MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ban Ki-moon calls for a more inclusive dialogue on decolonization
With the world undergoing a “great transition,” it is time for a new kind of inclusive dialogue about decolonization, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, calling for fresh approaches to resolve the situations of the remaining 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules”.... the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories are ....................................... .................................................. and the Islas Malvinas (Argentin).. .. ”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you two understand the meaning of the word inclusive?
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The international community is more convinced than ever that colonialism has no place in the modern world,”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's right! Go back to your beloved Britain and return Malvinas to Argentina.
Read what he said !! The referendum WILL be recognised !!
Mar 01st, 2013 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's innovative :-)
Recognised by you Roger :-))
Mar 01st, 2013 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, seems that they do exist after all, and should be included in the process of deciding their future. Now there is a novel concept worthy of the GS of the the UN.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nine days to go you malvinista cockroaches...........
Mar 01st, 2013 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“He said this requires the constructive involvement of all concerned: the Special Committee, the administering Powers and the Non-Self-Governing Territories, working on a case-by-case-basis”.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0So even BKM says its not bi-lateral...but three-way. However, he thinks the third party is the Special Committee not some Pariah State of Latino colonialists.
Goodbye turkey neck, your time is at an end....
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9890078/Argentina-dispatch-the-troubled-reign-of-Queen-Cristina-of-Argentina.html
@1 Jose '”.... the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories are ....................................... .................................................. and the Islas Malvinas (Argentin).. .. ”'
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Correcto Jose, the Argentin should stop trying to impose its colonial will on the mythical Islas Malvinas
The list is incorrect. The title of “self governing” is not subject to the perception of third parties but to the will of the people concerned.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's bizarre to me that an Argentine would see this as a positive comment.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that the islands should be colonised by Argentina.
“We no longer have the luxury of indulging in rhetoric and rituals”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder who he could possibly be referring to?
”It is time for a new kind of FULLY INCLUSIVE (my emphasis) dialogue about decolonisation”
I don't see how you could make this speech and then reject the referendum two weeks later so I can only conclude that in the view of the UNSG a) the islanders exist, and b) Argentine rhetoric is doing more harm than good.
@11;
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0True, I'm afraid Mr Ban hasn't made an entirely accurate statement.
Can't help but notice he did call each location by the correct name though - No mention of the 'm' word.
@1 José Malvinero
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uncle Ban doesn't want to see the FI become a colony of Argentina, be sure about that.
This statement appears to be the Secretary General of the UN telling the Decolonisation Committee that they've rested on their laurels for long enough, and it's time for them to start actually doing the job they were set up to do.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The timing of this statement is, I believe, directly linked to the referendum that the Islanders are holding in 10 days time.
Basically he appears to be warning the committee that if the Islanders choose one of the options that the UN set up as a way of being removed from the Decolonisation list, then the committee should remove them.
A failure to do that could mean the end of the cushy jobs for all those members of the committee.
Gibraltar should've been removed years ago, and the Falklands should be removed this year.
In fact, all of the territories listed should be given a referendum on their status, and then they should also be removed.
Then the committee can be closed down, and the UN can spend its budget on other far more worthy and needy causes.
Oh, and it's more than about time that the UN caught up with recent history and current events and realised that most of the British territories still on the decolonisation list and now SELF-GOVERNING. That fact alone should see them being removed.
a “more inclusive dialogue” meaning its not just a bilateral issue?
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0and “The Declaration affirmed the right of all people to self-determination ”
so the Falklands have the right to self-determination then after all that rhetoric claiming the complete opposite. how will Argentina respond? more lies perhaps to your own people
as 3 pointed out “The international community is more convinced than ever that colonialism has no place in the modern world,” the natives of the territory don't see themselves as a colony what right do you and Argentina have to call them such a despicable thing?
in 3 week the islanders will reaffirm they are not a colony they are a people who should be respected as if they were a people of any other country, state or territory
I find it ironic that the decolonisation committee, apparently working for the best interests of the territories concerned, doesn't involve the actual territories in any discussions.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's absolutely hysterical that the Argies read this and think it means the Falklands belong to them. It is clearly stating that the people who live in these places have the right to choose their own future. And when they do, they can be lawfully removed from this list!
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0@19 Britworker
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly right. He's referring to the C24 (embarassing bunch of reprobates), their abject failure to recognise that the falklanders are exercising their rights when they choose their own destiny, whether it be to stay with the UK or not, is a matter for them and no one else.
Just out of interest why isn't Puerto Rico on this list - it is governed by the US and its inhabitants are full US citizens but it is not a State of the Union and has self government except for defence and foreign policy .
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0One can see a certain parallel with the Falklands.... maybe we should have asked John Kerry when he was over last week. Maybe this (and Guam) explains their caginess.
Part of the problem here is that the term decolonization refers to two completely different things. On the one hand there are cases such as India, where power reverted from the colonial state to the indigenous population. On the other there are cases where power was seized by colonists from the colonial state, often are extermination of the indigenous population.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is by no means the only state in the second category, but as far as I am aware, it is the only state in the second category which believes itself to be in the first.
But I guess this level of confusion is necessary if, as triumphant colonists, you are going to invoke the principle of colonial inheritance with the aim of annexing a culturally and geographically distinct territory against the wishes of its inhabitants.
It's no surprise, however, that Ban Ki-Moon isn't about to fall for this nonsense, given that he comes from a country that has really suffered under a colonialist yoke.
@16 Recon:
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well said, you and the others.
Nine days.
What is bizarre is that because it is called the Decolonization Committee of the UN these third world countries attribute it qualities that it doesn't deserve - e.g. probity, integrity etc. It's much the same as the human rights committee that is stuffed with members from despotic tyrannies. The bottom line is that the only relevant body of the UN is the Security Council. All the rest are just talking shops set up by the world powers in the 40s to make all member nations feel involved.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0The DC is now heavily politicised and not fit for purpose – as is most of the UN.
“It states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter and impedes the promotion of world peace and cooperation.”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Argentina annexing the islands against the will of the people who live there is...what, exactly?
Secretary General Ban has put the writing on the wall for the C24, but what can he actually do if they continue to ignore him as they have done until now.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Would / could the General Council disband them?
One thing is for certain, the C24 members will have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the gravy train.
@26 ChrisR
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Entries in the C24 list can be removed, this line is taken from Mr Moon's statement to the committee:
”Echoing the Secretary-General, Special Committee Chair Diego Morejón (Ecuador) said that, well into the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, the body must create a “new momentum” and review each Territory to determine which should remain on its list and which should be removed.”
So it can be done without the C24 gravy flow turning off immediately. When the C24 are presented with the results of the referendum they will know that the islanders are not a subjugated and will have to concede to delist the falklands. No british territory has subjugated peoples.
The Falklanders are not going toleave their islands, neither will they submit to colonialism of any kind...The UN recognises therefore the right to free and properly conducted referenda; in that respect, they are fully on the side of the Falklands, Malivinas whatever name you care to call those islands.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The referendum will go ahead.
@Marcos Alejandro, And when are you going to return back to Argentina???? then you can support The Botox Queen all you want but from your homeland.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everyone knows MARCOS ALEJANDRO lives in The UK because LIKE RATS fleeing a sinking ship his parents left Argentina for want of a more secure and better life but they did not chose a Spanish speaking country to run to but good old United Kingdom,and life as been so good the bastards are still here,so once again WHEN WILL IT BE SAFE FOR YOU TO RETURN BACK TO ARGENTINA??????
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@30 I'm glad to see that the age of culture and sophistication isn't completely dead!
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0more anti british crap,
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0the special Committee should now be dead and buried,
the UN now is guilty of forcing others to be ruled by tyrants to suit themselves,
its finnished, now leave the 16 alone, and sod off.
“decolonization” , kinda leaves argentinas “mythical Malvinas” agenda dead in the water, as any move towards this by argentina would be deemed as colonization itself, plain and simple.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The international community is more convinced than ever that colonialism has no place in the modern world,” said Mr. Ban. Unlucky Argtards :))
SELF-DETERMINATION....Its in The Best Interests of the people :)
Apart from western sahara I dont belive any of the other 15 place have much problem only the falklands and imposing argentine rule on an unwilling population is colonisation and colonisatin by incompetants at that.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The words “more inclusive dialogue” says it all.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islanders voice MUST be heard.
Ban ki moon dashes Argentiean aspirations... Great, a fair and reasonable statement supporting referendums by inhabitants. Roll on the 10th!
