MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
C24 president insists Falklands dispute is over sovereignty, not self determination
The UN Decolonisation Committee has not received any further requests on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, and “there is no such procedure as self-determination regarding the Islands dispute”, according to the C24 president Diego Morejón Pazmiño, standing Ecuadorean ambassador before the UN. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo thats it off the C24 list then ...that wasn't difficult. Who will the RGs start whinging to next?
Mar 04th, 2013 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0And what would you expect an Ecuadorian ambassador to say? These South Americans do struggle with the principle of self- determination. He is right though, the decolonisation committee isn't there to deal with sovereignty disputes or put another way, Argentinas tantrums!
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Ecuadorian is government is left wing and very sypathetic towards Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Argentina. Therefore, C24 Presiedent is hardly an unbiased observer of the Falklands situation. Interestingly, neither he or any other members of C24 have taken up the opportunity offered to them by the Falklands Government to visit the islands and see for themselves what the situation is....of course not, because the committee is farce.....this Committee features many second/3rd world countries, who no doubt see this committee as a good opportunity to grind a few axes.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's a question for the Decoloisation Committee, why are French Guiana (about the size of Portugal), Melilla and Cueta (Spanish posssessions on the Moroccan coast), Greenland (similar to the Falklands, with its own government, but Denmark still responsible for defence and foreign affairs), Wesy Irian/West Papua (the UN process that handed it to Indonesia in 1969 was a farce) or Tibet (invaded by China in 1959) not on that list for example if this committee is so very serious about decolonisation issues.
Furthermore the issue should not even exist because the Falklands are British, and that is how the Canadians (for one example) looks at the issue, as such it should be expressed and defined permanently
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chairman says,
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I think that the people that live in the Islands can do whatever they wish. They have that right and it can’t be denied.“
and
” And when the issue refers to sovereignty, the Decolonization Committee has nothing to do or even suggest.“
and'
” if the Malvinas are Argentine, and that is how Ecuador looks at the issue, “ - NOT ”how the C24 views it“
That's the C24 out of the picture then.
In other words,” Argentina, stop complaining to us to do something.”
It's clear what he is saying, but not clear to me what the immediate practical outcome will be. Does this mean the FIs are coming off the list and thus he is he attempting to limit the damage to Argentina by saying it makes no difference anyway? Or is he saying that it's Britain's fault they are on and there is no mechanism for removing them and so until sovereignty is resolved they stay on?
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You just know that the Malvinistas and CFK are simply going to hail the chair of the C24 for stating that the Falklands are not an issue of self determination but one of sovereignty.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0They'll be three wise monkeys to the rest of it.
Is this a statement issued by the C24 or a personal statement from Ambassador Morejón Pazmiño ????
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0the UN Decolonisation Committee has failed at its only job with regards to the falklands according to http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/questions_answers.shtml
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“
Members of the Committee will need to meet with representatives of the Territory and of the administering Power to discuss the current constitutional status of the Territory and understand what the people would want to do.
Following these consultations, a study could be done on the options for self-determination in which the implications of each option will be explained in detail for the clear understanding of the people of a Territory.
Working closely together, the Committee of 24, representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territory and the administering Power will work out the steps towards an act of self-determination.
At the same time, the Committee of 24 together with representatives of the Territory and the administering Power will develop a public information programme on all the options and their implications.
The United Nations will help the Non-Self-Governing Territory to implement the act of self-determination.”
thats there only job, Failed Epicly
Well then seeing as C24 is the decolonisation committee and not the de-sovereignty commission and its impartial president states it has nothing to do with them I assume that FI will be off the C24 list after the referendum.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0This bit is very interesting:
”Furthermore the issue should not even exist because if the Malvinas are Argentine, and that is how Ecuador looks at the issue, as such it should be expressed and defined permanently”.
Note that at this point he is not speaking for C24 or even the UN. Here he implicitly speaks for Ecuador.
@6 redrow
Mar 04th, 2013 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0This could be a face saving for argentina, I agree. Why hasn't this idiot said this stuff before now, considering he is into his second term of office. This is all about strange.
This ambassador is no expert in the falklands because to agree with Argentina is to trust in blind faith and not fact, international law and the UN.
Quite right - not a C24 issue then ??
Mar 04th, 2013 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0So it should be removed from the C24's list??
What'll they have to talk about then ??
