MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 6th 2022 - 23:36 UTC

 

 

Falkland Islands’ referendum message to Argentina: “intimidation of Islanders must cease”

Thursday, March 14th 2013 - 09:23 UTC
Full article 270 comments

The Argentine government demands to control the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the people who live there are fundamentally incompatible with modern democratic values and attempts to intimidate the Islanders must cease, said Foreign Secretary William Hague in an update to Parliament. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Think

    ”Falkland Islands’ referendum message to Argentina: “intimidation of Islanders must cease”....

    Or else?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Boovis

    Stop aid, block trade, break diplomatic relations, no more offers of talks.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    “Stop aid”
    What aid?

    “Block trade”
    Be my guest!

    “Break diplomatic relations”
    Ditto.

    “No more offers of talks”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0JDfaT4_w

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    “Or else?”

    Or else more of the world will realise that Argentina is only interested in colonising, and has no interest in the rights of humans.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce

    @1 Think

    Or else?

    We too have 'strong declarations'. Hah!

    http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/14/falkland-islands-referendum-vote-blasted-unanimously-in-both-houses-of-argentina-s-congress

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Boovis

    “What aid?” Oh, sorry, did cfk pocket it again? Tsk tsk, some people... Maybe it's in a big bag in her office? I heard that's the usual way of things there?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Or else ?

    or else you cant help yourselves and go toooooo far and get your arses kicked again

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    Anyway, apart from coming #1 in the antichrist stakes, Argentina has nothing to crow about. It's seen as a pariah state and basket case, and like the potash deal it will suffer more and more humiliations unless it changes tack. That includes sharing some of the wealth generated by Falklands oilfields. It ain't going to get anything at all (apart from another bloody nose) if it continues to try to bully the Falklanders.
    But, ... What can we expect from a Latin country so badly managed, another junta soon perhaps?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    “Or else more of the world....”
    You mean, like the CELAC, the AU, the ASEAN and 70% of the UN members?

    “Get your arses kicked”
    Teacher, teacher... Mr. English is bullying...

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Or else?

    There is no, or else?

    I expect you would like there to be.

    There isn't.

    Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Better luck next time, but don't hold your breath.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    No else?
    Just talk to the Turnips then?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    “”“Or else more of the world....”
    You mean, like the CELAC, the AU, the ASEAN and 70% of the UN members?“”“

    hang on, are these percentages and organisations by Argentine definitions or ”the real world“ definitions?

    Im thinking of things like the ”all 54 Africa countries support our claim” when only 18 of them attended and it wasnt official government policy there either.

    I mean, if you can actually point to a vote at the UN where 70% of countries openly and officially supported Argentina, good on you.

    Otherwise I have to judge your comments on your prior track-record of accuracy: which, lets be honest, is very, very poor.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • coldo

    Wither or not you like the conservative party you have to admit that Hague is a very articulate, clever and direct politician.

    The Falklands are the responsibility of the FOC and that are supported by UK in following the path they wish to follow.

    David (Falklands) and Goliath (Argentina) and a sling shot defence solution (The UK)…. I think we all know how the story ends!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    They would love an, “or else.” The ether would be full of, British Imperial Colonists, threatening peaceful loving Argentina, militarising the South Atlantic, breaching nuclear non proliferation agreements. Etc, etc, ets, so on and so on.

    Mr Timerman discovered on his last visit, Hague is too clever a politician to hand them a gift like that.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    ”They would love an, “or else.”
    No sh*t, Sherlock!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @1

    Or else we will continue to derive unconscionable amusement from your rampant self-delusion and impotent posturing.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Elementary my dear Thinkson!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Paper tigers......

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Falkland Islands

    Message for The Troll that only Thinks. we are strong and always will be, please stop the flight to Chile so no more Argentines can come to our islands. we have alternatives.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Iron Ladies............

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Rufus

    It makes me wonder, if “70% of the UN members” support Argentina, how come there hasn't been a UNGA resolution about it in nearly 25 years?

    Looking back:
    The UK hasn't been voting against Argentina whenever they try and get World Bank loans (unlike many other countries), that could quickly and easily be changed.

    Trade: this would include minor things like parts for Rolls-Royce Tyne and Olympus engines and possibly asking the French to encourage SEMT Pielstick and Snecma to do the same.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent999

    @9
    more unsubstantiated drivel as usual Herr Think

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    ...... burn fast.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Don't ask Think for proof, it won't be forthcoming.