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Argentina clamors on about “colonization”, which “subjugated, dominated, and exploited” peoples are they clamoring about?
There is no “people” they want to protect, they just want the land. The UN is not defining a “colony” the way Argentina is and yet Argentina continues to refer to the UN and decolonization, yet there is no colony of people the Argentines want saved.
They are saying, “the land is closer to us and we want it, so, because the UK is from Europe, they are ”colonizing“ this land”.
So, why does the Argentine Govt. keep on bringing up the UN's definition of “colonizing” which is about a subjugated people and not the land.
No doubt, the Argentine Govt. would subjugate, and dominate the Falkland Islanders people from day one if they returned. Who disagrees? So the Falklands Islands could not be removed from the list, they'd be colonized by Argentina.
BTW, does anyone know if Argentina is up to date with its monetary contribution to the UN?
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@36. Agreed. And looking at the rule book :
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Declaration [...] states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter and impedes the promotion of world peace and cooperation”.
And you can't get more alien than Argentina !
@36 Cap'n Siver
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Totally agree, T-minus 9 days and counting!
#38 surpisingly they are up to date as of 2/28. Though Venezuela is past due for 5 million and cannot vote until they pay up.....
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'They deal with rejection of the referendum in the Falklands -
Mar 01st, 2013 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The upper-House Foreign Affairs Committee will debate a draft declaration which argues that “the referendum has no any sustenance or validation in international law.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs in the upper House, whose owner is Senator Daniel Filmus Kirchner, will begin to discuss next week a draft declaration rejecting the referendum that will make the population that lives in the Falkland Islands to continue belonging to the United Kingdom.
In a press release, Filmus said that the initiative presented by him in the Senate - and by the Socialist lawmaker Rubén Giustiniani - rests that ”the referendum has no any sustenance or validation in international law, since it is contrary to any decision emanating from the General Assembly and of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations“.
In addition, the text in question details that ”the referendum in the Falkland Islands in nothing alter the essence of the Malvinas question and its eventual result not puts an end to the sovereignty dispute, nor to the unquestionable Argentine rights“, and adds: ”Is a spurious and tautological, exercise as long as it is driven by British to ask British citizens if they want to remain British”.
http://www.sinmordaza.com/noticia/162598-tratan-rechazo-al-referendum-en-malvinas.html
'The ALBA countries planted by Ecuador face conflict with the oil company Chevron'
http://www.sinmordaza.com/noticia/162598-tratan-rechazo-al-referendum-en-malvinas.html
In a few moments CFK will inaugurate the exposure of one of the seven Argentine flags exposed in Malvinas in september 1966, one of the many demonstrations that the Argentine claim to get back part of its territory has a long story.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina once again, in search for PEACE and JUSTICE in front of a colonial empire whose hunger for resources reached no limit during its decades of Glory. Argentine society and its Government are far away from that non-democratic Argentine government that enjoyed war together with that aggressive and chauvinist woman called Margaret Tatcher, the one that, among other things, protected the chilean dictator Pinochet and demonstrated to be dishonest against its own governed people.
This is taking place in a few moments at the Argentine Parliament in Buenos Aires, where the President is opening with a speech the ordinary sessions of the Parliament. For those who speak spanish: watch it live in stead of watching the minified and distorted versions that corporate media channels offer to people:
http://www.youtube.com/casarosada
@43 fermin
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmm, well, thanks for the Casa Rosada link.
Wonder if we'll be treated to British flag burning?
Fat Lady sings an encore .. and Argentina is fooked.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is about as obvious as the UN ever gets and it is CLEARLY telling the C24 to stop pissing around with regional politics and rhetoric and get down to doing its job INCLUDING the islanders.
fat lady redux
Argentina will NOT be allowed to expand its Colonial expansion, it has to be happy with Patagonia and that's that.
---------
“one of the many demonstrations that the Argentine claim to get back part of its territory has a long story. ”
1966, fek that, the Brits go back to the 1600s darlin... you aint even in the same game, let alone the same league.
Does this inclusive dialogue include the participation of the Falkland Islanders in tripartite conversations?
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 027 Musky
Mar 01st, 2013 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for that. :o)
43 fermin
I repeat myself: AR would do really well if it had a Lady Thatcher to cut the balls off the unions, behead most if not all of the cabinet, restore the money to the government that TMBOA and FatBoy AND Boss Eyed Nestor stole from it and generally kick the shit out of any corrupt bastards in the rest of the system.
I think that would do for a start.
Democracy you twat, you don't know the meaning of it.
@43
Mar 01st, 2013 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you're celebrating aircraft hijacking, now? In the Casa Rosada? Whatever next?
42 Steve-33-uk
Mar 01st, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can of course pass laws saying Mary Poppins is real. But its beyond their remit to pass anything that has jurisdiction beyond their own national boundaries. The referendum of course has sustenance and is valid under international law. It may well be contrary to any decision emanating from the General Assembly and of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations. But since those bodies only have the power of making advisements, and not international law; therefor, there is no breach of international law. Sovereignty had become irrevocably, under international law, the UK's prior to 1982. By the failure of Argentina to submit the issue to PCA or ICJ for a ruling. Fortunately, the world does not dance to Argentine pretensions. So this is just another falsehood, from the fairy kingdom of falsehoods.
@43
Mar 01st, 2013 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina is looking for Peace and Justice from 19th century colonialism, and is keen to see the return of land to people's who have a long history of rights to the territory, and to make sure that the “hunger for resources” knows some bounds...the answer is very very simple.
Set up an independent Amerindian state of Patagonia. Remove all the Latino “squatters” from the territory, (as they are akin to the Israelis in the West Bank). Reimburse the Amerindians for all the resources and minerals that you have stolen from them.
This would at least show you all weren't massive hypocrites.
After this new province has been around for a minimal amount of time (let's say 50 years), Britain can then open discussions with the new Patagonia state as to whether their “territorial integrity” was interrupted in 1833 or 1690.
Let us know when your done.
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His language is definitely getting stronger when talking to this committee.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Rapid and tangible progress” has become “Concrete action and tangible results”.
The writing is definitely on the wall for this committee.
“The Declaration affirmed the right of all people to self-determination”.
Mr Moon clearly believes all 16 territories have full rights, no exceptions.
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter”.
This explains why the CFK gov says the Islanders don’t exist, therefore no ones
rights are violated.
“Involvement of all concerned: the Special Committee, the administering Powers and the Non-Self-Governing Territories”.
No mention of any fourth parties like Argentina, they are clearly not involved.
Hey Axel, read it and weep!
he is reading it,
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and he is crying ..
'Argentina reiterates offer of dialogue to UK for Malvinas sovereignty - Buenos Aires, March 1 (Reuters). - The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez, today reiterated the offer of “dialogue” to the UK to reach a solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, “as indicated by the UN resolution. ”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In his opening of the new legislative year in Congress, Fernandez reiterated offer of dialogue by Argentina, because, he said, “diplomacy is the only way to defend peace.”
The inhabitants of the Malvinas (Falklands, in English), some 3,000 people, held on 10 and 11 March a referendum, which Argentina does not recognize, to decide whether they want the islands to maintain their current political status as autonomous overseas territory of the United Kingdom.
Following the announcement that this consultation was held, conducted in June, coinciding with the thirtieth anniversary of the war over the islands, Argentina has reiterated on several occasions that the referendum will have no validity.
According to Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, the query will not be recognized by the UN, which every year encourages the parties to enter into negotiations on the sovereignty of the islands, occupied by the United Kingdom since 1833.
For now, the international community, the United States avoided ruling on the referendum arguing its “neutrality” in the conflict, while Argentina's neighbors warned last December, in a statement of Mercosur and its partners, the outcome of the consultation “does not alter the essence of the question of the Malvinas”.
The war which pitted Argentina and the UK over the possession of the South Atlantic islands began on April 2, 1982, when the Argentine military occupied the Falklands, and ended on June 14 of that year with the surrender Argentina and nearly a thousand dead.'
http://www.elconfidencial.com/ultima-hora-en-vivo/2013/03/argentina-reitera-oferta-dialogo-reino-unido-20130301-105531.html
Argentina can do what it pleases in argentina,
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but it has no effect on the british or the falklands.
What Ban-Ki Moon seems to be saying is that the C24 is about Decolonization. Proof is required that the 16 are “decolonized”.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The simplest way to do that is for referenda in each of the 16 offering exactly as the FIs one does....are you happy with the status quo?