His interview from last year is a real eye opener.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://tiempo.infonews.com/2012/10/08/argentina-87812-los-ingleses-no-tienen-argumentos-para-evitar-el-dialogo-por-malvinas.php
“...it's likely that they asked a visit of the Committee, but it's something on my watch as chairman on the Committee is not going to give.
- Why?
-We would be recognizing the existence of a settlement. Recognizing that there are a people who want self-determination.”
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/biased-statements-by-the-c24s-chairman-over-the-falklands/
Mar 04th, 2013 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is Argentina getting worried ??
@14 - They are, and Diego is also trying to square the circle on the inherent contradiction in the C24's purpose (and failure in progress) that Ban Ki-moon's comments expose vis-a-vis the FI's; how can they be pushing for all these territories to be self-determining, but then deny a territory self-determination.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do believe the end game is upon us.
Ladies and gentlemen of the armed forces defending the FI's, please be prepared to switch radar and sonar in to 'active' mode, as our neighbour's desperation is reaching fever pitch.
Diddles (#3) sees that the Tibet and China invasion and take-over has reasons for consideration by the UNC24.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0But just because it happened in recent time does not make it different to the UK that was invaded and taken over by the 'French' 10 centuries earlier.... and 'Italians', and 'Germans', and ... before that.
I guess everything calms down in time, and invaders breed their way to becoming indiginants.
Similarly, in another millenium, the foreigners that have taken over most of the Americas will themselves become the indiginants. By a mixture of cross-breeding, reservification and extermination.
What makes an American (Ar, Br, TFI, US, ..) indiginant?
1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, .... European (Sp, Po, Br, Ger, ..) DNA?
This is the REAL issue for the UNC24 ... what to do and say about THESE Continental foreigners during the next millenium.
Or is the elephant just too big for the room?
The C24 has nothing to do with the “sovereignty dispute”, therefore CFK should NEVER have been permitted to present Argentinas “case” or afforded the platform for her rant. Thanks Diego for clarification.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 is based on decolonization. So, from their perspective the ten British “colonies” have to be assessed as decolonized to come of the list.
To me this could be achieved in only 2 ways:
1) The island groups become a seperate UK constituency and vote as UK citizens in the general election. Either as a new Constituency akin to
“Na h-Eileanan an Iar” with an electorate of 21,000. This was the French model.
2) The self-governing status is recognised as sufficient and referenda in each territory identifies it as the will of the people,
Job done...on 10 of 16.
If the UN wants to set up a NEW commitee for sovereignty disputes, they can go ahead.
Please put the West Bank and Gaza, Kashmir, Tibet, South Ossetia, Nagorno kharabakh etc etc on the list
Good Luck with those
south american dribble for a south american audience, nothing more.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0so when are the indigenous tribes robbed of their land in south america going to get some justice??
“C24” - you can put a bow on a pile of sh*t, but its still a pile of sh*t....
SELF-DETERMINATION.....
HE SHOULD MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT HIS STATEMENT IS MADE AS A PRIVATE ECUADOREAN CITIZEN. AS CHAIRMAN OF A UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE - ALBEIT A TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL ENTITY - HE SHOULD MAKE NO STATEMENTS OF THIS NATURE.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0This guys a bloody idiot. He clearly contradicts himself.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ban Ki Moon sees this as well with his recent criticisms of the C24; as it is clearly becoming irrelevant and increasingly ignored by most countries.
Honestly who cares if the Islands are on their list? This list doesn't actually mean anything anymore.
“representing a country that murders its own people in the tens of thousands does not disqualify you”
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?q=node/103145
The UN Committee for Decolonisation is totally discredited. With very few exceptions its members are hypocritical misanthropes!
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it's now about sovereignty then it is outside of the remit of the UN as the dispute goes back to before 1945.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's it....End of!
Bye bye C24!
Pazmino and the C24 committee welcomed CFK and have continued to deliberate on the falklands (and lets face it, pretty much all other territories) when its mandate is extinct!
Mar 04th, 2013 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Decolonization Committee of the United Nations is an organization very consistent and maintained his reputation in time one position in the struggle against all forms of colonialism and imperialism in the world.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations is one of the most relevant and important organs of the United Nations that works in tandem with the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice. It is widely read and respected in the world, especially for global organizations and human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, nobel peace prize, etc.. Fighting against violence, colonialism, racism and imperialism of the 21st century.
