MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Is There a Solution to the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict?
By Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum (*) - The Falklands is a perennial red top tabloid favorite. But aside from providing patriotic copy, it is a squabble with serious diplomatic consequences. What to do (or not do) in the case of the Islands remains tricky. Is there a solution?<br />
Theoretically, yes; practically, no. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesEh..........N0?
Jul 24th, 2012 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We try to avoid confrontation yet Argentina Challenges us on everything and anything.
We support Self determination - we are accused of colonialism.
We recover the islands from invasion - we are accused of imperialism.
We continue to defend the islands - we are accused of militarisation.
We support the Falklands endeavours - we are accused of stealing resources.
We continue to support them elsewhere - Our goods are boycotted.
We rally behind the UN charter- Argentina turns countries against us.
What can we do? Argentina simply wont go away.
Erm, excuse me, *waves from the back* there are 3,000 of us here that also have a say in this matter, or has that tiny fact escaped you Dr Tenenbaum? Off you go and join the likes of Sean Penn.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 Conor (#)
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 01)“We try to avoid confrontation” you sank the belgrano when there was negotiations between argentina and UK with Peru as mediator...
2) “We support Self determination” but you didnt do it with the Chagosians and the kelpers in malvinas were trasplanted, its like we trasplanted people in london and then we claim london for Argentina...
3)“We recover the islands from invasion” could be avaided if you wouldnt sank the belgrano
4)“We continue to defend the islands” from who? we already proove we dont want a war, the war was because of a Dictatorship not a democracy...
5)“We support the Falklands endeavours” really? did you know the oil is controlled by the FIC? the FIC is a monopoly of industries in the islands controlled by english shareholders...
6)“We rally behind the UN charter” the UN resolution 1514 says self determination is apply to “people” not to “population”
all kelpers were trasplanted and the UK keeps putting moer and more british in there... since 1833 when the UK invaded the islands...
7)“What can we do?” what the UN is telling the UK to do, which is negotiate...respecting the interest of the islanders, which is different to their wishes...
Yes there is a solution to Islas Malvinas illegal occupation problem. UK should give the illegal aliens their right to self determination in UK not in Argentina. The fakland island company should pay the 100 years of theft of natural resources and face legal prosecution.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Too right mate. Until Argentina realise how childish their accusations are, there's no point talking to them
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0#1 compared to how long the brits have being illegally occupying Islas Malvinas Argentina we have at least 100 years to go just to match the pervs.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3 read some history and stop repeating crap.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0the Argies in Patagonia were transplanted. when will you give the land back to the natives?
there were 2 countries who claimed the falklands
Spain and the uk.
Spain gave up their right in the 1850s and recognised the uk's right to the islands.
Argentina have never had the islands and never will.
@3
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear Mr Searinox, playing on the same old arguments as all Argentine's do?
1) Negotiations? I think you will find that the Belgrano was sunk well after ARGENTINA had dismissed the peruvian peace plan, not Britain- it was a threat to our forces and it was in a theatre of war, if you don't want to get shot at don't go to war with us.
2)Chagosians? They themselves were implanted to that Archipelago by us. Any way, there are great movements in government and society to resolve the issue. As for implanted? The Falklands were uninhabited when we arrived, however you are forgetting that as a Argentine you yourself are implanted in lands that were originally inhabited by the natives of Latam, they were mostly exterminated, so you have no right to complain about “implanted” people when you are one yourself.
3) How could it have been avoided? Every peace plan that we offered or the UN or someone else offered was dismissed by your Dictatorship, so we had to fight to remove you from the homes of the islanders, when you hold our people's children at gun point you aren't exactly pulling favours with us British.
4) Really? Why should we trust your word, if you were an islander would you trust a nation of 40 million people who have invaded you before? Dictatorship? 100,000 people cheered Galtierri on from the capital.
5) Whats that got to do with anything? Its the oil of the islanders and we support its government in setting up and industry with other business.
6) people, population? The people are the Falkland islands have lived on the land longer then Argentine has been a country. YOu have self determination while being an implanted European culture so why cant they? More and more British? How? prove it, their population has grown normally with islander to islander, what is outside immigration wrong?
7) The UN is neutral and as such is irrelevant, the islanders wishes are to be British were they are protected. and have the best quality of life in the whole of the SA area.
Searinox,
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Prattle on about UN as much as you like, but there is no legally binding resolution which states the Falklands must be handed over to Argentina.
Which part of the statement “There is nothing to negotiate” are you malvinistas having difficulty in understanding?
Yes there is many solutions to Islas Malvinas illegal occupation, my first choice an H-bomb, my second a working nuclear defense program, and lastly for UK to give the illegal aliens self determination in London, Not Argentina,. Simple now lets let them determine their fate.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@10
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0What the fuck are you on about Mr homophobic, racist dickhead?
Searinox- on what information do you claim that the FIC control the oil?????????? - they have a minority share in one small company- FOGL!!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Belgrano- a- um I think Arg INVADED on 2nd April- Belgrano was sunk in early May- when I went to school May comes AFTER April?
And anyway your Senior Military Naval Command at the time agreed that she was a legitimate target!
My family has been here for 8 generations - how come I am a transplant??
I think on that basis 25-30 million or more Argentines must be transplants as well!!!!!!!!!!!
Please- be very un-Argentine----get realistic!!
@ Searinox #3
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 01) “You sank the belgrano when there was negotiations between argentina and US with Peru as mediator...” - You commenced the hostilities, and I doubt either side expected negotiations to succeed. Plus I have a marvelous little article detailing how Argentina dispatched agents to Gibraltar with the objective of sinking British shipping WELL before the sinking of the Belgrano.
2) “but you didnt do it with the Chagosians and the kelpers in malvinas were trasplanted, its like we trasplanted people in london and then we claim london for Argentina...” - A] Ancient history that everyone agrees was the wrong thing to do, but has no relevance to the Falklands issue, and B] the Islanders were not transplanted by Britain.
3)“could be avaided if you wouldnt sank the belgrano” - Refer to my first point regarding Argentine objectives in Gibraltar. Mind you, they only went for Gibraltar because they thought Portsmouth and Plymouth were too risky...
4)“from who? we already proove we dont want a war, the war was because of a Dictatorship not a democracy...” - And the tens of thousands of cheering supporters back then were clearly forced at gunpoint to cheer the invasion on?
5)“really? did you know the oil is controlled by the FIC? the FIC is a monopoly of industries in the islands controlled by english shareholders...” - Regardless, the revenue will come into the Falklands.
6)” the UN resolution 1514 says self determination is apply to “people” not to “population”” - Well, that works well then seeing they are the 'people' of the Falkland Islands, and not an implanted population like you Argentines keep banging on about.
7)“what the UN is telling the UK to do, which is negotiate...respecting the interest of the islanders, which is different to their wishes...” - and as has been clearly demonstrated, the wishes AND the interests of the Falkland Islanders are the same, keeping the status quo and maintaining the link to Britain, and putting up with Argentina's rantings.
So what was the Belgrano doing out there? Whale watching? Enjoying a fishing trip?
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0heres a better formula that works.......STATUS QUO.....
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@16
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a country that only wants peace, right?
@ Pirat-Hunter #16
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0...You do realise copying and pasting your previous post (#10) just makes you look moronic, right? Albeit not as moronic as the nonsense you prattle on about makes you look.
#17 we want the end the illegal occupation in Islas Malvinas and if the UK doesn't listen we will eventually have leaders who will fix it for us time will deside what we want and weapons will deside what we get.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes there is many solutions to Islas Malvinas illegal occupation, my first choice an H-bomb, my second a working nuclear defense program, and lastly for UK to give the illegal aliens self determination in London, Not Argentina,. Simple now lets let them determine their fate.
No solution is needed. The current status satisfies the islanders.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0What they can't have is Argentina being friendly to the UK or anyone else. Can't be friendly to enemies, which most of the world is.
Get your facts right Doctor, it isn't Britian that's exploiting natural resources in the Falklands, it's the Falkland Islands Government that are. Given that you're in Tel Aviv I suggest that you put your own house in order before sticking your nose into other peoples territorial disputes.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0A solution is possible. Just leave the pride to one side.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) State associated with flags Argentina-United Kingdom.
b) - Argentina - Malvinas/ Falklands Associated State.
Flags of Argentina and the Malvinas / Falklands.
c) allow the islanders to have dual citizenship if they wish.
d) A system for choosing Argentina or British justice, in their contracts or disputes.
e) Freedom of movement to and from the continent.
d) - Natural resources for the inhabitants of the Malvinas / Falklands
A solution is possible and we will all be better.
Actually, there is an eminently sensible solution which would benefit both parties: the Falkland Islands annex and administer Argentina.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Argentine flag was raised anywhere on the islands how long do you suppose it would stay there?
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@23
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Problem is, we don't want you or your culture.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The good Doctor has missed the point. As Argentina has never had any claim to the Falklands, why should Britain concede one inch ??
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0And it is not Britain that is exploiting the oil, it is the Falkland Islands that is doing that.
So much for research !!
Diplomacy Program, Tel Aviv? Isn't that a tautology?
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 027 Lord Ton “Argentina has never had any claim”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Roger Lorton
You wrote that in Thailand after shooting a few arrows...
The one below was written in England...
The British Empire
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”
(27) Mr. Lorton
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”The good Doctor has missed the point…….... it is not Britain that is exploiting the oil; it is the Falkland Islands that is doing that.
I say:
The good old Doctor’s research is quite OK taking in consideration that…..:
British Citizens are exploiting the oil on a self proclaimed British Overseas Territory.
British Companies are exploiting the oil on a self proclaimed British Overseas Territory.
British Troops are protecting the exploitation of the oil on a self proclaimed British Overseas Territory.
Sounds “kind of British” to me……………
27 Mr Roger L.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“it is not Britain that is exploiting the oil; it is the Falkland Islands that is doing that”
Suuuuure.
Written in England:
“ In the 21st Century, can a European power hide its colonial claim to the oil resources under the sea bed of South America by sheltering behind the 'rights' of its colonists?
Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when”
The best solution is the current one with the Falklanders running things for themselves with British protection. Argentina does its periodic economic implosion act and forgets about the Falklands for the next ten years by which time the Falklanders are richer than the Qataris.That is the real world that the brainwashed Argies cannot seem to accept.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting article, Doctor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the Falklands issue we do not have a Hong Kong situation. Hong Kong and Kowloon were ceded to Britain in perpetuity. The New Territories, on the other hand, were subsequently leased for 99 years. The New Territories, with all their added infrastructure, and comprising the overwhelming majority of the expanded Hong Kong, had to be returned to China, which would have left Hong Kong unable to be self sufficient, and consequently Hong Kong also had to be returned to China.
For the Falklands case, from whom would Britain lease the islands? Argentina? Britain has spent too long arguing that they do not belong to Argentina.
Perhaps the Falklanders can lease a part of the Argentine mainland, eventually become too dependent on this leased patch of land, and have to surrender the islands, too, when the mainland lease expires. Don’t foresee any problems there, do we?
Joint sovereignty – Why would the British, or the Falklanders agree to this, in the face of such overt aggression by Argentina (which is more than a war of words – it is economic warfare)? And joint sovereignty to what purpose? Eventually ceding the Falklands to Argentina? Read the second paragraph above.
By all accounts, Argentina does not want simply to take possession of the islands, it seems hell-bent on displacing the islanders. Why would the islanders want this, and why would Britain allow it?
The economic potential was probably not foremost in the British government’s mind in 1982. Quite possibly ignorant of the economic potential, Britain nevertheless waged a war which both the USSR and USA believed it could not win, against the Argentine aggressor. Assertions today by Argentina that they are a different country, a democracy, not a dictatorship, and not intent on fighting, while waging economic and political warfare, do nothing to reassure. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,….
Doctor, you have offered no new, startling, insight into this situation, and
What concerns me when academics from other countries get involved is that they always seem to state a lease option. To me this indicates that the Argentinian spin on how the initial British ownership of the Islands came about. I.e they were taken from the Argentinians.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British and FI government need to be more proactive in pointing out Argentina's claim to the FI is based on proximity and a sense of 'I want, I have' mentality.
Having an Argentinian flag waving anywhere is much like having a pikey camp site pitched up at the back of ones garden.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The essay has nothing to say.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think the UK should hold firm in it's stance, tell everyone to bugger off and mind their own business, let the islanders get on with their lives. Eventually Argentina will get bored of their so called diplomatic efforts and invade the islands, we'll boot them off but this time make them sign a treaty stating they give up claim to the islands just like Gibraltar in 1713. If they don't, we'll just sink all their navy as a “precaution” against further aggression. They can whine all they like, even the most ardent malvinist knows the current path will get Argentina nowhere and any war will be hideously lost. Let's face it, Argentina has no hope whatsoever of getting the islands.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course there is a solution: just ignore the Argentine scumbags and get on with life. It may not satisfy the Argies - but then nothing ever does - but it will satisfy the rest of the world which doesn't give a stuff about Argentine sovereignty and is just sick and tired of all the diplomatic tension created by endless rounds of deluded and blousy Argentinian grandstanding. .
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Belgrano was sunk because it was involved in actively engaging the British Task Force. It was not “on its way back to port”, it was zig zagging around the exclusion zone in an attempt to lure British shipping into a pincer movement. This is what her captain later admitted
The solution:
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina accepts that you can't claim soverignty based on it being passed from a country to it's colony, particularly in the case of conflicting claims.
Argentina accepts that Vernot had permission to found a settlement from HMG - the garrison that the United Provinces emplaced WAS NOT accepted- and protested - until forcibly removed.
Argentina accepts that we did not recognise Jewetts claim to the islands.
Argentina accepts that the British colonisation attempts preceded the Spanish one and that the British attempts were only disrupted by Spains aggression in 1771.
Argentina accepts that the Falklanders are not intereested in being under Argentine rule, or even shared rule. The 1982 invasion has done irreparable damage to Argentina's stock in the islands.
Argentina accepts that it can't simply kick out all of the Falklanders like they planned to in 1982.
Independent nation status for the Falkland Islands. Argentina abandons its colonial and expansionist plans, grows up, concentrates on its real problems and properly managing the resources and territories it has already 'conquered'. We won't even insist on an apology for all the deaths and trouble they've caused.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@41 You're correct.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0All of these “helpful” articles always seem to start with the premise that the Islands were Argentine and that we “stole” them so it is “only fair that we lease them back”
The reality is more complex and when you consider that Argentina also claims South Georgia and the South sandwich Islands you realise that they are chancers of the first order.
Either take us to the ICJ or STFU - Simples!
The solutions is take by force the Islands back, expel all British and even penguin that understand English from there and plant a whole stock of patriotic argies to develop the place into a 21 century civilised Arg. Province.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once the job done the guys should keep telling we are Argies and belong to Argentina S-D.
That’s it always works...
HOW MANY TIMES ... HK is not the same as the Falkland Islands, geographically, historically or politically!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0LeaseBACK means Argentina owned it in the first place ... see the problem?????
21
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct it is a bit rich coming from Tel Aviv.
As regards the solution to the so called Falklands Dispute, the solution will be made public to the whole world when the Falkland Islanders exercise their right of self determination early next year.
DanyBerger
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina invade and use force? With what ... brooms?
As for bringing the Islands into the 21st century - they already are ... so you seem to be mistaking the backward shithole that is Argentina for a modern nation, and that is one thing Argentina most certainly is not and never will be.
@45 damn right.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe argentina should take a page from israel's playbook and remove the falklanders from their land by force.
Oh wait, they already tried that and failed lol.
Keep dreaming, Argtards
Joint-sovereignty won’t work either … why would you get into bed with someone you don’t trust??? Someone with a totally different, Chavez leaning attitude that you again, don’t trust???
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The rhetoric of the British government has not become ‘confrontational’ it has become ‘assertive’!
A very well written article otherwise.