If they say yes, then they are off the list....Decolonization complete.
The sovereignty question is completely different.
The Falklands would then join a different list of territories where there is a sovereignty dispute, along with the likes of Kashmir, Paracel and Spratleys, etc etc
What it does is perminantly remove the “colonialism” pillar from the Argentine argument. They will just have to bang on about “usurption”....or “territorial integrity” both of which are equally bollocks.
But it's a start, at least we would be spared more embarrassing (for Argentina), trips to the C24 (and associated shopping sprees).
INTERPRITATION.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Moon
=the right of all people to self-determination,
Britain
The right of all people to determine their own future,
Argentina
Only those whom we say , and the Falklands cannot..
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mr Moon,
and proclaimed that colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end. It states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter
Britain,
No more colonies, they have free will ,and freely choose who governs them..
Argentina,
Sod of, we want them, we will get them, they will be our colony,
And sod human rights or UN charters..
In other words,
As long as Argentina has NOT got British territories, they are slaves and colonist,
And Argentina will never accept anything other than total control of all ex colonies for their own Empire,
In other words,
Only the British are an empire and has colonies held against their will,
And must be forced to hand them over to us.
In other words,
It states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,
Does not include Argentina,
In other words,
We will ignore all charters, all treaties , all agreements ,
Until we get what we demand and sod democracy.
In other words, ??????????
And her tonge wiggle on and on and on..
even free elections mean nothing to argentina,
one day, people will understand that you are talking to a hungry greedy wolf, who cares nothing for your freedom or your rights,
and she will never stop, untill she is stopped permanantly.
@58 obviously NOT Condorito
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another SUSSIE love sonnet!
“Ode to Anal Sex”
His favourite.
@58 - SussieUS
Mar 01st, 2013 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pretending to be someone else so you can spew your venom?
It's getting old. Perhaps you should try a new tack?
Spew his 'something'.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories are Gibraltar, ........................................................................................................ and the Argentinas Malvinas Islands.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Argentina's President Kirchner pleads for talks on Falklands - Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner has pleaded for negotiations over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, saying that Britain was happy to talk to “mass murderers” but not her democratically elected government...'
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9903828/Argentinas-President-Kirchner-pleads-for-talks-on-Falklands.html
@61
Mar 01st, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, let's play your way, the 16 Non-self governing territories included what I call the Falklands and what you call the “Argentinas Malvinas Islands”.
How are you planning to turn the “Argentinas Malvinas Islands” into a self-governing territory?
how are you going to decolonize it?
Clearly enforcing a government that the people who live there don't want isn't turning it into a self-governing territory.
Clearly colonising it by making it part of Argentina isn't decolonizing it.
So it seems Argentinas plans don't align with Ban Ki Moons...
He does say that “inclusive dialogue” with the non-self governing territories is called for....
When was the last time that Argentina had inclusive dialogue with the inhabitants of the Falklands or Islas Malvinas Argentina?
It seems @61, that for all the quoting of UN resolutions, your government isn't too aligned with the Secretary General.
Pity...
Silence of the trolls........ :- ))))))
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Daily Telegraph 01/03/2013
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's President Kirchner pleads for talks on Falklands.
Can't she get into her thick head that Britain is quite happy to talk to her about the Falkland Islands as long as the people of the islands are present at the talks?
¡Es una vaca bruta!
The speech reported in the Telegraph is breathtaking. It attempts to dissociate argentines from their murderous junta and associate the UK with them at the same time. Argentines were all victims of the junta while Britain was in collusion with them.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How can it be possible that [Britain] sat down with genocidists...”
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A: Because the UN asked us to.
“but won’t negotiate with officials voted by popular will at the ballot box?”
A: Because it's hard to negotiate with an empty chair.
@67 Redrow
Mar 01st, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ha ha brilliant
Torygraph article......yawnnnnnn. Same old tripe from KFC. + hyperbole about talking to the junta??? Brits won't discuss sovereignty, pleased to discuss fish and harrasment of British ships and pensioners. And Rg aggression.
Mar 01st, 2013 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 065
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0CFK worth millons she just signed a $5 millons biography book deal in the usa. rich lady poor gordito!
“The international community is more than ever convinced that colonialism has no place in the modern world,” said Ban. “The eradication of colonialism, according to the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, is our common endeavor.” Ban Ki-moon said
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent note, Another compelling demonstration that Ban Ki-moon is against English colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century. The facts are proven by itself.
Demonstrated once again that Britain is a colonialist country. Of the 16 cases of colonialism in the world, 10 are generated by the UK.
It is becoming increasingly clear the United Kingdom's international isolation.
As time passes and the world public opinion studies the Falklands conflict, the British position is untenable. Global multilateral organizations like the UN, OAS, CELAC, UNASUR, MEROSUR, and now Africa, are dumped in favor of Argentina and the world public opinion and even internal public opinion begins to see UK welcomes Argentina's position.
Argentina proposes peace and dialogue. UK commitment to intimidation and violence.
The world sees clearly these two positions and world opinion generators are welcome Argentina's position.
Mail: face1354@hotmail.com
What happened to the rest of his speech? You know the bit about inclusiveness and in accordance with the UN charter, the bits you Rg trolls like to ignore and hope no one notices. Crass stupidity, we can read!
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolated in the international community, okay, you believe what you like if you think it helps, you usually do anyway!
@71
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, don't you find it just a teeny bit ironic when anti-colonial crusader Aregntina claims colonial inheritance as grounds for annexing a territory against the wishes of its inhabitants?
@71 Raul
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a fantasy. Read his speech carefully, it's on the UN website. There is absolutely no way that the UN or international law will allow Argentine colonisation no matter what. So at the very least your leaders need to prepare the people for the reality that there cannot now be an Argentine-imposed repopulation of the islands as this really would be akin to Israeli settlements attempting to dispossess an indigenous population. Once this notion has bedded in (if it hasn't already amongst the intelligentsia) then it will be easier to cope with the next disappointment which is that the Islanders will decide the long term future of the islands and not anyone else. You really need to come to terms with the fact that modern British is not imperial, in fact it gives referendums to anyone who might want (greater) independence (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland, now the Falklands Islands) - it is impossible to see how this counts as imperialism, it is quite the reverse and everyone in the world can see this. Britain has moved on, the World has moved on, but for Argentina it will be forever 1829.
Imperialism is now in vogue in certain parts of the South American continent, even though it no longer exists. It's the convenient excuse for the failure of inept and corrupt administrations, looking for something or someone else to blame. Anyone except for themselves, responsibility for their own actions is not something they will ever acept. What I find particularly interesting, is the way Argentina displaces Spain as the regions Imperial colonial power and inserts Britian and all because of her ambitions to emulate that same system and colonise a small island, historically the home of British settlers.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Imperialism is nothing more than a contemporary convenient regional excuse, no doubt to be replaced by something else in the future, which is certain to happen, because it is always someone elses fault, never theirs!
57 briton: 'even free elections mean nothing to argentina'
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you do not understand, colonists would NEVER vote/choose to leave the motherland!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, hold on...how did Argentina come to exist then?
These Argentinians are either very dim witted or they think everyone else is (or IMO, both).
I cannot see the pile of excrement from Equador at the c24 backing down, but it is going to be very interesting seeing how far Ban Ki-moon is going to go with the language.
As a side note, does anyone else think these comments probably reflect a lot weaker support for Argentina at the UN than they like to shout about?
To be honest, the manner in which Argentina have been going about getting other nations to sign documents recently might have a large part to play in Ban Ki-moon's statements, as while certain countries may not want to confront the psychotic CFK head on I cannot see many of them being happy at the way she hijacks every diplomatic meeting and may have had a quiet word at the UN.
@71 I see you're still trying to be a comedian. And failing.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you read this: “He said this requires the constructive involvement of all concerned: the Special Committee, the administering Powers and the Non-Self-Governing Territories, working on a case-by-case-basis.” ?
Now can you tell us where argieland figures in that? It's not part of the Committee and it's not an administering Power. Seems like argieland doesn't get a say! One of the things I find especially funny, considering the state of the argie economy, is to wonder how much CFK and her fellow criminals have spent trotting around the world peddling their lies. And now it's all over!
