saturday, March 31st 2012 - 06:43 UTC
Full article 114 comments

Argentina’s ever more aggressive rhetoric challenging the Falkland Islands sovereignty underlines the significance of the right to self determination, said Sukey Cameron the Falklands’ elected government representative in London. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • DJ56

    Hear, hear.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Cristina Fernandez

    Hear, Hear!

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    Well, I don't know why everyone is looking at this so negatively. In the modern world you have to think about food miles, localised sourcing and seasonal produce. You could argue that an egg farm would be nice, and that bananas are a luxury, but you can just grow what you can at the right time of year and support your culture with this. It's just turning a frown upside down.

    I think the restaurants and local hotels would support a more holistic view to food with great seasonal variations of their typical menus, and maybe more pickles during the winter for those much needed vitamins.

    As for the Argentinians... they're not going away, so better just forget they exist.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MistyThink

    Is Ms.Cameron the asistant secretary of London appointed Governor ??

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @4 Great video mate, thanks for the link. It highlights what this article is saying - the Argies can do what they want but they'll never change the fact that the Falklands are and always will be British, and not Argentine.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    Incredible isn't it. The audacity of Argentineans complaining about the precise nature of the Falkland Islands democratic structure and accountability. This from a nation whose history is a catalogue of corruption, and whose current government and politicians, practices and activities are, to be charitable, dubious.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Englander

    Sukey Cameron is exactly right , only Argentine facists and other assorted tossers would try and deny the Falkland Islander's right to self determination.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    @5 Isn't your national airline missing U$2.1 Billion? Your national pension missing U$3.3 Billion?

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Kipling

    Sukey Cameron, u have a great brain problem. UN (UNITED NATIONS - 186 COUNTRIES) DOESN´T PERMITS THE ISLANDERS SELF-DETERMINATION. Can u understand?

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Xect

    10 - Kipling.

    You make no sense, pretty much like the Argentine government.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei


    Personally I don't think the descendants of the transplanted colonist population, who murdered and stole from the indigenous inhabitants and made up the name “Argentina” for that stolen territory should have any right to self-determination.

    The few remaining Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichi, Diaguita-Calchaquí, Mocoví, Huarpe, Comechingón, Tehuelche, Quechua, Charrúa, Pilagá, Chané, Chorote and Selknam should get together and appeal to the United Nations to have their stolen lands returned.

    Freedom for Mapucheland!

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • malen

    funny in the name of protecting civilians you (UK) colonize others countries and steal, in the name of self determination you colonize others countries and steal, etc etc etc This powerful countries has the propaganda machine prepared to lie and make things naive.
    SA knows exactly well what is a colony, the subjugation and we killed the colonizators, through ours liberators. Dont need your explanation.
    And second the blockade doesnt exist. Squidmillonaires, with 4x4 cars, and ships cargos from Chile and UK. Buying onions and embrions in Uruguay.
    Militar ships and those used in the unilateral stealing of resources (fish and oil) cant use our ports. And the islands flags vessels can use the british one. So dont lie.
    And this region doesnt need an extra regional country coming with their militars and trainning princes and troops for killing in others parts of the world.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Xect

    Ah malen such a ill-educated view that once again contains zero facts and lots of lies.

    You should run for Argentine government with that level of ridiculous and unfounded diatribe.

    You ridiculous little pathetic man.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @14 Xect,
    malen is a woman,(so she says) although quite a stupid one.
    She believes all the lies that she learned at school & never questions them.
    Once she had the audacity to boast that although studying in Liverpool in the UK, she “didn't like” the British.
    She gets a bit carried away sometimes.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    Britain has been colonial in decades and you know it.

    The problem is that you RG's are jealous of any nation that has made a success of itself and you wallow in perpetual failure due to your corrupt ways and your deceit. You pride yourselves on being fucking liars and thieves, will do anything to get an advantage and then squeal like children when you are found out and dont get your way.

    Your bleating fools no one and soon you will be talking to yourselves in an empty room.

    How about getting up off your fucking arse, doing some fucking work and trying to make your country a success?

    the Falklands Oil exploration is a classic example of Argentine inferiority. they know for a fact that even if they had the Falklands they are too fucking bone idle to get the oil out of the ground. however in their petty jealousy they do not want anyone else to have it and in the process turn the Falkland Islanders into a resounding success story. It would show the RG's up for what they are - a set of idle fuckers.

    Argentina has a chip on its shoulder the size of Mendoza and just cannot under any circumstances accept the fact that they are a useless nation that stumbles from one catastrophe to another. to make them feel better they have to slag off other nations to remind themselves that other nations have faults too.

    Other nations do have faults and have failed in the past, but they do not wallow in it and do not victimise themselves over it.

    Argentina is a victim, jealous of the “Gringo” and their achievements. You want to join us but when you do you just cant play by the rules.

    You are a set of idle hypocritical self pitying wankers. You would rather be out protesting about work than actually doing any.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    @13 melon The colonised stolen territory named “Argentina” (Mapucheland) is composed of the homelands of not just the Mapuche people, but of many other dispossessed and genocided indigenous peoples.

    Fascinating stuff:

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • malen

    Alexei you have mistaken the thread
    answer comment 208 of six nobel prizes there

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    SA knows exactly well what is a colony, the subjugation and we killed the colonizators, through ours liberators.

    Didnt do that good a job,look what you left behind the sofa

    French Guiana

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    Yes, not only do they have an equivalent of the Falklands on their own fucking doorstep but the whole of South America have turned a blind eye to it. Utter hypocrisy.

    Look at Aruba, a dutch Island nearer the coast of South america than the FI are - not a word said about that.

    there is no word said because everyone, but the RG's, want to live side by side in peace. Acknowledging the issue of French guyana and Aruba then draws the dutch and the French into the discussion which in turn opens up a whole can of worms about say Hawaii and numerous other territories.

    The worlds boundaries are what they are.