Another thing the good Doctor seems to have missed is that Argentines cannot be trusted to keep their word. As a people they lie and cheat, they have no honour. The only way Argentina will get any part of the Falkland Islands is to prise them from Britain's dead fingers.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Otherwise quite a good article he correctly identifies that -
1) Kirchner is similar to Galtieri but with less guts.
2) Kirchner is using Falklands to divert attention from internal problems.
3) Kirchner's hectoring only leads to a hardening of UK attitudes.
4) Kirchner's aim is not to negotiate but to go around the world moaning which takes us back to No 2 above.
47
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can assure you that Argentina (or its Allies) will never get their hands on the Falkland Islanders again.
The current verbal conflict is more about what is under the sea than what is above it.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is nothing to discuss. There is no conflict, just aggression and threats from Argentina. The Falkland Islands are, and always have been peaceful and never presented any threat to Argentina. If there was ever the remotest possibility of negotiations to hand over British territory and free people to a hostile and belligerent country, that possibility, however unlikely, was squandered, and any imagined legal right was nullified by Argentina's unprovoked invasion in 1982, and the consequent deaths and injuries of hundreds of our people. I don't want to hear the usual, “It wasn't us, it was the junta” bullshit. Millions of screaming Argentine citizens were on the streets of Buenos Aires demonstrating their approval, many of those same citizens are squealing “Malvinas volveremos” (Falklands we will return). The junta appears to have been no less representative of the Argentine population than the current shower of reprobates running the damned place. Clearly the biggest mistake made by Britain in 1982 was not to finish the job.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even a cursory honest examination of the historical records shows that Argentina has no legitimate historical claim to the Falkland Islands. Argentina's claim to ownership on the grounds of geographic proximity would be irrelevant even if the Falklands had a land border with Argentina, like Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil and Bolivia. Even if the Falklands were just off the coast, like Ireland is from Great Britain, that would not be any grounds for ownership. The Islands are hundreds of miles from Argentina, far outside Argentine territorial waters. Argentina wants to expand its territory to encompass lands it has never owned, land occupied by people who have lived there for generations, longer than Argentina has existed, before the invasion and occupation of Patagonia.
Perhaps we'll hand over the Falkland Islands when you give Patagonia back to the Guarani.
52
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bang on my man
@14 Bongo (#)
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:52 am
The Belgrano was a red cross hospital ship full of orphans on a good will tour of the South Atlantic. I can't believe that you didn't know this.
Think- note what you say- but to whom will any oil production revenue accrue?
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who has the voting power to then decide what they do with that income should there be any?
I “think” you will find it is not Britain, Not UK Govt,Not UK Parliament.
@25
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Problem is, we don't want you or your culture.”
and that's exactly how we feel about Argentina too, if only you could accept our existence then all would be well with that outlook, you have nothing to do with us, we have nothing to do with you. The onus is on you to grow up.
@45
“As regards the solution to the so called Falklands Dispute, the solution will be made public to the whole world when the Falkland Islanders exercise their right of self determination early next year.”
I hope you're right, I fear that the much lauded referendum will be a farce.
Who the frigging hell is this Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum when he is at home?. Listen Dr Tenembaum whatsoever your name is I will say this just once to you. There is no problem down that part of the World, the Falklands have always been British, they never have been Argentinian not 300 years ago not 200 years ago not 100 years ago not 30 years ago. So whats all this crap about a lease back formula? what was discussed but never taken to the table and agreed on before the 82 conflict has no bearing into days world Got that Tenembaum and the rest of the Argentine bloggers and Government malcontents has it sunk in yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0And one more point as well while I am at, what the frigging hell has it got to do with the likes of Mr burger King and that moron Think what we British or Falkland Islanders do on our own soil, And by the way THINK who the frigging hell gave you that name, what frigging moron cam up with that name THINK its nearly as bad as your friend Mr Burger Kings name, how the frigging hell can we all take you all seriously with names like that. Do all you Argentinians have names like that? if so then we now know why e the world does not take your country seriously.
Mercopress
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please refrain from such close-up shots of CFK. I nearly threw up in my Weetabix this morning when I opened this story up.
#29 “It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there.”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you raised a flag and left. Making that the only valid claim out of all the flags that were raised there?
“Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823”
An abesntee governor who never visited the islands.
“A penal colony was also established on the island”
Which is subject to mutiny, they kill their commander and are expelled a few months later.
These are supposed to be stronger claims than having an earlier claim and living there for 180 years?
To Think, Marcos,Searinox & all the other deluded malvinistas:-
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 01) There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.
Can't make it any clearer than that.
2) There will be NO LEASEBACK or any other “deals”.
Got it?
Good! Now get well & truly lost.
PS,Of course we sank the Belgrano. Did you want us to invite the crew ashore for coffee & cakes, maybe?
Are they back to whinging about the Belgrano?
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0It came to fight, it sank. Where's the surprise in that?
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 Ma
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is this a quote of the law from some magical soth-sayer, no it is an opinion. What drives the islanders and britain is the rule of international law and that of self determination. Argentina is uncomfortable with this as it does not follow these doctrines and so espouses the poor man's equivalent of democracy and freedom. It is heading downhill fast.
The solution is simple: honour the right, guaranteed by Article 1 of the UN Charter, of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own political future, which they will do in a referendum next March.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Check out the Tryst webpage: http://www.tryst3.com/issue4/yoav.html
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dr. Tenembaum seems to be following the malvinista line, but as usual making the same mistakes as always, thinking that everybody is as gullible as the brainwashed Argentine public!!!!!!!
The solution is for Ms. Botox to accept that:
Jul 25th, 2012 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 01-A 200 year old claim is like the indigenous people of NA and SA wanting their country back from the explorers. It's lame.
2-Proximity means nothing. Alaska, Hawaii are my countires states and quite far. Cuba is a swim to Florida and hardly American.
3-Understand that when you start a war and have your ass handed back to you on a serving platter in nicley portioned slices, you do not get the prize you were after.
4-The people of the Falklands want nothing to do with Argentina.
5-Pay Britain in todays dollars for the cost of starting the war and drop the subject.
The Botox Bitch should read history and learn from it what happens when you try to create a diversion from the economic failures of a protectionist/socialist platform that is cannot afford.
Here in the USA, the liberal Carter's policies were so bad and stagnation was so high that a new index was created......the misery index: The unemployment rate plus the inflation rate.
Anbd another thing.....“give peace a chance” was such an annoying catchphrase as there was no war.
How about this:
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You stop listening to UK and Argentina, and start listening to us!
We don't want anything to do with Argentina after the way they're treated us. And I know some of you might say 'Well that's trying to find a solution', but lets be honest here, Argentina havent shown the slightest interest in 'meeting us in the middle'
@67
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but lets be honest here, Argentina havent shown the slightest interest in 'meeting us in the middle'”
To be fair though neither are we, sure we wouldn't mind cooperating in areas of mutual benefit like fishery managment and so on but we're as entrenched as Argentina when it comes to sovereignty, there isn't any middle ground.
@1
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We support Self determination” - Chago Islands? Have you heared of the British Empire?
“We recover the islands from invasion” - You faught for maintaining the ocupation of the invaded islands.
“We continue to defend the islands” - Bigest military base in South America for “defence”. From argentine mighty military power? Or from it thetening allies, the chinese terracota warriors?
“We support the Falklands endeavours” - thieves
“We continue to support them elsewhere” - poor victims.
“We rally behind the UN charter” - Ha ha ha That`s a good one.
“Argentina turns countries against us” - Poor countries of the World!
“What can we do?” - Wait for the UK to start negotiating a peaceful and permanent settlement of the dispute.
“Argentina simply wont go away” - No it won`t. South America won`t go away.
7 KFC de Pollo (#) you need to read some history, the 30 of april is the “day of membership” that celebrates the day when indigenous and inmigrants vote if they wanted or not to be argentinians, and the difference with malvinas islands, is that in patagonia there was no country, in malvinas there was, and it was Argentina
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ “We continue to defend the islands” - Bigest military base in South America for “defence”. From argentine mighty military power? Or from it thetening allies, the chinese terracota warriors? ”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 01200 military personel and three fighters are the biggest military base in South America? Building wise it may be as it used to hold almost ten times that number.
“ “We support the Falklands endeavours” - thieves”
We owned it, you stole it, we took it back, you tried to steal it again and got left bloodied and bruised.
Those of you who have seen my post on here know that I am a firm supporter of the rights of all people to self determination and as such the decision of what should happen lies firmly with the people who call the islands their home (many were born there and can trace their ancestry on the islands back 9 generations) this is therefore their property, their homes their lives.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do believe tho that the doctor is spot on with his conclusion that ”What to do (or not do) in the case of the Islands remains tricky. Is there a solution?
Theoretically, yes; practically, no.”
I agree with him that if not for nationalist pride a lease back deal or joint sovereignty with certain protection brought in i.e. no mass immigration designed to change the cultural makeup of the islands, could be a possibility.
I also agree with him that the main problem to this is the Argentine governments attitude is not to foster friendly relations but to attack and harass the islands in an attempt to forceful (diplomatic threats and sanctions are a use of force) annexe the islands. As the doctor states their was some steps before 1982 to intact something similar to this but the war reversed all this (something Argentina must acknowledge was wrong and which has left their case weakened). I believe that if Argentina genuinely want to gain some form of sovereignty (and I have my doubts as to whether this is genuine or being used as a political trick in a similar way to Galaterri in 1982), it can only come about as the result of a position of trust between the islands and the argentine government which will only come about as a result of many years of negotiations on mutually agreeable topics (fisheries, hydro carbon, flights etc, which the Islanders have invited the Argentine government to do), however before any of this can start the Argentine government must accept a) The islanders are a people who possess the right to self determination over their homes. Only then can any progress be made.
Just as well for his sake that the author of this report left Argentina (the country he was born in) before issuing this report, which is fairly critical of CFK's policies. Otherwise, at best he'd have about 100 tax inspectors crawling all over his 'ass', as our American cousins would say, and at worst he'd be dangling upside down from a helicopter somewhere over the sea.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to laugh when I hear the war mongering from the argentines on here. The best thing they can do is have another go at taking them, I think the result will show some finality to the issue. I don't think we need to pay attention to any Jewish diplomacy ideas - diplomatic resolution isn't exactly their strong point!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@70
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am afraif in 1883 there was no such country as Argentina and therefore the islands could not have been claimed by Argentina. In 1833 the fledging country was calld the provinces of the Rio de la Plata which was made up mainly of the cities of Buenos Aires, Conception and Montevideo. The islands were over 1000 miles from the nearest territory of the Provinves of the Rio de la Plata. Why are the islands Argentine and not Parguayian or Uraguayian (both part of the Provicnes of the Rio Plates). How does your argument logical extend to the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia or the British Antartic? The native inhabitants of many provicnes incluidng The Pampa and Patagonia were subjcted to ethnic cleansing in the 1870s by general (later president) Roca in the conquest of the desert and repalced with an inplanted population.
under your argument the ownership of lands should be based on the ownership in early 1833. Do you understand that this would then form a prescense for all peoples everywhere in the world and hence many modern countries filled with people who have used their self dtermination right would cease to exisit and much the world would actualy be returned to former colonial masters? This is the reason why the UN frooze the borders in 1945 and now use that date as the benchmark for all disputes.
The problems with people (on both sides of this argument) is they potray the hisotry of the Islands as black or white when in reality it is more complicated than that.
This is NOT a battle between Britain and Argentina. If anything is more like Argentina against the Islanders.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The writer has even missed the point that the islanders are holding a referendum next year. Like we keep pointing out, its up to the islanders to decide their future, no-one else. The only realistic change in the FI status is for the FI to be an independent nation, probably within the next 30 years.
@myself 75.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have mistaken my dates and have incorrectly states Argentina was not a nation in 1833. It was. I apoligse for the misinformation. I have therefore asked the editors to remove my post. My argument from the statement “how does your argument logically extend to” is however still valid. Only the opening section disucssing the United provicnes of la Rio de la Plata is wrong.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Engineerabroad
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-Las Malvinas- is wholly a political tool. The one thing the peronist system has to placate and manipulate the most troublesome demographic of the country - the middleclass. Its far to valuable a tool to lose by letting it go.
Nobody cares what Argentina wants. Haven't you Argentines noticed? Oh, I forgot....reality is irrelevant to Argentines. La cultura de egoismo delirante. Yo, yo, yo. Vos no me importa nada. Ridiculo. Que matenerlo! Esta funcionando tan bueno para ustedes.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@78
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) You have some real hate towards a people I guess you have never seen, spoken to or visted.
2) Do you truelly mean you would like to use a nucleur weapon against anyone let alone a peacefull population? Do you relaise that the use of such a weapon would make the islands uninhabitable for anyone for many years due to the radiation expose, which could actualy be spread in the upper attmopshere to Argentina?
3) Why London? These people may have never been to England they may have been born in the islands, why should they be removed to a nation they have no life in.
4) In what way is there not much time?
5) I have asked for your post to be removed as it clearly insits ethnic clensing.
'Is There a Solution to the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict?'
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, an independent Falkland Islands nation
@79
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree totaly, the point I was trying to make is that the current Argentine policy is counter productive and therefore to me enforces the argument that it is a politcal tool.
@82
As a supporter of self determiantion I agree that should the islanders choose to go down this route, I would fully support their decision.
Yes there is a solution, my first option an H-bomb, my second option a nuclear defense program and my last options is for UK to give the illegal aliens self determination in London not Argentina. Simple let them determine themselves their fate. Denial is futile times changes everything but people never forget, politics will show what we want, weapons will determine what we get. Time is ticking.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@84 I will be here all day and will report everyone of your posts that incites ethnic genocide. Please read my response to you in 81.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The use of a H bomb (a very outdated technology now) could actualy pollute Argentina as a result of nucelur fallout carried in the upper atmosphere. it is likely that the use of a nucleur weapon would adversly affect more people in Argentina than on the islands.
@82 Most Islanders want this, while maintaining a close relationship with Britain. However they are frightened of Argentina so at the moment they fully support the status quo. It's sad really that Argentina is denying the Falklanders the right to an independence that Britain is only too happy to allow.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, as expected, this has bought all the Malvanista cockroaches out in force.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a pity that the level heads of Argentinean posters, and we all know who they are, are not taken notice of by the others.
They could for a start learn the truth of many things Argentinean from them, istead of spouting indoctrinated rubbish all the while.
“Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum is a lecturer in the Diplomacy Program at Tel Aviv University”. Tel Aviv / Diplomacy, surely an oxymoron?
Perhaps he lectures to the Israeli Military on diplomacy and the Palistinians? He MUST know his stuff then, pity he has to stick his oar in on the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas).
I would have thought a PhD. in diplomacy from any College of Oxford would have resulted in a better appreciation of the Argentinean problem of Goebbels indoctrination from baby school level and the resulting physchosis giving rise to undeserved hate of the UK.
Still, I bet he has got some brownie points from The Mad Bitch Of Argentina.
How on earth do we get these thickos to realise that it is NOT Britain exploiting the oil? It is us - the Falkland Islands Government. It is a British Company doing the work. It is OUR oil and we licence companies to drill for it and exploit it and any revenue accrues to the Falkland Islands Government.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before you make any comment please get this simple fact into your head
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@90
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jeepers. Another MI6 disinformation agent out to discredit the noble people of Argentina.
Concerning the author of the above article - Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum lectures at the Diplomacy Programme, University of Tel Aviv. He holds a doctorate in modern history from the University of Oxford, a master's degree in international relations from Cambridge University and an undergraduate degree in modern history from the University of Tel Aviv. Articles of his have been published in the United States, Argentina, Spain, Israel, and by the European Parliament Magazine. He was born in Argentina and has lived in the United States and Britain as well as Israel. He is vice-president of the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@92 Yeah? So? He's an argie nutjob.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@90
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your threat of throwing us out of planes, well, what can one say....scary stuff. Oh...except for this; you had the chance to do that in '82 and you didn't take it, do you know why that was? because you were too shit scared of the British to do it*. That won't have changed. You just keep on dreaming your fascist dreams little man.
