MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chile ratifies support for Argentine Malvinas; meets regional solidarity group
Foreign minister Alfredo Moreno ratified Chilean support for Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands during a meeting with a delegation from Andean countries belonging to the “Solidarity Group with Malvinas”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“The rights of Argentina in the Malvinas sovereignty dispute with the UK are legitimate”
Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right on Mr. Minister! Just simple words of wisdom from an enlightened diplomat.
“Minister Moreno congratulated the Andean representatives for their initiative on the issue and recalled that Chile was the co-sponsor of this year’s draft resolution on the Falklands/Malvinas issue at the UN Decolonization Committee or C24.”
As he correctly should do so!
“The Chilean representative in the “Solidarity Group with Malvinas”, former Foreign minister Juan Gabriel Valdés said that “Malvinas is not a bilateral issue with the UK, but a cause of Latinamerican interest”.”
It can’t be any other way!
And our family gets bigger by the minute. Let's hope no ignorant agitator shows up squandering their narrow views of the world, support is always good. It could be greater if Chile and Argentina sat down and talked barrick gold and the environment, fruits, wine and meat will provide work for ever gold will end up in a foreign bank. The malvinas issue almost seem like a distraction. All of south America should focus on the same objectives.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/31/chile-ratifies-support-for-argentine-malvinas-meets-regional-solidarity-group#comment158884: But Chile and Argentina do talk about meat, fish and the other things. This does not hinder the discussion regarding Las Malvinas in any way. This is the essence of the UK's problem - united, effective and continuing opposition to its invasion.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0THANKS YOU CHILE!!!
Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0It´s a real disappointment the presence of our Foerign Office Minister within that group....it´s a coward attitude from a Gvt. from a country that had suffered repeatedly the attacks and betrayals from that Gvt. that is supporting....It´s to betray the Chilean citiziens, specially we that are living on the Southhern extrem that dayly are watching how the neighbor Gvt. limits our rights to trade with any country we want, complicating as possible as they can the paperwork that our truckers must do to transit through Argentine territory to supply us with the required goods for our population, how signed treaties and trade agreements have been deleted with the elbow meaning the lost of two methanol plants (on dismantling process already to be shipped to the USA because a closed natural gas valve).....I can continue with more similar examples.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, Mr. Moreno you are acting as a coward and a traitor to us the Southern Chilean people......that probably you have never know or visited....Mr. Piñera, you are the same to us.....
Anyway, the Falklands Islands were, are and will be British for ever.......
@1-4 (Quite possibly the same saddo) Well in gratitude for Uruguay's unflinching support, you sabotaged their canal dredging project and screwed with their tax set-up. In gratitude for Chile's support you went behind their back and supported Bolivia in their efforts to snatch a piece of Chile's coastal territory.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's face it, if Latin America is a family, Argentina is the kleptomaniac, meths-addicted, mentally disturbed second cousin that nobody trusts. If Pepe and Pinera don't have the balls to stand up to your grubby self-serving country and its total lack of decency I wouldn't be surprised if they get a well-deserved boot up the arse from the voting public come the elections.
1-5
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0What are you deadbeats on about? Chile has already stated its support over the dispute officially several times. This is nothing new. Tell me this though deadbeats: what tangible actual support has Chile provided? We continue to trade with her as usual, LAN continues to fly from her to the Falklands each week and our British Antarctic Survey (Falklands registered) operate through Punta Arenas regularly.
The Chilean support for Argentina over the Falklands is the same as my “support” for Arsenal FC. I'm not a club member, I'm not a season ticket-holder, I've never paid to go to a match and I buy their strips for my kids from a street stand in Bangkok that sells rip-offs. As far as I can tell I have never done anything to actually better the cause for Arsenal FC except that other kids who see my kids in the Arsenal strips might get the same idea.
Loooovvvve your Malvinas strips Chile! Except @5 seems to have a different shirt on.
Chuckle chuckle
“Malvinas is not a bilateral issue with the UK, but a cause of Latinamerican interest”.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed.
Sergio Vega
Sorry to hear that your businesses with the British in Malvinas are not doing well.
Chilean president a few months ago:
“The position of the Chilean government is clear and firm: we back and support the right of Argentina, on legal and historic reasons, over the Malvinas and other adjoining islands”
5 Sergio Vega
Aug 31st, 2012 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please accept my sincere apologies. The first part of my post @ 7 should have been addressed to 1-4 and not 1-5. Clearly you support the Falkland Islands as I mentioned further down.
Oh, and further down I mentioned the Falklands registered British Antarctic Survey operating out of Chile. That should read British Antarctic Survey aircraft.
Which historic reasons are Chile referring to? The multiple wars? The supplying of coal to the Spanish fleet by Argentina when Chile was fighting Spain? Does that deserve support to Argentina? Maybe Chile has forgotton about the constant diplomatic support provided by the UK to Chile over the last 100 or more years, the military equipment we've provided them, the Chilean people in the Falklands they're abandoning with these knee-jerk actions, the fact that Argentina is becoming an international pariah financially and that Chile is going to be sucked down with them unless they're careful? Just checking...
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think Chile maybe feeling the pressure down there, still, they have made their feelings clear, I hope it doesn't come back to haunt them. I think next year when the people of the Falklands have their referendum it will make things a little more difficult for the less dictatorial regimes like Chile. Like Uruguay, their current leadership seems to be at odds with their own people.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is never a prize for backing the wrong horse Chile!
Yes Chile, especially a horse that'd kick you in the face and leave a steaming manure pile on your dining table, before someone finally drags the old nag off to the glue factory where it belongs.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if this Facebook Group is really put together by Chileans?
Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.facebook.com/pages/Grupo-Chileno-de-Solidaridad-con-Falklands-Chile-supports-the-Falklands/254740114595243
...... because if it is then Chilean opinion is very obviously divided.
Don't worry malvies it is probably put together by British Malvinista baiters.
Snigger, chuckle, guffaw.
Talk is cheap.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Stating support for Argentina does'nt really count for much and has been done before, countless times, by other South American countries.
Unless these countries do something more serious to threaten our interests and people then we can basically ignore these pronouncements, while calmly going on about our own affairs and remininding SA countries diplomatically about the truth of the matter.
Argentina would find itself with very little support if it attacked the islands militarily.
@1-4
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you're still not getting the islands.
You do understand that, don't you?
@15 Bongo (#)
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:38 am
I don't think they do I am afraid.
It's all political rhetoric, the Falkland Islanders have very good relations with Chile & have done for many years.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Chilean Gov want's to score a few brownie points with Arg that's fine, but when it comes to the crunch it wouldn't offer more than a gesture.
Though it would be nice for some Latam leaders who do not support Arg (and there's a few) to grow some balls and tell Arg to F off.
“The rights of Argentina in the Malvinas sovereignty dispute with the UK are legitimate”
Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0They are if you are subject to brainwashing but if the historical facts are examined in minute detail in the context of when they happened, the Argentine claim is mostly fantasy.
Also there is the small matter of the UN Charter which is relevant in the 21st century, which is the one we are in now(,ie not the 19th century).
@18 I wonder whether anyone has ever told a Chilean government the truth? Or do they only listen to argieland?
Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5 Sergio. Is there any means of contacting the Chilean government direct, telling them the truth and getting them to explain those “legal and historic reasons”?
I suggest the islanders go practicing Spanish!!! :)
Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 why are you expecting a mass exiodus of Falklanders to live in a 3rd world country, dont think so ?? :)
Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dont blame chile one bit, they have to live with Argentina which is an unenvious burden in itself and still try to keep the peace, but when the REAL chips are down im afraid Argentina you are and always will be pissing in the wind. Solidarity? south americans cannot even agree on the colour of the sh*t without threats and feet stomping.