    I too support Argentina's legitimate rights over the Falklands.... just like everyone else it seems. Including the recent declaration in Africa.

    Pity they don't have any LEGITIMATE rights!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    It HAS sent the clearest possible message to the Argentine Government, whether they chose to hear it or not. All nations in the world are aware of the message and will hereafter weigh Argentina's posturings within the unambiguous context of the declared desires of the Islands' people.

    The British Foreign Secretary, using the measured words and tone of a world statesman, advises Argentina's president and the more excitable of its people to CALM DOWN AND CARRY ON.

    As we say in a democracy .. “The people have spoken”, the people who inhabit the islands in question.
    And all exhortations to the contrary are 'hot air'.

    CFK would be advised to put muzzles on herself and her little terriers, Timerman and Castro, for their posturings and pronouncements are now seen by the world for what they are, the blusters of a frustrated nation in difficulties.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pirate Love

    Its all going down in history, how the great Argentine colonialist empire of 40 million in the 21st century took an aggressive stance against a peaceful prosperous island community of 2000 souls......and shamefully LOST!!!!...
    not only once but amazingly TWICE!!!!!
    What a legacy Argentina,what a f*cking legacy!!!
    Is argentina ever going to bring anything to the global table other than tears???

    SELF-DETERMINATION.....you like them apples???

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    Timerman can dish out lies and abuse, but if there's a sudden movement or a a a loud noise; he quickly hides under the table and then runs crying to the UN. There's no point in talking to an inherently unstable country. There's even less point in discussing idiotic territorial claims which have previously been 'resolved' by treaty and militarily. We've done all that's right, we've done all we can to “give peace a chance”.

    We talked, The government of Argentina accepted its historical misunderstanding and signed an agreement in 1850. Then went very quiet until the cowards saw Britain on the ropes in 1941, and tore up the agreement. They were obviously devastated at the tragic loss of Hitler and Mussolini, and were relatively quiet and subdued again until 1982. The good kicking we gave their junta shut their mouths for a few years. Unfortunately we were too soft with the invaders and didn't finish the job properly, though to be fair with Argentina that doesn't usually seem necessary, as left to their own devices they will usually shoot themselves in their collective foot.

    I suspect in a few years the Falkland Islands will be a completely independent nation with full UN membership. They might even be a member of Mercosur. I wonder if they could simultaneously be a member of NATO. Anything in the Mercosur rules to prevent that? Other than the obvious objections of the current nasty little clique of nationalist-socialist heads of state in that region. Soon they'll all be gone, with a bit of luck. Chávez down, just a couple more to go.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Englishmen and Women…

    Rest assured that Argentina will redouble its efforts to regain Malvinas.

    It will, of course, all be done in the most calm, serene and diplomatic way.
    Calmly hitting Mother England there where it hurts the most….

    Her purse, her wallet and her billfold.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Think

    You can quadruple your efforts if you like, it will all be to no avail. The last thirty years have flown past, the next unfortunately, will do the same. Nothing will change, except a new generation will be living on their islands.

    Here's an idea though, how about a Referendum on 10th & 11th of March, 2043.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mate in 9 moves.....

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alexei

    @28 You can't 'regain' what you never owned. The two pathetic invasions and temporary occupation by your gangs of military thugs in the 1830's and again in 1982 don't count. If you get too aggressive you will get very badly hurt again. Unless you can somehow persuade somebody else to do your fighting for you, you are completely impotent.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frank

    SFA 'calm, serene and diplomatic' in the last few years..... what will change?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Think

    Rest assured Argentina

    Britain will continue to support the Falkland islanders right to self-determination. You are crazy if you believe the financial costs to doit (minimal) are in anyway significant versus the 255 lives that were sacrificed to the same ends.

    Your quadrupled efforts will be the same shrill, ignorant rhetoric that has got you precisely nowhere for the past 30 years, and will continue not to.

    However, your quadrupled efforts, at the expensive of your far low GDP per capita, your far higher levels of poverty, your higher levels of infant mortality, your far higher levels of government corruption can continue...good luck

    Remember, so far the islands are further than ever from you, the more rhetoric, the stronger the UK resolve..so far you have George Galloway and Morrissey...LOL

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pirate Love

    ? mate in 9 moves.....Argentina has already lost they just dont wuite know it yet, lights are off everyones gone home, argentina are the only one left in the empty building crying their game......

    SELF-DETERMINATION......Check mate!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    come on guys Think is correct

    surely if CFK has collected a number of statements from countries around the world this is enough to ride rough shot over the self determination of the islanders, historical fact and let the Rg's colonise the Falklands.