*and that applies to your fantasy about nuclear options too.
#90
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You brighten up my day with your postings. I have the picture of a malevolent dwarf, sitting alone in the dark and foaming at the mouth in impotent rage. Are you by any chance Mr. Timmerman's foreign policy advisor ? I wait with baited breath his speech in the decolonisation committee advocating your solution. I am sure that they would give their backing to this. The UN would also unanimously vote this through as everyone hates the rubbish British.
I am sorry to rain on your parade. If your country did develop the H-Bomb and a means of delivery - apart from the Argentine postal service -and a threat was made to use it as you advocate,, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against you could be a distinct possibility. It would be hard to miss Buenos Aires. Are 15 million of your countrymen worth 3000 Falkland Islanders ?
Ponder upon this and try to come back to the world of rational thinking - or sanity in your case !
93
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well born in Argentina , I would say that he is biased is he not. Probably put up to it by Timmerman, his article carries no credibility whatsoever. The referendum next year wil put beyond all doubt the political status of the Falklands. Anyway why is some Israeli getting involved in this issue this is the question.
@96 and others
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do not see how the article is in anyway negative to the islanders. No where does he state that he supports Argentina or Britain, in fact he incistuates that the UK does have legal rights over the islands and that Argentinas current retoric is based in internal stability and is having a negative effect.
All the doctor is doing is looking at the issue from a nuetral point of view with the patriotic fervour cut out from both sides and suggesting a possible solution based on the fostering of good relations between the Islanders and the Argentines. This is something the legislative commite wants as it has invited Argentine to talks on a mutual agrreable topics i.e. fishing.
Dont get me wrong I support the Islanders rights to self dtermination but nothing Dr Tenebaum says in the article is prejuidce to this idea.
@3 Searinox re “We try to avoid confrontation” you sank the belgrano when there was negotiations between argentina and UK with Peru as mediator.”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the Captain of the Belgrano(QEPD) and the Argentine Admiral in charge of Naval Operations both said “The sinking of the Belgrano was a licit act of war”. Before he died Captain Bonzo of the Belgrano stated categorically that he was manouvering his vessel to be in a better position to attack the British task force and had he been in the position of the captain of the British submarine he would have taken the exact same action.
So let's leave behind the unfortunate act of war which led to the sinking of the Belgrano and if blame must be apportioned then Argentina is to blame as it initiated the conflict.
Much of what he says about the current situation is basically correct.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What he misses completely is the wishes of the Islanders in deciding the solution.
He still portrays it as a bi-lateral issue, which of course it’s not.
In that respect he reveals where his sympathies lie.
This article may appear at first read to be neutral, but is infact extremely bias toward the Argentinian position, cleverly disguised in an attempt influence neutrals. No surprise when you realise that Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum is an RG.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain argument is self-determination (the islanders deciding their own future). Yet the author makes no mention of the Islanders views on their future in any of his 'solutions', he even lists ridiculous potential solutions in an attempt to portray he has covered every conceivable solution, leaving out any real solutions like independence.
Any neutral reading this not knowing too much about the situation would favour the Argentinian position, because according to the author the islanders have no say in their future and are irrelevant, this is apparently a 'conflict' between Britain and Argentina. Britain are the bad boys, because we are the ones that won't discuss sovereighty! Also every one of his preferred solutions would end up with Argentina gaining full sovereignty of the FI. Giving the impression that sooner or later the FI will belong to Argentina.
Neutral readers are now subconsciously thinking 'why won't Britain discuss sovereignty. So he then talks in length about oil, in which he says 'Britain is currently endeavoring to exploit.' This is incorrect, it the islanders oil and any profits from selling it belong to the them, it theirs to exploit.
So our RG friend has now implanted the neutral readers mind with the idea Britain refuses to discuss sovereignty, because we want the OIL.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@101
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, I didn't even get to see that post before it was deleted. Not having much luck are you Pirat, be careful you don't break your keyboard now...
If the Islands want to be linked to the UK that is their right.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, the solution to this problem is as an Independent nation, protected by the UK, as was the case with Belize.
If the Argentines chose not to have friendly relations with the Falklands continually spouting the lies about transplanted population, they are going tro miss out financially and the countries that trade with the Falklands are going to get richer.
@84
There are no illegal aliens in the Falklands to my knowledge. Falklands customs are very efficient and everyone there is legitimately there.
“weapons will determine what we get.”
Yes. If you use your current weapons you will 'get' shot down, sunk, and your airfields full of craters.
You'd be better giving peace a chance.
The Israelis, seem to like the Argentines, despite the hospitality they gave to Eichmann and his buddies.
I think the author forgot one more possible solution: The Falklands are for the islanders, with full autonomy and with “shared support” from both Britain and Argentina. ...with shared support I mean, economic, industrial...ect. To provide what is difficult for them to get....“the Falklands are their Islands”!!..that's the key to any possible solution!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@103 Pete Bog
Jul 25th, 2012 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed, it is that obvious.
@104 atk357
Tell me why the islanders would choose that over independence?
@Islander1
Any news on the wording / questions in your referendum yet?
Dr Tenembaum
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The solution is really quite simple.
1. Argentina grows up.
2. Argentina respects the principle to self-determination as laid out in the UN charter.
3. Argentina then STFU about the Falklands and concentrates on getting its own house in order.
See! Simples!
Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum is a well educated person born in argentina and knows well that a solution needs to be reach to avoid the mental cruelty the UK is doing on the Argentine leader, Argentina and argentinian citizens.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is presenting a peacefull approach.
Conqueror continued desire to inflict this viewers with mental cruelty threating to kill all argentinians citizens needs TO STOP!
Conqueror is liable for such abusive behavior.
His pseudo-commandos of a mass killer are known to copy their predecessors. His obsession FOR MASS KILLING NEEDS IMMEDIATE
ATTENTION FROM THE UK TEAM.
LET'S TALK IN A PACIFIC LANGUAGE!
Yay SussieUS is back “awesome”................
Jul 25th, 2012 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής “lying, false”) is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is nots.
Commando-A small fighting force specially trained for making quick destructive raids against enemy-held areas.
Anyone tell me what she's saying?
@104
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That would be just fine, I can't see the Argentinians buying it though, they've never aknowledged us as having the right to self determination.
Yes, that makes sense, but it is the logical thing to do. I seriously doubt there is any clear logic in Argentina!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@105 independance is fine too! the question is from whom? Perhaps the Falklands would like to become stronger economically before they can give Argentina the “salute”....Eventually they'll grow to become a strong territoty. Look how much they achieved since the war ended in 1982!
Fakland island is a corporate not a country. Www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Holdings
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hear coca Cola will claim London next week at the olimpics from ignorant loosers.
I feel sad that UK will not give the illegal aliens land in London for them to have self determination. We are all up for british civilians to have their right given in UK specially now with their weapons and nukes but Islas Malvinas Argentina is not negotiable. The last thing we need is trashy war mongers and imperialist to set flags and kill everything. An H-bomb is a perfect solution with this lot. Fishing in Antartica Argentina is a perfect solution for a long term plan. Oil will run out and fish will be under our control.
The continued threats made by Conqueror inflicts harm to these viewers. No one deserve to suffer mental cruelty.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror needs to stop his obsession for guns/fantasy for murder due to his military or police training/male paranoid/loner/white/ fits all for a CRIMINAL MIND!
@107
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only peaceful solution is independence for the Falkland Islands.
Dr. Tenembaum ignores the obvious solution.
1/-If the Islands are independent the Argentines cannot moan about colonialism.
2/- If the Islands are independent, the UK cannot moan about Argentina's bullying and imperialism.
3/-Both Europe and South America can be connected in a business sense by the Falkland Islanders, and money will flow from the Falklands to both UK/Europe and Argentina/South America.
If CFK got that ostrich (rhea) head out of the sand, the money from the Falklands would not be flowing mainly to Europe and Chile.
Argentine imperialism instead of a peaceful approach will deny Argentina money.
Acceptance of Falklands Independence would assist Argentina and South America greatly.
Its that simple.
Why is it that so called intellectuals start with the premise that Argentina has a legitimate claim on the Falklands Far better to start with the premise that the Falklands are British, which is a legitimate and has been since 1765. The fatuous Argentine claim is based purely on expansionism ie colonialism. there is a precedent for this expansionist policy, namely, the Argentine claim on other islands in the south Atlantic, islands that belonged to Chile, Picton, Nueva & Lennox.CFK's claim is assinine to say the least.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l see that Sussie wackjob is back.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She would make an ideal consort for that other idiot, Pirat-Hunter.
On second thoughts, maybe not.
We don't want them breeding!
Who cares what Mr Christmas Tree says?
The lsraelis sold equipment to Argentina in 1982 & gave them moral support, no?
He was born in Argentina, no?
Say n'more, wink wink.
NO NEGOTIATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY, NO “DEALS” WITH Argentina.
Too bad for you, Argentina, if you don't like it.
Thats the way it is.☼
105, No detail yet, The crucial thing is to do it right- correct-fair-democratic -and impartial - so it will have International acceptance, (well with one exception at least- maybe Hugo as well if not dead by then).
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The wording will indeed be straitforward and clear - so folk know what they are voting for whichever way. One thing is we will need to allow for lobbying/presentations from both sides in the run up! Wonder who would come to present their case?
Latest gues time is March 2013.
Late again,
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But can see im not needed, the brilliant brits have once again trounced and totally destroyed any argument the argie implanters half heartedly come up with,
Argentsussie, CFK has change to countries name in your honour ,
mmmm
Solution a strategically placed H-bomb.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#118
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where, in Buenos Aires ?
#19 Malvinas Argentina.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The article is interesting, but like it happens with all the articles that are published about this dispute, it accuses argentina of using this case, in order to divert people's attention from the real problems, however that argument was never used for the u. k., like if it were living such a thriving economic moment. This is evident that all these academic people dont realise about how rediculous they seem when they make such mediocre and hipocrite analysis.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, it's very easy to victimize the u. k saying that argentina is agressive, like if britain were acting correctly. It has rejected sistematicly all the resolutions that call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, and has always clariffied that it's disposed to talk about different issues with argentina but not about the sovereignty, which is the main problem, anyway i dont deny that maybe argentina commited mistakes too, in fact i read that it didn't comply totally with some of the agreements that it had signed with the u. k during the 90's.
I have always thought that there is just one solution for this conflict, i mean the fact that both nations should accord to take the case to the international court of justice, this is the only way to finish with this dispute, due to i dont think in absolut that the u. k resumes the negotiations with argentina. Anyway, if none of the two countries proposed that idea after 1982, it's because perhaps both aren't sure that they can win the case, so, the problem will continue, and the islanders will continue victimizing their selves, without recognizing that they are not acting correctly either.
121
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your argument is a none starter,
you lost .
NO, Axel.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Negotiations. There is NOTHING to “negotiate”.
How about you try to bring your broken country into the 21st century?
Then get lost, you irritating little virus.
#120
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where's that ?
#124 close to our fishing grounds in Antartica Argentina.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you have no fishing grounds in Antartica Argentina,
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@116
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“One thing is we will need to allow for lobbying/presentations from both sides in the run up! Wonder who would come to present their case?”
No one would, would be a wasted effort anyway as we all well know. It does concern me though that to choose between two options, one to continie being an overseas territory of Britain and the other to be a province of Argentina is not much of an exercise in self determination, we know what the result will be, aside from congratulating ourselves on how British we are I don't see that it will make much of an impression on the rest of the world (which is after all the point of the exercise).
Axel- Talks have been offerred to Argentina- a couple of months ago, and no reply received!
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK said in public(and at UN) she wants to talk about Fisheries and Flights - and just to sit down and talk . This request was then made to the Uk Govt by your Ambassador.
As these issues are NOT controlled by the UK - but are fully under control of the elected Islands Govt - the request was passed to the Islands by UK - The Islands Govt has responded to your Ambassador stating that they would be prepared to sit at the table - with UK at the end as Chairperson - and talk with Argentina about Fisheries and Communications.
That is indeed how it should be- the 2 Governments WITH responsibilty for these issues in the S West Atlantic- sitting down and talking about them.
But there is no reply!!!!
127 - that is why the wording is crucial - no point in doing it at all I agree unless we are going to get Int acceptance etc.
#126 wrong answer son, who's fish are we selling lol. We had a great fishing season in Argentina this year and it will be better next year and the year after that. Antartica Argentina will be our fishing play ground like or not nobody can stop us from fishing Antartica Argentina if it doesn't exist. Chuckle chuckle.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have a solution a strategically placed H-bomb in Islas Malvinas Argentina.
@129 Pirat-Hunter,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where are these “malvinas” that you continually talk about?
ln the Pacific maybe?
Now, if you mean the Falklands, well what do you think would happen if you dropped an H-Bomb here?
Apart from frying us all, the area & your precious Antarctica(which you DO NOT own)& Argentina would be radio active for thousands of years.
Of course Bs As would be melted in a retaliatory strike.
So what would you gain, you idiot?
Do you actually think before you post anything. l don't think so.
What a silly article!. The Malvinas are Argentine and everyboy knows that starting with Great Britain. “The principle guiding its stance is the self-determination of the people of the Islands”. What people (town) is this? Is not just any people. Only illegally occupying the born there (the least) as the ultra illegal occupants unborn in our Malvinas.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@72 Although I disagree with everything, is one of the few comments trying to build and has no aggression.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I congratulate Mr. Enginner.
The shared sovereignty seems like a good possible solution to me. It seems to work fine for Andora. It also appeals to my sense of humor, it would be funny for Elizabeth II and CFK to be co-princesses.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe this will happen. Both Argentina and UK seem to want the current situation of a mini-Cold War between them, so it is likely to continue a long time. It probably serves the political interests of both CFK and Cameron.
I also think that landlocked nations should sue in the international court of justice to get a declaration that the Falklands/Maivinas don't have a large enough population to have a 200 mile EEZ. I know it isn't the only claimed EEZ based on a small population but it the one geting the most attention.
EEZ's have the effect of impovershing international waters which are the common heritage of all mankind. There should at least be some minimum population required before a territory should be allowed to have one.
There isn't any established law on this (other than that Iceland has a big enough population).
The ideal country to sue the UK on this issue would be Mongolia. It also appeals to my sense of humor for the nation which had the second largest empire in history to sue the nation which had the largest for being too expansionist.
ANGRY BRITS.. ANGRY BRITS EVERYWHERE!
Jul 26th, 2012 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent article, by the way.
(127) WestisBest
Jul 26th, 2012 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I always knew that behind that “Coarse Language” façade was a shrewd farmer.
But it seems there is quite more than that….
What about running for Camp next time...........?
You could certainly do better that certain person I will not mention in here!
1)Kelpers hand over Gran Malvina/West Falkland and they keep the rest ( Soledad/East Falkland, South Georgia and the S.Sandwich Islands, and that's it!
Jul 26th, 2012 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 02)British Army stays in West Falkland, paid for by Argentina,if Argentina does not pay, then go back to UK sovereignty.
3)Argentina suspend any “ squid war” or all other hostile acts. Argentina's air space open fall all Kelper flights.
I don't think there is much oil around the islands anyways,( not as much as they say), me think is a scam.
enough fighting!
100
Jul 26th, 2012 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Steve could not agree with you more, a sly slippery letter when you read between the lines, it is pro Argentinian for example the Falklands is not Hong Kong, Timmerman has put this man up to writing this letter, take it from me.
Argentinians have changed there tactics and trying to be more subtle, however what was written bares little reality to the situation of the FI.