Read the following link:
“The chairman of the UN Decolonization described Mr Diego Morejon Pazmiño announcing a UK referendum on the Falkland Islands as a” political stunt “, insisting that the islanders can not appeal to the right of self-determination.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president
”Britain's position is not an administrative power, is that of an occupying power. Not administer a colony that can be claimed as an independent. That figure does not exist in C24,“ the committee chairman.
”There are two issues: self-determination and territorial integrity of States. Unable to accept a form of colonization when there is a principle of territorial integrity, which is the form applicable in the case of the Falklands,” he added.
Of the 80 Territories that existed when the Decolonization Committee was created by the UN in 1960/61, only 16 are left, most of them under British control.
Mail: face1354@hotmail.com
@25 You like it so much, bozo, you read it. I don't believe the UK recognises the C24 anymore. Perhaps I should ask.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@25. C24 is not a sovereignty body. The UN has no adjudicatory power on issues that go back to 1833. The UK took AR to the ICJ thrice and AR ran. You violated the fundemenral human rights if the islanders and binding UNSC resolutions and showed contempt for the GA non binding ones in 82 and lost a fight that YOU started. And your country celebrates those war crimes any chance they get.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no more right to Stanley than 21st century Germany has the right to Gdansk.
Give it up. And stop making your myriad of problems the Islanders problems.
You can be Chinese or Bolivian ,we don't care ,just we want the islands!!! Clarito mi amor!!!
Mar 04th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 025 Raul
Mar 04th, 2013 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again, for about the sixth time with the same mantra. The only resolutions issued by the UN that are enforceable, emanate from the Security Council, the rest are advisements. Hence, they have no authority to compel compliance. The UK holds exclusive title to the Islands since before 1982, under the legal doctrine of extinct prescription. Due to Argentines failure to submit her dubious claim to a competent legal body for consideration. So the issue of “territorial integrity” is finished, and therefor under the ICJ precedents the Islanders are entitled to self-determination. This is further supported by Argentine acquiescence, in failing to legally challenge the referendum. Thus, giving tacit acceptance.
Another useless UN org that should have it's funding withheld by USA/UK. Let those pols work for free or it can wither away and die.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my opinion the USA should withhold all funds from the UN and kick them out of USA. It does no good and costs a lot of $ for nothing.
Shouldn't the chair of the UN c24 be an impartial person not a biast one?
Mar 04th, 2013 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To misquote Churchill:
Mar 04th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think this is the end of the beginning and possible the end.
Ambassador Morejon Pazmiño is a moron
Mar 04th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28 You can't have them. Is that clear enough? Shall I say it louder? YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM! They aren't yours, they never have been yours and they never will be yours. You want some Islands in the South Atlantic? Go build some. There's enough crap in argieland!
Mar 04th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it a day for Isolde to be Conq.?
Mar 04th, 2013 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's no relevance in this to the referendum; self-determination is for the Islanders to decide and then for the UN to accept. This article is waffle.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fartbury and KFC de pollo
Mar 04th, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just want the islands? Well you cant have them while the inhabitants dont wish so as determined in a free referendum. If you in the unlikely event you ever get them, who is next on your want list?
Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia or Peru?
@35
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0good bye sussie
Truly shocking words from the chairman of a UN body...
Mar 04th, 2013 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0' Furthermore the issue should not even exist because if the Malvinas are Argentine, and that is how Ecuador looks at the issue, as such it should be expressed and defined permanently”.'
I'm guessing Morejón has forgotten about what the resolution 2065 actually says...
UN Resolution 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965, calls on Argentina and Britain to seek a peaceful solution to the Falklands issue within the framework of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. Section 2 of Resolution 1514 is clear: “all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
What an idiot this guy is, should the chairman of the C24 really be a spokesperson for the Bolivarian alliance!
Hopefully this will seal the fate of this discredited corrupt committee. I really hope ALL the BOTs will boycott the corrupt C24 circus.
@25 Raul
How many times will I have to explain this to you...
Self-determination overrides any Territorial Integrity claim, fact…
Please take a look at the following documentation from the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)
'By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right.’
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
C24 president insists Falklands dispute is over sovereignty,
Mar 04th, 2013 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok ok ok,
Put it this way fool,
Tell us why you should have sovereignty,
And why you as a dictatorship have the right to own it.