    Its simple logic, like a petition get enough signatures and away we go, dam we should of tried that with Nazi Germany.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John Troll the 3rd

    My Child Mr. Hague,

    Perhaps (and I do hope myself), one day soon your trolls will be answered. The islanders will be unhindered and their homeland no longer under geo-political dispute.

    However, asking for cooperation between your government and argentines people is a bridge far too far. We do not particularly jump up and down to cooperate with a murderous (of non-Europeans), human-rights violating (of muslims), self-determination denying (of non-British) institution as yours.

    I will now troll for you my child.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Then stop asking for bilateral talks and leave the islanders alone, simples my child.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John Troll the 3rd

    I believe my child I covered that chapter in my first small paragraph.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    I don't Think, aka The Turnip In Chief, aka The Biggest Liar On MP

    The only answer to your ridiculous logic is this:

    Ha, ha, ha to the power googol (if you know what that means).

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    70% Think?? What fantasy do you live in ??

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Would you settle for 68% Mr Lorton??

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    @34 PirateLove
    Nice one.

    Well done Hague m'boy, you've shown focus and resolve in this top job. Keep the moment going and show the world that when it comes to diplomacy, we invented it.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Think #28 et seq, et al.,
    'hit them in the pocket'

    It would be more like a divorce, where both parties - and their children - are damaged beyond good sense. The only ones to benefit are the non-participants and the lawyers.
    Is 'trying to kill the opposition but dying as a nation in the process' what the man in the Argentinian street really wants?

    Argentina has effectively killed off Mercosur and the power of group trading.
    It has also killed off dealing with the EU, the largest trading bloc in the world.
    This is a 'Death Wish' strategy with Argentina's tactic being to take the UK and TFI down with them. Unfortunately for them, the UK has a much too resiliant economy. The UK will be still standing on firm ground when the economic quicksand throttles off the last gasps of this dying nation.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John Troll the 3rd

    @43

    My child, why do you speak for Argentines when you are not one yourself? Penitence, humility. I will troll for you.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (43) GeoffWard2
    How grandiloquent!

    As usually, we disagree about Mercosur...

    I see the current situation as a Brazilian-Argentinean “united front” symbiosis (Bad Cop/Good Cop) to achieve our common political social and economical objectives..
    The Neo-Cons as yourself... kicking, biting and spitting against, as usual...

    About the Malvinas Issue……
    We are not attempting to take England down!
    We couldn't achieve that…...... Not in 100 years…

    But we can strive to increase the current *P.K.C. of £50,000 ten-fold, hundred-fold, thousand-fold or even more....
    *(Per Kelper Cost)

    We can make life in them Islands so dull for that highly educated, English passport bearing, new squatter generation that they may decide to move on….

    We can plenty of things, Geoff.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @45

    £50,000 is cheap. In the end, appeasement costs more.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    @45

    Of course your new PKC..will reduce to zero come about 2020, and indeed probably start running in credit by mid 2020s...even if you could double it LOL...I'd try a new tack as trying to compete with an oil-rich Falklands on a per capita basis will make you look even more stupid than you do already.

    Lets see...80,000 barrels per day from Sealion @$100 per barrel is $8m a day. FIG get roughly 1/3 of that...I make that roughly £250,000 PKR (per kelper return), just from Sealion.

    You can make life on the islands dull for these oil-rich millionaires...PMSL...good luck

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    Ha ha ha ha... Rubbish! Communications is the only thing Argentina can affect and the new British funded airport on St Helena improves things further. You can make things a little more difficult how?

    Think, you are all hat and no cattle. All Argentina is doing is shooting itself in the foot, self harming by missing out on lucrative oil industry support business. If Argentina wishes to do that, so what, the economics of Falklands Oil and Gas makes it all very affordable for the Falklands and will pay for even stronger defence force. Argentina has been well and truly Falked, economically and politically. Slither out of that....