The end of the day the political status of the FI will be decided by the people who live there, and early next year they will demonstrate to the world this clearly to the whole world when the referendum on their right to self determination is held.
Of course there is a viable solution to the conflict.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The real reason why it hasn't been solved a long time ago is simply cultural differences.
In the British mind, the way to show friendship is to improve personal and commercial relations, saying e.g. “Hi friends, how is your day” and “Come and visit us Friday night and we'll have a party”. To the average Argentine malvinista this approach is extremely suspect. What the British government must learn is to use Argentine logic on the subject.
Instead of invitations, etc., what Britain must do to create a deap and lasting friendship, is to send an army to occupy Argentina. Then the temperamental Argentines will understand that you really love them and that you are sincere in starting a lasting love affair between the two countries - after all, that is how Argentina implemented their 'win hearts and minds' campaign in The Falkland Islands, and that's what they want, although it may seem sort of a bear hug fashion to the coldhearted, 'stiff upper lip' British.
The solution is really simple. All Argentina has to do is convince the islanders they should become part of Argentina. Why's that so hard?
Jul 26th, 2012 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@131JoséM,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again.
lts NOT your land, NEVER has been & NEVER will be.
Obviously you are confused.
@133Rollo1066,
What a collection of nonsense you write.
How would you like to share your country with some johnny-come-lately who says that he wants it?
No cigar for you.
@134PGH,
A quite biased & ridiculous article, actually.
@136Andean4000,
ln your dreams, bozo!
How about you give us Sta Cruz province? lt makes as much sense!
@137mclayoscar,
Thats what l was thinking too.
l'm going to have to re-assess my thinking about lsrael if there is anymore of this.
@139HansNiesud,
Can't figure it out, myself.
@ 121 axel arg
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“... like it happens with all the articles that are published about this dispute, it accuses argentina of using this case, in order to divert people's attention from the real problems, however that argument was never used for the u. k., ...”
Let me get this straight: Are you actually claiming that Britain has started the recent debate over the Falkland Islands?
If not, then how can Britain use it to divert people's attention from the real problems, when the British government doesn't mention the dispute with one single word, except in answers to Argentine rantings?
- -
“... i dont deny that maybe argentina commited mistakes too, in fact i read that it didn't comply totally with some of the agreements that it had signed with the u. k during the 90's.”
maybe? MAYBE? totally? TOTALLY?
- understatements of the year!
------------------------------
@ 133 Rollo1066
“There should at least be some minimum population required before a territory should be allowed to have one [EEZ].”
And the number should be? 44 million? 63,161,900?
- and if the population grew beyond your number, then what?
@116 Islander
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have spoke to several people about the FI referendum and no-one has any idea what it will ask.
I have a list of examples. Which would be the best?
Example 1.
Do you think the Falkland Islands should maintain their links with the UK?
a: YES
b: NO
Example 2.
Do you think that the Falkland Islands should be an independent country?
a: YES
b: NO
Example 3.
I would prefer the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to be...
a: BRITISH
b: ARGENTINE
c: INDEPENDENT COUNTRY
Example 4.
I would like a change to the current Falkland Islands sovereignty?
a: YES
b: NO
Feel free to post your own prefered examples, anyone.
#129
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Royal Navy could. We have submarines and if I may remind you, they are rather good at their job.
142- it will need to be a straight yes/no question, not 3 way, I have no doubt that over the coming months lawyers and political leaders here, along with advisors from the UN/Commonwealth etc will be figuring out the wording.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0@145 - Islander1
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect that the question will be along these lines (in English and Spanish to be absolutely fair):
Tick one box only. You ticka only uno boxa.
Do you wish to: Whata you wanna:
a) Remain a self-governing British Overseas Territory with the option of holding a referendum on independence in the future.
a) Staya asa you are.
or ora
b) Have sovereignty of the islands transferred to Argentina, with the name of the islands changed to Malvinas, Spanish as the main language and driving on the right side of the road, abolishment of the Islands government and installation of an Argentine Govenor, with no option of a referendum on independence at a later date.
b) Bea an Argie and speaka the Espanol, driva ona the righta with nona de rulesa and nona de freea speakings.
See it's really very easy. And since Argentina refuse to come out and play, the wording on the second part of the question can be anything.
But perhaps we should let the UN have some input on the actual wording so it is neutral. This way no one in the world can say that Argentina didn't have a fair chance to gain sovereignty in a legal way.
Once the referendum has been conducted, I hope then that the Falkland Islands Government will instruct the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to petition the UN to get the Falklands taken off the C-24 committee list, as they will no longer be considered a colony.
Argentina can then go and cry to all her friends:
China
Iran
Syria
Venezula
Angola
err....
That's all folks!
144 Islander1
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am somewhat puzzled about the 'not 3 way'. I imagine that a modified Example 3 from 142 Steve-32-uk fits the bill very well:
Example 3. (modded)
I would prefer the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to be...
a: BRITISH (BOT)
b: ARGENTINE
It is important in my view to include Argentina by name, if only to allow people to reject it by putting a cross against a). The option on the voting slip would be to put a cross against the option required, just as is usually the case in the UK elections.
I must admit to not knowing what, in actual practice on the island, INDEPENDENT COUNTRY means at this time, especially for only 3,000 or so people.
Presumably the defence of the islands would be subbed out to mercenaries, as I suspect the Argies would have a field day if the British Military were still involved.
Do Falklanders really want independence at this point in their development?
@ 43 DanyBerger
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“... and plant a whole stock of patriotic argies to develop the place into a 21 century civilised Arg. Province.”
You mean 40 percent living below the poverty limit?
TBH the article title should have been “Is there a Final Solution...” because that's what would happen if the RGs ever got their hands on the islanders
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0@146: simple solution, go independent then rent out a plot of land to the British Military. Problem solved.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agree with Boovis.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Full independence with UK military base and a contract with the UK for defence.
Then Argentina could do absolutely nothing. Hold on.....they can't do anything now! ;)
@198 & 150
Jul 26th, 2012 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An independent Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas) would need Diplomatic Representation worldwide, presently provided by the FCO. Whatever the Argies say the FCO can run rings around most other countries in negotiations and advice.
Also, the newly independent country would, I would hope, want to get nearer to stable LatAm countries such as Uruguay and Chile (with whom they have excellent relations now). Having the British Army encamped on the islands under a mercenary scheme (for that is what you seem to be suggesting) would be difficult to sell AND when there is a conflict of interest between the Falklands and Britain over some other incident, who decides what happens next?
Perhaps in 20 -30 years, when the oil has filled the islanders coffers and they have had all those years of negotiation with their customers (and hopefully by then their allies) things might be different. Who, for instance, if China took a major slice of the output, would dare to cross the Falklanders?
Interesting times for the Islanders with lots of thinking and sorting out to do before the referendum. I sincerely wish them all my very best wishes.
Simple referendum question:
Jul 26th, 2012 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you like:
A) to remain a British Overseas territory, supported by a country that respects your freedom, would lay the lives of its soldiers on the line to protect you, would honour any agreements made with you, and ensure that all mineral, agricultural and fishing rights belong to you, not them.
b) become a state of Argentina, where your new country wishes to ethnically cleanse you, will dishonour any agreements made with you, will throw you live from aeroplanes if you cross them, and will steal any resource they can lay their thieving hands on.
Please tick A or B.
pirat hunter - man I've never read a forum topic with so many removed comments by one individual - be very careful your guardian doesn't put you to bed with nothing but dessert m'lad.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My view is probably fairly common - for me only the people of the Falklands Islands can decide anything on topics such as their natural resources, with whom they want to be associated blah blah and all the rest of it... what's to talk about
I'm not a troll btw folks but probably have little right to comment on these types of threads - Some folks thought the '82 situation was going to be full scale and last a lot longer...
briton @122
Jul 26th, 2012 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! Is there a conflict?
Who says?
Certainly, discussions roll
but if the WYSIWYG rule stays,
I'd believe there's no conflict at all
;-D
Cheers!
Independence is and always has been an option- albeit not a very longlasting one if we went for it just now!
Jul 26th, 2012 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I an sure that the question will be a vote straight A or B - without added ifs and maybes to either.
I would want it to just say-Do you Want to become Argentine? Yes- N0!
But I guess we will have something a bit tamer!
I am flabergasted by the virulence of this debate.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To the point, I think the article is simply brilliant. I wish more articles like this are published on all conflicts issues.
Its time to be civilized and just argue, not with aim to convince but trying to make a point with facts.
If, by a figment of imagination,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0one sees
the islands handed to Argentina,
one will also see
that the next move of our government
will be to build a bridge
across the Atlantic.
There's no need of imagination
to know the size
of money that would come
under the table
for such a pharaonic enterprise!
ISLANDER1. ST.JOHN.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISLANDER: I know perfectly about everything you said in your comment, in fact, i hope c. f. k's government asnwers soon, and start a dialague with your lawmakers. I have always said that although i agree with many decisions that she took regarding this dispute, i have always criticised too the fact that there is not any dialogue with the government from the islands. On the other hand, you forgat to say about c. f. k's offer about prividing three flies a week by aerolineas argentinas, i hope our administration aswers soon what was proposed by sharon halford.
Anyway, you didn't say a word about the most important problem, i mean the sovereignty, this is evident that if you insist with the same posture, arguing that you are disposed to talk about different issues with argentina but not about the sovereignty, we will keep on having more problems, and the most pathetic of this situation is that you'll continue victimizing your side, like if if were acting correctly.
I know that your best excuse to reject the negotiations about the sovereignty is the article of our constitution, however, you still dont realise about the doble standart that you use every time you criticise our constitution, due to at the same time that you love parroting that for argentina there is just one solution, your side has always said that it's disposed to discuss about different issues with argentina but not about the sovereignty, so, for you, there is also just one outcome.
Some day you'll have to understand that beyond what our constitution says about our claim, if the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., you and your people will be able to continue under british government as mush as you like, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for this conflict, like in 1974, however this is evident that a fair solution is not wat you want.
S.T JOHN: It was too obvious that you weren't going to recognize that you are not acting correctly.
Got it in one Monkey Magic!
Jul 26th, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0152 Monkeymagic (#) Jul 26th, 2012 - 05:15 pm Report abuse
Simple referendum question:
Would you like:
A) to remain a British Overseas territory, supported by a country that respects your freedom, would lay the lives of its soldiers on the line to protect you, would honour any agreements made with you, and ensure that all mineral, agricultural and fishing rights belong to you, not them.
b) become a state of Argentina, where your new country wishes to ethnically cleanse you, will dishonour any agreements made with you, will throw you live from aeroplanes if you cross them, and will steal any resource they can lay their thieving hands on.
Please tick A or B.
Axel, bobo.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have a fair solution.
We have the Falklands because they are ours. Not yours.
You will never get the Falklands & no, we will not talk to you about it.
You are wasting your time with your arguments.
We don't even care what you think.
Why don't you “sit down & negotiate” Argentina's sovereignty with China?
Will it EVER enter your thick head that THERE WILL BE NO NEGOTIATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY, EVER,
Thank you, Axel.
Perhaps if the British, invaded Patagonia,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN tells us to leave,
We tell them and the Argies to soddy offy, its ours,
The Argies finally kick us out,
But we still demand Patagonia,
We feel argentina should give to us, its only fair,
We agree to Patagonia to have a referendum, they vote to remain argentine, we dismiss this as propaganda, and still demand Patagonia,
One day it will come back to us,
Now why don’t you Argies stop being nasty, selfish, and greedy, and sit down to negotiated it with us,
And then give us Patagonia,
After all, its ours, and you stole it,
Give us Patagonia,
Over to you .
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Once more for axel arg
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- who tries to avoid answering a simple question by blabbering “It was too obvious that you weren't going to recognize that you are not acting correctly.”:
Are you actually claiming that Britain has started the recent debate over the Falkland Islands?
If not, then how can Britain use it to divert people's attention from the real problems, when the British government doesn't mention the dispute with one single word, except in answers to Argentine rantings?
All you brits repeat like a parrot all the lies you being told, so
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes there is a solution, my first option an H-bomb, my second option a nuclear defense program and my last options is for UK to give the illegal aliens self determination in London not Argentina. Simple let them determine themselves their fate. Denial is futile times changes everything but people never forget, politics will show what we want, weapons will determine what we get. Time is ticking, we will support China if China supports our cause. Tick tick tick tick tick, time!
116 Islander1
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Gavin Short, chairman of the islands' legislative assembly, said they were holding the referendum “to show the world just how certain we are about it [our future]”.
”I have no doubt that the people of the Falklands wish for the islands to remain a self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom.'
On reading the above, it appears that the referendum will have just 1 question with 2 options. similar to the below...
I would prefer the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to be...
a: BRITISH (British overseas territory)
b: ARGENTINE (Argentine Republic)
Personally I think Gavin has missed a trick, the above question and options will be condemned by many countries in the world and seen as irrelevant, as we all know the outcome.
Although the publicity is good for the FI and it will re-enforce the point that the FI don't want to be a colony of Argentina. So would adding a third option (C: Independent Country). The Third option may even mean less votes for Argentina, the referendum would be more respected worldwide, as it would be an independence referendum. But the main message it would send to the world is that the islanders would rather be an independent country than part of Argentina, effectively meaning less support for Argentina.
I would estimate the outcome to the 3 options to be ...
A: 70%
B: 1%
C: 29%
@pirat - hunter AKA PRAT
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The first nuclear device your country used against the Falklands would be the last one your country would ever deploy.
You would be subjected to a rain of ruin the likes of which the world had never seen before in warfare - you would be lucky if we only hit BA.
Besides - it's all hot air - if you started now you might get a viable weapon in 2020 - then you would to build a reliable missile delivery system - fighter jets carrying free fall bombs are not too likely to get to the target. By this time you would be either bankrupt or having to cut back on the crazy econmics pursuied by CFK. Nuclear weapons are expensive to produce and maintain. I am not frightened in the least by your impotent threats.
You are a proper little nazi aren't you. You only strengthen my resolve to back the Falklanders and keep your countries' nasty little hands of them and their homes.
When other malvinista wonder why we won't even consider negotiations as a country - I refer you to the posts of pirat hunter.
@ Axel - we are acting correctly - we are quite happy to mind our own business and don't want anything to do with Argentina in particular. It is your lot that constantly keeps on making a fuss over an easily disputable claim you state you inherited from Spain over a small part of the Falklands after we set up our own settlement, not counting what happened in 1833 - when we kicked out a squatting garrison at Vernots colony.
Thats 180 years ago - find something new to do as a country - or repeat the mistakes of the past......
Everyone just ignore Pirat and the pathetic fool will go away, don't respond to anything he writes and his drivel and racism will bugger off!
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 141 St John
Jul 27th, 2012 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0If all EEZ's are 200 miles 100,000 seems about right for a qualifying population to me. If a sliding scale was allowed the following would seem like a reasonable choice.
Pop 0-24,999 none
Pop 25,000-49,999 50 miles
Pop 50,000-74,000 100 miles
Pop 75,000-99,999 150 miles
Pop 100,000+ 200 miles.
@ 161 Maybe if the Argentines invaded the Isle of Man, we take their people.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British claim, hey back our island.
The Argentines say: for 9 generations that are here.
The British claim: hey threw our people.
The Argentines say : you expulsed to the Picts, Celts, Native Autralia, New Zealand and half the world, so, this is not your island.
The British say: is part of our country.
The Argentines say: is our country.
The British say: you are from Argentina.
The Argentines say: We are not Argentines, but desire to be Argentine.
Nevertheless briton, a solution is possible.
Search an honorable way out for Argentina.
#168
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is a difference. the Isle of man has had a civilian British population for 1000s of years. It is also 20 miles off the UK coast.
Argentina has NEVER had a civilian population on the Falklands, and the only people ever “thrown off” were 20 or so murderous, mutinous rapists...who were a military force and had been there 2-3 months.
so..other than that...great analogy.