I'm sure that I can see what's coming. The Falkland Islands referendum will go ahead. The Islanders will vote, overwhelmingly, to remain a British Overseas Territory. Then the Islanders will enter into “talks” with the British government to create a situation that the UN will have to recognise as “independence”. No doubt part of that situation will include a defence treaty with Britain, the continuance of a British base and use of the Islands for the training of troops. Probably be reasonable to expect an increase in the numbers of British forces personnel. Won't that be fun for you? You can probably expect more RAF aircraft and RN warships as well. I think we can now all see that the world does NOT support argieland!
Argentina makes one very big basic mistake. She thinks the referendum is taking place for her benefit, to show her the Islanders resolve.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well it is not. It is to show the rest of the world their resolve.
No matter how much Argentina goes into self denial, the rest of the worlds countries, those who are fortunate to know true freedom, DO respect democracy and it DO listen to the voices of people.
The result WILL count for something and WILL matter where it matters most, outside of Argentina!
'The Declaration affirmed the right of all people to self-determination'
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Declaration [...] states that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter and impedes the promotion of world peace and cooperation”
Any Argentine seeing this as positive is even more simple than we'd given them credit for.
It's quite clear from the words of Ban Ki Moon about the rights of ALL to self determination and colonization which Argentina is engaged in.
Checkmate! And once the Referendum is complete then all Argentine arguments are finished once and for all. This is why Argentina has been so desperate in the run-up to the Referendum with its propaganda and lies.
@70 yonkeeboy
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She's still “una vaca bruta”!
Conqueror @ 77
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falkland Islands referendum will go ahead. The Islanders will vote, overwhelmingly, to remain a British Overseas Territory. Then the Islanders will enter into “talks” with the British government to create a situation that the UN will have to recognise as “independence”. No doubt part of that situation will include a defence treaty with Britain, the continuance of a British base and use of the Islands for the training of troops.”
I agree that this would be ideal, Conks, and the cardinal rule for Falklanders and the UK must be “Never trust Argentina”.
However, I hope CFK and her fascist fellow-travellers do not attempt to vent their fury on other neighbours.
It would be a great step forward for all Argentina's neighbours, including the Falklands, to have a mutual defence treaty for the event of an Argentine attack on any.
Ynsere.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK does not need the Falkalnds to train troops. A lot of British Infantry Training is done in the hills of Brecon , Salisbury Plains and Thetdord Forsets. That's why the troops of the Task Force performed so well in 82. It may have been 8.000 miles away, but the ground was a little similiar, not the same, but similiar. However it would deffinately be a challenge for Aircrews, the Navy? shit, they fight anywhere. If anything, a deployment to the Falkands is a rest break from current combat operations. The Argentines face veterans and will do for some time even after the current conflicts end, because the young veteran officers and men will go on to be leaders and take their experience with them.
As for Argentina, the average squaddie treats them with contempt, they are nothing and never will be, piss poor soldiers with piss poor leadership.
reality check @ 82
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I fully agree with your remarks, However, although the UK does not need the Falklands to train troops, the Falklands will need British troops to train in the Falklands. With no presence of UK troops, the islands would be easy prey for the vultures across the water, even with their inferior military.
Ynsere
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very true, I take your point and you are of course correct. It would be nice to think that we could go back to pre 82 days, but that is out of the question. Argentina would jump at the chance to wipe out their shame.
Today we are told that Brazil will buy 4 subs from France,
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All in the name of peace,
CFK wants the Falklands, all in the name of peace,
Something fishy going on here.
.
Damn Brazilians, militarising the South America! What, Argentina not complaining to the UN? Nukes onboard too, I shouldn't wonder.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What general secretary ban ki moon said is very interesting, and i think it's the right thing to do.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, there is something which is much more important than everybody's opinions. I mean the facts.
Let's see what happens after the referendum. We'll see wether the proposal for a more inclusive dialogue is applied or not for the malvinas-falkland cause.
I often find some people in this forum who usually reply what ban ki moon said, respecting the situation for this cause.
According to what those people often reply, ban ki moon said that the islanders should decide about their own future.
However, if you search on line the interview that he gave for argentine newspaper, tiempo argentino (leftists and pro kirchnerist), which was partially published in another argentine newspaper, la nación (conservative and pro imperialist), you'll realize that his posture was very contradictory, due to while it is true that he said that the u. n. work in order to achieve that all the territories can get their independence, it's also true that when he was aksed about this question, he answered that he was very worried about the verbal escalation between both nations, and manifested also that he had the hope that both countries solve this dispute by mean a dialogue. But he didn't include the govt. from the islands in that so called dialogue.
On the other hand, he didn't say absolutly anything about the application of the right to self determination for the population from the islands.
I would like to know what ban ki noon thinks about the secret proposal treated between arg. and the u. k. in 1974, which was read by c. f. k. before the u. n. last year. That proposal took into account the wishes of the islanders of remaning under british govt., and argentina's rights.
Maybe it's a good example of what more inclusive dialogue could be.
Except, that was before you invaded, showed your true colours, and now the Islanders want absolutely nothing to do with you.
Mar 02nd, 2013 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Otherwise, sure.
Falklands is like dartmoor, otterburn catterick and dear god sennybridge every horrible British army training area.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0To take the islands you need to land a brigade of 3000 troops plus
You cant do that .
So the islands remain british
@87
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0F**k off you numptie
TOODLEPIP
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/ban-ki-moons-speech-to-the-c24/
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Full speech
@87
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0And here we go again. We're supposed to believe that the UN has abandoned its fundamental founding principle in favour of Argentina, because it hasn't said it hasn't. And we're supposed to believe that 1982 didn't really happen, and even if it did, 1000 dead is no big deal compared to the offense to the national manhood in 1833, and anyway it was your evil twin brother all along. And that coin we minted to celebrate the invasion is actually an act of contrition, and so is the terrorist flag from 1966 venerated by La Presidenta. And then we're supposed to believe that the islanders are safe with you, even though they don't exist, and if they do, they don't have any rights, anyway. And above all, colonialism must be resisted, by claiming a colonial inheritance from 200 years ago.
@87
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel
Please get this through your skull. Argentina doesn't have ANY rights in the Falklands. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.
Until you accept that FACT you will continue to post WIND on this forum.
The UN has asked for dialogue so that WE (the UK) can explain this to you (Argentina), that is the only purpose of the requested dialogue.
WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN:
ALL PEOPLE'S HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
Ok? Clear.
The islanders are a British overseas territory because that is what they determine for themselves.
If they wish to become fully integrated into the UK, and form part of a constituency in Westminster. Let them choose it.
If they wish to become an independent state, again their choice.
Should they wish to be evicted from their homes, and denied basic human rights they can choose your option.
it is their choice. neither Britain or Argentina have any RIGHTs beyond that.
What is funny, is that because we (Britain) have excellent relationships with the islanders and they know we would and have sent troops to die for their RIGHTs, then we will continue to work productively with them in the future.
You have terrorised, threatened and denied the existence of them, and get NOTHING.
@81 Thank you. But I don't see the purpose of worth of a mutual defence treaty with South American countries. What purpose would there be when the Falkland Islanders can already call on the best armed forces in the world? And to the Falkland Islanders I would say, don't trust them. There are 12 sovereign states in South America. How many have supported argieland? I don't know whether Guyana and Suriname have taken positions, but the rest have been supporters. So who in their right minds would allow Bolivian, Brazilian, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Uruguayan or Venezuelan forces on to the Islands? I would even have reservations about Chileans. Who's to say such forces wouldn't promptly turn around and hand the Islands to the argies? No, the Islanders are going to have to pick their friends very carefully.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@82 I note your points. However, in how many cases are there constant complaints from the locals?
@87 Didn't I mention recently that we've found that “teachers” in argieland are those that can't get “proper” jobs? Seems you're intent on proving that you can't even learn. The game is OVER. In the case of the Falkland Islands, there will undoubtedly be “inclusive dialogue” between the Islands and the UK. The C24 might get included if it could learn probity. Argieland isn't in the picture. Nor are we interested what some newspaper says. Are you actually stupid enough to think that the UNSG is going to go over every single point because you can't comprehend? And anything that happened in '74 is DEAD. Since then you started a war, invaded and occupied. Whichever way around, you aren't wanted and you aren't trusted! This is inclusive. GO AWAY!!!
In 1938 Britain and its allies signed the Munich Agreement with the Nazi party in Germany, in essence swapping the Sudetanland for “peace in our time”.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder what what Ban Ki Moon would say if Angela Merkel suggested that the Sudetanland was actually German, stood in front of a map with a Swazstika behind it, and complained that we were prepared to negotiate with Hitler in 1938 but not her, and by the way she thinks that the Nazis were a “bad lot”...all she wants is the Sudetanland (plus Poland and the south Sandwich Islands (sic)).
that's the parallel you are drawing axel....fucking ridiculous isn't it??