Cuba? venezuela? Ecuador? bolivia? Peru? Argentina? worldwide recognition of corruption,blackmail, Lack of human rights, mass poverty, tinpot rule, and dictatorship is the only solidarity in that banana circus,
you are kidding nobody except yourselves, yet again. EPIC FAIL!
STATUS : QUO
FALKLANDS - REMAIN BRITISH
SELF-DETERMINATION!!!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
”“The rights of Argentina in the Malvinas sovereignty dispute with the UK are legitimate”
Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looking at this in a little bit of detail it would appear very diplomaticaly worded. Not it does not say that the support Argentines rights to the Falklands just that they support their rights in a sovernigty dispute. Two very different things. Chile is playing a cleaver game which on one hand lends vocal support to Argentina but others practical and financial help to the Islanders and the UK government. (weekly flights to Stanley, large chilian community on the islands). The UK foreign office is one of the msot experianced int he world (it had to be to control such a alrge empire from such a small islands, in additiona many of the former colonies retained british government style after independence) and has dealt with much larger problems that this one, it just dosent scream and shout like CFK and Timmerman, it doesnt have to. Words are just words at the end of the day and it is clear to me that on a practical measurable way Chile still supports the UK and the islanders, they just have to be careful with such an agrreisve nehigbour on the doorstep.
Well, it´s possible that Chilean Gvt. is playing a double game.....On one hand is patting the Argentine shoulders to keep them happy and quiet while on the other is helping covertly the UK and FI specially to surf over turbid & riots waters....as we always have done (1982 the closest).
Aug 31st, 2012 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the fact is that way, I apologize to Mr. Piñera & Mr. Moreno who would be suffering the bulling from the Chileans that support the legality and the people´s self determinationright......like I have done...
If this is the best Cameron can hope for from the most right wing governmnet in decades of the most stable capitalist country in South America, he should really talk to Cristina...
Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@8 He's not talking about business in the Falklands. He's talking about goods having to transit through Argentina to get to southern Chile.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just more small beer to apease the crying child.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PS The UK is the 4th largest investor in Chile
22 EnginnerAbroad
Aug 31st, 2012 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, very carefully worded.
And still doesn’t change who is in the right here.
@ Mercopress,
Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This story is 2 days old, please keep up.
@27
Aug 31st, 2012 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any statement does not lead any credability to anyone. It is basic principle of law that Might does not make right. therefore it wouldnt matter how many countries each government is able to wheel out at an interntional level to support them. The right to who claims sovernigity over the islands is a deicison for the population of the islands now (technicaly the borders of each nation, and therefore its overseas territories was set in 1945 on the formation of the UN, and the C24 set up to administer those terriotries wishing to remove themselves from the colonial power in 1945 at the time of the borders being locked). The UN charter enshrines self dtermination as a universal human right applying to all people without excpetion. This idea was reafiirded by the general council in 2008 when it stated that self dtermination applied even in cases of sovernignty dispute.
There are only 1 relastic method by which Argentina can ever gain sovernighty and that is the local population decide they wish to live under the rule of Argentine law or in a state of dual sovernigty. The UN will never force the issue as it would undermine its own charter and any attmept at violence to evict against the people would be considered a crime against humanity as either ethnic cleansing or ethnic genocide.
If Argentine is aserious about sovernigyt ( and I have my doubts) then it is going about it compeltly the wrong way. It should be trying to forge ties with the islanders not isolating them, this tactic is doomed to failed but will provide the Argentine government will a vocal nationlist cause to use at times of internal problems (like we see now).
29 EnginnerAbroad
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands. Conflict is sovereign. No self-determination.
The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine of the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41 / 40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute, with due regard to the provisions and objectives of the UN Charter and Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the people of the Falkland Islands. ”. Interest Speaks not of self-determination.
Since 2004 and under a process of revitalization of the General Assembly, the Argentine government that the Malvinas Islands Question permanently on the agenda and in the paper by the Bureau of the General Assembly. The topic may be discussed upon notification by a Member State.
Thank you very much.
In 1833, the territorial borders of the Republic of Argentina did not include the geographical southern half of its present form, nor any territory in the Falkland Islands, Antarctica, or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The land which now forms the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego, of which the Republic of Argentina purportedly claims the Falkland Islands forms a part, did not itself form part of the Republic of Argentina until approximately half a century after 1833, by which time the current Falkland Islands people had lived and raised two generations on the Islands. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765, some years before the Republic of Argentina even existed.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All of the above demonstrates that the Republic of Argentina’s claim to the Islands, which it bases on the principle of disruption to its territorial integrity, is without foundation, as the Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina.
Part of UK Gov letter to the UN.
@30 Raul
Aug 31st, 2012 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are now in the realms as to which the two governments argue about and therefore It is unliekly non legal minds like ours will be able to resolve one of the trickest aspects of international law in the world today.
In addition and given that the UK have claimed the Islands since 1766 it could also be argueed that when Argentina installed a milatry governor on the islands in 1829 (and a diplomatic protest made by the UK government) was a “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of the United Kingdom. Geographic locations is irelevent at this time as Argentina had yet to incoporate Patagona and the islands were 1,000 miles form the nearest land occupied and reconsied as a part of the prinvinves of the Rio de la Plata. In addition the C24 this year stated that this is NOT an issue of decolonisation and is entirely soverigh in nature there the ”Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” is not applicable.
Even if we take your argument that any decision amde must be in line with the intrest of the population (and that Sel fdetermination is not applicable), how is it in their intrest to subjagate them to a foreign power with whom they do not wish to be involved with. The answer it is not and therefore no chnage of sovernigyt can be done until their intrest are fufilled and as such my point stands that the current Argentine policy is doomed to failure.
In addition your argument ingnores the fact that no UN law can be applied retraspectivily to nations prior to 1945 ( a country can not be accontable for laws which it had no foreseable knoellge of in say 1883) For these reasons the events (and the Arg population was not removed) of 1833 are not applicable when considering them in the light of 21st centuray laws.
In 2008 the UN asserted than self dtermination applies to all people. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm and struck the qualifing phrase where no dispute exists.
@30
Aug 31st, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, how do you resolve the paradox of denying the islanders a voice in their own future, while calling it decolonization?
A bit off-topic but doesn't “Solidarity Group” sounds rather pathetic? Rather like a bunch of losers gathering to pat each other on the back so that none of them jump in front of a train on the way home or something.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pugol 31-H
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately, with all due respect, your arguments are completely false. Arguments must study Argentinos. Remember that the specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity Argentina.
Read the resolutions committee of UN decolonization and in particular Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by subsequent resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 ( 38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21) 1,986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. For more details see the following link:
http://www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/index.php
32 EnginnerAbroad
With all due respect, you're totally wrong. You have not read carefully the resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions mentioned above. They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. You ignore the resolutions committee of UN decolonization. Must read. These decisions make clear that there is a problem of sovereignty and English colonialism.
Argentina .... that current policy is doomed to failure.
Totally false: Endorse to Argentina resolutions UN Decolonization Committee of the United Nations, multilateral organizations such as OAS, CELAC, UNASUR, MERCOSUR.
33 HansNiesund
They can not be British in Argentine territory. Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 is very clear about it, later confirmed by other UN resolutions as describe above. They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. Also read the resolutions committee of UN decolonization held every year and discourse Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in the decolonization committee in June 2012.
Remember that the 16 cases of colonialism in the world before the Committee, 10 cases are caused by England. It is very clear English colonialism and imperialism.