    What about this nuclearisation of the south Atlantic? As well as being utter horseshit it also begs the question of Brazil who are, hey presto, in the process of building nuclear submarines. not a word said about that.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • googer62

    @5 Seeing no one has answered your question dear old Misty, I thought I would, even though I suspect you know the answer and was just being a tad facetious, Ms Cameron is our representative in London, is a civil servant and works directly for us, the elected government and people of the Falkland Islands and is actually damned good at her job. Long may she continue.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    @18 The vast majority of Nobel prize winners did not sign this silly little document. When the handful of ill-informed and ill-intentioned signatories have visited the Falkland Islanders, and spoken to people who have lived there for nine generations, then I might listen to their better informed opinion. Though I imagine in some cases that would be pointless, as their stance is malicious. The Nobel Peace Prize has been totally devalued and discredited by some of its more recent recipients. It means nothing.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @5 None of your business!
    @10 Says who? U? Fuck off!
    @13 More illiterate argie drivel. Funny, in the name of protecting your state, you kill your own civilians. Of course you know what a colony is. You are one. And no, you didn't kill the colonisers. You just made sure there weren't enough natives left to point the finger. As for the rest, wait and see, asshole. Or perhaps I should say “Wait and die!”
    @18 What's the matter, malen? Menstruating and can't see straight, never mind think? So you're a typical argie, bird-brained student. Why are you studying? You don't learn anything. Never mind. You are just one of those “surplus to requirements”. Always good to know that the drones will go first!

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britishbulldog

    Good video and I would add these as well

    I have said before that now Britain must up the stakes on this issue of the Falkland's and finish the discussion once and for all. Argentina should now be blockaded from the sea and from the air to bring down any Government in Argentina. All other South American countries should help Britain to achieve this and for this reason.

    Argentina is a large untapped country rich in agriculture and natural resources that every other country in South America can share and exploit bringing wealth to all those countries. Argentina has shown since it was formed that it is incapable of looking after its people by exploiting the very same resources that I have mentioned. By now, it should have been the richest country in that part of the world and by sheer incompetence and corruptness Argentina might as well still be in the early 1800s.

    By blockading Argentina, we can all bring down an all too familiar corrupt government and we can all share in that wealth that that country has. It’s up to each and every person in that area to bring down this corrupt Argentina. Moreover, don't think for one moment that Argentina if it was strong enough would not by military means invade each and every country in South America IT WOULD. They would if strong enough colonize every country in that region. So Bring them down before they have the chance to bring down you.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tigre
    yes, kill people for oil to enrich the oligarchy --- we expect in the Malvinas?,
    , cheaper, washing head and snake oil ..
    to keep them happy,,,

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @25 And this is to do with the UK, how? Whatever the USA's self-justification, it has nothing to do with the UK.

    But, kill argies? That doesn't need justification. That's a public service to the world!

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Livingthedream

    It's not really self determination if the British or Argentine flags are flying over the islands Self determination comes from independence and becoming a sovereign nation only. Anything short of that is a farce.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishLion

    5 MistyThink

    Ms Cameron is the Falkland Islands Government Representative in London, she is not the Governors Representative, he is the Queens Representative on the Islands. It might be confusing to many, but, its really simple. The islands have their own elected Government and they control all their own affairs with the exception of defence and foreign affairs. As in Britain and the Falkland Islands, the Queen is our Sovereign. The Falkland Islands people are allowed to choose who they wish to govern them, that is why the much quoted term 'self determination' is used on this forum. Its all about 'freedom', that much fought over human right that millions have perished and sacrificed their lives over. Argentina continues to flout that right by their actions and distortion of the truth. Cameron has clearly put that on the table and wants the world to listen to the islanders views with better understanding and empathy. Be they 3000 souls and Argentinean millions, a nation is a nation, no matter the numbers of people and a majority vote means just that, in this case, they do not want Argentina to govern them, in no shape or form. So, unless Argentina withdraws its false claims over sovereignty, there will never be any satisfaction. Full Stop.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • geo

    ** 28 B.L

    The Executive Council is responsible for most domestic policies .
    the Governor retains the “” VETO“” power that can be exercised “” in the interests of good governance“”...Britain still retains responsibility for “” external affairs“”...“”defense“”...“”internal security“”“...”“” administration of justice “””. !

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anti-Fascist

    Please watch this short educational video on Argentina -

    Malvinas vs Falklands: Negotiations with the U.N.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    At least the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) has an intelligent representative in the UK, unlike the Argentinians who are still waiting for the ugly cow to drag her sorry ass out of BA.

    Or has CFK renaged on the idea, it has all gone very quiet about the new Ambassador?

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    George Galloway Vs 4 callers

    @9 minute ”you are English! you are British! but you live 8000 miles from Britain...

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    Ha, ha. Spot on.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @32 Galloway is a piece of self-important, self-indulgent, lying sh*te. And therefore appeals to argies!

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    @32 What's George Galloway got to do with this? When are you Le Camping Gimps going to stay on topic?

    Where is the $2.1 Billion for planes that went missing?? You want to answer furkface?

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    “Our stance better understood in the rest of the world”

    interviewed in London by Spanish and Italian news agencies.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Wouldnt take too much notice of him, George thinks he is a cat,good at licking his own bollocks though

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frank

    @35.... they lease most of their stuff except the A340s.... they have bought 3 more of them and leased another one over the last few months ... all old third hand stuff... I would expect change from 2.1 bill....

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Abril

    @ 32 Marcos Alejandro
    excelent audio, thanks for sharing.
    finally a honest brit

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    Galloway is laughed at in the UK. He is a political opportunist of the grandest order.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    30 Mar 2012

    “George Galloway scored a dramatic victory in the Bradford West by-election, securing a 10,000-plus majority in what he called a ”massive rejection“ of mainstream parties”

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    No chance of that happening in RG Land eh Marcos? chortle, chortle.

    In fact does an opposition party even exist in RG Land or have you thrown them all out of a plane, chuckle, chuckle....

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    George Galloway is basically Hugo Chavez with a beard.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    George Galloway's following in the UK are mainly recent Muslim immigrants.
    They back him because of his stand against the Iraq war. The rest of us remember his visit to Sadam Hussein and his faintly disguised praise of this odious individual.
    The rest of us think he is a good laugh and see him as a self seeking prat, although a good orator. But again, so was Hitler.
    I wouldn't think he will have any affect on British policy in the House of Parliament

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    We see the argie children are happily playing in the sand,
    [Watch your heads kids]

    Perhaps we should award CFK a noble control prize, for the best indoctrinated brain washing program since pol-pot,
    Is it not a sad state of affairs that this deluded woman, has this affliction, with the British Falklands,

    Her envy and jealousy and admirations of the British, is understandable, but unnecessary.
    Yet despite all her new bits of plastic and skin stretches,
    She still lacks the charm and charisma ,
    The respect and awe,
    That the British command in the world,
    But we must give her credit, despite her adversaries laughing at her, she still meets them all,with the grace and charm of a Barbie doll,[does she not]

    Justa commenta .


    Mar 31st, 2012 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    @44 George Galloway basically appeals to anyone who really really really hates living in the UK, hates the entire UK value system, hates the UK language and gets upset when they're told not to marry their cousin.

    So Scottish people, and recent Muslim immigrants.