87 axel arg
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You Keep raising the same issues even though you have been given the definitive answer several times. The UK has alway held the sovereignty to the islands. Argentina had lost any right to a claim to the islands through the legal principle of extinct prescription by 1982. I t is legal principle to prevent a party from endlessly claiming, without taking any legal steps to to have the issue decided. In other words if you don't use it you lose it, and to prevent the continued abuse and harassment of the other party.
So since the UK held sovereignty, the islanders have the absolute right to self-determination. This is further reinforced by the Argentines failure to legally challenge the referendum, which acquiescence acknowledges tacit support to their right.
So there is no legal requirement for them or the UK to enter into any negotiations with Argentina. The UN resolutions are just a meaningless political sap given to Argentina, with absolutely no legal enforcement.
Any prior negotiations between the countries are off the table, they legally are barred from any consideration. Of course only an Argentinean would consider after an invasion, that the parties would return to negotiations, right where they had left off. No those proposals are long gone never to be resurrected again.
Just so you understand Argentina, has never had any legal rights to the islands.
Brazil To Get Its First Nuclear Subs
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130302/DEFREG02/303020009/Brazil-Get-Its-First-Nuclear-Subs?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
will CFk complain about this as well.
If France has anything to do with nuclear power transfer of technology it will be the previous generation at best. It will sound like a kettle compared to UK subs.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How could a western country give the latest nuclear technology to a LatAm country?
Ah, but France is French,
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the French puts business before pleasure,
So we are told,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But what is of interest is [ why]
She has no enemies as we know of,
No one in South America today, is capable to attack them,
They are in no danger from anyone,
But the only danger I can see [future]
Is manipulation, by others to do their dirty work,
Perhaps persuaded to back Argentina,
But what ever her reasons, I hope she matures nicely and this added power [no matter how small]
Does not go to brazils head,
Just a thought .
@99
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil won't militarily back Argentina, probably want the subs to defend themselves from the hoarders of Argies deserting the country when the poverty and bankruptcy kicks in.
More likely it is part of Brazils wishes to become a permanent member of the security council, whereby they can assist with peacekeeping.
I would fully support there eventually being 7 permanent members of the SC adding India and Brazil.
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0she might be a very good member.
Mar 03rd, 2013 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 087 axel arg
Mar 04th, 2013 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent comment. Advancing inclusive dialogue as proposed sovereignty of 1974 updated in 2013, it afforded the interest (not self) of British citizens in the islands and Argentine rights over the islands.
Emphasizing the negotiation, the UK and Argentina implemented what international law requires and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations. The implementation of resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), after the war of 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
It would be a very good signal to the world public opinion to resolve conflicts peacefully sovereignty through dialogue within the framework of the UN.
TERENCE HILL.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you tell just what is convenient for you, then it's obvious that many people will agree on what you say. However, you are commiting serious omissions.
It's hightly arguable to say that prescription should be applied for this case, because one of the bases of the principle of prescription, is that the occupation of the territory must be peacefull, however, when the u. k. occupied the islands in 1833, it forced arg. to leave the archipelago.
On the other hand, despite the intervalls in our claim, the u. k. tried to find a negotiated solution with arg. in 1968, 1974 and in 1980, so, if the u. k. negotiated with arg., it's hightly arguable to express that prescription should be applied for this case.
Beside, it would be honest to take into account the huge economic dependence that arg. had with the u. k. during XIX century, and for more than 100 years, so, it was obvious that it wasnt in conditions for claiming the empire for it's rights over the islands, don't you think?.
On the other hand, between 1884 and 1888, arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., beside, that country manifested arg. in 1947 that it would be disposed to take the question of the dependences from the islands to the i. c. j., but it didn't include the malvinas-falklands in the proposal, after that year, none of the two nations proposed again to take the question to that institution.
This has always made me think that if none of the two countries proposed to take the question to the arbitration after 1947, is because perhaps neather arg., nor the u. k. are sure of getting a positive result.
As you can see, the case is much more complicated than the tipical mediocre and too partial analysis that you and many other people in this forum usually express.
Accept it or not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
104
Mar 04th, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel
Please explain how Argentina itself was occupied by “peaceful means”
Please explain how Patagonia was occupied by “peaceful means”
The UK tried to find a negatived solution with Nazi Germany in 1938, it doesn't mean modern day Germany has rights to the Sudentland.
Your analysis is worse than mediocre, it is ridiculous.
In 1833 less than 60 people many of whom were deportees we're removed PEACEFULLY from the islands, they had been there 60 days...That's it!!
The case HAS ZERO strong points for Argentina, and virtually ZERO weak points...60 people for 60 days and the blood of nearly 1000 people.
the case has well over 200 years of Strong points for the UK and well over 2000 inhabitants of Strong points for the islanders.
stop trying to steal, thieve, rob and lie....I know it's what you want, but it not yours!!!
104 axel arg
Mar 05th, 2013 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you are referring to is acquisitive prescription. I am referring to extinctive prescription.
The establishment of the World Courts, initially as the Permanent Court of International Justice and later as the Internationa Court of Justice (ICJ), changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep alive Argentina's claim of sovereignty. In order to avoid extinguishing its claim, Argentina should have resorted to the ICJ rather than continuing to protest. The fact of the matter was that Argentina never submitted its claim to the Court for judgment, Its failure to do so, to take advantage of the requirements prescribed by international law, has quietly ceded sovereignty to Britain by extinctive prescription.
The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic /by Daniel K. Gibran.
and
Argentina's failure to use available world courts greatly enhances
Great Britain's claim to sovereignty through extinctive prescription.
It is reasonable to assume that Great Britain acquired definitive title
to the Islands at this time.176 However, in any case, there is little reasonable doubt that Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.
176 As Great Britain rightly could consider that it had acquired title to the Islands by the mode of extinctive prescription, it had no need to file a brief concerning the Islands. It was concerned about Argentina and Chile acquiring title by prescription to the Islands Dependencies; therefore, Great Britain took the necessary action to stop the maturing of title by filing the application with the International Court of Justice.
177 Hall, supra note 143, at 143.
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain by James Francis Gravelle
TERENCE HILL. MONKEY MAGIC.
Mar 05th, 2013 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MOENKEY: I have already told you in another comment why i think that perhaps the u. k. had right to occupy the islands in virtue of some relevant facts, beside, i have told you also what are the bases of our claim over the islands in 1833, and i won't repeat them.
If the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, it didn't mean that it had to deprive arg. of exercising it's rights over the archipelago. It should have negotiated a solution with our country, or share the sovereignty of the islands, instead of depriving arg. of exercising it's rights.
TERENCE: Your dates are always interesting to debate, but you still ignore relevant information.
I think it's hightly arguable to say that extinctive precription or acquisitive should be applied for this case, due to arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration between 1884-1888, but the u. k. rejected that proposal, beside, when it manifested arg. that it would be disposed to take the question of the dependencies to the i. c. j. in 1947, it didn't include the malvinas-falkalnds in the proposal.
On the other hand, if arg. lost i's rights over the islands, because of it's intervalls in its claims, then why did the u. k. try to find a negotiated solution with arg., in 1968, 1974 and i 1980?.
What we all should do, is to wonder why none of the two nations proposed again to take the question to the arbitration after 1947, you already know what i think about it.
Everybody have right to think whatever they want, but there is nothing more important than the facts, and beyond everybody's opinions or wishes, the facts show that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
Axel Arg:
Mar 05th, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “facts” do not show the case has “strong and weak aspects for both countries”, that is YOUR OPINION. Please don't state it as fact, and look beyond YOUR OWN OPINION or WISHES.
MY OPINION is that Argentina has a negative claim to the islands, in other words there are 200+ other countries with a stronger claim, with the UK having the strongest.
The other 200 countries with a stronger claim are due to the FACT that:
1) They have never invaded the islands costing 1000 lives
2) They do not claim the current population doesnt exist
3) they have no wish to ethnically cleanse the islands
4) they would not subject the population to government that they dont want
5) they havent lied about previous UN regulations
6) they havent carried out mutiny, murder and rape on the islands
7) They havent set up economic and logistic blockades against the population
Argentina has done all of these, and therefore ranks BOTTOM of the list of countries with a case for sovereignty.