Taken from Bloomberg Business Watch 31.8.12
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Columbia's finance chief, looking to become the IMF top official in Latin America, boasted that his economy has overtaken Argentina's as the regions third biggest as a result of the Argentine Peso's slide on the unregulated currency market'
Argentina is now a fourth rate Latin American country
@35
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the resolutions you quote are from before the one I quoted you in 2008, it is a legal basis that the most recent legal rulings hold prescdence i.e. when in October 2008 the UN stated self dtermination applies to all people it overrules any reolsution written prior to this date. As I emntione dbefore if this was not the case then how would you decide which decision holds pressdence when they conflict. In addition all UN resolutions must comply with the charter of the UN and as such if they do not they are ilegal by defifntion. i.e. the Un charter states Self dtermination is a basic human right aforded to all, if a UN statement later says it dosent then the statement is incomptable witht he UN charter and illegal.
The UN decolonisation commite and the UN in general as well as the OAS has never stated that Argentina holds sovernigty only that a dispute exisits and calls on the two parties to seek a peacefull solution.
In addition how do the organsiations you quote give you any legal basis? reameber my opening argument that in law Might does not make right.
No UN reoslution states anywhere that there is “No self determination for the people of the islands” This is because to do so would be against the UN charter and therefore incompatable with the UN. Also please present an actual mechanism by which you see the current Argentine tatic working.
I notice you compeltly ingored the question of how (even if we accpet that self dtermination does not apply) that giving sovernigity would be the intrests of the population and therefore comptaible with any of the UN resolutions you choose to quote.
I am afraid you are reading from the Un resolutions what you would like to be there not what is ”They can not be British in Argentine territory. Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 is very clear about it” no it is not it states no where the islands are Argentine.
In 2012 the C24 stated it was not a collinization issue. No Argentine person is currently collinised.
35 Raul
Aug 31st, 2012 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When the UK gets a resolution by the Security Council against us, we will take notice.
All these 'resolutions' by a subcommittee of a bunch of tossers count for nothing, ESPECIALLY those before 1982.
Remember 1982? You lot lost the war, tough, get a life and stop listening to the Peronista lies.
all british bloggers, esespecially #21 “amor pirata” LATINAMERICA for LATINAMERICANS, remember: time, time. OEA said AMERICA for AMERICANS !!!. kelpers like britains: OK , but land are MALVINAS ARGENTINAS. (plis, no discuss)
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont worry about him, he can state his arguments as I can easily refute them all.
1) he does not udnerstand the principle of prescedence i.e. a UN resolution from 2008 overwrites any earlier reoslution which conflicts the statement of the later.
2) He doesnt udnerstand the hirachy of documents at the UN. i.e that the charter overarches all documents i.e. a statement, act or reoslution not in compliance with the charter is not admissable or legal
3) He does not udnerstand that UN law can not be applied restraspectivly before 1945 and as such the historical events do not matter
4) He does not udnerstand his hisotry and his only information is opion as it fails to metnion any viable source from which the information has been derived including the website link he himself placed. There is no evidence source listed. Unlike this British study of the hisotry which contains the sources usedto dervive the argument i.e. this document would be legaly admissable. http://britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
5) He reads into resolutions what is not there. i.e. the reolsution states “in the intrests of the population” he reads self determination does not apply. Alos see argument 2 on hirachy of Un documents
6) He cannot present an argument which shows a mechanism by how which Argentina would gain sovernigty
7) Believes that right makes right which is incompatiable with the basic principles of international and common law.
8) Beleievs that organsiations stating there should be talks are stating any prefrence for the Argetnine claim
9) He ignores that the UK hisotry dates back to the 1750s (70 years) before the argentine hisotry in the 1820s
10) Ignore Argentines own hisotry of collonisation in Salta, The Pampas and Patagonia which under his argument should be returned to the indinous population
In short let him spout his arguments he does not stand a hope of having thema ccepted by anyone with a free thinking logical brain.
“When the UK gets a resolution by the Security Council against us, we will take notice.”
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This.
Ambiguously worded general assembly resolutions are nothing but lip service. Security council resolutions are the only things that actually carry any weight.
Also curious is the idea that Britain should somehow be held to uphold a resolution which Argentina totally violated in 1982. You want a peaceful dialogue over the future of the islands, then you invade. Sorry argtards, you knocked over your own hourse of cards there.
Now, if we're talking UN resolutions, how about security council resolution 502?
”Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas).
1.Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities.
2.Demands an immediate withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas).”
So the obvious conclusion here is that Argentina will only respect UN resolutions that favour it while wishing to hold Britain to others that it flagrantly ignores, regardless of the legal status of them.
Sorry RGs, but real life doesn't work that way
@35
Aug 31st, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since you mention it, can you direct me to any witness statement or contemporaneous record concerning the alleged expulsion of population in 1833? A list of names, for example? British, Argentinian, Uruguayan, American, or indeed any other source would be fine.
@42 I point you to the following sources:
Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Ernesto J Fitte, La Agresion Norteamericana a Las Islas Malvinas, Buenos Aires 1963, pp 372-373
2)Mario Tesler, El Gaucho Antionio Rivera, Buenos Aires (no date) pp 235-237
3)Numbers from names in Captaib Onslows report PRO ADM 1/2276
4) Details from the Ships log of the HMS Clio, PRO Adm 53/258 from AGN VII, F. 130 doc. 62.
Both of these sources name the 4 Argentines who choose to leave:
1) Joaquin Acu;a and his wife Juana
2) Mateo Gonzalez and his wife Marica
In addition 3 people described as foreigners left.
Of the pre 1833 population 22 remained: 12 Argentines, 4 Charrua 2 british (yes they where there before 1833), 2 German, 1 French and 1 Jamaican therefore 50% of the post 1833 population where Argentine.
40 EnginnerAbroad
Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do not worry about it, you can make their case and they can easily refute all.
Why you are so proud and arrogant in their statements? Those who do not think like you take it with lightness and ease typical single thought or fascist. I have carefully read and you have their foundations based on the doctrine of national security Anglo much harm they brought to Latin America and the world with its consequences of state terrorism, preemptive wars, bombing civilians and humanitarian racism. Do not take this the wrong way but you have the whole profile of the English colonialist thinking. You have not read or will not read the rationale and arguments Argentinos.
I read his 10 points. You proclaimed champion of the intelligence and wisdom. The historically proven facts and studied at any university with career history or social studies specialized in Latin American studies the arguments being discarded when even the light has read or knows Latin American history in general and Argentina in particular. With all the respect you deserve, it's really ignorant in these matters. You refute what is not known.
Unfortunately I will not be your job for you. Do you work to learn Spanish or Castilian and meet other historical events and other points of view and arguments true that you do not like.
In short pipe ... let their arguments have no hope of having thema ccepted by anyone with a brain free logical thinking.
Pathetic and sad commentary. You believe you are better than God. You are not known for being humble. You attack what you do not know.
Have peace .........
42 HansNiesund
Dear Hans
There are numerous literature. At the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) have an extensive library on the subject, where you can see historical documentation and evidence on the subject matter. You can also check the following links:
www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar / index.php
http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/
Thank you very much.
@43
Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now isn't that odd? No record of a civilian expulsion, but a population left behind?
This surely can't be right. There must be landing records of the poor huddled masses at BA or Montevideo? Or surely there's an account of the expulsion in the transcript of the trial of Pinedo? And what about Vernet? Vernet if anybody must have known who was in his colony before the Brits turned up, and who was expelled when they did. Surely he can't have omitted to mention such a thing in his legal proceedings in the US and in the UK, when he was on about cows and and buildings and what not? And surely the expulsees themselves must have left some account of the outrage? Or their descendants?
And surely, surely Argentine scholars must have been able to constitute such a list, given its immense legal and propaganda value. It can't be true that they've been going around telling this story to the UN and anybody else who will listen, when there is no evidence it ever happened?
45 HansNiesund
Aug 31st, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember that the Malvinas Question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
There was expelled in 1833. You have to study the historical and contemporary social processes that colonialism and imperialism is English ..