@168
Jul 27th, 2012 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0No - your claim is more like saying that the UK has sovereignty over the Faroe Islands and Greenland - which are administered by Denmark (who look after defence and foreign affairs but, apart from that, the Faroese enjoy full self determination)
@168
Jul 27th, 2012 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are assuming that we would let you remain in control of the isle of man for 180 years after expelling thousands of British residents? What a plonker. The issue would be dealt with in short order - you would'nt even establish a beachhead before we were cleaning your watches again.
Anyhow......
The place is clealy recognised as being associated with the UK, across the whole world, unlike the Falklands in 1833 which was NOT recognised world wide as being a part of the united provinces. You had at best a disputed and conficted claim with us as co-claimants. Vernet had permission from HMG for his colony. The UP garrison that arrived later was NOT welcome - and ejected.
Your analogy is stupidly flawed.
Try again, Malvinense 1833.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've NEVER owned the Falklands.
You may as well get used to the idea that you NEVER will.
Haven't you got enough land?
Aren't you content with the millions of hectares in Argentina?
Why o why do you want OUR land?
lts NOT yours. lts OURS. We don't want your land.
And so................?
To 100 Steve-32-uk
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done that man, you have just saved this one finger typist a lot of work.
I heartily agree with you on all of your points here and it does seem to me that the born in Argentina Dr. Yoav J. Tenembaum has just about covered every inconceivable solution.
Alas it does lend credence to the thought that you must never confuse a good education (his) with intelligence as we all know the two sometimes do not go together.
The people of the Falkland Islands will I believe decide their own future re this issue, and the referendum in March of next year will be a statement of desire and perhaps intent, I wish them well in this.
Desire the Right and have the determiNation to use it Falkland Islanders.
Maybe if the Argentines invaded the Isle of Man,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina tried that strategy in 1982 when they invaded the Falkland Islands.
It didn't work then and wouldn't work with the Isle of Man or any other British Islands or Territory.
What you need to do is to engage with the people living on the Isle of Man and explain to them the benefits of Argentine sovereignty. While they are thinking about it you might offer some cash (US dollars) or free holidays in Patagonia. Why not try your luck with the Isle of Wight at the same time - all contributions gratefully received.
@168
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0As an analogy, it's rather a nice illustration of the fundamental Argentine claim which may be summarised as “T'ain't fair, we are closer than you are”.
This is of course a principle which has no basis in law or common sense, but at least it's more honest than the usual historical hair-splitting and invocation of events that never happened.
@168
Jul 27th, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you aware that the Isle of Man is independent from the UK (but has a defence agreement with UK). So it is not technically British, ie it is not a part of the UK.
The Isle of Man (Manx) parliament (the Tynwald) is older than the parliament of the UK
Queen Elizabeth 2 is not the Islands monarch as such but has the title of the Lord of Mann.
Your best analogy is, as @170 Steve writes, the Faroe Islands, which is much closer to the UK than the Falkland Islands are to Argentina.
Under your logic, the UK should be denying the right of the Faroe Islands to being an overseas territory of Denmark (which is further away from the Faroe islands than the UK), and that the Faroe Islands are being given more autonomy by Denmark.
Can I ask a question @168, as at least you debate the facts, rather than think the FIs should be nuked.
As it was Spain (in addition to Great Britain) who had a claim on the Falkland Islands, how could Argentina inherit that claim in 1816 when the Spanish did not drop their claim to the Falkland Islands until the mid 1800s?
SHB. ST. JOHN.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SAINT JOHN: I have always thought that saying that arg. could be using this cause, in order to divert people's attention is really nonesense. C. f. k doesn't need to use this cause nor any other, due to she was reelected last year by such a landslide, and still has a high level of popularity, tha's' something that all those academics who usually publish articles in mercopress should take into account too, instead of making analysis which are not only too partial but hipocrite. On the other hand, the country is not going through any economic crisis, we are just having a decelaration in our economy, but the problem is not so big, beside, it was already known the fact that this year we were going to have a lower economic expansion. Respecting the u. k., i know that this cause is not in absolut a priority for the british people, they have much more important problems like the doble recession, and the wrong policies taken by david cameron's administration.
For all these reasons, i have always thught that it's really mediocre accusing argentina of using this cause in order to divert people's attention.
SHB: Don't worry, i didn't expect any ample analysis from you, i already know that you just buy propaganda, and parrot the too partial analysis that your leaders use all the time. The difference between you and i, is that i investigate, because i have never believed in our official history, due it's full of omissions and prejudgements. Allthough i support this cause, i have always recognized the terrible mistakes that our country committed, because i'm not neather mediocre nor injudicious like you are.
briton @ 161
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British used to start in Patagonia
long ago
they had farms here, and raised sheep,
then moved to the Atlantic islands,
and back,
and fro,
part of them settling here
part settling on the Malvinas/Falklands.
Colonies were installed
following the surrepticious English lines
to grab land
to work
for both their families
and stock,
as well as for Great Britain,
the Crown
and the Cross.
.......
'Onwards Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, marching on before...'
Cheers!
Axel
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is a fact that cfk was elected by 54 percent.
Its is not a fact her popularity is sustained, its your opinion.
Anyway it is irrelevant regarding the falklands, as it is irrelevant the use by cfk the Tax Authorities to persecute precieved enemies, the Vice President corruption investigation, the enormous street crime surge, her daily use of the TV to speak about trivialities, the unemployment rate in Europe, cameron's failed policies or the weather in Sussex.i
This article is about the conflict, about rights and mights, i suggest lets stick to the disscussion without namings or shamings (all of us in this forum) .
177 axel arg (#)
Jul 27th, 2012 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You sir are a world class hypocrite!
“the country is not going through any economic crisis, we are just having a decelaration in our economy”
You have the gall to tell me that 35.7% inflation isn't an economic crisis!!! More than a hypocrite, you are an under educated twit. I have heard that you claim to be a school teacher and have an intention to be a news correspondent.
If you really are a teacher I have great sympathy with the poor children put into your charge.
If you ever become a news person, make sure you work for that twit Verbitsky at Página/12, no real newspaper will give you a job.
”To Think, Marcos,Searinox & all the other deluded malvinistas:-
Jul 27th, 2012 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.
Can't make it any clearer than that.
2) There will be NO LEASEBACK or any other “deals”.
Got it?
Good! Now get well & truly lost.
PS,Of course we sank the Belgrano. Did you want us to invite the crew ashore for coffee & cakes, maybe?”
Wow, very original, lsolde! Is it, like, the 1000th time you post something with this exact sense? Wow, I admire people like you, who are old, have families they should be taking care of, but pass the day trolling on the internet or writing little flirty messages to people they've never met before! I wish mom was more like you, an empty old bimbo.
@ 161 Briton Jack the Ripper
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you read?
@178 Argie Super Horny is waiting for your response
@140 Isolde
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0182 comments proves this is an outstanding article.
Given the gleeful nature with which Argentina breaks its treaties and agreements after signing them...where's the incentive for Britain to offer any negotiations knowing practically for certain that Arg isn't acting in good faith?
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your government's actions set a terrible precedent, maybe you should think about that next time you Malvinistas cry about UN resolutions asking Britain to negotiate.
The “leaseback agreement” thing is a joke, the Plastic Bipolar Princess (any of her erstwhile successors for that matter) would simply walk away from the agreement the moment it was signed and precipitate another war.
#183
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anything Mercopress releases on the FI easily beats the 182 comments mark.
#185 no, you are lying or mistaken. Quickly browse: http://en.mercopress.com/falkland-islands
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#184 Argentina has settled several border disputes with Chile since the Falklands War, by mediation or arbitration, and the conclusions have been accepted by both sides.
The user comments' count get zeroed after two weeks, so we can't see how older articles can compare to this one. But back-and-forths regarding the FI very often surpass the 180 posts mark -- and mind you, this proves nothing as to the quality of the article.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@182
Jul 27th, 2012 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bouchard conquered California
if only for a week, or so,
and under American rule
is a place for queers and prostitution.
Read these lines you
runaway from a mental institution,
keep off me, you better do
as I'm no fool
to fall to your diatribe.
See this? It's a finger sign!
You don't understand?
Some say it means f. u...
@ 188 Argument
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey, I don't want to disturb you. ...Mr. Mother Tongue
I just say to G.Briton, 112 Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, UK, Post code PL 34 OHE, Tel. White Hall 1212 to arrange the R&R with your lover Conor Louden-Brown...Nothing else.
I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding!
@189
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is he my lover you pathetic stuck up bitch? I have never met the man. You see this is why you're struggling to find a friend let alone a husband-no one likes you because you piss them of with every word.
@181Forgetit87,
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Getting under your skin is it?
Good. We never hear much intelligence in your resentful posts either.
One has to repeat the obvious to these malvinistas because most of them, like your good self are so stupid.
Don't know why you think that l'm old, but who cares what you think.
l will be one day l suppose.
Also, l have many interests, the internet is just one of them.
Yourself?
Anyway, let go of your bad feelings & good evening to you.
Better luck, next life.♥
@lsolde
Jul 27th, 2012 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I sure don't see a lot of intelligence on your 1,000-times rehashed clichés either. More like flamboyance and cartoonish attempts to look catty, as if you're trying to fit some bad stereotype of mean girl in a teen drama, which looks ridiculous in what is probably an old woman. In any event, have a good life you too, and leave me alone.
No, Forgetit86, l don't want to leave you alone.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're just far too much fun.
Don't get so angry & you don't have to be insulting.
l'm not so old, but even if l were, so what?
As l said in another post, one has to repeat these things because the malvinistas are just so stupid.
Just a little bit of research would prove to them that they have no legal rights to our lslands.
What do you think?
And give me your thoughts on their claims to South Georgia etc.
Peace♥
Seems it is me who's getting under your skin. In any case, I won't read your crap anymore, sorry. Go and be happy you too.
Jul 27th, 2012 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@axel arg.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't patronise me. I am quite capable with disagreeing with HMG on the way it does things.
On the issue of the Falklands I am convinced that we are in the right.
You have never advanced a single fact or argument that is compelling enough to make me think again - and all you basically do is spout the same old line “I know we have'nt always been correct, but you have'nt either”.
Here is a heads up for you: blood is thicker than water. The Falklanders consider themelves to be British. They have peacefully lived on the islands for 180 years. We have tried to negotiate with your country - only to be repeatedly back stabbed by you or watch you tear up agreements in short order. You are an unreliable and untrustworthy nation.
Your people are force fed a propaganda diet about the Falklands from birth, with ZERO analysis or critical thought. Watching films of Argentine children being indoctrinated reminds me of “hate week” in George Orwell' s novel “1984.” Watching Argentine childrens cartoons gloryfying the aggression in 1982 further reinforces my distaste.
Your country is a constant danger to the liberty of the Falklanders and the lives of our servicemen.
I don't need UK govt propaganda - just watching the stuff you lot churn out through the internet is enough to see what kind of people we are dealing with, and make my own mind up.
I have never seen your actually produce any counter arguments to anything I have ever written, so I don't expect any Earth shatering revelations from you - go on axel, prove me wrong, if you can.
Prove that your country has a valid claim that coul;d stand before the ICJ.
Prove that your country is a reliable international partner to mine - with examples.
Prove that Argentinians are given a balanced account of the Falklands and that your country does not propagandize it's own population and is intolerant of dissent.
@195
Jul 28th, 2012 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0But thats the thing Mr SHB, he cant prove anything. Why? Well as you said: its been indoctrinated into him. He does not have the ability to counter argue as the information he possesses is both limited and inaccurate, typical of the Argentine indoctrinated school system.
Dear Isolde: You do not want to accept that Byron came to foreign territory. How can it be British territory when another country exercised sovereignty for years?
Jul 28th, 2012 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0British Governor Vernet: then how is it possible that the Gaucho Rivero could not be tried in London because England did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands?
He could not be tried. But how? Do the islands are not British? But how? Was not Vernet a British governor?
And again all the British lie down like a castle of cards.
When he founded the first settlement of the islands, Bougainville placed beneath an obelisk, a commemorative medallion.
That medal came from France to Spain and from Spain to Argentina.
Now is in a museum in Argentina, you can visit and see.
I know that you are not an old woman, 33-38 years old.
Ever to give him a hug and realize that I am not different from you.
Kisses.
@197
Jul 28th, 2012 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0What bollocks. A medallion? Is that the only proof you have of 'your' sovereignty?
A medallion that isn't even on the islands, but in some museum.
All of this is irrelevant. The Falkland Islanders have lived continuously on the islands for 180 years plus. It is their land, and it doesn't matter how many 'medallions' you claim to have, nothing you say and do can trump that.
Remember that the British never gave up sovereignty of the Islands, but the Spanish did. They renounced their claim to the Islands, leaving the British as the only legal claimant left, more than 10 years before recognising Argentina's independence from Spanish rule.
So no, the medallion is meaningless as any 'legal' status it may have once had as a claim to sovereignty expired when Spain dropped its Soveignty claim.
Besides the British first claimed Soveignty in 1690, many years prior to both the French and Spainish claims.
Poor Malvinista, even the warped history you spout doesn't support you spurious claims to sovereignty.
@194 Forgetit86,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now don't be like that, dearest.
l like talking to you.
l don't want to see you despondent at all.
C'mon, gi' us a smile. lt won't hurt you.
Here you are being naughty to mummy, saying that l never come up with anything & l'm offering to debate with you the malvinista “claims”.
And you don't want to do it! Porque?
You know that you want to! Waiting.........................
@197 Malvinense1833,
Malvi, we claimed the islands before Argentina even existed.
The United Provinces government KNEW that it was British territory before they sent anyone down here.
They knew that they were trespassing.
Yes we ejected the garrison that had been here 3 months.
Do you think that the UP government became bold because they had successfully(credit where its due) resisted the British skirmishes in 1806-7?
Do you think that maybe they thought that we would be a pushover?
Like what they thought in 1982?
You inherited nothing from Spain. You were in open rebellion against Spain.
Do you think that Spain would actually GIVE you anything?
No, amigo. You do not own the Falklands even though you were taught that at school.
So sorry.
You are correct about my age, well done Detective Malvi.
@197
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funny the Brits should be so cavalier about booting out a military garrison, but so fastidious about trying a murderer.
In fact, Rivero was not in the end tried in London because under the British legal system of the time, London courts had no jurisdiction over colonies, which had their own distinct legal systems.
The Falklands, however, had no legal system in place at the time. Consequently, Rivero couldn't be tried there either, and so was returned to the mainland in the same way that the murderers of Mestivier and rapists of his wife had been returned shortly before. I guess the British authorities probably believed Argentina would conduct a trial, rather than having murderers running around loose, but it seems they were mistaken.
Whatever, it is thanks to Rivero, the Mestivier gang, and Vernet's prior acts of piracy that the necessary legal structures were at last created and the Falklands became a full colony rather than just a minor naval outpost.
The more interesting question is how Rivero managed to be around to go on a murder spree in August 1833, when the Argentine civil population was supposedly expelled in January by Onslow?
@199,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mistake in my earlier post.
The UP Government didn't resist the British skirmishes/incursions/“invasions” if you like.
lt was the Spanish colonial authorities.
This of course was before Argentine independence.
SIMON68. SHB.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIMON: I feel so frustrated every time i see that somebody who has such a mediocre thought like you answers my comments, i need to debate with people who has different opinions, but not with an ignorant who just says kretina kretina kretina.
If some day you start to think, you'll realise that i have never denied all our problems, in fact i have always argued why it will take many years to solve the structural poverty, and the inflation level. Regarding what you so loved private analists say about the idexes of inflation, i told you that you can find different indexes which don't coincid with what was published by the torcuato di tella university, but all those are just opinions, the point is that we have this problem since 9 years ago, and everything that the government did in order to controll this problem, was absolutly insufficient. But despite all the problems that we have, we could have a huge economic expansion, which created millions of jobs. Now, we are just been afftected by the global crisis, which was already known, but the situation is not so big.