In over 150 years, and many decades past this,
The islands have been British,
The people wish to remain British,
The British have run and administered the islands for over 150 years,
The people who have lived there are British decent,
We have defended the islands and spilled blood for them,
As far as we can see, all you have done is illegally invaded these islands,
Deliberately and directly caused the deaths of over 600 innocent lives for your own greed,
These islands were unarmed peaceful and no danger to anyone,
But this did not stop you from your actions,
In the last 30 years, instead of persuading the people that you were sorry and trying everything to put right, what your dictators did wrong,
You have your selves turned into a tyrannical dictatorship,
You have deliberately and maliciously.
Threatened and abused, intimidated harassed and blockaded them,
You have called them everything from vagabonds to pirates,
And we could go on and on,
But the facts are, you have no interest in the people or the islands,
The real reason is that you have totally fucked and ruined your own country,
And now want the wealth that sits under the Falklands,
You are in fact, not trustworthy to have the Falklands,
So fxck of and leave em alone.
Or pay the price.
mmmmmm
He is directly contradicting Ban-Ki Moon’s recent statements “the right of all people to self-determination”, even naming all 16 territories including the Falklands.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think that the people that live in the Islands can do whatever they wish”.
Except decide their own future that is.
“The discussion is not self-determination but sovereignty”
The only discussion for the C24 is self-determination, that is the committee’s only purpose.
Looks like an attempt to shift the issue away from human rights where (He has realised if Argentina has not) Argentina is never going to win, to a simple sovereignty dispute with nothing more involved.
Argentina pretends the Islanders don’t exist, he is now trying to pretend their rights don’t exist.
He is right about the committee “doing nothing” as usual, never mind what they are supposed to.
Sooner rather than later Mr Moon is going to have to deal with this, given his consistent position on the issue, I don’t expect the C24 continue in its present form too much longer.
Time for the peoples of the listed territories to make their voices heard, and bang in the last nail of the C24’s coffin lid.
C24
Mar 04th, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0should now be abolished,
PLEASE, TELL US SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
Mar 04th, 2013 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What president morejon pazmiño is saying isn't new in absolut, actually it has been the posture of the u. n. since 1946.
Anyway, it was obvious that some people were going to invalid what he said, because his expressions don't coincid with what they want to hear.
However, beyond everybody's wishes and opinions, there is something which is much more important, i mean the facts.
Although a lot of peope in this forum, or in the u. k., or in the islands, or in the mainland, where we have some sepoys who love defending their decadent british empire, the malvinas cause has always been considered like a special colonial situation, and self determination has never been invoked for this case, in any of the resolutions that refer to the malvinas-falkland cause.
In fact, if this case had been a case of self determination, the united nations would have invoked that principle for the population from the islands many years ago, like it did for other colonial situations.
I think more than ever that it's necesary to determine wether self determination should be applied or not for this case, in order to finish once and for all with this dispute, and the only one way to know it, is taking the case to the i. c. j.
Many of you know that i have said in planty of oportunities that arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, between 1884-1888, which was rejected by the u. k. And in 1947 the u. k. manifested arg. that it would be disposed to take the question of the dependencies (south georgia and sandwich) to the i. c. j, but it didn't include the malvinas-falklands in the proposal. The point is that after 1947, none of the two nations proposed to take the question to that institution again.
In my opinion, i think that if none of the two nations decided to give that step, is because perhaps neather arg., nor the u. k. are sure of getting a positive result.
Malvinas belong to Argentina.
Mar 05th, 2013 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK will lose.
Don't try and fight the facts.
“I think that the people that live in the Islands can do whatever they wish. They have that right and it can’t be denied. But nevertheless the discussion is not self determination but sovereignty over the Islands according to the UN documentation”
Mar 05th, 2013 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that clear, okupas?
45 José Malvinero
Mar 05th, 2013 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Legally Argentina lost any claim to sovereignty before 1982, under the doctrine of extinct prescription. Her failure to place her claim before a competent court, in a timely manner has now lost her right to any legal claim. So through her own neglect they are now irrevocably ceded to the UK for petuity. So all the resolutions cannot repeal the effect of international law as they are only advisements.
46
Mar 05th, 2013 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0It yes, ignorant? If you say it. Prescription Only plays against Britain left the island Trinidad in 1774, as everyone knows. Only place that the pirates had occupied. So back to ALL pretend Malvinas Islands in 1833 after 59 years generated automatically prescription against ALLEGED rights that could have England.