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @36

    What do you make of this, Your Holiness? (as in bucket)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Think, Poor poor THINK still talking shit from Europe because Argentina is not a civilised enough place to live in,nerver mind THINK perhaps one day you might feel safe enough to go back to Argentina but I can not see it being anytime soon,but do you not feel ashamed that you are forced to live in a continent that you do not really like rather than live in your homeland.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    *P.K.C. of £50,000

    piss in the ocean think,at least the Falklanders are British

    Billions in foreign aid to go through British companies
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9919320/Billions-in-foreign-aid-to-go-through-British-companies.html

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    'Argentina wants Pope to fight for Falklands - The President of Argentina has dropped a heavy hint that she wants to exploit the appointment of her country’s first Pope to push forward its claim to the Falkland Islands....'
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece

    'The head of the Catholic Church of the Falklands hopes that Bergoglio make something in the conflict - It held that there was “fast” Pope. He said he hoped to do something for the conflict of sovereignty “powered” by “political ideology”.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece

    'Pope Francis' outdated view on the Falklands is exactly why the islanders voted to stay British - Rob Burnett, who was brought up in the Falklands and now works for the Daily Mirror, says the Pontiff needs to recognise the islanders' democratic rights'
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece

    'Falkland Islanders greet election of Argentine as Pope Francis I with surprise - As parishioners readied themselves to file into St Mary's Catholic Church in Stanley this morning for a special service of thanksgiving, no-one was more surprised to find themselves waking up under a Argentinian pope than the Falkland Islands' senior priest....'
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece

    'The head of the Catholic Church of the Falklands hopes that Bergoglio make something in the conflict - It held that there was “fast” Pope. He said he hoped to do something for the conflict of sovereignty “powered” by “political ideology”...
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    Poor THINK he's fooooking so intelligent he doen't even realise Argentina receives overseas aid from The European Union and The UK what an idiot
    Here's a few example why and one reports from your Iranian froends so it must be true

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgImXt93o5Y

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgImXt93o5Y

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    Think you mean to tell me you are not living in Argentina.....or South America for that matter?

    You call the USA hypocrites......look in the mirror when you the pot calls the kettle black.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Benson

    @3 Think
    “Argentina has taken the £452million from an international aid fund heavily-backed by Britain. Over the last 12 years, we have contributed £4.66BILLION to the fund.”

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Captain Poppy Most of them don't live in Argentina they fled for a better life-sad don't you THINK

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    @52
    'Argentina wants Pope to fight for Falklands - The President of Argentina has dropped a heavy hint that she wants to exploit the appointment of her country’s first Pope to push forward its claim to the Falkland Islands....'


    A big hint
    CFK hopes Francis 'will send a message to the great powers'
    http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126307/cfk-hopes-francis-will-send-a-message-to-the-great-powers

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @stick up your junta ,And being British we will listen politely then it's business as usual

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    Pathetic they support (lol) something they do not live under.....peronism. They are not even worth a response to the nonsense they write.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    THINK never comes back and fights his coner but we saw alot of that in 1982 if you remember.It must be an Argentine thing.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    I remember 82, but only as an American. If for no other reason, don't those idiots realize there are no 2nd place prizes in war?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JohnN

    Not to mention stopping harassment of South Georgia and SSI!

    January 2013 South Georgia News and Events:

    - Further Protection In Marine Protected Areas
    - Reindeer Eradication
    - Commissioner’s Visit
    - Fishing And Shipping News
    - Director Of Fisheries Decision Upheld By Court
    - Rodent Eradication Getting Underway Again
    - Hazard Forecasting
    - Rich Life Even In Glaciers
    - Bird Island Diary
    - South Georgia Snippets
    - Dates For You Diary

    http://www.sgisland.gs/index.php/(h)South_Georgia_News_and_Events

    http://www.sgisland.gs/index.php/(h)South_Georgia_News_and_Events

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @57

    So on the one hand here's Argentina asking the Pope to intervene in favour of dialogue, and on the other convening an extraordinary session of two houses of congress to declare they're not listening.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglophile

    @63

    Apparently the new pope dislikes CFK as much as we do

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    #64 big time

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    “It will, of course, all be done in the most calm, serene and diplomatic way.”

    lmfao - Argentina are hiring somebody to represent them then?

    lolol, when has CFK been anything other than the opposite of calm, serene or diplomatic?

    Timmerman..? Castro..?

    Not a diplomat or calm, serene gene to be found amongst any of them.

    Priceless faux pas there Thinkerino! ;-0

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Though I too am an Anglophile, I don't intrinsically dislike CFK.
    I don't hate her for wearing black or trying for 'eternal youth'.
    I don't even hate her for all the disasterous things that are happening to Argentina on her watch.
    I do have, however, an immense sadness for the Argentinian people who (in my opinion) mistakenly believe that she is the best that Argentina can produce in the way of leadership.
    But it may well be that she IS the best that Argentina can produce ... and how sad is that!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ElaineB

    Do you think CFK is pissed that she and Nestor acted so arrogantly with the man now Pope? Sure she will want to swing on his coattails of success but she will have to eat some humble pie. Everyone knows about the K's battles with Bergoglio.