    (see what I did there?)

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    More of the tipical pathetic victimization, but per haps planty of people believes her.
    She deffends self determination, but omits that the u. n never applied that right for this cause, like i did for others colonial situations, she omits also that neather the u. k. nor the islanders have never accepted to discuss about the sovereignty which is the main issue, she only victimizes her side, and obviously she is not going to recognize that her side is not acting correctly eather. She tells that self determination is included in the charter of the u. n, but omits that neather the charter of the u. n, nor resolution 1514 let a colonial situation to break the territorial integrity of a country, which is what argentina suffers since 1833, in fact, resolution 2353 that reffers the gibraltar question explains the thought of the charter of the u. n, regarding the relevancy of territorial integrity, beside, she doesn't tell eather that in 1985, the u. k. tried to include references about self determination for this cause twice, and the international comunity voted by a landslide against those proposals, and finally, she doesn't tell that the malvinas-falkland cause has always been considered like a special colonial situation. Anyway, you dont need to believe me, you can read the statements by the councellours from the islands before the decolonization committee, where they complain about the way the u. n still considers this cause, and about the lack of application of self determination for this dispute.
    On the othe hand, it's obvious that she doesn't know anything about arg's situation, my question is, what kind of hard moment are we having?, doesn't she know that c. f. k was reelected with the 54% of the votes a few monthes ago, she doesn't need to use this cause nor any other, beside since c f k was reelected she keeps a high level of popularity.
    I'll keep on repeating the same, as long as heard the same hipocrite analysis of mediocre and liers politicians like this woman.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    “..that in 1985, the u. k. tried to include references about self determination for this cause twice, and the international comunity voted by a landslide against those proposals,”

    That's almost bound to be another lie unless you give us all the link to prove it.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    I have bibliography at home, but i dont have any link to provide, where you can find what i say respecting what happened in 1985.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    29Geo - and your point is? You are obviously unaware of the FACT that as the Islands are a British Overseas Territory, the UN REQUIRES Britian to be responsible for “Good Governance” in the Islands- UK actaully has to make a regular REPORT to the UN on this! - that means not fiddling the books and corrupt deals etc - that is why the Governor has those ultimate powers - if there was ever evidence of fiddles and corruption. It happened in Turks & Caicos a few years ago- the Governor intervened and for a while they then had direct rule from Britain while it was all sorted out.
    Who sorts out fiddling the books, corruption and cronyism in the Arg Government?

    48 Axel - still same old argument - do please tell me where and when Cristina has ever said that she would ever accept anything LESS than Argentine Sovereignty? She CANNOT - its there in your Constitution.

    Do also please show any Official UN Constitutional Document that specifically excludes the principle of self determination in favour of a neighbour,s territorial claim? In the case of the Falklands.

    Note I said Official - that excludes any meandering burbles fron non binding groups such as the C24 etc.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @47 Axel, by its own laws the UN automatically applies self-determination, as the UN recognises the self-determination of all peoples everywhere:
    'To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;' - UN Charter, Chapter 1 Section 2.
    I have searched extensively for this 1985 rejection of self-determination and have found nothing. Lying is a terrible thing and unless you come up with a link or at the very least an accessible source, I'm going to have to assume that you are a lier. The Falklands are not a 'special colonial situation'. That is ridiculous. The decolonisation committee is clueless - how can a place with no indigenous population be called a colony? It makes no sense. There was nobody on the islands apart from a few workers who were being oppressed by their overseers and a large garrison of largely British mercenaries. It was set up by Vernet with British permission, as Britain held sovereignty over the islands at the time. The settlement had nothing to do with the government of Buenos Aires (Argentina did not truly exist at this time). Argentina should be considered a 'special colonial situation' as the colonialist settlers from Spain massacred the Amerindians, who now make up barely 1% of the population. Argentina cannot talk about Britain being colonialist until the whole country (except the few Amerindians) leaves and buggers off back to Spain where they belong. Is that going to happen? No of course not. Just the same with the Falklands, except that there was no indigenous population, so the islanders, who have lived there for nearly 200 years have more right to them than anyone else, and therefore have the right to self-determination.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    As i thought you are talking crap. The 95th Plenary meeting of the UN on 27 november 1985 made 4 points about the Falklands - none of which included anything to do with “self determination”.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @52 It turns out that there was some measure of truth to what Axel said, at least insofar that there was a meeting at the UN of the 29th of November 1985 regarding self determination. However, I have searched the page with the browser word finder and found no reference to 'Falklands', 'Malvinas', Argentina' or 'Britain'. So it seems that Axel was indeed talking crap. I'll give the link so you can search for yourself.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian


    “Reaffirming the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, national sovereignty and territorial integrity and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples as imperatives for the full enjoyment of all human rights,”

    Also came across this from 1794:

    “The Isles of Falkland belong to Great Britain by right of first discovery”.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @54 Nice one, pretty much sums the whole thing up. Argentina's whole claim is based around having claimed the Falklands before us. We all know that's bullshit but this proves it. Good research.

    Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Cestrian

    “The dispute over the Falkland/ Malvinas Islands is interesting and complex, with no obvious answer within the realms of international law, hence the fact that is it still an unsolved dispute after so many years. Even if the British are indeed colonising the territory there were no peoples being subjugated as there were never any indigenous people- hence it is not really colonization which traditionally means usurping the culture and rights of indigenous people, as was done for instance by the Australians to the aboriginals. This suggests that the legal formulas do not deal with a case where in effect there are no indigenous peoples and thus it cannot be compared to British, Spanish or Portuguese, to name but a few examples of Colonialism in other parts of the world. This, however, is a discussion beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, the culture, language and loyalty of all the people on the islands are clearly British and despite the arguments which have been provided against their self- determination, it is a factor that simply cannot be ignored”.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • aussie sunshine

    let them eat cake!

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Truth_Telling_Troll

    The right of first discovery is about as valid as the right of geography. Either both are valid or both are meaningless, you can't separate either. In fact the right of first discovery is much weaker than that of geography because geography is at least irrefutable and self-evident. “First discovery” can be twisted in a million ways, best example being how Spain “discovered” America... yes she did, for Europe. But that was all the European genocidal nations needed to justify their execrable crimes in the New World, since the Indians “discovery” did not count. So if “first discovery” is tenable, Geography is much more so, in which pretty much the UK can say goodbye to the Antarctic alltogether.

    With this statement I am not in support of Argentina's Falkland's claim, which I do not support, just adressing that specific point.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    Where did Axel go? He refused to provide valid links to his toxic bile and then once informed that self-determination was automatically applied, he disappeared. I personally wonder why the Argentinians even signed the UN charter when they hate the concept of self determination. They've never done anything in the UN other than rally people around their hatred of self-determination cause.