However, on the plus side for Argentina, in 1832 fewer than 60 people from the United Provinces (including Uruguians, British, a fair number of deportees) arrived at the islands and in a 6 week window committed murder and rape and mutiny...before being requested to leave...and that is the “STRONGEST” part of the Argentine argument.
So, far from being a question of sovereignty and returning to a pre-war position. It is a question of NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...we'd rather North Korea or Iran had sovereignty than Argentina.
107 axel arg
Mar 05th, 2013 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes you have told me the basis of Argentine claim to the Islands, namely successor rights. Of which there is no precedent in international law as Spain did not hold sole sovereignty. Two treaties signed by Spain and Briton excluded third party claims. In any case Britain rejected that position. Why should Britain have negotiated with Argentina 1833, after she acted unilaterally in usurping the Islands. If Argentina could act that way, then you have no cause for complaint when Briton behaves in exactly the same fashion.
Extinctive prescription applies to Argentine failure to make a claim to an appropriate legal tribunal post 1920, not before that date. Here is an expert legal opinion as to why UK filed only the Dependancies and not the Islands with the ICJ.
'It is reasonable to assume that Great Britain acquired definitive title (1947) to the Islands at this time.176
176 As Great Britain rightly could consider that it had acquired title to the Islands by the mode of extinctive prescription, it had no need to file a brief concerning the Islands. It was concerned about Argentina and Chile acquiring title by prescription to the Islands Dependencies; therefore, Great Britain took the necessary action to stop the maturing of title by filing the application with the International Court of Justice.
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain by James Francis Gravelle.
The UK attempted to negotiate a settlement with Argentina not because they didn't hold sovereignty, but the prevailing view of one of the main political parties was to divest the UK of it's empire. I think the UK knows it absolutely holds sovereignty, so it doesn't have to do anything, because nothing can be legally changed.
@109
Mar 05th, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please do not point out the hypocrisy in axel args views, you know that Argentinas actions aren't allowed to be scrutinised.
Clearly, the fact that the United Provinces were aware of the historic British claim in 1832 and chose to ignore it when attempting to seize the islands is wholly different to Britain ignoring the UPs claim.
Clearly the UP who had never had a previous civilian population on the islands, had a much stronger claim than the British who had a claim stretching back centuries.
Clearly the UPs attempted usurption together with raping, murder and mutiny was a “brave and historic act of claiming birthright” and the British peaceful reclamation was a “19th century act of colonialism”.
According to Axel, Captain Onslow in requesting that the 50 or so militia, vagabonds, mutineers and murderers return from where they'd left just 2 months previously was equal to the 1982 invasion costing 1000 lives.
You have to try and keep up with this!!!!
He cannot see the parallel between the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler and the 1970s negotiations with the Junta.
As I said in 108. Argentina doesn't come “top” or “second” in having the strongest sovereignty claims on the islands, it comes bottom. They are the very last country on the planet that should have it.
“Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”
Mar 06th, 2013 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Proof Argentina cannot read.
@78 what it will count for? Argentina will still bully you, and if the UN does something, you expect CFK or the next government won't react? I don't know what the UK or the islanders are counting on, but I don't think it is what they're hoping for.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@112 - MagnusMaster
Mar 06th, 2013 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually it will count for a lot on the international stage. The Argentines know that they haven't got a snow balls chance in hell of gaining the Falklands by force, they tried in 1982 and failed. In the last few years the Argentine government tried to push the Falklands as a 'regional' issue in the hopes they could cobble together a untied LATAM force to invade on their behalf.
However, despite the odd empty platitude, no country in South America is stupid enough to do the fighting and dying on Argentina's behalf.
So all the Argentines can hope for now is that the international community will somehow force the UK to cede sovereignty.
By holding the referendum, the people of the Falklands are showing the international community what they want, in line with the UN Charter which states that all peoples have the right to determine their own political status.
Once this referendum has taken place, Argentina knows it has lost. Yes they will continue to b!tch on about it, but no one of any note will ever listen to them.
Argentina's colonial ambitions to build an empire are dead and buried with a 'Do Not Resuscitate' sign attached to the headstone.
And even bigger blow to Argentina's ambitions is the death of Chavez. He was their most powerful ally. There is no guarantee that the next President will support them. In fact, since Venezuela is in dire financial straits of their own, they may well call in all of their loans, which will leave Argentina up sh!t creek without a paddle.
It doesn't matter what the international community says, Argentina will never accept it. You know in Argentina it's a “fact” that the islands were stolen by the UK. The people in Argentina would rather militarise the country and go on another war (let's say, in a few decades) than accept defeat. That's why I think the referendum is a bad idea.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TERENCE HILL. MONKEYMAGIC.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terence: As i told you in another comment, if you think that because you have the opinions of two experts, you have the definitive answer for this dispute, let me tell you that you are very wrong.
Anyway, let's sopose that extinctive prescription should be applied for this case, due to arg. didn't submit it's claim to an arbitration. However, your posture is very contradictory, because you don't make any critic respecting the negotiations that the u. k. tried to make with arg., despite the intervalls in it's claim. I already told you what i think about the intervalls in our claim. For all these reasons i have always thought that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations. And the only one way to know what country has stronger rights over the islands, is taking the case to an arbitration. I respect you analysis but i dont' agree on it.
On the other hand, if that expert said that extinctive prescription should be applied for this case, due to arg. didn't submit the dispute to any legal court after 1920, not before that date, i would like to know is there is a deadline for arg. to present it's case to the i. c. j, and what was that deadline.
MONKEY: I won't discuss with you about the historic aspects of this conflict, sorry if you don't agree on what i think about them.
On the other hand, i have never omitted the terrible things that my country committed in the past. However, if after the war, the u. n. have always continued calling both nations to resume the negotiations, it should be respected by both countries. The war, is your best excuse, however, people like you who make such mediocre and ignorant comparisons seem to forget that arg. is not a dictatorship any more. Respecting the stupid words of some of our politicians, if you like debating about politic, you should know that not always you can't take so literally what they say. There is a lot more to say about this.
@114 - MagnusMaster
Mar 06th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be missing the point of my post. The referendum isn't for the benefit of Argentina, it is for the benefit of the international community, so they can see that the people of the Falklands are expressing their rights to self-determination as laid out in the UN Charter.
I have no doubt that Argentina will keep on lying, crying, begging and crawling to the international community regarding the Falklands, but every year that passes strengthens the Falklands claim and weakens the Argentine claim even more than it already is.
Argentina lies about the Falklanders, and the Falklanders are no longer going to take it lying down, and are letting their voice be heard. Argentina says the Falkand Islanders don't exist. They say they are not people and therefore have no rights.
Yet the UN recognises that the Falklanders are people and do have rights, and they are going to exercise those rights on the 10/11 March 2013.
@115 Axel
If Argentina's sovereignty claim is so solid take it to the only international body that can force the UK to cede sovereignty, namely the International Court of Justice. All of your 'arguments' are based on YOUR opinion, and hold no legal basis.
You say that the UN called for the UK and Argentina to negotiate. Well actually that isn't quite true. They asked for the UK and Argentina to settle their differences peacefully, the word negotiate wasn't mentioned at all.
So tell me Axel, just what is there to negotiate? Just what is Argentina offering?
The answer of course is nothing, except economic ruin, poverty, corruption, fascism and slavery.
Tell you what to be fair, go away and sort out Argentina VERY pressing problems. Turn Argentina into a stable and successful country, with low corruption, better democracy, better law and order.
If you can maintain that for 100 years, then come back and talk to the Islanders. Who knows they may even volunteer to be a part of Argentina.
@114
Mar 06th, 2013 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The people in Argentina would rather militarise the country and go on another war (”
Correct because their claim is a pack of lies and they understand only three things.
1/- How to bully people (they never pick a fight against superior numbers of opposition-unarmed civilians their speciality).
2/- How to get their asses kicked by the friends of those they bully.
3/- How to keep shooting themselves in the foot (extreme self harm) and getting their asses kicked again.
@116 of course the referendum isn´t made for the benefit of Argentina. But I think you are not counting on how argentina will react. With the referendum, it is more likely for the UK to turn Argentina into a wasteland than for the people of Argentina to accept defeat. The only way this ends well, is if the people of Argenina find out about the lies fed by the government. I don´t know if the people will believe you, but it´s worth trying. Too bad you aren´t
Mar 06th, 2013 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0114 MagnusMaster
Mar 06th, 2013 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The people in Argentina would rather militarise the country and go on another war (let's say, in a few decades) than accept defeat. That's why I think the referendum is a bad idea.”