    She never gets it right, does she.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    It must p..s her ego off enormously, he now has more clout than she does.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Devolverislas

    “Argentina demands to control the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the people who live there”, said Headmaster William Hague and added in a threatening tone not unfamiliar to lesser nations in the world: “Attempts to intimidate the islanders must cease.” Yes, sir, three bags full, sir.
    Mr. Hague, two things:
    1) Argentina seeks only a resolution of the dispute over the sovereignty of the islands.
    2) The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account as per Resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas (1965).
    Only their interests.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    Devolverislas - catch-up old bean, we've been over this ground a few thousands times already.

    short answers:

    1) tosh
    2) tosh

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    You care to explain what the difference between wishes and interests, because from where I stand, a populations concern over who governs them, would certainly be covered by, “Their interests!”

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    Let's see the “or else” with IDB the only Int'l bank still lending to Argentina, approving loans still but not funding them...
    There's the rub
    No new trains, no new sewage/water treatment/no new hwys, bridges, Dams...and on and on until all infrastructure construction is ground to a halt.

    Then we have WB, “poverty reduction” which pays for the Jefe and Jefa payments AND the child allowance. Poof Gone too

    Do you think CFK is so mad over Vale because she was counting on the U$ BILLIONS to help with the imbalance of trade?

    How does one make up that much when you can't print it?

    Hmm do you think they'll restrict all medicines or just stick with HIV, Cancer and Diabetes to kill off the people draining the “free healthcare” system.

    Rut ro

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Devolverislas Only an idiot would negotiate with a country over sovereignty which as written into there constitution a pre determined outcome in there favour,there is no dispute over sovereignty where The UK and the Falklands are concerned.
    The resolution to the dispute was settled once and for all in 1982 when Argentina invaded a peaceful community yet still ignored United Nations resolution 502,they were removed END OF STORY.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @70: For your two things

    1) your country, in violation of binding UNSC and nonbinding UNGA resolutions, illegally invaded and imposed military dictatorship complete with secret police, illegal imprisonment of an entire civilian population and much more. Your actions permanently alienated the local population and you lost all moral sovereignty rights just as the Germany forfeited all rights to East Prussia in perpetuity.

    2) There is NO such explicit verbiage in nonbinding resolution 2065 (which your country callously threw out in 1982, see item 1). The interests and rights of the islanders must be taken into account -- unless you think that holding a gun to a civilian's head is in their “interests” as you did in 1982 and recently celebrated it with coinage. Self detrmination is a fundemental right overarching all aspects of the UN. 2065, C24 and the rest of the UN can no more override it than your fascist 80s fashion icon, Galtierri, tried. The Islanders have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable in expressing self-termination in international forums and in this referendum. They said no in a vote so overwhelming that it was clearly unnecessary if it weren't for fascist nostalgists and neocolonialists in Argentina such as yourself.

    What part of “no” don't you understand?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @28:
    Please, 'redouble' their efforts? There is nothing more argentina can peacfully do now, exept make noise.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    ARGENTINA are the only country that ignored any biding resolution, 502 in April 1982

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Foxtrot Indigo

    @75

    “demonstrated that they are capable in expressing self-termination in international forums”

    I think you meant self-determination :)

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • surfer

    Bored with Argentina and all their whining, the Falklands story is over for Argentina - jog on.

    The UK Government shouldn't waste any more time on Argentina, they used to be a threat but now barely even a minor irritation.

    All the verbal garbage that the Campora bunch post up here changes...... nothing. at. all.

    That is all ;-)

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    'Argentina's Cristina Kirchner suggests Pope Francis could mediate over Falklands - Cristina Kirchner, the Argentine president, has suggested that Jorge Bergoglio, the Argentine cardinal elected to be the new Pope Francis, will help mediate on her country's dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html

    'Pope Francis appointment gives Argentina hope in Falklands dispute - Former archbishop of Buenos Aires previously said islands were 'usurped' by Britain, but experts say he will remain neutral'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html

    'Falklands: British media urges the Pope to intercede on behalf of London
    The British press left aside criticism of Argentina over the Falkland Islands and greeted the new pope Francisco, the first High Priest of the Americas.'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html

    'A Galician lives in the Falklands and voted in the referendum'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html

    'The referendum is one “ridiculous, the Malvinas are Argentine, ” says Correa'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Foxtrot Indigo

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9922347/Falklands-referendum-islanders-wearing-Union-flags-party-on-voting-day.html

    Gotta love it :)

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John TROLLvolta

    -73-
    Not true.