The decolonization committee of United Nations convened the June 14, 2012, to Argentina and the United Kingdom to discuss the sovereignty of the islands. Argentina was represented by its President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, UK did not attend
That meeting showed the facts and evidence of the lives of Argentines in the islands before 1833, by descendants of Luis Vernet currently living in Argentina.
I recommend two books that are studied in race history.
Life of Don Juan Manuel de Rosas, written by Manuel Gálvez
British Politics in the Rio de la Plata, written by Raul Scalabrini Ortiz.
Thank you very much.
Marcos Alejandro. One small voice in a shrinking minority.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul,
If there was an expulsion of the original population, there must be a record somewhere, surely. How about just a list of names of the expulsees? I mean, we have:
1) a list of those who were still on the islands in August 1833 . (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders/Residents_of_Port_Louis_as_of_26_August_1833)
2) a list of names of those landed by the Sarandi and the Rapid (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders/Residents_of_Port_Louis_as_of_26_August_1833)
- taken from the Archivo General de la Nación (Buenos Aires), Sala III, 16-6-5)
Strangely enough, as pointed out above by EngineerAbroad, these logs, with a couple of excepetions, include only members of the expelled garrison, and not the expelled civilian population.
3) I think it's reasonable to assume, however, that Vernet had a list of all the inhabitants of his colony before the arrival of the Brits in the 1833. Logs from the ships that brought them there, at a minimum.
Therefore, it would seem not too difficult to construct a list of the names of those members of the civilian population who were actually expelled - it would those who are on list 3, but not on list 1 or list 2, quite simple really.
Where can I find this list?
@46
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No one was expelled, except the proto-Argie troops that were violating British sovereignty. Anyone who wanted to stay was encouraged to do so, and many did.
Rather ironic it wasn't until that Rivero fellow attacked and sacked the settlement, and his subsequent capture and transport to the UK for trial (which couldn't be held since the FI wasn't yet a proper British colony), that the British decided to end the legal limbo of the Falklands. Vernet is the only reason the Argies have a shadow of a claim and he prefered British administration. Rivero is the one Argentinian who have done more than any other to insure British/local rule on the Falklands.
47 ProRG_American (#) OOOOPS! Corection, Sergio Vega. One small voice in a shrinking minority.
Aug 31st, 2012 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 Shb
Aug 31st, 2012 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Talk is cheap”.
You nailed it right there.
We know that the UN will recognise the Falklands soon and there is nothing Arg can do about it that they haven’t already done.
So we just throw the little doggy a bone and keep it happy.
You can see from the reaction on this website how grateful it is.
Here boy, here boy, have another doggy snack....
Roll, beg, sit, good boy...
Pant, pant, pant...
Happy pup.
@ 30 Raul writes:
Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population”
Give us the names of the original population, which was expelled in 1833 or stand exposed as a liar.
53 St.John
Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul and the rest of the world are right.
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The British commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
”The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
@ 35 Raul
Aug 31st, 2012 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you list a number of NON-binding resolution but do not mention the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982
Why?
What does resolution no. 502 say?
Did Argentina abide by it?
Thanks Chile,Thanks Brazil,Thanks Uruguay,Thanks Paraguay,thanks South America.The brits pirates are FINISHED!It is about time,the scums go back where they belong.The North Atlantic!Bravo SudAmerica! Down with the brits imperialist!
Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 54 Marcos Alejandro
Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The British commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.”
Contemporary official Argentine documents tell the real story.
Those who were expelled were members of Juan Manuel de Rosas's armed forces and their families.
To them you can add 4 (four) civilians: Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana y Mateo Gónzales, su mujer Marica (2 Brasilians + 2 Uruguayans) who did not want to stay on the Falkland Islands.
All other civilians (twentytwo) stayed as settlers.
Documentation: “Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas” http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
The Argentines think Rivero a hero, but why if he wished to stay on under British ownership of the Islands in 1833.
Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0This means he accepted British rule otherwise he would have chosen to leave with Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana y Mateo Gónzales, su mujer Marica.
@57 Thanks, anyway further evidence of British aggression and expulsion of part its population.
Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-cant-hold-onto-the-falkland-191204
@ 59
Sep 01st, 2012 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0a nobody named Paul Routledge compares the Falkland Islands to Kenya, Rhodesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Cyprus, etc., telling us he doesn't know squat about the Falklands.
He writes about the Mau Mau movement in Kenya, the insurgency in Malaya and the Eoka terrorists in Cyprus
Where is the Falkland resistence movement?
Nowhere.
As opposed to the countries/ex-colonies he compares to, the islanders want to stay British, be part of the UK, which tells us that Paul Routledge is a numbscull without perspective, something which can also be deduced from his other ramblings further down the same page, e.g.
“GOATEE beards are now allowed on staff at Disney World, Florida. Yuk. The only place for a goatee is on a goat.”
@46 @59 @54
Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now this is getting curiouser and curiouser. Here we have the salient event in the entire Malvinas conflict, the one we are repeatedly told about, and it seems nobody is able to come up with a list of civilans expelled by the Brits. Isn't it strange that such a thing doesn't exist?
Perhaps we should now entertain the hypothesis that the reason nobody can come up with a list of expulsees, or a contemporaneous account of the expulsion, or even a period reference in the subsequent stories of the actors themselves, is because the expulsion never actually happened.
And wouldn't that mean that any UN resolution obtained on the basis of a falsehood was invalid? And that Argentina has been filling its childrens' heads with garbage for the last 50 years? And went to war with it? And 1,000 deaths later, still nobody has come up with the evidence?
I mean, come on, guys. Make with the list. At least with the Reichstag fire, they actually had a fire.
@44
Sep 01st, 2012 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0First of (and i am sorry if this not directed to me) but my statemeny about being able to refute your claims is not arragnce, you must understanding the world. Arragance is beleiveing you are right without having evidence to proove it. As you will have seen throughtout my arguments I have directed you to the sources (many of which are classed as primary sources, i.e.e the ships log of the HMS Clio). Secondly your argument is now begining to fall apart drasticaly, I notice you have begin to use the appeal to populism logical falalcy when you talk about the “evil” of british colloniasm in Latin America. In my opion this is an attempt to jump on the ever so popular idea of anglophobia and use it to try and rally support (support which I have already shown you does not necessary make your argument any more powerfull). A history of colonisation makes no difference in an individual case, in the same was as person being tried for a crime can not have their previous acts used against them in prosecution. A case stands or falls on the evidence of that case alone.
This seems a strnage tatic as I would imagine someone who believes so strongly in their historical and or UN argument would of provded me with evidence to show me that interpretation was correct. In this case that would mean providing evidecne source that refute those I have already sent you,
Pray tell, how can one refute with evidence what is unknown. If there is evidence to refute the unknown then the unknown is known (little bit of Donald Rumsfeld for you). Or is your argument that Argentina can use knowns to support their position.
I notice in you last paragraph you turn to try and attack my chratcer in order to make others dismiss my evidence and arguments, this shows you to are pretty aragoant and ingorant.
Tambien, vivo en Argentina y tengo un muy bueno idea de la situación. Tuve estudio el historio de la islas de libros ingles y Espanol.
Mucha gracias
@59
Sep 01st, 2012 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is not evidence it is opinion. And poorly researched at that.
Evidence is not quoting opinion fron newspapers published in 2012 if you are commenting in events in 1833.
OK, you say that the UK expelled the civilian population from Port Louis in January 1833.
Many posters have provided links including those from the UPotRP commander Pinedo that demonstrate the civilian population were asked if they wanted to stay, and not evicted.
The fact is that the Argentine side of these events remains an unproved fairy tale , which is why you have to rely on newspaper columnist's opinions as evidence.