Respecting what you say about página 12, it would be such a honor for me if someday i work there, you can agree or not with it's editorial line, but nobody can say that it lies, or distorts the reality like your so loved, clarin, tn and la nación do.
SHB: We have already discussed about it, your problem is that you think that nly our side omits information, and don't recgnize that you country is not acting correctly either. In fact, i have proposed you in different oportunities to send you my investigation and you have never accepted. Regarding the arbitration, you should know that in 1885 and 1888 arg. suggested that this dispute should be taken to the arbitration, which wasn't accepted by the u. k., and in 1947, the u. k offered to take the question of the dependencies from the islands to the i. c. j.
Axel
Jul 28th, 2012 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kindly answer to my post
@198 There is a letter in 1816 of General Jose de San Martin to Bernardo O'Higgins (Chilean General) where slogan that the Malvinas are Argentine.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the letter, St. Martin, requested the dispatch of prisoners detained in the all country, including the Malvinas, for the formation of the Army of the Andes, then cross to liberate Chile.
@ 200 Hans: “The Falklands, however, had no legal system in place at the time. Consequently, Rivero couldn't be tried there either”
They have a British colony.
They have a British Governor.
And they have not a legal system? How is it possible?
The answer is simple, the islands belonged not to the British.
The answer to your question is:
The highest authority at that time, Captain Pinedo and a population of about 150 people were expelled by the British. Also his garrison. Lowered the flag of Argentina. It is a clear act of force.
Only approximately 22 people remained, including the Gaucho Rivero.
The permanence of these people does not mean that there existed the expulsion and subsequent usurpation.
Malvinense
Jul 28th, 2012 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A population of 150 were expelled...LOL...what a load of bollocks.
Pinedo was expelled as were his band of rapist, murdering mutineers...they had been there less than two months and already slaughtered Mestevier and raped his wife in front of their children...a pleasant lot.
However, ALL the civilians (Vernets community, although Vernet himself was absent) were invited to stay, and all but three chose to. Indeed Vernets deputy (who was British) returned to the islands to continue the enterprise.
Sadly, your version of history is bollocks...there was no expulsion of an Argentine civilian population.
There has never been an Argentine civilian population.
The only people who were expelled we're the Pinedo rapist murderous, who had been their less than 50 days.
In my opinion, no solution is needed.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who the Falklands/Malvinas 'belong' to is kind of irrelevant.
The population who live there is all that matters.
They are Falkland Islanders, they want to be Falklanders, not Malvinistas, ergo end of story.
@axel arg.
Jul 28th, 2012 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your post is, in your words mediocre. It contained NOTHING of any note that I have'nt seen before.
I put it to you that you have zero ability to refute any of my earlier assertions because you know that I am correct.
Argentina is the active player in this dispute, pursuing a long dead colonial ambition, one that my country would have given up on years ago as a sad grab at past glories if the roles were reversed.
Some of the lies your country has employed in forums like the UN (thinking about Timmermans car -crash performance and hysterical claims about the deployment of nuclear weapons) is painful to watch and would be funny if it wasn't following the principle of the big lie.
Your country has refuted several agreements with the UK, such as fisheries and oil exploration, following years of negotiation. The most dramatic example I can give you was the 1982 invasion - our politicians were about to sell the Falklanders out - but your lot decided to invade anyway.
There is simply NO propaganda about the Falklands in the UK. There is the occasional TV or radio debate, or someone puts an article in a newspaper setting out a viewpoint. Sometimes these offer a pro-Argentina perspective.
Your lot - well here is one example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eh1B4a-RMA
I was 12 years old when you invaded the Falklands - I had an interest in history and I could recognise a facsist regime attempting to stick it's jackboot onto what it percieved as an easy target when I saw one. When you were defeated I was proud of our servicemen, and sad at our losses. I had seen some of the ships involved when taken as a special treat to a navy day a couple of years before. Doubtlessly some of those sailors I had smiled at were now at the bottom of the south atlantic.
My dislike of your country and it's claim is personal.
Your war aims have not changed, only the weapons you employ.
@204
Jul 28th, 2012 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pinedo's logs show that around 26 people left the islands. 22 of them were members of the would be garrison/penal colony and their families. 4 of them were voluntary departures who were dropped off in Montevideo and may not even have been Argentine at all. I believe that 6 of the supposed garrison were subsequently executed by the Argentine authorities for mutiny and murder.
As stated by Monkeymagic, everybody else who was on the islands was welcome and indeed encouraged to stay, as shown by the fact that the murderer Rivero and his mates were still there 6 months after the supposed expulsion of the civil expulsion.
I already answered your point about the the legal issue. Quite simply, the falklands had no legal system because one wasn't necessary until the 1832-33 outbreaks of piracy, rape, and murder. But thanks to Rivero the Brits were forced to act and a proper system of law and order was instituted in 1834.
So we can thank Argentina for making the Falklands a proper British colony.
West 127
Jul 28th, 2012 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like the Dutch approach to its territories. Maybe something similar could be devised for British territories.
Rollo 133 167
France and Spain don’t have joint sovereignty over Andorra. Andorra is a sovereign state with two heads of state. Despite having the French president and the Spanish bishop of Urgell as joint heads of state, France and Spain have no more sovereignty over Andorra than the UK has over Australia, despite sharing the same person as head of state.
Having smaller EEZs for sparsely populated territories wouldn’t just affect remote islands. It would affect sparsely populated islands that are near their countries and integral parts of their countries. I seriously doubt countries would accept reductions in the EEZs of their nearby islands
The EEZs were set up to protect against the over exploitation of resources in international waters.
It’s not possible to have a zero size EEZ where there are territorial waters
Steve 32 142 & Chris R 146
A 3 or more options referendum is a bad idea because then there is less chance of any of the choices getting the required two thirds majority. Where there are more than 2 options, it’s best to decide them in separate referendums.
Malvi 168, 197, 204
Jul 28th, 2012 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Crap analogy. The Isle of Man is a territory with a population in the tens of thousands and with a well established Scottish/English/British sovereignty of several centuries. Even so, if Argentina had taken over 180 years ago and the Manx now wanted their country to be under Argentine sovereignty, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Are you saying that when Byron arrived in the Falklands in 1690, Spain had already been exercising sovereignty for many years? Because that is complete and utter bollocks.
There was no British governor yet. The British did not necessarily appoint a governor from the first days of a colony.
It is not about the legal system, but about the court system. British courts have always operated under a system of jurisdictions. English courts have jurisdiction only in England, Scottish courts have jurisdiction only in Scotland, Welsh courts in Wales, Irish in Ireland. The courts of the UK countries have never had jurisdiction in the colonies. In each colony, a court was set up which had jurisdiction in that colony. In 1833, a court had not yet been set up in the Falklands.
Pinedo was not an appointed authority. He was simply the captain of the Sarandí. And there were 33 civilians not part of the garrison when Onslow arrived, not 150. Most of those 33 stayed.
There were no Argentines in the Falklands in 1816. Prisoners or otherwise.
@204
Jul 28th, 2012 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The permanence of these people does not mean that there existed the expulsion and subsequent usurpation.”
This reads as the fact that the 22 settlers remained means that there was no expulsion and sunsequent usurpation.
Do you mean this or did you mean that the 22 settlers did not stop there being an expulsion or subsequent usurpation?
The facts are that the majority of those settlers were of South American origin.
NO ENGLISH people were left behind by Captain Onslow off his ships=no transplantation.
This makes the information Argentina has presented to the UN (from 1961), no more, no less than a barefaced lie. The civilian settlers were not expelled from the Islands. In fact only two of the settlers were British. And Dickson was Irish, then British but not English (he was from Dublin).
The Argentines claim that Onslow's action was resisted, but this is why it wasn't (wiki);
“Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew (approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen”
So the garrison force that Argentina complains were ejected-this is true-were mainly British-not South American.
So, the 'wicked British', as the malvanistas would say expelled mainly British people, (ie the OPPOSITE of transplantation).
And these same 'wicked British' allow settlers mostly of South American origin to stay (only two of these are British, one Irish).
This is clearly not transplantation (ie the imposition of British only settlers direct from the UK.
Your comments on this please Malvinense 1833, on these events from 1833?
Pete Bog,
Jul 29th, 2012 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't confuse the mostly British crew of Pinedo's ship the Sarandí with the garrison placed in the Falklands.
@212
Jul 29th, 2012 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the correction-so the garrison was mainly composed of mutinous murderers right?
9 of the 26 soldiers mutinied, incited by the second in command. The 9 were under arrest aboard the Rapid when Onslow arrived.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0@214 dab14763 Thanks for that, it is important to get the facts right.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incredible contradiction, first says:
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“However, ALL the civilians (Vernets community, although Vernet himself was absent were invited to stay”
Then you say:
“There has never been an Argentine civilian population”
British lies have short legs.
Thanks, no more questions.
SHB. FREEDOM.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SHB: Your answer can't be more hipocryte. Let me remind you that i have refutted your ignorant arguments, or your partial knowledge in different oportunities, but i have always proposed you also to send you my investigation, because it would be very long to explain all my arguments here, because there are many aspects that we must take into account if we want to debate deeply about this issue. However, you have never been interested in it, anyway, i will always propose you and anybody else to send you my work, which is a compilation of works of different professors of international right from arg., and the u. k., but with my own final anlaysis too. Like it or not, the history is always submitted to omissions everywhere, and politicians will always tell just what is convenient for them, therefore we must be more intelligent and investigate. Allthough i suport our cause, i'll always recognized the serious mistakes that my country commited, and i'll also criticise the lack of dialogue by our government, with the lawmakers from the islands.
FRREDOM: I forgot to answer your comment. Let me tell you that most you say there, are just mediatic operations. It's true that the vicepresident is being investigated because of a soposed act of corruption, but he is not under process. Respecting what you call persecution to enemies, thats' actually a very stupd lie, the excuse of the persecution is used by people who have huge debts with the state. Regarding the using by c. f. k of the national tv adress, the question is too long and complicated, the point is that everything she says, is always manipulated or omitted, therefore it's necesary that she uses that method. On the other hand, respeting her popularity, she just lost the usuall percentage that all the politicians lose after a couple of months of having taken office, but even the most conservative pools affirm that she still has a high level of popularity, so, it's not only my opinion.
I just want to say I'm surprised at your ignorance of the law.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett-American.
Mason - British
Vernet - Frances.
The settlers brought by Vernet came from Europe and the United States.
The nationality of the people is irrelevant to discern the sovereignty, especially when all the people accept the law and authority of the country.
The rulers of Malvinas were appointed by Buenos Aires and were responsible for applying the laws of Argentina to a population that was considered part of the United Provinces.
The usurpation is consolidated in 1842 with the arrival of Moody to Port Louis, which he mentioned as Port Anson.
Tell me if that is not unfair.
@218
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> Tell me if that is not unfair.
It's not unfair.
From the inestimable Lord Ton:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100678683/Falklands-War-The-First-400-Years-PDF
1856 – May 5th Luis Vernet writes to Lord Harrowby;
“… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering or other
aggressions.
As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”
Malvinense
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You correctly identify that Vernet was not Argentine, nor were his community. They saw their civilian population as a private business enterprise, NOT as representatives of the united provinces or the UK.
Either way, as they were not evicted, and not Argentine nor British, their presence or absence is irrelevant.
The presence of Pinedo and Mestevier is relevant. They were sent in November 1832 to “claim” the islands.
By January 1833, Mestevier was dead, his wife raped....and the 20 or so mutineers, murderers and rapists were forced to leave....
So, Vernets community (Not Argentine, Not evicted)
Pinedo/Mestevier (argentine, not civilians, mutineers, murderers, rapists, evicted, only there for a few days)
Sounds perfectly fair, sound and just to me.
I am amazed at you sense of injustice and your pride to associate yourself with 20 or so murderers, rapists and mutineers...are they the best role models and national heroes that you have?
Well presented, Monkeymagic.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Completely logical(to anyone who is not a malvinista!).
@219 I see only a desperate man who lost everything after the theft.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@220
“You correctly identify that Vernet was not Argentine”
Repeat: The nationality of the people is irrelevant to discern the sovereignty, especially when all the people accept the law and authority of the country.
“They saw their civilian population as a private business enterprise, NOT as representatives of the united provinces”
False. The Lexington incident, comes after enforce the fisheries laws of the United Provinces.
The report of the incident was presented in Buenos Aires, not in London, demonstrating that Vernet did not respond to the British. Mestivier was sent to the islands as Acting Governor while Vernet continue in Buenos Aires.
I do not defend the murderers, nor are my heroes, in this case was an internal affair of Argentina, to be resolved by Argentina, which was taken by surprise, about the same time by the British usurpation.
@221 Lady Isolde: The UK should recognize that usurped the islands.
Argentina must recognize that the British live there long.
A solution is possible.
Do not leave the responsibility to future generations.
A hug.
@222 and I see a consistent pattern of behaviour, a businessman acting in pursuit of his commercial interests. And a population who stayed on and accepted the law and authority of the United Kingdom.
Jul 29th, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This continual harping on an erroneous and partial account of the events of 1833 and before is a good way of ensuring that there will never be a “solution” which satisifies Argentina.
@222
Jul 29th, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain did not drop its claim to the Falkland Islands as Spain did in 1866.
Britain cannotpossibly have usurped Argentina/The United Provinces of the River Plate in 1833, because Britain did not come into the situation having never claimed the Islands before. Britains claim dates from 1765 (possibly 1690). If the UK had never claimed the Islands before 1833 or set foot on them, they would have been a usurper. But as they had not dropped their claim they were not usurping The United Provinces of the River Plate.
Vernet had asked Britain permission for his settlement, that is why Captain Onslow was under orders to ask the civilian settlers to stay in 1833.
You are correct to suggest that the nationality of the settlers does not discern sovereignty, but the United provinces had no claim to the Falklands, in 1833 both Britain and Spain claimed the Islands (though Spain dropped its claim in 1866). Because Spain had not dropped its claim, the United Provinces could not have inherited the Spanish claim, (which was not dropped in 1810 0r 1816).
The United Provinces were not taken by suprise by the British as they had protested to the UP authorities at the sending of the military garrison.
@224
Jul 30th, 2012 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain had neither dropped its claim over Buenos Aires, or Montevideo, or Santiago by that time. The fact remains we were already free.
Also, you may want to think about the time that Spain occupied the islands and Britain did not protest to that occupation, which included sovereignty acts over East and West Falklands. It was a loooong gap, longer than the Argentine gap after the 1850 treaty.
@225
Jul 30th, 2012 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0To show usurpation, you have to show that :
a) The Spanish claim was stronger than the British one
b) The Spanish claim passed to Argentina
c) The Vernet colony was an Argentine occupation
d) The Vernet colony was expelled by the Brits.
Despite some 170 years of trying, you have been unable to substantiate even one of these claims, far less he whole of them, and this is because none of them are true. All you have is an attempt to implant a garrison, which was repulsed, a fact which is contested by nobody.
@axel arg.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you blind - or just not understanding what I am telling you. Calling me ignorant is hardly a winning argument, is it? You are resorting to mild insult because you have ZERO worth saying in terms of a positive arguyment.
I have just told you that my support for the Falklanders was based on my personal experiences, seeing our loses due to your pointless and rather sad little war on TV and thinking about all the ships and servicemen I ahd seen.
In 1982 I was taken to Toquay for a holiday - We watched HMS Illustrious conducting exercises with her Sea Harriers in preparation to fight your lot.
There was nothing mediocre or partial about that- those men were preparing to fight for their lives against you - an aggressor nation that had forcibly occupied the homeland of British people.
To me the fact that your lot can't make a compelling and irrefutable case for Argentine sovereignty just makes me feel angry and sad at our loses - you fought for a poor and unjust cause.