    They're basically just Iraq in 1990.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • downunder

    The reasons that Argentina uses to support its claim to the Falkland Islands are, at best, specious. These days the claim appears to turn on the notion that because the Islands are close to Argentina they should belong to them! If this theory was applied world wide, territorial disputes between nations would abound.
    The argies are now complaining that a nuclear armed British submarine is lurking close by. Fear not gringos, the poms wouldn't waste a good nuke on you bunch of losers.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @60 downunder,
    They are not gringos, we are.
    Don't know if its an insult or not, don't care either.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    I love the argie proximity argument
    Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the Río de la Plata coast of Uruguay. The Argentine exclave island is within the boundaries of Uruguayan waters

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    32 Marcos Alejandro

    Your argument that Falkland Islanders are British and therefore 8,000 miles from home is not an effective one. The simple counter is that Argentines are Spanish, Italian, German and Swiss, etc, and therefore, also 8,000 miles from home.

    Explain to the readers why this is not the case if you believe it is not. Don't forget the plight of the native Americans who were already living in what is now Argentina when you consider your explanation.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @63 Don't bother with Marcos, Joe, he's a lost cause.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • downunder

    @60 Forgive my noun confusion, I meant gaucho not gringo.

    An adult will be along to take charge of my computer shortly!

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    @62 Marcos is the funniest member of Le Camping because he's just so ignorant. The Dutch Island of Aruba is only 27km from the coast of South America so surely that would be the first to go. Also the much mentioned French Guyana is 0km from South America, and that gets no mention in OAS.

    They're just a bunch of muppets, desperate for lebensraum.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    l'd like to see them try their antics over French Guiana.
    La Legion would kick their sorry arses halfway across the Atlantic.
    There's no surrendering to those guys.
    We're too easy on them.
    Treating them honourably after what they have done.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    @44 Here's your hero Dhimmi Galloway kissing Saddam Hussein's arse:

    The man's a traitor, a dhimmi and complete joke, 'elected' in the Islamic enclave of West Bradford under dubious circumstances:

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishLion

    Here we go again, lets distort the debate subject matter by bringing in an unassociated diversion like George Galloway who is a self serving knob and traitor. Thank God he is a rare animal in the Brit Government. When things get too difficult for the Malvanists to argue against, out comes the propaganda machine to divert attention. I guess we are used to it now.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think


    Slowly but surely, the Brutish turnips in here are showing their true colors....

    As poster (68), linking directly to the BNP or, even worst, to the BFP....

    Enjoy the company, Malvinas squatters.....

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg


    What i said about the rejection by the international comunity to the proposals by the u. k about self determination in 1985, was told by hector timerman before the decolonization committe in 2010, and it wasn't rejected by the coucellours from the islands in their statements, beside, you dont need to take my words, you just search the statements by the councellours from the islands before the decolonization commitee, which are found in the archive of this website, search them in june 24th 2010.
    On the other hand, you are still are very missinformed respecting the situation of the islands in 1833, i suggested you reading my investigation, where i took into account the british arguments too, and none of you was interested in it. Beside, arg. has always recognized self determination as a right, for all those applicable cases, if self determination is applicable for absolutly every people in the world, then why, in 1967, the u. n recalled a referendum that was celebrated in gibraltar by the u. k., and the u. n applied finally article 6 of resolution 1514, which reffers the principle of territorial integrity, for resolution 2353.
    On the other hand, you always make a distortion about the transitory disposition that was included in our constitution. It only says that the recovery of the islands must be under the respect for the international right, maybe it can be open to interpretations, but it doesn't say in absolut that the only one outcome for arg, is the transference of sovereignty to us. Beside, beyond what is expressed in our const., the u. n. never asked the u. k to transfer the sovereignty to us, all the resolutions have only called the two parts to resume the negotiations and find a fair solution, i have already told you in diferent oportunities that even c. f. k expressed that we only ask the u. k. to dialogue with us and find a fair solution, how can you insist with the same argument?.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GreekYoghurt

    @71 You're talking utter drivel. Argentina has never respected self-determination, which makes everyone wonder why on earth they are even in the UN when self determination is one of the key aspects of the charter. So for Argentina to sign the charter and then sit in the C24, which is in itself a den of iniquity, belching forth statements about how self-determination doesn't apply in cases that Argentina feels it doesn't apply, is just a failure of the UN.

    Why the UN let Argentina become a member when they don't respect the charter, they don't follow any binding resolutions and they claim the ICJ/ICA has no jurisdiction is a question for the UN. Sadly for most sensible countries the C24 still exists and provides Argentintina and fellow kakistocracies a forum within which they can shout to the heavens about their need to colonise other people's land. Bearing in mind that French Guyana, Spanish Africa, Dutch Antilles, etc aren't on their list and you'll find that's precisely why no one engages with it, because it's just a furkshow for the despicable.

    Your constitution says they're will be no negotiation on sovereignty of its lebensraum, and so it would be illegal for anyone from Argentina to enter into negotiations. The UK already gave the Falklands self-governance and only now protects the territory and provides foreign services. The C24s evil spewings on colonialising matter not, so long as everyone holds true to the UN Charter.

    The fair, moral and ethical solution is the Falklanders get on with what they want to without outside interruption from evil expansionist failed states.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Do people have a right to choose who rules them
    do people who have lived on an island for over 150 years have the right to choose who rules them.
    Do we live in a democracy or a dictatorship,.

    a dictatorship, decides who rules you,
    the islanders have freely and democratically voted to remain British, [democracy]
    Argentina refuses this , and demands that they must be ruled by Argentina [against their free will]
    this is dictatorship
    you decide,

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    I already answered you in another comment about it. It's not argentina's faul if the right to self determination was never applied for the population from the islands by the u. n, like it was for others colonial situations, and as long as it doesn't happen, then arg. will be able to keep on claiming for that territory, and the resolutions must be respected. Dont blame arg., for this situation, blame the c24 or the the whole u. n.

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @71 I have searched june 24th 2010, and found no reference to this statement. There was something about Hector Timerman, but nothing to do with the year 1985. You really need to stop lying Axel, it's bad enough that you are trying to take something that isn't yours without lying on top of it...

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    As TFI are still British, then Argentina should not even be claiming,

    The fact remains, that the simple removal of the offending article in your constitution, would end all of this,

    just the other day, people were saying, its in our constitution so there ours, very silly don’t you think.

    this article is going to bring Argentina to its knees, and only the innocent people will suffer, and like all debunked leaders, CFK will just move on, she is mega rich, and will be worth billions, to live in paradise,
    [And her poor people]
    that’s a point is it not .