However, if you have any evidence from historical documents dating back to the 1833 period that sttae the civilian population was evicted, contrary to what has been posted here, then you are free to do so.
We're waiting with baited breath..
Eureka! Chile has now its “Perito Moreno,” expert on malvinazism!!
Sep 01st, 2012 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers,
Philippe
@35 Raul
Sep 01st, 2012 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Let me repeat, lest anybody should have missed or mis-understood. There were no native inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, and no civilian population was expelled, as the Argentines would have you believe. That is just a convenient lie to make you believe that they have just cause. They do not.”
Part of MLA Summers address to the C24 meeting in New York.
It would seem the facts do not support your arguments.
@61, 63 What other evidence needs.
Sep 01st, 2012 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Documentation: “Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas” farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
Military women and children expelled.
Thanks, anyway further evidence of British aggression and expulsion of part its population.
What do you call lower the flag and remove a military garrison from another country?
The Germans took down the French flag and the population of Paris remained. This transforms to Paris in a German city?
@66
Sep 01st, 2012 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure. The families of the would-be garrison were expelled along with the garrison. The expulsion of the garrison isn't at issue. That was us. No doubt about it.
But that's not the point. The point is that Argentina, all the way up to the President, is continually pleading before the world a moral case based on this highly emotive expulsion of the civilian population. You've been to the UN with this any number of times, and it's what you've been teaching your children for 50 years at least.
And now I understand from your response that you accept the allegation is false. Good for you.
@67 Mister Hans : “Sure. The families of the would-be garrison were expelled along with the garrison. The expulsion of the garrison isn't at issue. That was us. No doubt about it.”
Sep 01st, 2012 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That has a name: usurpation.
Even to take by force a territory requires a treaty.
U.K. has not nothing.
It is conclusively usurpation.
@68
Sep 01st, 2012 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not at all. For it to be usurpation, you have to show that it was yours in the first place, and you can no more do that than show that an expulsion which never happened took place.
All that really happened was that the landlord had to step in when the tenants took to piracy and squatters turned up murdering each other.
Change of opinion since 1982 then?
Sep 01st, 2012 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul
Sep 01st, 2012 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You talk about decolonizing 10 British colonies. Can you please tell me what these colonies are ?
Did I not read somewhere, that one of the generals involved in the planning of the invasion of the FI' in 82 stated that if they had not invaded the islands, they would have invaded the and I quote, the “ Chilean Pigs.” Well it would seem that this particular “Chilean Pig” either never read that or if he did, for the reason of politics, seems to think it does not matter. Mind you it has been thirty years and time does heal some things.
Sep 01st, 2012 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 69 Mister Hans: And what is the evidence that British islands belong?
Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@73
Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Evidence? who needs evidence. Those people have lived there for more than 200 years, leave them alone. They leave you alone!
@74 What evidence British, show that the islands Malvinas belong to them?
Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, you claim our evidence.
But when we ask you to you ... 200 years, 200 years
You have the easy answer.
@ 73 Malvinense 1833 writes:
Sep 01st, 2012 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And what is the evidence that British islands belong?”
We can't go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on explaining the same thing.
Read this debate and you will understand:
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments
It was unfortunately cut off by mercopres before I had time to show the errors in Hermes1967's last posts.
If you want to repeat his arguments, please do, and I shall show where they fail.
@73
Sep 01st, 2012 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, I think you know what the answer is already, as I know what your response will be. Why can't you just let these people be?
@73
Sep 01st, 2012 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Man, they were there before you were ever an independent nation, something you seem only too quick to forget. get over it for god sake!!!! Your counrty did not exist then, I'll repeat it because you and your kind have a problem with your ears. YOU DID NOT EXIST AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY THEN. Fuckin hell, thick or wot!!!
@78 You did not receive a good education at home.
Sep 02nd, 2012 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Something more. Argentina existed as an independent country. Great Britain recognized him.
Argentina exist, so much that was needed remove the Argentina flag from the islands.
John and Mister Hans, thank you for you respect.
Los hermanos sean unidos, // (Be the brothers united)
Sep 02nd, 2012 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Porque ésa es la ley primera. // (Because that is the most important law.)
Tengan unión verdadera // (Be their union genuine)
En cualquier tiempo que sea // (At any time)
Porque si entre ellos pelean // (Because if between them they fight)
Los devoran los de ajuera. // (The outsiders will devour them.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martín_Fierro
(please note this doesn't constitute copyright violation, the poem is from 1872)
@79 M 1833
Sep 02nd, 2012 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask for evidence. Foolish question. Where is your evidence to prove argentina owns the falklands?
Your answer will be - they are close to argentine ! What a joke!
Your answer will be - they are on the same continental plate! A double joke!
Your answer will be - because they were spanish, as dictated by the borgias pope and we inherited it! Only in the catholic world - japan is also spanish according to that bull. You inherited it when you gained independence! 50 years after britain claimed it and argentina was a wet dream.
Your answer will be - because we bought it from the french! so you paid bougainville compensation for his settlement assets.
Your answer will be - because britain expelled the occupants! only an army garrison was removed and all evidence that exists prove it including the independent diaries of the naturalist Charles Darwin and even the heriditary records of the falklands.
Your answer will be - because it is argentine and chile and latam countries agree! Ha, the biggest joke by far, glad I'm sitting down for that corker!
Evidence, you don't even know the meaning of the world. Your forefathers knew the case was closed back in 1850. A wretched argentine president, 91 years later, seeing that britain was having a bad time with the nazis sought to stir the pot again. All this evidence exists, hope you're having a bad day M1833.
Because England was not the first occupant.
Sep 02nd, 2012 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because France recognized Spanish sovereignty.
Because England did not protest this transfer of sovereignty
Because England reached the islands clandestinely
Because Spain exercised sovereignty without protests
Because Argentina was the successor state of the Spanish territories (Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata)
Because this succession was recognized by Britain to recognize the independence Argentina
Because the islands were occupied by Argentina
Because Argentina exercised sovereignty
Because Argentina was stripped of the islands by force
Because Argentina never renounced to the islands
Because Argentina has not forgotten the insult to his flag
Because the Malvinas are Argentine.
May God bless you and have a nice day.
Regards.
@ 82 Malvinense 1833
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0We can't go over all this again. I told you to read http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments
Because England was not the first occupant - no, the French were (17 February 1764, Bougainville begins the construction of Fort de St. Louis on East Falkland.)
Because France recognized Spanish sovereignty - What has France to do with the UK, which did not?
Because England did not protest this transfer of sovereignty - Britain and Spain almost went to war over the dispute in 1771. http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments
Because England reached the islands clandestinely - ??? Are you suggesting the trespassing Argentine troops were blind and didn't see them?
Because Spain exercised sovereignty without protests - Britain and Spain almost went to war over the dispute in 1771. http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments
Because Argentina was the successor state of the Spanish territories (Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata) - El Virreinato del Río de la Plata consisted of 'Gobernación del Río de la Plata', Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia plus a part of Brasil. How can a rebel inherit anything from his master? http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comments
Because this succession was recognized by Britain to recognize the independence Argentina - but not the Falkland Islands
Because the islands were occupied by Argentina - And Poland, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, etc. were occupied by Germany in 1939/40 - so what?
Because Argentina exercised sovereignty - when and for how long?
Because Argentina was stripped of the islands by force - because the (not Argentine, but Bueno Arense) troops were trespassing the British Islands
Because Argentina never renounced to the islands - so what?
Because Argentina has not forgotten the insult to his flag - so what?
Because the Malvinas are Argentine - Sorry, old chap,
@82 M
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your arguments have less meat on them than a poor anorexic's pinky.
@83 st.john
thanks
Chile you are a wimp and have guts, the Falkland Islands will all ways be British and nothing will change that and Argentina can do nothing about that. By the same argument give Paraguay all the northern territory you took during your coward war against Paraguay. The Argentineans only know how to run their army is the fastest in the world in retrieve of course.