The United nations and Decolonization.
Mar 05th, 2013 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Questions and Answers
”7. What is the best option?
Whichever option the people of each Non-Self-Governing Territory freely elect, once they understand the possibilities and the special characteristics of their homeland.
8. Can your homeland stay the way it is right now, if that is what the people want?
The mandate of the Committee of 24 is based on the principle that the result of the decolonization process would be one of the three above mentioned options (free association, integration with an independent State or independence).
However, in 1970, a legal committee of the General Assembly adopted a declaration in which it is stated that, in addition to these three options, the emergence into any other political status, as long as it is freely determined by a people, can also be considered a way of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/questions_answers.shtml
We need sombody to read this out loud in Spanish to C24 president Pazmiño.
@45
Mar 05th, 2013 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jose, you're dead right. Absolutely. It is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear that the Falklands conflict is none of the C24's business. As the Chairman has so clearly pointed out, the only business of the C24 is the political relationship between the islands and the administering power, a question which is about to be settled by the referendum. Is that clear enough?
... another ecuadorian counting to potato again, I see.
Mar 05th, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kind of makes you laugh when people start doing things outside of the C24 because it's just so frightfully inept and biased.
@44
Mar 06th, 2013 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Don't try and fight the facts”
Correct.
UK claimed the Falklands in 1690.
UK settled in 1765
Argentina formed 1853.
Go figure the maths.
39 Steve-33-uk
Mar 06th, 2013 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're wrong. I read your link. The article does not deny the principle of territorial integrity
How many times I have to explain this to you?
The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
43 axel arg
Excellent analysis. As the study deepens the Falklands conflict is more apparent, the Argentine claim justice.
“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
Another convincing demonstration that Ban Ki-moon is against English colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century. Facts have proved itself.
Of the 16 cases of colonialism in the world, 10 are generated by the UK.
Read the following link:
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/01/ban-ki-moon-calls-for-a-more-inclusive-dialogue-on-decolonization
49 HansNiesund
Why do you lie so much? That's incredible. You have eyes and not want to see. It is perfectly clear that the Falklands conflict is a matter of c24.
It is very obvious that you do not like the resolution 2065 and the resolutions of the committee of United Nations decolonization.
Raul,
Mar 06th, 2013 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0You and Axel spout the same things over and over again, the same points that have been refuted before.
Give up. The C24 have washed their hands of this, and the UK has sovereignty.
The Islanders will vote YES to accept this formally and publicly.
Nobody is listening to you anymore.
To misquote Bruce Cockburn, “if a tree fell on Crissy Kirchner, would anybody care?”
52 Raul
Mar 06th, 2013 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The term “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” is an expression of a post 1945 enactment and is therefor inapplicable to the Islands. As this would be an attempt to lever retroactive law onto a situation that occurred in 1833, which is barred under international law.
'...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...'
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
Raul is stuck in a logic loop. Everyday is Groudhog day.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TROY TOMPEST. RAUL.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RAUL: Thank you. But in reference to ban ki moon's opinion, respecting the malvinas-falkland dipsute, i recommend you to search on line, the interview that he gave for tiempo argentino. In my opinion 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 territores can get their independence, however, when he was asked about this dispute, he said that he was very worried about the verbal escalation between both nations, and said also that he had the hope that arg. and the u. k. solve this question by mean a dialogue. But he didn't include the govt. from the islands in that dialogue, beside, he didn't say absolutly anything about the application of the right to self determination for this case. It's important to signalize all this, because there are many people in this forum who reply partially what ban ki moon said.
TROY: You repeat the same over and over the same too. But as i told you in other oportunities, everybody have right to think whatever they want, however there is nothing more important than the facts, and accept them or not, the facts show what i said in my comment 43.
Perhaps the day that you decide to make a serious analysis, you'll realize that this cause is much more complicated than the tipical mediocre and partial analysis that you and many of your compatriots usually express. Like it or not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations. Meantime, you and some of your compatriots can continue invaliding what the president from the decolonization committee said respecting this dispute, it just showes the lack of intellectual honesty of many of you, and low level of debate that you can give.