I challenge you to put your evidence here for us all to see: you have never once done this or sent me any links to look at for myself, despite claiming that you have. Put your evidence where your mouth is and do it, stop bandying stupid accusations about ignorance and partiality and do something to prove your points.
Assuming of course, that you have something.
If you don't put up some evidence, or links for myself and others to look at, I am going to assume that you are either lying or simply lack the courage of your convictions. Do it Axel - or I will think you are a typical Malvinista - talks a good number at first, but folds under pressure before the real facts.
If you have no intention of showing your evidence - don't bother replying, and I will ignore you in future. There is no point talking to someone who simply bleats the same old message over and over again: you are ignorant, you know nothing I have evidence...blah...blah...blah...blah
Show us what you have........
@227 shb,
Jul 30th, 2012 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0He has nothing.
lt must be a battle inside his head.
He was taught & accepted the “malvinas lies”, but now the doubts have set in.
lf he has researched the topic, & he says that he has, then he must know by now that the Falklands were NEVER Argentine but always British.
l should ignore him but its fun to provoke malvinistas so l'm as guilty as anyone in keeping the flame burning. lol
SHB.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never provided any link, because i my survey wasn't published on line, in fact, i dont want it to be published on line. I only made this investigation, in order to debate with all those people who are interested in the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, beside, let me tell you that some people in this forum could read my work, and they gave me their opinions. I give you my i mail adress, and after i'll send you my investigation to you in a few days.
Writte me to: investigationmalvinas@hotmail.com.ar
@Isolde - To be fair, this time it looks like he is putting his money where his mouth is. I expected a climb down.
Jul 30th, 2012 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my opinion the issue of sovereignty is dead as far as Argentina is concerened - their claim is on dubious ground, was not recognised at the time and it is now 180 years in the past......T
I give the islanders my full and unconditional support.
Still I have created an account for Axel to send his stuff to, and pick apart. If nothing else knowing the mind of the other side helps to predict future actions and intentions.
BTW - I just realised that it is your winter way down South - I hope it isn't too cold and windy! (saying that though -this year has been a washout up here).
@Axel arg. OK. I have emailed the address you provided - I hope the stuff is in English, as I don't have any Spanish at all. I will read it when it arrives - and give you an honest appraisal.
@226 HansNiesund
Jul 31st, 2012 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing I can't argue against, is whether or not the Spanish claim was stronger, but IT DID PREVAIL, and that's why Buenos Aires took over the islands after the Revolution.
@231
Jul 31st, 2012 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish claim was not dropped till 1866 so The United Provinces of the River Plate cannot have inherited it.
I have still to see evidence that Spain transferred their claim to The United Provinces (ot RP).
Britain did not drop their claim which was from 1765.
The United Provinces of the River Plate tried to usurp Britain and failed.
This was because Pinedos's crew were 80% British Sailors and refused to fight their own.
Also, the majority of settlers were free to leave.
They chose to stay under a British administration.
Including Rivero.
@223 “And a population who stayed on and accepted the law and authority of the United Kingdom.”
Jul 31st, 2012 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, a small portion of the population remained, but AFTER a usurpation.
@226 All this has already been demonstrated.
a)-Exercise of Spanish sovereignty from 1767 to 1811.
b) - The Malvinas Islands and all the territory that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata became part of the United Provinces.
c) - The colony of Argentina Vernet was an occupation Argentina, because it was appointed by the Argentine government, applied Argentine law, collection of rents for Argentina and even requested warships to protect the islands.
d) - The colony of Vernet was expelled, as reported by Captain Pinedo, newspapers in Buenos Aires and the Argentine government's immediate protest.
When the Malvinas Islands became part of the British crown?
The answer clearly shows that the islands were not British, which, all the British lie down like a castle of cards.
Malvinense
Jul 31st, 2012 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 01) PART of the islands were under Spanish sovereignty. Disputed by Britain, who also had a PART of the islands under their sovereignty.
2) Not all of the Viceroy of Rio Plata is modern day Argentina is it? Uruguay isn't Argentina, Paraguay isn't Argentina....Patagonia is Argentina, and wasnt part of the Viceroy. Aden was controlled by the British from Bombay, it didn't make it part of India...and isn't today.
3) Vernet community was NOT argentine, it was a PRIVATE enterprise. You can keep repeating the same shit, it doesn't make it true. Vernet requested permission from both the UP and the British to be there, as he realised that there was no current clear sovereignty as the Islands were empty.
4) the Vernet community was not expelled...as shown by the fact that they were still on the islands and only 24 people left with Pinedo...which was pretty much the same murderers and rapists that had arrived with him and Mestevier 50 days earlier.
You see Malvinense. We dont have to prove that the islands were British in 1833 when the Clio arrived, it is clear and undisputed that the British had a claim going back a century. What you have to prove is that Argentina had a claim.
1) the inherited a disputed claim from Spain, far from clear that the right passed from Spain through the Viceroy through the UP to Argentina...so No
2) Jewitt: a chap visits the island and claims sovereignty, then leaves and does nothing...does not a sovereignty claim make,
3) Vernet: a private enterprise, seemingly happy with either British or Argentine sovereignty as long as he made money
4) Mestevier/Pinedo : a sorry story of rape and murder.
A flimsy house of cards compared to the British claim which includes civilian settlements for decades in the 1700s, and 180 years since 1833.
NO civilian population ever evicted.
Now, let's look at the genocidal atrocities perpetrated by Argentina in their own country and compare their sovereignty rights versus the islanders.
Usurption?
=@223 “And a population who stayed on and accepted the law and authority of the United Kingdom.”
Jul 31st, 2012 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, a small portion of the population remained, but AFTER a usurpation.
Prove that those who remained were a small portion of the population. Come on Malvi, come up with evidence. Real contemporary documentary evidence that is, not people speculating many years after the event what the population might have been.
=@226 All this has already been demonstrated.
a)-Exercise of Spanish sovereignty from 1767 to 1811.
b) - The Malvinas Islands and all the territory that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata became part of the United Provinces.
This is an assertion that does not resist scrutiny
Some legal facts for you. Argentina did not establish sovereignty over its territory through an inheritance from Spain, but through a rebellion against Spain. In the case of a separatist rebellion, there is no automatic succession to sovereignty; the rebels MUST establish effective control over territory. It logically follows from this that only the territory over which they have established effective control comes under their sovereignty. If the separatist rebels in a province only ever establish effective control over the southern half of their province and never establish effective control over the northern half, then they have never established sovereignty over that northern half.
=c) - The colony of Argentina Vernet was an occupation Argentina, because it was appointed by the Argentine government, applied Argentine law, collection of rents for Argentina and even requested warships to protect the islands.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, it’s not just a question of what Argentina did; it’s also a question of whether Argentina did enough to overcome the still existing Spanish and British claims and establish sovereignty. The answer to that question is quite simply no, because Argentina never established effective control over the Falklands.
Applied Argentine law? Vernet’s attempts to do so failed. Collection of rents for Argentina? The terms of the grant were that it was free of any contribution. Vernet requested warships? Argentina failed to provide, proving it could not establish effective control.
=d) - The colony of Vernet was expelled, as reported by Captain Pinedo, newspapers in Buenos Aires and the Argentine government's immediate protest.
Pinedo’s report proves the colony was not expelled, as do the passenger manifests of Pinedo’s ship the Sarandí and the Rapid.
=When the Malvinas Islands became part of the British crown?
If they were not British in 1833, then they were Spanish and have become British since through Spain’s failure to enforce its claim against the UK, and Argentina relinquishing its claim in 1849.
=The answer clearly shows that the islands were not British, which, all the British lie down like a castle of cards.
Argentina’s claim is the one made of nothing as it rests on an inheritance that never happened.
2 Betty Boop,
Jul 31st, 2012 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well said Betty Boop but I've gotta tell you that as far as I'm concerned you are not waving from the back, rather you are right down there in your rightful place “At the Front!” . However I can see that the people of the Falklands feel from time to time that everybody is talking about them but not to them, sort of around them if you know what I mean? (deaf people can get this feeling in a room full of family and friends) .
Keep shouting your views and opinions and this Englishman sat at the back will be waving and applauding his support for you, especially next March.
Up the Falklands!!
@233 Malvinense 1833
Jul 31st, 2012 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet requested the BRITISH government to protect his settelement enterprise if we reestablished a permament presence on the Falklands. He was aware of our claim, and the fact that our ships (amongst others) used the islands from time to time for shelter.
We protested the appointment of Vernet as governor in the name of the UP at the time (1829), you aknowledged the protest.
So what if Jewett claimed the islands - British, Dutch, French etc explorers constantly claimed islands for their respective nations - sometimes these claims overlapped. These claims were usually ignored by everyone else.......
The only way you can claim any sort of stake in the islands is via Spain - and you don't have the evidence to do that.
@233
Jul 31st, 2012 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unless you've got some solid documentary evidence against the foregoing, you can't show anything that might be legally or even practically regarded as an usurpation.
This would also explain the other curious aspect of the events of 1833, the fact that a mere 16 years after the supposed usurpation outrage, Argentina was quite happy to sign a treaty with the UK settling, without exception, all disputes.
Could it be that there was no usurpation at all, but a pernicious nationalist myth was created later?
SHB.
Jul 31st, 2012 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0O.k, i 'll send you my work on thursday, beside, my investigation is translates in both english and spanish.
@232 Pete Bog
Jul 31st, 2012 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After the Lexington's attack, the 1833 expulsion, the murders of next year and expulsion of Rivero and some other gauchos (8 of them, IIRC)... how many people of the original settlement remained? I believe only 10-20 from a colony that 3 years before had about 120 settlers.
@238 shb
Vernet and Pacheco didn't ask for permission in 1823, when the first expedition launched.
Also, “British, Dutch, French etc explorers constantly claimed islands for their respective nations” -- Exampli gratia?
@ 233 Malvinense 1833
On your point c) -- remember also that the Argentine flag was the one that the British lowered in 1833. An ARGENTINE flag. And in the diary of Maria Saez de Vernet there's written record of how they celebrated May Revolution (for the casual reader, that's an Argentine holiday).
Poor Angry Brits, they can't accept they robbed the Falklands.
241 PGH
Jul 31st, 2012 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Poor Angry Brits, they can't accept they robbed the Falklands.”
Well, even if we did, that was all kicked into touch when your cowardly military invaded the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas) in 1982 and got their arses kicked back to the mainland.
Poor Argies, they just cannot accept that they never had the islands and got their arses kicked when they tried to muscle the Brits. Ha, ha, ha.
@233
Jul 31st, 2012 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> Of course, a small portion of the population remained, but AFTER a usurpation.
@241
> how many people of the original settlement remained? I believe only 10-20 from a colony that 3 years before had about 120 settlers.
So let's asume that 100 colonists or so were expelled. This makes for an interesting mystery, but one which should be capable of resolution with a modicum of research.
- if some were expelled, and some were allowed to say (Rivero & Co), on what basis was the selection made? Surely there must be a record of such a selection process somewhere, among either those who carried it out, those who were expelled, and those who stayed? Surely a revolutionary patriotic trade unionist such as Rivero would have made a note of the victims?
- Where is the missing ship's log? The logs of the Sarandi and the Rapid carry the names of the garrison and the murderers, but not the the expelled population. If they left on either the Sarandi or the Rapid, why were their names omitted from the logs when others' were recorded? Did they leave perhaps on another ship? Could that ship not be traced anywhere?
- Failing the ships' logs, surely there must be a list of the colonists in the records of Vernet? Does no such list exist? If there is one, has nobody tried to trace the names on that list? After an outrage of this magnitude?
- Are there no landing records anywhere either? Nothing even in the British records? Did the expulsees themselves not complain to anybody? Did they not seek redress? What became of them? Are there no Argentines living today who can trace their ancestry to the expulsees?
- Why didn't Vernet raise the expulsees in his legal proceedings in London or the US? Surely he would have got some sympathy. But his only claims were for horses, domesticated cattle, stone houses and beef. No compensation for the expulsees? No class action?
There must be a smoking gun somewhere, guys. Go find it, or Angry Brits could conclude there were no expulsees.
@243 HansNiesund
Aug 01st, 2012 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Lexington, Hans. That's the point where most of the population seems to have left, but we can't know for sure because Duncan didn't have the care of making a passenger list.
My point is, only 10-20 persons of Vernet's flourishing settlement were left after 1834, from a settlement that had 100+ inhabitants. “What was left of Vernet's colony was not expelled” would give a better idea.
Also. strictly speaking it isn't true, because “Vernet's colony” (or “what was left of Vernet's colony”) refers to the whole group, not just a subset of the settlers. Half of the remaining settlers DID leave against their will, or “by consequence of the acts of British forces”, if you will. So, strictly speaking, neither “The colony was not expelled” and “The colony was expelled” are correct. Both statements are equally wrong, strictly speaking. Depending on where you were born, you will lean towards one or the other point of view.
During the incident the ship Lexington, the only government that protest for the destruction of the colony was Argentina.
Aug 01st, 2012 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0How is it that London did not protest the attack on the islands?
How is it possible that Vernet, with British permission did not report what happened to London?
How is it possible that London did not require reparation for this violation of its territory?
And again all the British lie down like a house of cards.
@241 PGH: The British in 179 years of usurpation could not show why the islands belong to them.
Discovery. No.
Occupation. No.
So what?.
The first fishing boat built in the islands was patented by the Government of Buenos Aires.
The sun shines, but the British say it does not shine.
@245
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Occupation. No”
Occupation yes, on West Falkland.
1765-1774.
OK then Argentina claims the Falkland Islands.
Discovery=No, Argentina were not the first country to discover the Falkland Islands.
Occupation? No The United Provinces of the River Plate were not Argentina, which was formed later than the dates they claimed top have occupied the Falkland Islands.
The Argentines claim that The Falkland Islands were inherited from Spain.
Where is the document or treaty by which Spain transferred her claim to The United Provinces of the River Plate?
The Spainish dropped her claim to the Falkland Islands in 1866.
The Argentines claim they inherited this claim in 1816.
This does not add up. to have inherited a claim the Spanish would have had to drop theirs.
Another Argentine distortion of history.
@PGH - Vernet asked for permission for his 2nd expedition. He apparanetly did not know we had a claim when he organised the 1st expedition.
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0That shows that as soon as he realised that he was going to land that someone else may have laid claim to - that he asked their permission to settle.
@245Malvinense1833,
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately for you Malvin, you were taught these lies at school & now they are embedded in your brain.
We can argue back & forth for ever & a day but its not going to change anything.
We rightly believe that the islands are ours & we are not going to make any deals with Argentina or anyone else.
l would think, Malvin, that you have plenty of land.
Why do you want ours?
Don't say because it belongs to Argentina as we totally reject that.
We can say that the sun rises in the east, but Argentina would say that it rises in the west.
There will be no peace until Argentina drops its ridiculous “claims”.
Tell me, Malvin, why Argentina “claims” South Georgia & British Antarctica.
Britain claimed these before Argentina had expanded into Patagonia.
Thank you for your hugs.☼
@244
Aug 01st, 2012 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now this is interesting.
“Also taken on board, Duncan reported, ”were the whole of the (Falklands') population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some gouchos, or cowboys who were encamped in the interior.“ The group, principally Germans from Buenos Aries, ”appeared greatly rejoiced at the opportunity thus presented of removing with their families from a desolate region where the climate is always cold and cheerless and the soil extremely unproductive,” Duncan wrote.
Credible source too: http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm. Further documents on that site describe 7 arrested for piracy, and 32 evacuees, landed at Montevideo.
The Lexington was of course a US ship and not a British one, so I'm somewhat surprised to see this being pinned on the dastardly Brits, but never mind, that clears up at least part of it.