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are British, always will be and no amount to latino talking shops will change that :)
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its over suckers, they're ours ... now and forever :)
54 Marcos Alejandro:
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you very much your clarification. Further proof that Argentines were expelled in 1833.
55 San Juan
You are the liar. Resolution 502 is provided. But you did not read the resolutions that are post-conflict. Res 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25) . They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. Clearly express the sovereignty dispute remains unresolved. Read more details of the committee Resolutions UN decolonization. Especially that of June 14, 2012.
62 EnginnerAbroadSe realize that if you express yourself without arrogance and without arrogance understand people better.
His arguments are worthy of consideration and understandable in some cases. But again you hit the same stone always 3 times.
1 - His insightful analysis takes into account the historical and social processes of the time in 1833 that is where the conflict arises sovereignty. No self-determination. Historical evidence is inconclusive. The conflict developed in the context of colonialism and imperialism that continues today English more diminished.
2 - All development and analysis and was studied and analyzed by the committee of United Nations decolonization. And in doing so had access to documents and evidence of many Argentine and British. This occurred prior to resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions. Finally the commission ruled in favor of the Argentine arguments. It was found that a sovereignty dispute. In reaching this conclusion was based on several arguments. Among them, the expulsion of 1833.
3. You know the resolutions committee of UN decolonization. They have studied the conflict better than you and me.
Thank you very much.
Pugol 65-H
Read the resolutions committee of UN decolonization, especially that of June 14, 2012. Apparently, the facts do not support your arguments.
Falkland 1833 66
Excellent reasoning. Thank you very much.
@87
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, so if there is evidence of the expulsion, kindly provide a link to it. That provided to the UN would be especially interesting.
71 Clyde15
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Decolonization ... You talk of 10 British colonies. Can you please tell me what these colonies are?
They are: Anguilla, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Monserrat Island, Pitcairn Island and St. Helena Island.
See the following link:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comit% C3% C3% B3n A9_de_Descolonizaci%
88 HansNiesund
Dear Hans:
There is strong evidence of the expulsion. 54 Marcos Alejandro also gave a clue. The book of the last colonies of Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200.
Also read the books I recommended in post 46:
On the official website of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations: It's very clear in resolutions stating that it is a conflict of sovereignty, self-determination.
Making an analysis of your comments, you must take into account three elements that I explained earlier to other forum:
1 - All development and analysis and was studied and analyzed by the committee of United Nations decolonization. And in doing so had access to documents and evidence of many Argentine and British. This occurred prior to resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions. Finally the commission ruled in favor of the Argentine arguments. It was found that a sovereignty dispute. In reaching this conclusion was based on several arguments. Among them, the expulsion of 1833.
2 - Your analysis forumers like the British. Never take into account the historical and social processes of the period of 1833 which is where the conflict arises sovereignty. No self-determination. Historical evidence is inconclusive. The conflict developed in the context of colonialism and imperialism that continues today English more diminished. Example: humanitarian bombing civilians in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as economic colonialism.
3 - You know the resolutions committee of UN decolonization. They have studied the conflict better than you and me.
Thank you very much.
@89
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the UN decolonization committee reached its conclusion based on several arguments “among them, the expulsion of 1833”.
So I assume that Argentina did indeed provide evidence to assist this august Committee in its deliberations. Where is this evidence now? Surely if the evidence exists the Argentine government has every interest in disseminating it as widely as possible? Yet I've looked for it on
www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/index.php and there doesn't seem to be anything there.
Surely it can;t be the case that the Committee was misled? Or made up its mind in the absence of evidence?
Raul
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Bermuda is a British colony, then:
Isla de los Estados is an Argie colony.
Easter Island a Chilean colony.
Tierra del Fuego is a Chilean and Argie colony.
Is that not the case?
#91 No, they're the South American equivalents of the Isle of Wight, Orkney, Shetland or the Hebrides =)
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 87 Raul
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have been provided with a link to an ARGENTINE source with Pinedo's list of those expelled from the islands
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
- illegal military occupants and their families plus 4 (four) Brasilian and Uruguayan civilians, all of the other civilians, including the Argentinos, stayed - and yet you persist in your nonsensical “Further proof that Argentines were expelled in 1833.” - get a third brain cell.
“55 San Juan
You are the liar. Resolution 502 is provided.”
Show us where in your comment #35 above you mention the BINDING security council resolution 502. Your list is of NON-BINDING resolutions, all of them saying “ INVITES the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom ... to proceed without delay with the negotiations”
You can't, so failing to show my statement to be at fault, you just tell a lie and claim that I am a liar because I tell an unpleasant truth.
You also carefully avoided to answer my questions:
1. Why do you not mention the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982? ( http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg )
2. What does resolution no. 502 say?
3. Did Argentina abide by it?
As for the answer to question 1, I can only guess that you kept silent because you know what the contents of it and that the answer is that Argentina did not abide by it.
The answers to 2. and 3. are:
Answer to question 2:
”Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
1. DEMANDS an immediate cessation of hostilities;
2. DEMANDS an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)”
Answer toquestion 3: No. The Argentine forces stayed on the Falkland Islands until they were defeated by a much smaller British force.
BK
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, becasue the people who live in those places see themselves as an integral part of the nations in question.
The decision must be made by those who live there.
The FIs cannot be classed as a British colony just because Argentina wants to integrate the islands in to their territory.
@ 92 British_Kirchnerist writes:
Sep 03rd, 2012 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”#91 No, they're the South American equivalents of the Isle of Wight, Orkney, Shetland or the Hebrides =)”
The distance from Chile to Isla de Pascua (Easter Island) is almost 3,700 km or app. 8 times the distance from Argentina to the Falkland Islands.
Isla de Pascua is closer to the coast of Peru than to that of Chile.
Isla Martín Garcia is closer to the coast of Uruguay than to that of Argentina.
If, as Argentina claims, distance is of importance, shouldn't they then (Argentine logic) belong to Peru and Uruguay, respectively?
- or do you use double standards, one for Argentina and one for the rest of the world, as in “Argentina took the Formosa and Misiones provinces from Paraguay and Argentina took all of Patagonia from the indigenous people, so they are ours. Britain took the Falkland Islands from us, so they are ours”?
#94 But thats why its different, nobody in either terrtory sees Antigua, for example, as an integral part of Britain. And most of these places are actually bad value even for the ordinary British people as they are the world's biggest tax havens!
Sep 04th, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 89 Raul
Sep 04th, 2012 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The link you provided doesn't work. On a board where “Comments must be in English. Thank you.” it is best to use a link in that language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization
“There is strong evidence of the expulsion.”
Then, where is it?
A book does not provide any sort of evidence, anybody can write a book.
The original and contemporary ARGENTINE documents tell a different story, that no expulsion took place. On the contrary, they tell us, that the British captain Onslow did his very best to pursuade the settlers on the islands to stay - with considerable success as only 4 (four) left, while 22 (twentyto) stayed = less than 1/5 left.
(Quoting 71 Clyde15 : “Can you please tell me what these colonies are?”)
Raul: “They are: Anguilla, ... the Falkland Islands,... and St. Helena Island.”
Today the Falkland Islands is a British Overseas Territory, which under the 2009 Constitution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization ) enjoys a large degree of internal self-government, with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.
The Legislative Assembly consists of the Chief Executive, Director of Finance and the eight members, of whom five are from Stanley and three from Camp (the part of the islands outside Stanley), elected for four-year terms by universal suffrage.
If Argentina were to assume sovereignity over the islands, they would become a TRUE colony, as the inhabitants are British and do not want to come under Argentine governing.