    Apr 01st, 2012 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Kipling

    Islanders u have the assessine blod as your pirate origin.

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tigre

    We have another POBLEMA
    The grandchildren of the owner comes to claim the house
    servants say is ours by our grandfather were the first
    The current leader, with his group, he says: This house is a good deal.
    very clever and prevented this leader thinks, “if these servants have become independent means” .. “we are going to be afraid” and says: I know how can we say that it will come the grandchildren of the owner to claim the house

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    @77 kipling Good morning shouty. I think you'd better go and explain to Australians that Australia belongs to the Dutch. I'm guessing New Zealand somehow belongs to Argentina or Brazil, as some pope once said Spain and Portugal could have the southern hemisphere. Ideally pop over there and do it in person. Maybe afterwards you could fly up to the US, and explain to Americans that their country actually belongs to Mexico, who 'inherited' the land, as you did, from the 'fatherland' Spain. You could nip over the border to Canada, and explain that their rightful master is France. If you survived your tour to bring enlightenment to the Anglosphere, on the way home you could pay a visit to the Falkland Islands and remind the islanders of your fellow neo-colonialists promise to invade again. Unlike the last time, we're ready and waiting for you.

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @77 Kipling,
    Suuuuuuuuure, Dahling.
    Now settle down or you'll break the stitches,
    Must be difficult with no brain, no, yes, maybe?
    @78 tigre,
    What did you say?
    You're going to give your grandfather's outhouse to the Flat Earth Society.
    Be quiet now, that's a good gentleman. We'll put you in the next bed to Kipling.
    *shakes head*

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    77 Kipling

    Oh yes, and while we along with our allies were defending the whole world against “the new dark age” ( world war 1 and 2 ) what was Argentina doing? Is there a famous Argentinian war hero? did your country do ANYTHING to aid the world against the depraved attentions of Nazi Germany? Oh yeah you did, you welcomed them with open arms when they were on the run from Justice......... nice one!!

    There is saying you know, “Never start a fight, but always finish one” but don't feel too bad son, we will welcome you when KFC has ruined your homeland from the inside out and you left wondering what went wrong, we will be there handing out aid packages.

    80 lsolde

    Loved it!!! “Now settle down or you'll break the stitches” LOL comedy genius, I use that next time I have an argument.

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • tigre

    nos los engañemos , nadie es independiente si viene mama de lejos a mirar , y a controlarte.
    es un hombre que no se puede desarrollar en el mundo, y ademas nombra gente para que le limpie los mocos y la cola.
    uno es independiente cuando se hace cargo de su vida en las buenas y mala.
    en resume :señor de su destino , de lo contrario es un hombre grande y bobo

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    Poor ol' Tigre, must be about to burst a blood vessel.
    He/she has gone all spanish on us. Is anyone able to follow this or translate for us? “limpie los mocos y la cola” something about limpits drinking coco-cola??? maybe...........?

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    BRITISH GUY: What was expressed by timerman, you are not going to find it in the archive of this website, i forgat to tell you, sorry. Hes statement you can find it in the web site of our chancery, it's written in spanish, but if you want i can give you in my next comment, the website of the chancery, and perhaps you can translate his statement by google.
    What you can find in june 24th 2010, is norma edward's statement, in that moment she complained about the way that the u. n still considers this cause, and for the lack of invocation of self determination for the people from the islands.
    BRITON: Unfortunately you insist with the same distortion than your compatriots, when they reffer what our constitution expresses about our claim. I remember i had translated that transitory disposition in one my comments, and as you could see, it only says that arg. wants to recover the sovereignty under the respect for the international right, it doesn't say in absolut that only our sovereignty must be accepted in the negotiations, i still dont understand how can you insist with same argument, it seems a caprice than a serious answer. On the other hand, even c. f. k expresssed before the u. n in september of last year, that arg. is not asking the u. k. to recognize that the islands are argentine, we are just asking it, to resume the negotiations under the respect for the resolution from the u.n., however your side never accepted to discuss about the sovereignty which is the main problem. Anyway, accepting to discuss about the sovereignty doesn't implicate that only our sovereignty must be accepted, because the u. n never expressed that. I wont never deny that maybe our government didn't act correctly in some moments, but if you enough intellectual honesty, you can't deny that your side is not acting correctly eather. Beyond what we think about this conflict, the legal aspects must be respected, and the resolutions must be resumed.

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DJ56


    UN general assembly resolutions are not binding and are not “law”, so your comments are manifestly ill founded. You lose!

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    77 Kipling
    Kip kip kip snore , zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    78 tigre
    Growl , growl , purr purr .

    Apr 02nd, 2012 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Axel Arg

    “What i said about the rejection by the international comunity to the proposals by the u. k about self determination in 1985, was told by hector timerman before the decolonization committe in 2010”

    So you using a comment by the Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman as a valid factual source? Really?!

    You claim that Sukey Cameron omits facts in her arguments, yet you consistantly do the same.

    You repeat time and time again - as does your government - that the Falklands sovereignty dispute is considered a “Special Colonial Situation”.

    Yet you omit the fact that it has only EVER been the committee of 24 that has referred to it as such. NOT the UN.

    The Committee of 24 is made up of 29 countries, from the 193 member states of the UN. That is only 15.02% of UN membership.

    Given the terrible human rights record of some of the members of the committee of 24 - Syria, Iran, China etc, and the fact that most of South America are also members - you will have to excuse us if we doubt their ability to be impartial.

    Thankfully, only resolutions passed by the General Assmebly of the UN can possibly be considered the opinion of the UN and international community.

    A GA resolution requires at least 50% of the GA to approve the resolution. NO GA Resolution HAS EVER been passed which refers to the Falklands as a “Special Colonial Situation”, and NO GA Resolution has ever been passed which denies the Falkland Islanders their right to self determination under the UN Charter.

    I would be very interested in reading your article - can you provide a link?

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Sukey Cameron was talking sense and all sensible people will listen to it. As for the rest, they're irrelevent.