So let them! In a few decades the yawning chasm that exists presently between the crying and bleating of the argies and their ability to do anything about it: no real planes to speak of; ships that do not go to sea in case they break down or sink, and an army of 100,000 cowards with only FA FAL SLRs to use as an infantry weapon; no effective rockets – the cruise missiles they do possess have never been serviced and have never been test fired since 1982 (would you like to test fire one?) will become insurmountable.
The Islands themselves will be far richer and have their own modern defence hardware by then AND still have the backing of the UK.
Or would you rather the islanders give in now?
I have no idea where you come from but I do hope the rest of the population are not all like you, otherwise you might find AR taking your country over.
Axel
Mar 06th, 2013 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are not “ignorant and mediocre” comparisons at all.
It is precisely the same as Angela Merkel (a very nice and democratically elected German Chancellor) standing in front of a map of Poland with a Swastika behind it, saying ”you were prepared to negotiate with Hitler in 1938...why not me?
It is precisely the same as the new Iraqi president (democratically elected) standing in front of a map of Kuwait and saying...now that nasty Saddam has gone...give us the land
It is proposterous, not ignorant or mediocre but absolutely totally fucking OUTRAGEOUS!!! Gobsmacking to me that you can't see that.
As pointed out above, the UN doesn't call on us to negotiate, it calls on us to settle our differences peacefully...wholly different.
It's over axel, were Argentina a decent country and could offer the islanders a better choice than Britain, perhaps it might have been a viable option. However, the continued bullying has killed any form of cooperation.
@119 I'm not saying the islanders should give in to Argentina, but if this conflict is caused by brainwashing (mostly due to misinformation) then it would be best to do something about the brainwashing without making war.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@118 - MagnusMaster
Mar 06th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares how Argentina will react? They'll react as they normally do, crying, begging, crawling, threatening.
They are bullies and bullies should always be stood up to, not appeased.
Militarily Argentina is impotent. They need a complete overhaul of all of their military hardware (cost somewhere in the billions of US dollars - which they don't have), and they are currently more than 30 years behind the UK.
Even if they spent the next 30 years rearming, they would still be behind the UK.
Remember that the UKs military is only one of a very few countries that can project it's military might beyond its own borders or immediate neighbours.
The other countries are the USA (ally), France (ally), Russia (not an ally, but not willing to get involved in this), China (limited ability to project itself in the South China Seas and Pacific - not an ally but also does not get involved in such things).
And Argentina...has no ability to project it's military beyond its own borders.
The Islanders aren't intimidated by the impotent Argentines, so don't worry yourself over it.
@122 I don't worry myself over the islanders, I worry myself over Argentina. Do you wish to destroy Argentina?
Mar 07th, 2013 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0115 axel arg
Mar 07th, 2013 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years. The UK could claim that Argentina as the claimant state has had from 1899 to bring suit via the Permanent Court of Arbitration; The PCA, established by treaty in 1899.
Argentina and Great Britain were both admitted as members of the League of Nations on Jan. 10, 1920. The Permanent Court of International Justice was open to all members without condition.
“The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits…. Undue delay in presenting a claim, which may lead to it being barred, is to distinguished from effects of the passage of time on the merits of the claim in cases where the claimant state has, by failing to protest or otherwise, given evidence of acquiescence’”: I Oppenheim 526 and 527. See Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), Chap. 18; King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, (1934) 15 B.Y.I.L. 82. Cf. prescription, acquisitive.
Oxford Dictionary of Law
@123 - MagnusMaster
Mar 07th, 2013 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what your are saying is that by the Falkland Islanders expressing their self-determination Argentina will be destroyed?
And because of that the Falkland Islands Government should call off the referendum, because a few Argentinians will be upset, riot and destroy Argentina?
LMFAO!!!
That's the MOST pathetic argument anyone has ever come up with.
The UK has no reason to attack Argentina, unless of course Argentina is stupid enough to try and invade UK territory. But destroy Argentina? Well we didn't destroy Argentina in 1982 did we? We could've bombed the sh!t out of Argentina, but we didn't, did we?
No the only people who will destroy Argentina are the Argentinians themselves. Quite frankly their own government is currently doing a very good job at destroying Argentina in every imaginable way possible.
And if you believe that the rantings and rioting of a few thousand Argentines will destroy Argentina then so be it, but I wonder what the other 40 odd million people will be doing while these few thousand are tearing up the place?
It's not the concern of the British Government or the Falkland Islands Government how Argentina handles its own internal troubles. Only the Falkland Islands are of concern to the British and Falkland Islands Government. Argentina can collapse under the weight of its own incompetence, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
Besides, Argentina collapses every 10 years or so, and somehow the people manage to cope.
No, a few thousands will not riot and destroy argentina. That happens every now and then. No, what I think may happen is that most of that 40 million people in my country will demand the government to rearm and eventually go on war. And the UK doesn't forgive twice.
Mar 07th, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not saying you should call off the referendum. Too late for that. But you should solve the root of the problem: Argentinians believe that the islands were taken from us by the UK. Argentina won't be able to solve this.
@126 - MagnusMaster
Mar 07th, 2013 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obviously don't know much about the British. We don't tend to hold grudges, life's too short for that. The UK has no problem with Argentina except the fact that your government is trying to steal the Falklands and enslave its people.
As for Argentina rearming, well as I said, Argentina's armed forces are 30 years behind the UK in equipment. The UK builds its own weapon systems, and we have some of the most advanced kit in the world right now.
Our Type 45 destroyers are the MOST advanced in the world. Our Astute class submarines are the MOST advanced in the world. Our Army is well trained and experienced in war fighting.
In order to build up your Armed Forces you would have to spend billions of US dollars (that you don't have - and won't have because you are being shut out of international money markets - and you can no longer rely on Venezuela to bank roll you ) on equipment that you would have to buy from others. Are the people of Argentina willing to do without virtually everything in order to build up your military? Would they make that sacrifice?
Not only that but you Argentines distrust your military. Are you willing to risk another Junta?
The only people who can solve Argentina's problems is Argentina itself, if any outside country tried to do it you would accuse them of interferring in internal Argentine business. People like you need to stand up and be counted. You need to take responsibility for your country, your history, and for the actions of your governments.
The UK can't affect your educational curriculum, again only people like you can, force the government to start teaching the truth instead of rehashing the same old lies.
The UK has proved that Argentina lies about the Falklands, but Argentines don't want to listen to the truth.
It's time to stop voting in populist governments who only seem to destroy Argentina, by stealing all the money, and lining their own pockets, whilst distracting you with the Malvinas lie.
The UK doesn´t hold grudges, but it´s not exactly merciful. I´m not sure if the people are willing to go so far to rearm the country, but it´s not a possibility that should be ruled out. Even if Argentina is 30 years behind the UK, the nationalists are insane enough to declare war. Even a tiny possibility makes me very wary.
Mar 07th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately nothing CAN change for the better in Argentina soon. People are Peronist and will vote Peronist, even the non-Peronist will vote Peronist because non-Peronists in power get overthrown. In Argentina your truth are lies and your lies are truth, anyone who tries to change this is a traitor, and there aren´t enough traitors to change anything anyway. The people won´t stand up because alone they are powerless, so they are waiting for others to stand up, but nobody does. The system is in place, without foreign interference it will take a very long time to change, IF Argentina doesn´t end a wasteland in the process.
Unfortunately, if there is any problem with the world right now, is that it assumes all nations to be able to take care of themselves, which is clearly false. Of course, the current situation won´t change soon, but hopefully someday the richer nations will get fed up of the mess on the poorer nations.
MONKEYMAGIC. LEPRECOM. TERENCE HILL.
Mar 07th, 2013 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MONKEY AND LEPRECOM: You say that if arg. were a decent country, the u. k. would negotiate with us about a solution for this dispute. But my questions are, is the u. k. a total decent nation, is there any nation in the world which can be considered as a total decent country, don't you have corruption cases in the u. k., or very serious problematics?.
In my opinion, i have no doubt that the u. k. is a great country like any orher, which has positive and negative aspects like all the rest of the nations. So, you argument is not just mediocre, it's hypocrite too.