If the Falkland Islands were to become an independent state, we can expect Argentina to - within a short space of time - attack them as in 1982 and to disregard any binding UN Security Council resolution, which ”demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)” as they did with the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982.
Beautiful discussion. But always arguing about Argentine arguments.
Sep 04th, 2012 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I keep waiting and I'll wait forever for someone to tell me what were the rights to invade Britain in 1833.
Discovery: No.
Occupation: No.
Then what?
Million dollar question.
@ 98 Malvinense (1)
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please insert the million dollars on my account.
he dispute was settled in the 1850 peace treaty (“Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, …”). Signed in Buenos Ayres 24 November 1849 and ratified 15 May 1850, it clearly states:
“VII. Under this convention perfect friendship between her Britannic Majesty’s government and the government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
“7°. Mediante esta convencion queda restablicida la perfecta amistad entre el gobierno de la Confederacion, y el de su Majestad Británica, á su anterior estado de buena inteligencia y cordalidad.”
Only one islands is mentioned in the treaty: Martin Garcia in the Rio Uruguay delta.
One might argue that the second government of Juan Manuel de Rosas (1835-1852) was unconstitutional and illegal and thus could not sign a binding treaty with Britain.
Argentina was, however, raged by civil wars between the warlords (caudillos) of the three parties (unitaristas, federalistas and Buenos Aires federalistas), so Argentina did not have any constitutional and legal governments until until the battle of Pavón in 1869 (one might even set 1880 as the year of the first legal government, at the end of Buenos Aires Governor Carlos Tejedor's insurrection).
The implications of this argument are easy to understand, because in that case an unconstitutional and illegal Argentine government protested in 1833 to Britain at the actions of Captain Onslow. For the next 17 years, from 1833 to 1849, one unconstitutional and illegal Argentine government after the other protested regularly against British possession of the Falklands.
(2 to follow)
¡Por favor!
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 98 Malvinense (2)
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0After the peace treaty of 1850 was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased. The Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance, because they were made in a top-level diplomatic forum that sometimes dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (Chile and Brazil), but the Falkland Islands were no longer mentioned after May 1850.
One might also argue that ceding the Falkland Islands to Britain was an oversight on behalf of Juan M. de Rosas's government/Argentina, but not only was the tiny island Martin Garcia specifically mentioned (as the only island) in the treaty, while the Falkland Islands were not, but what happened before and after the ratification in 1850 (before: protests, after: protests ceased) speaks for itself, and is of considerable importance to understand the implications of the treaty as regards the islands.
President Bartolomé Mitre's message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865. Mitre said that Argentina had scrupulously fulfilled undertakings with Britain and France, so “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.” - “Mensaje del Presidente de la República Argentina, Bartolomé Mitre, ante la Asamblea Legislativa” (1865): http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.html (Source: Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, p. 227).
“there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments [France and Britain].” (Source: British and Foreign State Papers, 1865-1866 (printed London 1870), p. 1174).
No dispute between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands.
(3 to follow)
¡Por favor!
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 98 Malvinense (3)
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 02. Vice-president Marcos Paz's opening speach to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1866:
“Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” - “Mensaje del Vicepresidente de la República Argentina, Marcos Paz, en ejercicio del Poder Ejecutivo, ante la Asamblea Legislativa” (1866) http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-vicepresidente-de-la_06.html (Original source: Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 238)
“The British Government ... for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.” (”Mensaje del Vicepresidente de la República Argentina, Marcos Paz, en ejercicio del Poder Ejecutivo, ante la Asamblea Legislativa (1866)” http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-vicepresidente-de-la_06.html ).
(4 to follow)
Más
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 98 Malvinense (4)
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 03. President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”
(Source: Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 286, which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires, Argentina)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (Source: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), pp. 1227-1228).
6. 1881: The 'Latzina' Map, “Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina ...”, Buenos Aires 1882 (dated 1881), based on the treaty of 23 July 1881, financed by the Argentine Foreign Ministry and published in 120,000 copies, distributed to Argentine consulates all over the world shows Argentina in one colour and non-Argentina in another. ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg?uselang=es )
7. 1881/82: the map 'Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina' ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg?uselang=es ) dated 1881 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
8. 1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg?uselang=es ) does not include the Falkland Islands at all.
(5 to follow)
5
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 98 Malvinense (5)
Sep 04th, 2012 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0So we have a time line of events:
1833: British sovereignity re-installed (or for the sake of argument: installed).
1833-1849: Protests.
1850: Treaty ratified.
1850-1887: No protests, no claim.
1865: No protests, no claim, we have friendly relations.
1866: The Argentine vice-president see only one dispute, that of damages suffered by English subjects in 1845.
1881: A map, which does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
1881/82: A map showing one colour for Argentina and another for other countries' possessions, including the Falkland Islands.
1888: One single protest, in the form of a diplomatic letter.
1889-1941: No protests, no claim.
1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
QED
¿es todo?
Sep 04th, 2012 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just one more thing:
Sep 04th, 2012 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0The official Argentine 'Latzina' Map, Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina…, Buenos Aires 1882, the Falkland Islands subsection, can also be seen here:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg
Approximately 120,000 copies were printed and many sent to Argentine embassies and consulates around the world.
The full map of all of Argentina and surrounding countries here:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5040513492_334ddaa1ac_b.jpg
- note that the colour used for the Falkland Islands is also used for Bolivia, Paraguay, Brasil and Chile, thus this colour was used to indicate 'NOT Argentina'.
Well said St John!
Sep 04th, 2012 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is you are using logic and historical fact, this will all be lost on those who are driven by nothing more than fantasies and deep, deep, damaged pride.
@ 110 Condorito
Sep 04th, 2012 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know.
“They are ours, because they are ours, because they are ours, because they are ours, because they are ours, because they are ours”
is considered rational argumentation by Argentinians and children 5 years of age.
97 San Juan
Sep 04th, 2012 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are really sick. Their hatred and resentment do more confusing. Plus you still lying treacherously. In the post: 87 Raul have not mentioned any links.
The link you mentioned is directed to 71 Clyde15. Not you.
71 Clyde15
Decolonization ... You speak of 10 British colonies. Can you please tell me what these colonies are?
They are: Anguilla, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos island of Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena Island Island.
See the following link:
en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Special_Committee_on_Decolonization
You also wrote:
93 Saint
@ 87 Raul
You will be provided with a link to a source with Argentina Pinedo list of those expelled from the islands
farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
Your link does not work!!
You still lying in 97 San Juan:
... If Argentina were to assume sovereignty over the islands, which became a colony of truth, as the inhabitants are British and do not want to be under Argentine ruling.
The committee considers UN decolonization currently the Falkland Islands as a territory to colonize along with 9 other territories. Anguilla, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos island of Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena Island Island.
What language must be said for you to understand?
Please enough of lying!!!!!!!
111 St John
Sep 04th, 2012 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My 5-year old is way past that!
You have to remember that pre 1982, Argentineans had a generally patronising view of us and their other neighbours, even contemptuous.
After the ’82 invasion, Argentina’s inability to hold the islands, so close to home, against only a medium sized power, drastically changed their nation’s standing and, I think, Argentina’s view of itself. One could understand the thinking: if you can’t defend what you perceive to be a part of your national territory from a small and far away nation, what can you achieve in the world. This is a particularly hard blow for a country with a superiority complex.
The Falklands war is not only a profound wound on Argentina’s national pride (that leads to the irrational arguments you see here) but it also pushed the country from being apart from and above the rest of the continent, to being one of the main drivers for integration and unity.
113 Condorito
Sep 04th, 2012 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting thought.
Was the move to integration and unity by Argentina a way to stop the rest of South America dumping on them like we Brits did or so they could hope the others would fight their battles for them?