    China now lends more money to LATAM than the IMF and IDB combined. Argentina being a major recipient.

    There is a new paymaster in town now.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    When Argentina can't pay they will invade and take you over. Get used to noodles and chicken feet....

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    82. Care to name the projects? I think you are seriously misinformed as usual.
    I can almost assure you that they are not loaning for poverty reduction.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John TROLLvolta

    -83-
    The UK is globally the largest recipient of China Development Bank loans ($3000 million) so you might be eating “noodles and chicken feet....” before me.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    UK love Chinese food mmmm noodles, but the national dish is Curry we just can't get enough of it.
    I thought Argentina defaulted on loans and was basically a pariah state in respects to the international money markets, but expect the rest of the world is wrong and the trolls will now spout their scripted propaganda.

    The truth will out

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John TROLLvolta

    -84-
    For your perusal:

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/quantifying-chinas-presence-in-latam/#axzz2NXwGPcYr

    http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/quantifying-chinas-presence-in-latam/#axzz2NXwGPcYr

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Make mine a number 19. 25 and 38. Hold the garlic!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @ Argentine troll-What is it with your dear lady Crissy and her governmant where if they do not get there own way they start making threats, Brazil being the most recent?? I mean you have to have good armed forces and equipment before you start trying to be top dog something Argentina is certainly not.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • John TROLLvolta

    -89-
    It's complex.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @85 Whoever TFU are

    Prove your bollocks with a definitive link of STFU.

    As usual you have misinterpreted things: mainly loans by the CDB to companies as sovereign loans to the country of the company; they are not.

    The only sovereign loans I could find are to the African States.

    They are making big loans to housing associations in San Francisco, USA, but they are not aligned with any sovereign entity as far as I can determine.

    I cannot find ANY CDB loans to any western government, including the UK.

    Bet you can't answer this other than changing the subject.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @John TROLLvolta A good slapping down is needed, surprised your country did not learn it's lesson

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    not another troll lie surely!!!!!!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @78 Ah-yup.. Thanks, Foxy! (I blame tiny print, A new retina display and a spellchecker written by Las Camporas ;-)

    (The self-termination and self-dectructive behavior however seems to be the Argentine position in this situation, Timerman's London visit alone was just painful to watch).

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    intimidation of Islanders must cease”

    who says so,
    you speak big words, but will you , can you back those words up with action if they don’t stop,

    for it seems very few others back you,
    so we must back it up ourselves.

    Poor CFK close, but not close enough.lol.
    .

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    Troll, Interesting article but doesn't prove you point, for some reason Rgs, who are not a smart people. seem to think “INTERESTED”in“ ”in talks with” regarding an investment isn't actually doing the investment.
    and
    BTW cleaning the Riachelou and buying the railway equipment was supposed to be financed with IDB money that Argentina will never ever see.

    You are grossly misinformed as usual, maybe misinformed is really just dumb. One wonders.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    http://www.gertzresslerhigh.org/ourpages/auto/2009/1/28/37160780/Argentina.pdf

    interesting read, slightly off topic but doesn't stop our many troll friends posting obscure threads

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    80 Steve-33-uk

    You see? For KFC this is now a religous crusade. She has got a local lad in the Vatican and he is God's right hand man on Earth. Now, when things are going badly for her, she just needs to pick up the hot line to him and dial-a-prayer.

    If the British don't play things her way then she will get her home boy in the V to have us all smited!!!

    Look out Falklands!! KFC is coming!! and God is her co-pilot!!!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    30,000
    And probably more,

    Just make these argie troll hypercrits does it not.
    .

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    Yep it does, and they live in a predominately white European population in Argentina where only 3 percent are of native or mixed ethnicity, and they are not an implanted population????? Jajajaj

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    Homer Hague Simpson forgot to take the pills, I read

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • physiwg

    Ah yes, with the worlds fourth largest nuclear arsenal backing them, the islanders feel “intimidation”. Right. Whatever. What amazes me is that I could actually dislike something more than CFK. That would be the goose stepping brit trolls on this site. Google: UK debt biggest in the world. Can´t wait for the UK crash. We´ll miss your intelligent comments when you can´t pay for your internet service.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    Fancy you cannot use those expensive nuclear toys without your Master permission, the USA or did you forget Suez. You just lapdogs, barely.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    Haha Ha Arg Trols breeding fast, loada shit continus. Slumland Arg now pufed up with Papa. Load boloks! Like Delhi, stinking dump

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    102 Pesky Army

    Like I said “Nothing to say”

    103 physiwg

    UK debt is the biggest in the world you say? What?? bigger than the US debt?? wow!!! Tell you what try engaging your brain next time. just spouting c**p like that makes everyone think you're a retard.