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    #29 geo The Executive Council is responsible for most domestic policies .
    the Governor retains the “” VETO“” power that can be exercised “” in the interests of good governance“”...Britain still retains responsibility for “” external affairs“”...“”defense“”...“”internal security“”“...”“” administration of justice “””. !
    While you are right that the Govenor does have Veto power it has been a very long time since it has been used in internal affairs. No, Britian doesn't retain responsibility for internal security or administration of justice. When prisoners have been sent to UK it has been because there aren't the facilities for long term incarceration in the Falklands and has been paid for by FIG

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • row82

    Please join -

    Keep the Falklands British -

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    What is wrong if i use timerman's words before the decolonization committee?, his words respecting about the british proposals of 1985 weren't rejected eather by the reresentants from the islands, so, perhaps timerman didn't lie. On the other hand, the decolonization committee belongs to the u. n, and since this cause was presented before that institution, it never neather aplied, nor invoked the right to self determination for the malvinas-falkland cause, like it did with others colonial situations, i read many resolutions from the u. n. g. a for my investigation, that's why i know what i am saying.
    Beside, i didn't write any article about this cause, i made an exhaustive investigation, i can send it to you if you want to read it, in my next commnet i'll type my mail i mail adress, and i'll send my work to you. I didn't publish my survey on line, i only send it to people who are interesting in it.

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Axel Arg

    Just because the representatives from the islands didn't object to Mr Timmermans statement does not make it true. No evidence has been provided to back it up.

    Mr Timmerman also says that an Argentine population was expelled in 1833. That simply isn't true! You kow it isn't true, I know it isn't true, hell I bet Timmerman knows it isn't true yet he continues to spout the lie. Anything this man says has to be taken with a pinch of salt and unless you have some kind of factual evidence which backs what he say I wouldn't qoute him. It only undermines your argument.

    It is not the place of the Committee of 24 to invoke the right to self determination as it is enshrined in the UN charter.

    The UN has recognised their is a dispute of sovereingty, that is all.

    The UN has not recognised the dispute as being a “Special Colonial Situation” as your government keeps repeating.

    The GA Resolutions call for the UK and Argentina to negotiate to resolved the dispute, taking into account the interest of the islanders in accordance with the UN Charter.

    Now the UK argues that Interests means the islanders have right to self determination.

    Argentina state this isn't the case and that due to the Special Colonial Situation (Something the UN has never recognised) that the interests of the islanders doesn't and can't include self determination.

    Now until the UN actually comes out and clarifies it's position via a new GA resolution on the matter, Argentina has now grounds.

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • NYC_2World

    Interesting how he assumed that “in the rest of the world, the right of self determination is much more understood...”. I don't know exactly where this came from, but as American that doesn't make any sense. If we were to ask people what country they'd like to be from, and follow their advise, the world would look entirely different from how it does now. That doesn't seem to be a valid argument to determine sovereign rights.

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Dr Carrizal

    “to wipe his nose and arse for him...”
    Should be talking about KFC instead

    Apr 04th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Only what timerman says has to be be taken with a pinch of salt?, do you think that your side doesn't omit information and tells always the truth?.
    I know perfectly that timerman is not telling all the truth, i have never believed in our official history, in fact the history is always submited to omissions everywhere, that's why i investigate.
    I know how the cause is considered by the decolonization committe, and how it was considered by the unga, i told you that i read diferent resolutions, where self determination was invokd for others colonial situations, but it was never invoked for this cause. On the other hand, in the same way that they claim for self detemination, we claim for our territorial integrity, that's why it's necesary a peaceful negotiation, and if you love to invoke the charter of the u. n, let me tell you that neather resolution 1514, nor the charter of the u. n, let a colonial situation to break the territorial integrity of country, i argued in diferent oportunities about resolution 2353 that reffers the gibraltar question, there it was expressed the relevancy of territorial inetgrity.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Axel Arg

    I never said Timmerman is the only person who lies, or omits facts. I merely stated that you should not use the word of a man who has on numerous occasions supplied incorrect facts, knowingly or otherwise, and never backs he's statements with factual evidence.

    You state that the UN has never invoked the right to self determination in this case - BUT neither has it revoked the right to self determination.

    Is there a GA UN resolution which states the “Falklanders do not have the right to self determination.” No of course there isn't.

    You state that the Committee of 24 is part of the UN as if to stress that what it states is official UN policy. That is simply not the case. It is merely an advisory body made up of 29 countries. The Committee of 24 does not set UN policy - only the GA can do that, and no GA resolution in regards to the Falklands has been passed since 1988 I believe. Not one of them denies the Falkland Islanders the right to Self Determination, and not one of them refers to the Falklands as a special case of colonisation.

    You state that because the UN has not invoked the right to self determination then by ommission the UN doesn't think it applies.


    The UN hasn't invoked territorial integrity either now has it. None of the GA resolutios state that in this case territorial integrity takes precedence over self determination. The UN in fact can't invoke territorial integrity as Argentina has only CLAIMED sovereignty, it hasn't PROVED it.

    The only time Territorial Integrity would apply is if Argentina had proven the Falklands were ever an internationally recognised part of it's territory. It is yet to do so.

    At the moment all that Argentina has is a claim to sovereignty, and in my opinion a very weak one. A claim to soveriengty is not enough to deny the idlanders their right to decide their own future.

    Argentina's claim also lacks credability due to it's completely unjustified claim to the South Sandwich and South Georgia isalnds.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi2

    Axel Arg

    In reference to UNGA Resolution 2353.

    You are right, in that it does refer to the relevance of territorial integrity, but it doesn't say it actually applies. It only states “Considering”.

    The relevant section follows:
    ”. Declares the holding of the referendum of 10 September 1967 by the administering Power to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2231 (XXI) and of those of the resolution approved on 1 September 1967 by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;”

    Now in the actually declaration of the resoluton it does not state that the referendum is in contravention of the UN charter where self determination is enshrined only that it is in breach of UNGA 2231.

    UNGA 2231 asks for the administering power (UK) to expediate in the decolonisation without hindrance and in consultation with the government of Spain.

    So the only thing the UK did wrong was not to consult the Spanish government.

    Neither GAUN resolution 2353 or 2231 state Self determination doesn't apply, nor that Territorial Integrity takes precendance in either the Gibraltar or the Falklands cases. That is merely the interpretation of your government.

    It is also worth noting that no objection from the UN was received, and no new UNGA resolution passed relating to the referendum held in Gibratar in 2002, and there has never been such a resoution passed in reference to the referrendum held in the Falklands.

    Given that your government considers the Falklands a special case fo colonalisation I'mnot sure how it can argue a resolution passed in regards to another supposed colony can apply. Sepcial, i.e unique issues, therefore same rules can't be applied. Unless of course it isn't a special case, in which case why do you keep saying it is?

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Axel Arg

    Actually UNGA 2353 doesn't refer to the relevance of territorial integrity it merely states “considering” territorial integrity.

    It is not stating that territorial integrity overrules self determination in the case of Gibratar, only that it is a consideration.