On the other hand, beyond the serious problems that arg. still has, like in all the rest of the world, if both countries are called to resume the negotiations, it should be respected by both parts of the conflict. Accept it or not, the islanders have never been included as a third part in this dispute, and the u. n. have never invoked self determination for this case, as they did for other colonial situations. In fact, i recommend you to read the words of the president from the decolonization committe, published in this website, respecting the application of self determination for this case. Anyway, i know that you prefer invaliding what he said, because his expressions don't coincid with what you want to hear, that showes your low level of debate, and mental mediocrity.
Terence: You date is very interesting. In my opinion, if extinctive prescription could be applied for this cause, the u. k.. would argue about it in all the debates before the u. n., or before any other int. forum, however, the u. k.'s psoture, is base just on the application of self determination for the islanders, and has never said ahthing about the application of extinctive prescription. Anyway, you know what i think about why neather arg. nor the u. k. propose to take the question to the i. c. j.
@129 - Axel
Mar 07th, 2013 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is nothing to negotiate. The only people who have a say in what happens in the Falklands are the people of the Falklands. They're going to have their say on the 10/11 March 2013 in a UN recognised referendum.
@128 - MagnusMaster
Why should the UK get involved in the internal workings of Argentina? If we did we'd be accused of interfering.
The only people who can sort out Argentina's problems are Argentinians. Until you wake up to that fact, Argentina will continue to do more harm to itself than it can to anyone else.
The UK will defend the Falklands, and as long as Argentina doesn't try something really stupid, like trying to invade them again, there is nothing to worry about. The UK isn't about to invade Argentina because it's against international law, and why should we do it? I mean what would we gain by invading Argentina? It serves no purpose at all.
Argentina has caused all of its own problems, and has spent too long blaming everyone else in the world for them. Until you accept responsibility for yourselves you will never progress.
The people oppressed in Eastern Europe by the USSR didn't wait for someone else to come and save them, they did it all themselves.
If enough decent people stand up to the fascist thugs, like La Campora, and demand a change and refuse to be intimidated then things will change.
Freedom is something that cannot be given, it must be taken. You and the others who feel like you need to stand up to the bullies, and like all bullies they only feel powerful and brave when they have the upper hand. If enough people stand up against them then they'll melt away like the cowards they are.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
I wish I could stant up to the facists, but alone I can do nothing. Nobody wants to stand up. I know that we Argentinians are responsible for Argentina, but I´m also a realist. People won´t stand up, they will keep bowing to the thugs for a while. I don´t see change any time soon. I can hope for change, but it does not make it any more likely.
Mar 07th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel
Mar 07th, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You misunderstand. Britain has already said that Argentina can have sovereignty. It has said it over and over. It is quite simple. Self-determination.
Persuade the islanders you are a better option and we will wave them and the land fair well. This has been our position for decades.
But, there is no hypocrisy, as you state. If you were a decent country or a decent alternative, the islanders would choose Argentina.
Why don't they? Until you can answer that..the rest is irrelevant and your argument is “ignorant and mediocre”.
I don't believe the islanders would choose Argentina before EVERY OTHER Country on the planet.
IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
@131 - MagnusMaster
Mar 07th, 2013 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong. There are people who are not happy with the way things are. Look at the demonstrations that there have been in Argentina recently.
Look at the demonstrations in the past that helped topple the government.
You give up without even trying.
No one expects there to be a radical change all at once. These things take time. But if you won't fight to reclaim your own country from the fascists, why do you expect someone else to do it for you?
Don't get it wrong, when there is another demostration I will join. But now the people are calm, so there's nothing I can do.
Mar 08th, 2013 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0MONKEYMAGIC.
Mar 09th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Accept it or not, the u. k. is not the owner of the international right. It seems that you haven't understood yet that your so called self determination has never been applied for this cause.
Anyway, you don't need to believe what i say, just search in this website what the president from the decolonization committee said respecting the application of that right for the population fromthe islands.
If you prefer invaliding what he said, because his expressions don''t coincid with what you want to hear, sorry, but your mediocre thought doens't change absolutly anything, like that so called referendum.
Mealy mouthed guy. If she wants to leave the Argentine Presidency at the next election Cristina should get his job =)
Mar 10th, 2013 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@136 fake-Brit Kirchnerist
Mar 10th, 2013 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hi, BK !
I see you just swooped in to drop another empty 'stink bomb' post with no content.
BTW,
Ban Ki-Moon = good, pro-Self Determination
Crissy FK = bad, a thief, and anti- Self Determination for Islanders who havevwhat she wants
@135
Mar 10th, 2013 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is certainly not for the chairman of the Decolonization committee to deny self-determination to anyone. It is way beyond his authority. It is his job to ensure that the rights of the inhabitants of the 16 Non-self governing territories are protected. A job that he is abjectly ignoring by not even visiting them.
However, the secretary general appears to have a different view.
Anyway, your ignorant and worse than mediocre (plain retarded) analysis is boring. Your are either incredibly thick or completely brainwashed.
Argentina have only twice had the the islands, and for a total of 2 months a time. The first saw a guy die and his wife raped. The second saw the death of nearly 1000 people. Yet their blood doesn't seem to sit on your concience axel...because you don't have a concience...just greed.
I have often wanted to start “sovereignty negotiations” on these boards, but no Argentine wishes to play.
1) Argentina has to state that the negotiations in their mind are because the “implanted population” have no right to self-determination under Argentine law.
2) Argentina must then withdraw the right to self determination from anyone that is “implanted” in Argentina...I.e cannot unequivocally trace their ancestry to pre 1500.
3) Argentina must then astate by Argentine law that any land “seized” from an original “population” must be returned to that original population, by Argentine law.
4) Argentina must then return Patagonia to the indigenous Amerindians and give them all monies “stolen” by raping their natural resources for a century and a half.
5) Britain will allow a 99 year window to ensure that all the above has occured in accordance with the new Argentine law, and then take the Falklands case (which we don't believe would fall under these new laws) to the ICJ.
But I'd want to see the Argentine laws in place for the 99 years just to prove you weren't retarded hypocrites....which of course axel....you are.
MONKEYMAGIC.
Mar 10th, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems you have such a fragil memory.
I had told you in another comment that the claim of our originary populations, who suffered such a terrible genocide during the desert campaign, lead by conservative killer julio roca, are included in article 17 from chapter 4th in our constitution, which represents a true historic reparation, that's something that the u. k. has never made for argentina, for having deprived it of exercising it's rights over the islands in 1833. Unfortunatelly, accept it or not, such an admirable nation like the u. k., in some aspects still bahaviours like the same thief of XIX century.
Anyway there is still a lot to do for the originary populations, because some of them are victim of serious abuses by powerful masters who expeal them from their lands, with the purpose of planting soya.
Respecting the historic aspects, i wont discuss with you again about them, i have aready explained them to you.
In relation to secretary ban ki mon, his posture was very contradictory, because while it is true that he said that the u. n. work in order to achieve that all the territories can get their independence, however, when he was asked about this dispute, he said he had the hope that both nations solve the conflict by mean a dialogue, but he didn't include the govt. from the islands in that so called dialogue, and didn't say absolutly anything about the application of self determination for the islanders.
On the other hand, the posture of the u. n., have always been the same since 1966, which was expressed by the president from the d. c.
Regarding taking the case to the i. c. j., between1884 and 1888, arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., and in 1947 that country manifested arg. that it would be disposed to discuss the question of the dependencies at the i. c. j., but it didn't include the malvinas-falklands in the proposal.
Like it not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries.
I am sure that the tens of thousands of massacred indigenous are very happy with article bollocks of your shite constitution axel...I doubt very much whether they see this as adequate compensation..because they can't you murdered them all.
Mar 10th, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me, what do you think is adequate compensation for the 50 or so of Pinedos crew, (including the vagabonds, deportees, and hired militia) that were peacefully removed after 2 months in 1833? Sovereignty of the land...piss off...a share of the land...on your bike....here have $1 and call someone who gives a shit.
Now, on the topic of compensation, how about compensation for the loss of 255 lives THAT YOU CAUSED in 1982 by trying to stop the islanders from exercising their rights....
Let's compare...no loss of life 180 years ago...50 or so people whod arrived 2 months earlier returned home...2 months of territorial claim denied.
1000 lives losses 30 years ago...1000 families without loved ones...people with 180 years of territorial claim denied.
Hmmmm....yes I see your point axel...weak and strong....ARGs claim is disgracefully weak, and has blood, death and rape all over it...The UKs claim is undeniably strong, has peace, bravery and fortitude.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!