    104 Pesky Army

    It's no good just making noise petal. You have to actually say something.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    103 104 same one trol. Big puss boil on nose, speak from rong ole

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @105 Faz smocking crack is no good for your brains. I can barely understand you...

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    107 Faz

    I know, I know!!! but I can play with the troll for a while can't I???

    I promise to put it back when I'm finished............

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    PA Troll Es esto mejor Dumbkopf , you shit trol tipcahl Arg Eres el nuevo Papa?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    'Loud and clear - The islanders seek to sway world opinion by voting to stay British'
    http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21573581-islanders-seek-sway-world-opinion-voting-stay-british-loud-and-clear

    'Will an Argentine Pope raise hell over the Falklands?' http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21573581-islanders-seek-sway-world-opinion-voting-stay-british-loud-and-clear

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    108 Pesky Army

    “Faz smocking crack is no good for your brains”

    Yeah, Faz is making no sense at all, where as you are a regular William Shakespeare arn't you????????

    Clown

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @104

    In that case, what's your Gollumesque Foreign Minister so scared of?

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Santa Fe

    104...still managed to turf Argentina off the Falklands
    I do agree we are a lapdog of US, but are you not a little jealous of our mighty nuclear submarines. Don't think we have an American captain on the submerged vessels whilst continuously at sea, most of the time submerged, unless they have a big red auto destruct button like in the movies!!!

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    Shakespear v good Timerman diplomat desastr Arg prattt Yes, look lik gollum spk lik gollum, probablshit lik gollum. Her hated in Arg

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    @82 and 87 Nostrils

    “China now lends more money to LATAM than the IMF and IDB combined. Argentina being a major recipient.

    There is a new paymaster in town now.”

    Interesting that you used the term PAYMASTER. Also interesting that you used a FT Beyond Brics Blog post to back it up.

    I found this recent article by the FT much much more interesting:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/562692b0-898c-11e2-ad3f-00144feabdc0.html

    Written by Lamido Sanusi, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Some of my favourite quotes are:
    “The British went to Africa and India to secure raw materials and markets. Africa is now willingly opening itself up to a new form of imperialism.”
    “China is…. capable of the same forms of exploitation as the west.”
    “[China] is a significant contributor to Africa's deindustrialisation and underdevelopment.”

    So now Argentina is becoming a colony of China! Congratulations. You must be so proud.

    After all the whinging and whining and castigation of the UK acting like an Empire and South America needing to rid itself of any colonial relics….. along comes a new “paymaster”.

    Congatulations:
    Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory in name
    Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory in reality.
    Argentina - Republic in name.
    Argentina - Chinese Colony in reality.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    The nice thing about China becoming your new Overlord is that if you default on any of the loans they are ALMOST GOING TO MAKE they will just take payment in SOY.
    At least they'll get their $ without a decade in courts.
    Psst...they don't care about the rule of law either.
    C.R.U.S.H.
    just ask Africa, the rest of the Axis of South America and don't forget Iran.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    sussy
    one in the hand equals two of the wrist,
    is this not your line.

    poor microlight.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    Ha ha, the last paragraph says it all.:
    “Since the UK has significantly Interests in the region, with high potential for future Economic Growth,” That I am confident this partnership and cooperation Increased With The Countries of Latin America is consistent with Our desire to Ensure That the Interests and wishes of the Falkland Islanders are respected and protected “.
    Yes! Mr. William, understand exactly what he meant, scoundrel: ”We organize our theater (referendum) to give a veneer of legality to our presence there given that which is absolutely unjustified in the eyes of the whole world, especially Latin America.” Speak clearly, secretary.

    Mar 14th, 2013 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    We have good trade with south America
    In the last year our exports with Brazil, Mexico and Colombia is doing good UK exports to these countries have increased by 15%, 11% and 30% respectively

    Just done a big deal with Brazil,
    Yep we don’t do to badly, and we intend to do more trade,
    Says our government,

    Do doubt , CFK and her new halo, will try the spanner in the works.job..

    .