    The only reason the UN state it has to be a consideration is because Spain dispute sovereignty, and the UN is not in a position to make a judgement on that issue. Only the ICJ can do that.

    At the end of the day that is Argentina's only recourse.

    I know you have stated that the UK has not taken the case to the ICJ but at the end of the day why should we. We already hold sovereignty. It's the principle of innocent until proven guilty. You say we are guilty of stealing the islands, we say we are innocent. It is not up to us to prove our innocence, it is up to you to prove our guilt. The onus is therefore on Argentina to push for judgement at the ICJ, not the UK.

    It is easy to claim sovereignty, you know need to prove it.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @98 LeigonNi,
    You won't get much sense out of Axel. lol

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    I agree absolutly with you when you express that the case should be taken to the i. c. j, but this is evident that you ignore that betwen 1884 and 1888, arg. sugested the u. k. to take the dispute to the arbitration, and it rejected that proposal. In 1947 the u. k. proposed arg. to take the case of the dependencies of the islands to the court (south georgia and sandwich), but it didn't include the the islands in the proposal, but the idea was rejected by arg., after 1947 none of the two nations proposed again to discuss the question before the i. c. j., that's why i have always thought that if none of the two countries proposes to give that step, it's because maybe both aren't sure that they can win the case.
    Regarding the u. n. g. a resolutions, or those that are expressed by the decolonization committe, i think that they should be more specific, because in the way that they are expressed, they can be open to diferent interpretations. It's true that none resolution never expressed that self determination is not applicable for the islanders, in the same way that it never invoked that right for them in none of the resolutions, like it did for others colonial situations, that's why i have always had doubts about the application of that right for the islanders. Anyway, i have never deny eather that perhaps that right is applicable, i have said it in all my comments, that's why i have always expressed also that the best that both nations should do, is to take the case to the i. c. j.
    In the same way that they claim for self determination, we claim for our territorial integrity, and there are documents that prouve that arg. was deprived by the u. k in 1833 from the archipelago, i argue about them in my investigation. Anyway, beyond the fundaments of both nations, the u. n never asked the u. k to transfer the sovereignty to arg., it has only called both countries to negotiate a peaceful solution, t's not imposible to do it, but it's rejected by the u. k.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Axel Arg

    “in the same way that they claim for self determination, we claim for our territorial integrity, and there are documents that prouve that arg. was deprived by the u. k in 1833 from the archipelago”

    All the evidence I have viewed does not back your above statement, in fact there appears to be more than ample proof that the Islands have never been part of Argentina.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi2

    Axel Arg

    As posted by another contributor in another article.

    The General Assembly voted to support the continued principle of self-determination after the UN C24's attempt to invalidate self-determination in the case of territorial disputes:

    Surely Mr Timmerman was aware of this?

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Like i said before, the history is always submited to omissions, both sides of the conflict will continue telling only what is convenient for them, that's why we must investigate. i studied exhaustivelly the historic perspectives and the statements of the representants of both countries before the u. n, and i must say that i found serious omissions in both.
    On the other hand, if self determination is finally applicable for absolutly every people in the world, then i hope that next resolution invokes that principle for the islanders. Beside, if the u. n never asked the u. k to transfer the sovereignty to arg., it means that islanders can remain british if the wish it, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for both people, which is rejected by the u. k.

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • NYC_2World

    @102 Watch out when you refer to the validity of the GA... seems like the ROW (rest of the world) doesn't seem to think very highly of these days- India and Brazil are leading the charge to change the dynamics of the membership, as i am sure you know, because they claim it's a small club run by mutual convenience... The whole argument these days is that the G24 and the larger group within the UN should have more of a valid saying in general- that's the mood here in NYC at least... that wouldn't unfortunately help England much....

    Apr 05th, 2012 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    Axel, the position of the UN GA is clear:

    1. Resolution 1514(XV) is fully applicable to & covers the cases of the non-self-governing territories of the Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
    2. The UN GA is convinced negotiation with Spain & Argentina by Great Britain to agree the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) for the peoples of both the Falkland Islands & Gibraltar is the way to end the disputes

    The supremacy of the legal requirements on UN members to enable self-determination of non-self-governing territories is affirmed by UN Charter Articles 2, 73 & 103

    Resolution 2353 refers to the territorial integrity & national unity of the Gibraltarians, i.e. the 1967 referendum in itself cannot be used as an excuse to indefinitely defer the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in its full extent by Great Britain. The referendum is rejected as an excuse to maintain a British Crown Colony with all powers held by the governing metropole, rather than their immediately transfer to the people of the non-self-governing territories by their administrating country. This is the principle resolution 2353 upholds

    Britain's citing the 1967 referendum to frustrate the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) for the Gibraltarians is an attempt by Great Britain aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity & the territorial integrity of a country (Gibraltar), which is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations & rejected by the UN GA

    The sole purpose of the Special Committee on to examine the application of the Declaration, to make suggestions & recommendations on the progress & extent of the implementation of the Declaration, & to report to the General Assembly

    Yet Spain & Argentina are alone in their interpretation that resolution 1514(XV) applies to their sovereignty claim instead of the listed non-self-governing territories themselves! This nationalistic political propaganda is nonsense & a gross distortion of the truth

    Apr 06th, 2012 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    I respect your opinion, but i dont agree on you. If the rigt to self determination is really applicable for this cause, and if arg. is alone in it's interpretation about what you say regading resolution 1514, then why none u. n. g. a resolution has never invoked that principle for this dispute, like it did with others colonial situations?, why many countries in the world support arg., when it asks the u. k to resume the negotiations, like the u. n and most international comunity signalize?. Perhaps, the one who is wrong is you, beside, i dont agree with the interpretation that you make regarding resolution 2353. On the other hand, i have never denied that maybe self determination is applicable for this dispute, but i also think that all resolutions must be more specific, and i already explained why. On the other hand, i have never rejected that resolution 1514 is applicable for the malvinas and gibraltar, i only gave a diferent opinion about it.