However, I'm still somewhat perplexed by the mystery of the British expulsion, notably the 150 or so claimed by Malvi (I'm not quite sure how may you are claiming yourself). The records of the Rapid (I believe) show 4 dropped off in Montevideo, not part of the garrison, although there is no record of them being Argentine.
So where are the records of the other expulsees? It's curious there is apparentrly nothing either in Vernet's records, in British records, on the islands, in Buenos Aries, in Montevideo, or anywhere else they might have been landed. It's curious there is no record among the expulsees themselves, or that Vernet never refers to it in his legal proceedings in the US or in the UK. (Me, I'd have been screaming it from the rooftops, but that's just me).
It's even more curious that Argentina would regard this as a casus belli some 150 years, yet no Argentine government has come up with the names of the expulsees? Surely such a list would have massive impact in gaining public sympathy. Has no scholar ever attempted to find or construct such a list? Or have scholars actually tried and failed to find anything?
249 HansNiesund
Aug 01st, 2012 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We all know the answer don't we?
The despotic Peron cobbled this rubbish up to stir the rabble and move their eye off the problems at home. He was not interested that it was based on fiction and lacked credible evidence at certain points.
Nothing changes in Argentina. If you are brought up from the earliest of ages that this is fact only those people who have a brain in their head and want to know what really went on would seek out the evidence for themselves. Does this sound like the typical Malvanista?
@245 Malvi
Aug 01st, 2012 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's clear up the mystery of the lost expulsees before we turn to Anglo-American relations in the matter of piracy, and the question of fishing boat patents.
Or do you agree that there is no evidence of any British expulsion of colonists?
LOL
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't you think she looks tired?
244 PGH
Aug 01st, 2012 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0=Half of the remaining settlers DID leave against their will, or “by consequence of the acts of British forces
No, see
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14887706/Falkland-Islands-Population-Evolution
After Onslow left, there was an increase when Vernet sent 7 more people, then 5 leave voluntarily despite Fitzroy trying to persuade them to stay. After that what damaged most the remaining population were the Rivero murders, not 'actions of British forces'
Your source contradicts you: ”When Onslow takes possession there are 33 civilian residents not connected with the garrison. 11leave. (...) Onslow persuades the 12Gauchos to stay” Those 11 alone confirm my point. And I don't know why you dismiss the people connected to the garrison, it was an Argentine official garrison after all.
Aug 01st, 2012 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also note that of those 12 gauchos and indians, 8 revolted and killed local authorities a year later.
@254
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine records list 4 people not belonging to the garrison, three foreigners and one prisoner (”Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana, Mateo González, su mujer Marica, Extranjeros: José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra
1 preso: Máximo Vbarnes (Warnes)). All the others recorded in the Argetine archives are garrison and dependants thereof.
So we're at somewhere between 4 and 11 who “leave”. And still no evidence whatsoever of any *expulsion* of settlers.
The point about the garrison, of course, is that no-one contests that the garrison was expelled. On the other hand, Argentina has repeatedly stated, not least to the UN, that settlers unconnected with the garrison were expelled. Surely they wouldn't have made such a foul accusation to such an august body, without supporting evidence to back it up?
PGH,
Aug 01st, 2012 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you had actually bothered to read the links provided you would have seen that the 11 who left and the 12 Gauchos that stayed are not the same people.
Pinedo's report of who left
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Soldiers_and_Civilians_who_left_Port_Louis
8 of the 11 are mentioned here 4 'individuos de la isla' 3 'extranjeros' and 1 'preso'
The other 3 were the American Henry Metcalf settlement manager, and an Englishman and an American, temporary residents.
There is no evidence that Onslow expelled those 11. He orders from his superiors not to disturb the population and Pinedo confimed that Onslow had told him the settlers could stay.
The people connected with the garrison means the soldiers and their wives and children. Obviously if the soldiers leave, the wives and children leave too . Note that the 9 soldiers on the Rapid were the ones who murdered Mestivier. They and their wives and children would have been removed anyway even if the British hadn't arrived
And there was no revolt, just plain murder. There were no local authorities at the time. The British did not leave any.
I suggest you read Thomas Helsby's account which shows they had plans to murder the crew of whaleboat Captain Low and others were on, and the women and children.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Soldiers_and_Civilians_who_left_Port_Louis
@256 dab14763
Aug 01st, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read my comment again carefully, I didn't say that.
@255 HansNiesund
“So we're at somewhere between 4 and 11 who “leave”. And still no evidence whatsoever of any *expulsion* of settlers.” --> well, no point in arguing after this. If you're saying that the persons who *left* weren't *expelled* then you're just hard as a rock, and I don't like to waste my time on knuckleheads.
@257
Aug 01st, 2012 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think “leave” and “be expelled” are the same thing, then you are indubitably a bigger knucklehead than I am.
But come up with some evidence from somewhere that those who “left” were indeed “expelled” and I will concede you the point.
PGH,
Aug 01st, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot deduce that because he convinced 12 to stay, he must have forced the 11 to leave.
The evidence that Onslow did not expel the 11 is that he had orders not to. There is no reason to believe he disobeyed his orders. Pinedo confirms that Onslow told him the population could stay.
@258 HansNiesund
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you are truly arguing that the arrival of the British task force and the departure of the individuals were unrelated events, then there's no point in discussing this further. You're beyond my reach.
@259 dab14763
That's not my deduction. I'm just pointing out that 8 of those 12 gauchos revolted a year later, and were taken out of the islands.
And your evidence is truly laughable... forgive but it's true. It has no logic behind, just faith.
No, PGH you are pointing to the 11 that left in January and implying they were expelled by Onslow, when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that they were.
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again. THERE WAS NO REVOLT. There were no authorities anyone could revolt against. And this is about whether the The British expelled the population as part of the takeover in January 1833. The murders happened in August 1833 and the murderers weren't captured and removed until January 1834. Of course they were removed. They were removed because they were murderers, not because of the British takeover. You are not seriously suggesting they should have been left free on the islands, are you?
My evidence? I'm pretty certain that at the time I'm writing this you haven't even read it.
It is perfectly logical to deduce that if Onslow had orders not to disturb the population, that those who wanted to stay could do so, confirmed by Pinedo, then Onslow did not expel anyone.
A report by Philip Gore to Prime Minister Palmerston, says that the people had taken Sarandí from Port Louis and those who do not wish to stay, to continue a few days on a sailboat English The Rapid.
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is expulsion and usurpation.
Even assuming that all inhabitants wish to stay, removing the national flag of a friendly country by force is a usurpation.
246 @ “Occupation. No”
Occupation yes, on West Falkland.
1765-1774.
Occupation. No. 1764-The French occupied the islands.
West Falkland. No. Saunders island (Isla Trinidad). The British got there illegally.
Under Article 35 of our Constitution the name “United Provinces” has the same legal validity as that of Argentina. So, legally synonymous.
“Where is the document or treaty by which Spain transferred her claim to The United Provinces of the River Plate?”
Article 1. His Catholic Majesty recognized as free, sovereign and independent Republic or Argentina Confederation, composed of all the provinces mentioned in the Federal Constitution in force, and other territories that rightfully belong to him or her pertenecieren forward, and using the power that falls under the decree of the Parliament of the Kingdom of December 4, 1836, resignation in every way and forever, for himself and his successors, the sovereignty, rights and actions that correspond on the territory of that Republic .
May 25, 1810. Succession of FACT.
July 9, 1856. Succession of RIGHT.
Treaty ratified the September 21, 1863.
“The Spainish dropped her claim to the Falkland Islands in 1866.”
As you can see, Spain ceded to Argentina not only the Malvinas Islands, but also all the territory that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata in 1856!!!
The islands were now under British control after a usurpation, does not invalidate the transfer of Spain because to that those territories had belonged your crown. Whereas the transfer of sovereignty from France to Spain, Spain was in possession of the islands from 1764 to 1811.
@260 PGH
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0As you surely know, I am not arguing that the arrival of the British and the departure of certain settlers are unconnected. I am arguing that there is no evidence that any settlers were expelled by the British.
Moreover, as dab also points out, evidence, reason, and common sense all indicate that indeed there was NO expulsion of settlers by the Brits.
@262
Heck, even Malvi seems to be admitting the possibility, albeit whilst laying down smoke.
Does this mean we can look forward to Argentina issuing a corrigendum to all those international bodies and friendly states it has unfortunately misinformed, surely through inadvertence?
@263HansNiesund,
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You & dab have very well summed it all up.
As for your last question---fat chance!
@262 Malvi
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0So now you want us to accept that a Spanish claim which was already contested by the Brits, which was to all practical purposes abandoned by the Spanish themselves after 1811, and which was renounced by Argentina itself through treaty in 1850, was somehow restored to life, unrenounced, adjudicated in favour of Spain, and transferred as title to Argentina in 1863?
@265 HansNiesund
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to not be able to understand that the transfer you are referring to is about the whole of the territories that Spain controlled. This includes Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Rosario, Salta, etc., AND the Falklands. All these places were DE FACTO Argentine before this DE JURE recognition.
Onslow arrived and invited all to stay, nonetheless some of them didn't trust him and left. You can play with words all you want but evidence is clear: NOT all of Vernet's colony remained, some of them were in fact forced to leave. “They were force” as in “Syrian people are being forced to leave their country” -- i.e., no one is compelling them to do so, but they do it because of fear and wouldn't do it if there were no reasons to fear.
Also, I think the British expulsion in a broad context that only the events of 1833. The Lexington attack was encouraged by the British. And the revolt of Rivero and co. is part of this process too.
@261 dab14763
There were authorities in charge. It wasn't an anarchy. But you already know this, if you really went through all those documents regarding the population.
@266
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're right, I don't understand that. I don't understand how this transfer is supposed to have resolved the outstanding sovereignity dispute between Britain and Spain. And I don't understand how it allowed Argentina to acquire sovereignity it had previously renounced in a separate treaty with a different party. And I don't understand the Falklands Islands DE FACTO Argentine for anything except that short period Pinedo was sailing around before the bouncers arrived.
As for the expulsion, indeed perhaps some people did leave out of fear. The arrival of an Argentine penal colony which murdered its commander and raped his wife in front of the children would certainly scare me, even if law and order had belatedly turned up in the shape of the Brits. What with the Americans getting all shirty about acts of piracy, and dangerous characters like Rivero knocking around, I might well decide it was in my interests to go.
But I don't have any more evidence for claiming that than you do for claiming the departees (all 4 of them, apparently) left because they were afraid of the Brits. Belief without evidence is the kind of thing most of the rest of gave up during the Age of Enlightenment.
And please, an analogy with Syria ..... who exactly was in the role of Bashir Assad?
@265 All of the territories that Spain controlled? Chile, Venezuala, Paraguy etc?
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@267 HansNiesund
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pinedo? Vernet's colony was Argentine. That's several years of DE FACTO control. The right to do so (“DE JURE”) was acknowledged by Spain later. ACKNOWLEDGED, not “granted” or anything like that.
You don't understand that THERE WAS NO SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE BETWEEN SPAIN AND BRITAIN, IT WAS ALREADY RESOLVED. The British left in 1774 and for 50 years didn't claim the islands. It was solved.
I don't intend to make an analogy with Syria, I'm just making clear how language works.
After Mestivier's murder the order was restored by Pinedo with the help of a French ship, IIRC. And mind you, the gaucho revolt was pretty nasty, and that happened because Onslow evicted the armed garrison and left no one to watch over the civilians.
@269
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet an Argentine colony? Are you sure? Because then we have an official representative of Argentina asking the UK for permission to establish a colony, providing reports to the British authorities, and seeking UK protection. Surely this would imply official Argentine recognition of UK sovereignity? If I were you, I'd stick to the UK view that Vernet was a businessman trying do his best for his business, as his own behaviour and writings attest. (See e.g post 219)
The abandonment of the British claim to sovereignity will also come as a major surprise to the ghosts of British politicians alive at the time, notably Palmerston:
“the government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.”
Or in short : a) wrong b) mind your own business.
You do have a point about the UK's failure to leave sufficient civil protection in place (although it would be somewhat unusual for a foreign invasion force to be left in place as a police service). Not the last time the UK would make that particular mistake either, though I do think we've rather learned the lesson by now.
@PGH
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Answer this question. If the sovereignty of the islands was unquestionably yours, and everyone in the UP and the world knew about it.
A) Why did Vernet ask us for permission to settle?
B) why did'nt the US govt recognise your claim either?
Next-did your claim refer to your settlement only?
In addition, we did make a claim - just like the Spanish we left a marker plaque refering to it, so your statement is just not true.
Finally - after 180 years - even if you were right about soveriegnty (which you are'nt) why would 2 wrongs make a right? why would the expulsion of an Argentine Garrison and Resetsablishment of British authority over the islands and it's inhabitants be wrong in 1833, and the occupation and subjugation of 3000 people, followed by their possible expulsion in 20-- be right,being as it is 180 years later.
A) Why did Vernet ask us for permission to settle?
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because you saw the opportunity and revived your old, rusty claim. Vernet AND PACHECO (you don't like to mention Pacheco, and Areguati) didn't ask for British permission in 1823. Because he didn't know about your claim, you say? Precisely.
B) why did'nt the US govt recognise your claim either?
The US does what's best for them. They questioned British sovereignty when the UK started to control fisheries some years after the seizure.
shb, the Falklands War was completely wrong, I won't contest that. It was a just cause, but by the wrong means. But at least the majority of Argentinians will recognize this. It pisses people off when you disguise your controversial actions as heroic and just, or when you disregard our claim as lies, or product of a vivid imagination.
@270 HansNiesund
You Angry Brits like to cite Palmerson as if he was God. Why don't you cite the Bernhardt memorandum of 1910? This internal document of the Foreign Office is kept away from public scrutiny since the Falklands War. Isn't that a questionable attitude?
“at any time on the part of Great Britain to the possession of Soledad by the Spaniards, who continued in undisturbed exercise of all the rights of sovereignty not only over Falkland Islands but also over the whole group”
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/docs/04-Juan_Archibaldo_Lanus_en.pdf
and
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/docs/04-Juan_Archibaldo_Lanus_en.pdf
If you read with care the Foreign Office memorandum of December 1910 you must surely have realised that the Argentina attitude is neither “ridiculous” nor “childish”.
-- Sir Malcolm Robertson, the British ambassador in Argentina, December 1927
@271
Aug 02nd, 2012 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're putting words in my mouth, but never mind :
> A) Why did Vernet ask us for permission to settle?
For the same reason he asked us. Because Vernet was a businessman hedging his bets and playing whichever side seemed to offer the greater advantage at a given moment.
> B) why didn't the US govt recognise your claim either?
Why didn't it recognise yours? And when did the US become the adjudicating authority anyway? Baylies at least was quite clear about whose side he was on : ”I find I am denounced in high terms by the renegade who conducts the Gaceta Mercantil for disclosing to Great Britain the extent of her rights, as if Great Britain who protested against the occupation of the Falklands in 1829 did not know her own rights!” (Baylies)
> Next-did your claim refer to your settlement only?
No. The claim covered the entire archipelago. (I know the Malvinista argument about Port Egmont, and I don't buy that either, since it would apply equally to the Spanish claim)
> Why would 2 wrongs make a right?
Check your text, I think you've reversed your arguments there, that's exactly how a Brit might put the question to an Argentine. But it's quite simple, there was an unjustified attempt to seize the islands in 1833, and another one in 1982, a really stupid move when elements of the UK govt were quite willing to contemplate a negotiated transfer of sovereignity, for purely pragmatic if rather shameful reasons.
But I'm glad we got to 1982 at last, because what I really believe is that the entire history before 1982 is now irrelevant. Even if you actually did find the unquestionable historical smoking gun you seem to think is out there, no British govt. can now make any move without the consent of the islanders and expect to survive. And by insulting, dismissing, and harassing those islanders, your government, and your Malvinista historians, are doing exactly what is necessary to ensure the islands remain British.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!