Remeber Putridjelli's claim that Venezuela were going to take the Falklands on for them. This would be assuming they could find them while they were looking for the mythical malvinas, whatever and wherever they are.
LOL
Chris,
Sep 04th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my view it is more of a gradual shift in self perception, dare I say, a more realistic view of Argentina. Any of the RG posters who don’t feel indignant on the topic would be better placed than me to comment.
@ 112 Raul who writes:
Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The link you mentioned is directed to 71 Clyde15. Not you.”
Are you under the miscomprehension, that this blog is private correspondance? it isn't, it is for everybody to read and respond to.
“Your link does not work!!”
If the link doesn't work for YOU, you have a problem with your browser.
I have just tested the one in 57 St.John the one in 93 St.John copied+pasted the one in 112 Raul and they all worked, in 66 Malvinense you also can see that it worked for him.
Perhaps your browser cannot function without a http://
in front. Copy both and assemble them to one
farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
You should also learn to quote correctly.
I wrote “If Argentina were to assume sovereignity over the islands, they would become a TRUE colony, as the inhabitants are British and do not want to come under Argentine governing.”, which is correct, as the islanders feel British, are British, want to stay British, and speak English.
Your derogatory language is very childish.
@114
Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure if 'the Chav' has worked out the logistics of sending the Venezuelan Navy well over 1000 miles from base to the South Atlantic, and the likely result of taking on the Royal Navy who are practised with operating 1000s of miles from the UK.
Forward planning does not seem to be a great characteristic of some South American countries.
St John,
Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your arguments are too concise and logical for him to understand.
Raul,
Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0for the third time:
What does the BINDING Security Council resolution no. 502 of 3rd April 1982 say?
Did Argentina abide by it?
@107 St.John
Sep 04th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please insert this in your timeline:
1865: Edward Thornton, British commercial agent in Buenos Aires, informs lord Russell that Argentine Minister of Home Affairs Guillermo Rawson assured him that his country would allow a group of Welsh colons to start a colony in Patagonia if the Falkland Islands were transferred back to Argentina, under the insinuation that, despite having effective control over them, Britain didn't hold “de jure” title to the islands.
The argentines say to chile “if you don't back us over the Falklands, we will cut your gas and might even steal more of your land, so you have to back us”. Easy as that!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 113 Condorito
Sep 05th, 2012 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with your analysis af Argentine problems, but there is one more, which I think is even more important.
All through both primary and secondary school, Argentine children have Malvina classes.
This shows how they are brainwashed again and again and again from the age of 5 or 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EJeM6ifRbA
I have seen and heard it, I have been living several years in Argentina.
@ 118 Condorito “Your arguments are too concise and logical for him to understand.”
I think Raul's problems are caused by 'google translate' or 'babelfish'.
@ 118 Condorito: The Falklands war is not only a profound wound on Argentina’s national pride (that leads to the irrational arguments you see here) but it also pushed the country from being apart from and above the rest of the continent, to being one of the main drivers for integration and unity.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the reason for the unity? they think that all of SA will help them steal The Falkland Islands. We are fed up with them trying to steal our islands every 100 years or so, well now they have shortened it to about 30 years :)
@ 120 PGH “Please insert this in your timeline”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A British commercial agent telling lord Russell (which: Arthur, Charles, Edward or Odo ? - it can hardly be the foreign minister, later prime minister, John, because since 1861 he was 1st Earl Russell), that he has the impression, that an Argentine Minister of Home Affairs would allow some Welshmen to move to Patagonia if Britain gave up its sovereignity over the Falkland Islands,
doesn't really compare with a peace treaty and two Argentine presidents' and a vice-president's official speeches at the ceremonial opening of the the Argentine Congress - does it?
Including similar tales would make my timeline several hundred pages long.
The peace treaty is meaningless, as it returned the things as they were before the incident (“status quo ante bellum”). The Falklands were never part of the negotiations, nor part of that particular problem (the blockade).
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re. a president's speech at a ceremonial... are they really that important? Do they have any effect in this case, under international law? Do the private declarations of a minister have any effects, under international law?
Bear also in mind that the presidents' speeches are generic declarations of friendship, while the minister is being quite explicit.
@ 125 PGH
Sep 06th, 2012 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The presidents' speeches were as important as the US president's “State of the Union address”.
They were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance, because they were made in a top-level diplomatic forum that sometimes dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (e.g. Chile and Brazil).
Foreign diplomats attended, international affairs were treated in detail, and they were so important that they were published in other countries, in Britain in the volumes of “British and Foreign State Papers”
Constitución Argentina de 1853: ”Artículo 86: (in the printed; 83 in the handwritten original) El Presidente de la Confederación tiene las siguientes atribuciones: 14. Concluye y firma tratados de paz, de comercio, de navegación, de alianza, de límites y de neutralidad, concordatos y otras negociaciones requeridas para el mantenimiento de buenas relaciones con las potencias extranjeras, ...”
Ratification of treaties with other countries was a presidential prerogative. This also means that Mitre and Sarmiento could discard or endorse/authorise previous treaties, including the 1850 treaty. Neither ‘Reforma de 1860′ nor ‘Reforma de 1866′ cancelled this prerogative.
Constitución de la Nación Argentina (1853): http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitución_de_la_Nación_Argentina_(1853)
Handwritten original: http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitución_de_la_Nación_Argentina_(1853)
”Mensaje del Presidente de la República Argentina, Bartolomé Mitre, ante la Asamblea Legislativa (1865)“: http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitución_de_la_Nación_Argentina_(1853)
”Mensaje del Vicepresidente de la República Argentina, Marcos Paz, en ejercicio del Poder Ejecutivo, ante la Asamblea Legislativa (1866)”: http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitución_de_la_Nación_Argentina_(1853)
Ok... but I repeat that the 1850 peace treaty has no effect over the Falkands dispute. Also, a Minister is part of the Executive branch too. And, of course, a President is not “over” the Congress, in case you're implying so.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 127 PGH
Sep 07th, 2012 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 1850 peace treaty alone would not be important to the Falkands dispute, but together with the formal presidential (and VP) speeches (no disputes/only one dispute with Britain) and the fact that the official protests ceased after the ratification of the treaty in 1850, these three form a strong case for Argentine acceptance of British sovereignity over the Falklands Islands.
“El Poder Ejecutivo” in Capítulo Tercero, Artículo 86, 1-23 of the 1853 constitution IS the president and NOT his ministers, one or several:
“Atribuciones del Poder Ejecutivo. Artículo 86: El Presidente de la Confederación tiene las siguientes atribuciones:”
Atribuciones de los ministros are defined in Capitulo Cuarto, De los Ministros del Poder Ejecutivo, Artículo 87-93.
The President is not “over” the Congress, except in special cases, which are defined in the constitution of 1853, but the president had and still have some prerogatives, also in the constitution of 1994:
“Segunda Parte: Autoridades de la Nación, CAPÍTULO TERCERO, Atribuciones del Poder Ejecutivo, Art. 99.- El presidente de la Nación tiene las siguientes atribuciones:”
http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/ejecutivo.php
“De los Ministros del Poder Ejecutivo” you said it yourself: the Ministers are part of the Executive Power.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please support this page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls - https://www.facebook.com/Britain1592
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please support this page aimed at promoting Britain's Overseas Territories...
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.facebook.com/BOTUK1
@ 129 PGH
Sep 08th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I provided you with a link to that part of the constitution, which says:
CAPÍTULO TERCERO Atribuciones del Poder Ejecutivo
Art. 99.- El presidente de la Nación tiene las siguientes atribuciones: (1. - 20).
If yo click on the arrow to the right in the bottom of the page, you get to:
Capítulo Cuarto Del jefe de gabinete y demás ministros del Poder Ejecutivo Art. 100. - Art. 107.
Why don't you just read it and get wiser?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!