    Apr 06th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    I also respect your opinion but I also do not agree with you. The entire purpose of resolution 1514(XV) was to request the immediate implementation of UN Charter Article 73 principle of self-determination for all non-self-governing territories. Thus, the principle has been invoked by all UN Charter signatories & the UN General Assembly for this dispute from the outset

    Argentina is not a non-self-governing territory & neither Article 73 nor resolution 1514(XV) apply to Argentina. Indeed, Argentina voted specifically for resolution 1514(XV) to apply to all listed non-self-governing territories not itself

    The purpose of resolution 1514(XV) is to make a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This declaration does not include Argentina

    Recalling that resolution 2065(XX): ”Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”

    Thus, the General Assembly is quite clear that the negotiations are to be between Argentina and Great Britain to agree on HOW to implement resolution 1514(XV) so that: “Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom”

    Apr 06th, 2012 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    I know perfectly about those resolutions that you type in your comment, but i insist, if self determination is aplicable for the population from the islands, then why none of the u. n. g. a resolutions never applied that principle for them, like it did with others colonial situations?, i read many resolutions for my investigation, and i could see that the u. n invoked that right in diferent oportunities. Regarding resolution 1514, article 7 goes further, and affirms that the territorial integrity, and the sovereignty rights of all the people must be respected, it's unquestionalble the fact that arg. suffers a partial destruction of it's territorial integrity since 1833, when the u. k deprived our country from the archipelago. On the other hand, don't you think it's very extrange the fact that none of the two countries proposes to take the question to the i. c. j. Between 1884 and 1888, arg. suggested the u.k. to discuss the dispute before an arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., and in 1947 it proposed arg. to take the cases of the dependencies from the islands, but it didn't include the malvinas in the proposal, anyway, the idea was rejcted by arg., after that year none of the two nations proposed again to take the cause to the court. I have always thought that perhaps neather arg. nor the u. k are sure that they can win the case, that's why i have serious doubts about the application of self determination for this case, but i don't reject it eather.

    Apr 07th, 2012 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @108 Are you a troll? Or are you just stupid? The U.N charter states that self-determination applies for ALL people automatically. They don't need to 'apply' self-determination as it is already applied automatically!!!

    Apr 07th, 2012 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Brit from London,
    You won't get any sense out of Axel.
    He says that he doesn't want sovereignty, but he does.
    He thinks that Argentina has RIGHTS in the Falklands when we know that they do not.
    He says that he is “peaceful” then makes threats.
    He's a real wanker.

    Apr 07th, 2012 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • downunder

    It's a bit rich of Argentina to use UN resolutions to support it's case on the Falkland Islands dispute today, when in 1982 it refused to abide the the security council resolution to withdraw its troops from the Islands.

    They will abide by UN resolutions when it suits them.

    Apr 08th, 2012 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    you say: “it's unquestionalble the fact that arg. suffers a partial destruction of it's territorial integrity since 1833, when the u. k deprived our country from the archipelago”

    All opinion stated as “facts” are questionable & subject to the burden of proof. It is certainly not a fact that Argentina suffered a partial destruction of its territorial integrity in 1833, rather it is highly questionable

    For one, it is a fact that Great Britain & Spain held prior sovereignty & prior settlement before the formation of the Argentine Republic & agreed to maintain the status quo of their respective claims with one another

    For two, Both Britain & Spain retained their sovereignty after the Argentine War of Independence; Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain

    For three, Buenos Aires attempts to colonize the Falkland Islands were sporadic & ineffectual. In particular the single attempt to usurp the Falkland Islands by imposition of its military & civil command failed.
    First it was twice formally protested diplomatically. After the command's mutiny, its remnants were properly instructed to leave after British protests had been ignored

    For four, Argentina ceded the islands to Britain when Argentina ratified the Convention of Settlement in 1850, ceasing all annual protests by the Argentine Congress since 1833 from thereafter

    For five, the UN Charter is not retroactive to 1833. Article 103 means the UN Charter prevails over any other international law from 1945. The UN inclusion of the principle of self-determination in Articles 2 & 73 of the UN Charter was chosen as the basis to settle territorial disputes between all nations henceforth

    For six, 180 year of effective & continuous British rule is a strong legal counterclaim for disruption of the Falkland Islanders' national unity & territorial integrity declared by 1514(XV)

    Ultimately, the UN requires Argentina to agree implementation of 1514(XV) in the Falkland Islands by Britain

    Apr 08th, 2012 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    If i debate with you, it's because despite the diferences in our opinions, i get a sense with you, but as you can see, it's imposible to get a sense with some of your compatriots. Just whe you read their answers you can realise how closed their minds are.
    Unfortunatelly, you are very missinformed, in my investigation i have all the arguments that refute what you type in your comment, it's very long to explain them here because we dont have so many characters, i would like to send it to you, and after you give your opinion. I only can tell you that our rights in 1833 were based on the sussession of states, in 1820 and in others years there were intents of occupation by our country, in 1829 it was created the politic and militar command from the islands, and a few authorities were designed, beside, the signed agreement in 1849 by both countries didn't have anything to do with this dispute.
    On the other hand, in my work, i have the opinions of argentine and british professors of international right, who dont coincid with most you express in your comments, regarding the legal aspects of the conflict. I included all the british arguments too.
    Beside, the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., it has only called always both nations to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, it means that if the islanders want to remain british, that won't change, but it's not imposible to find a peaceful solution for both people. Anyway, i will always respect your opinion, but i really dont agree with the interpretations that you make. If you want, in my next comment, i can give you my i mail adress, after you send me an i mail, and i send my survey to you finally.

    Apr 08th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    I still maintain the fundamental requirement on the UN GA under the UN Charter is the implementation of Article 73 for the non-self-governing territory of the Falkland Islands by implementation of resolution 1514(XV) & that the UN GA views are guided &constrained by this requirement

    The long impasse appears to be caused by two dipolar views on what resolution 1514(XV) means. Argentina interprets declarations 6 & 7 of resolution 1514(XV) as generalizations applicable to all member states which overrides UN Treaty Charter Article 73 & renders all other declarations contained with 1514(XV) void , whereas Great Britain & the Falkland Islanders interpret its scope as firmly limited by the meaning of UN Charter Article 73 on self-determination & hold all its declarations specific to the non-self-governing territories listed for the purposes of the resolution it is written about

    Thus, a first step might be to agree on what is meant. This may require advisory rulings by the UN International Court of Justice

    I am aware of the legal theory of succession of states, however it is a modern post- world war two concept generally limited to treaty obligations of the seceding state, as codified by the signatories of the Vienna Convention

    It's true to say Palmerston's diplomatic position during the original dispute with the Argentine Confederation clearly stated Great Britain was unwilling to allow Argentina to exercise a right derived from Spain that Great Britain denied to Spain herself

    In essence Argentina may claim de facto control of Spanish territory, but it may make no such claim to British territory

    It is a mute point whether the omission of the Falkland Islands from the negotiations of the Convention of Settlement meant General Rosa had abandoned the Argentine claim or not, the fact is the treaty was ratified by the Argentine Congress & it did settle ALL existing differences, one of which was the Falkland Islands, before which Congress had annually claimed

    Apr 09th, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

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