@56 While I respect your integrity you do seem to grunge and whinge out the same old arguments time after time ad infinitum. Perhaps the axle on your bandwaggon needs a bit of grease. Have a chat with your friend who doesnt agree with you
Mar 06th, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklanders, kelpers, bennies or whatever you want to call them will decide thier future this weekend. Which ever way the referendum goes I think you are a democrat and I hope you will respect thier democratic decision
@56 Despite what some say, nothing will be decided this weekend so there will be nothing to respect, except an opinion. We all know how little one of those is respected around here.
Mar 06th, 2013 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@56
Mar 06th, 2013 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“he didn't say absolutly anything about the application of the right to self determination for this case”
Fair enough Axel but did he catagorically, definately state that Self determination did not apply?
This is similar to when Argentina claims the USA are on their side regarding the Falkland Islands,because they do not favour the British side but in fact they do not favour either side because neutral means neutral means neutral.
In the UN Charter it does state that ALL peoples have the right to self determination. I cannot find anywhere in the UN Charter that it states All peoples except the Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-Determination????
59 Pete Bog
Mar 07th, 2013 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the United Nations Charter which states that all peoples have the right to self-determination. I can not find anywhere in the United Nations Charter states that all people except the islanders have the right to self-determination????
Bear in mind the Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” provides in sixth paragraph that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX), 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41 / 40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination.
Besides the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations is very clear in its resolutions that it is a conflict of sovereignty. No self-determination.
60 Raul
Mar 07th, 2013 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again other than the Security Council, UN resolutions are not invested with the power of international law. All that is important is who has legal sovereignty, that was ceded to the UK many moons ago by Argentine failure to make a claim in a competent court. So since UK title is recognized under international law. The Islanders right to self-determination is accorded under the ICJ rules. So UN resolutions are of no legal effect as they are simply advisements.
REDPOLL. DOVEROVERDOVER. PETE BOG.
Mar 07th, 2013 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always though that we can't take into account just what politicias say, that's why i always say that everybody have right to think whatever they want, but what always prevaill are the facts.
I have never denied that perhaps self determination might by applied for the islanders, however, if we make a serious analysis of all this hard problematic, we can't deny that the application of that right is very arguable, and i say it because of the posture of the u. n. While it is true that self determination is enshrined in the u. n's charter, it's also true that this cause has always been considered as a special colonial situation, and the u. n. have never applied that right in any of the resolutions that were expressed for this cause, as they the u. n. did for other colonial situations. In fact, what the president from the decolonization committe said this week, confirm what i think.
Respecting ban ki moon's words, i just can say that his posture is very contradictory, and we need to be smart enough in order to interpret correctly what he said.
Each case axel should be considered on its merits but its about peoples wishes of how they wish to be governed. Tokelau is on the C24 lish as being a colony of NewZealand. II think they have had two referenda and in each case gave elected to maintain thier current status with NZ
Mar 07th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The most ridiculous case is Pitcairn Island on which there are only 49 inhabitants
The island was uninhabited until taken over by pirates from HMS Bounty
I doubt that 49 people could even raise a fottball team, let alone achieve status as a notion
Lets be sensible about this
@60
Mar 07th, 2013 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul
“Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country”
The Argentine invasion of 1982 aimed to totally disrupt the territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands, so 1514 supports the Falkland Islanders
The Falkland Islands have never been totally integrated with Argentina which came into being in 1853.
The British have had a claim on the Islands since 1690, not since 1833 (or 1853 when Argentina was formed).
If you are quoting resolution 1514, you should have an idea what is in the other paragraphs which support the Falkland Islands cause.
REDPOLL.
Mar 09th, 2013 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I respect your opinion, but i think that the dispute is much more complicated.
Everybody have right to think and to feel whatever, but if we want to debate about this question seriously, we can't ignore objetive facts.
I have always had serious doubts about the application of that right for the islanders, and i base my doubts on the posture of the u. n. I already told you why i think this in my comment 62.
I know I don't come here that much, or at all really in the last few weeks, but I saw this brilliant article and thought it might be good to share with the Islanders on here as they prepare to vote... http://socialistunity.com/falkland-islanders-should-vote-no-in-referendum-on-british-sovreignty/ Btw seems from this report a Yes vote won't shift the international community on decolonisation...
Mar 10th, 2013 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0@66 fake-Brit Kirchnerist
Mar 10th, 2013 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seems that you have visited the tail end of each older thread to drop your 'stink bomb' post and spam us with this article, but I see you cannot even be bother to attempt an argument.
You are so desperate!!!
LOL!!!
VIVA THE FALKLANDS!!!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!