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ricardito

    Hi,
    I always wanted to have a chat with a friendly person from the islands, I always wanted to know what is like to live the in the islands, understand the culture and so on.
    The few things I know is due to the few information we have from our media.
    I am Argentinian, that is why I would like to talk with a friendly person without any prejudices.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @José Malvinero, Here my friend take a look beautiful new ships The UK is building for our South American partner Brazil,now tell me what does Argentina have to offer SOY what a joke, South American unity at its best

    http://navaltoday.com/2013/03/12/new-brazilian-navy-ship-departs-uk/

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 70 Devolverislas

    “The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account ... Only their interests”

    Answer me this:
    If they were to become an Argentine colony, how are their interests taken in to account when they have overwhelmingly decided to stay a British Overseas Territory?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Ricardito All The Islanders are friendly pitty the same can not be said about your lady president The Botox Queen dam she's one ugly bird never looks to clean to me either.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 85 John TROLLvolta

    ”The UK is globally the largest recipient of China Development Bank loans ($3000 million)”

    $3000 million may sound like a lot to you, but it is only three billion dollars or two billion punds - a days spending.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Raven

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ricardito

    @andy65. Thank you. It is very good to know that.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • expbrit

    This is a very disturbing article.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/03/201331313434142322.html

    How could it possibly be in the best interests of ANYONE to live under the control of a country that inflicts such suffering on the most vulnerable members of it's population?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    It cost 0.2% of the defence budget to defend the falkands.
    For that we receive a constant harvest of agentine tears of impotant rage.
    Delicous wirg chicken:)

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faulconbridge

    Actually, it's the Falklands Islands and their inhabiants who intimidate Argentina. The existence afew hundred miles away of a couple of thousand people who persistently reject Argentine traditions and the Argentine way of life are an affront which cannot be tolerated. It suggeststhere may be something unsatisfactory about Argentina.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    @128 Expbrit
    Well spotted.

    So here it is again for Argentine Posters:

    www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/03/201331313434142322.html

    Argentine birth defects, number 1 killer of children under 1 year old in Cordoba region. 100 times national miscarriage rate in village 'Malvinas Argentinas'... argentine posters, you guys should be worrying about your poisoned homeland instread of trying to steel someone elses.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Doveoverdover

    @130 The residents of Calais do the same for me but on a clear day I can actually see their town from the window of the RBL and out beyond the cruise ships tied up alongside at the Western Dock.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CaptainSilver

    #121 I expect someone will be delighted to chat to you. I am British, in England and all we want is peace and friendship but the trolls on here make that very difficult. I have been to the Falklands and it feels very British , quiet, peaceful and friendly. Except, on the beach there are Penguins! The total population is less than my village here in Oxfordshire. There are pubs, hotels and the shops sell things you would find in our village shops. Everywhere is very ordered and tidy with no litter or rubbish on the street. There are no grand buildings except perhaps the Cathedral which is quite plain like an English church. The countryside is quite rocky and night what we would term moorland. It's windy , often raining withow temperatures. Ask some more questions I am sure you will get answers. Best Wishes from England

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-33-uk

    'The British, key military in the economic development of the Falklands -PUERTO ARGENTINO- military presence and economic development go hand in hand in the Falkland Islands. It is impossible to think of the rise of fishing, oil and other activities in the future without the logistical support of the British Defense. The military have become an essential gear for security and pocket the malvinenses.'
    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1563296-los-militares-britanicos-clave-en-el-desarrollo-economico-de-malvinas

    'Argentina urges Pope to help win back Falklands
    CONTROVERSY hit the new Pope yesterday as it emerged he had described Britain as “usurpers” in the Falkland Islands.'
    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1563296-los-militares-britanicos-clave-en-el-desarrollo-economico-de-malvinas

    'Obama ‘loyalty’ criticised'
    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1563296-los-militares-britanicos-clave-en-el-desarrollo-economico-de-malvinas

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    So the Pope is a Malvinista, well so much for papal infalability. So the bloke hoping for a seat on the top table next to Jesus is a Malvinista. And it turns out that the Pope only became a priest because his advances to a woman were spurned. Surely he should have run off to join the French Foreign Legion...

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    Poor old Homer, he tried to tell the world that malvinas was british and right on the next day...An Argentinean Pope was chosen LMAO. Anyone listening???? LOL

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    Given that the Pope is infallible he surely must be RIGHT about the falklands belonging to Argentina and all the British Catholics should reject any national feeling and immediately call for the transfer of sovereignty in prepare for the repeatedly discussed richly described ethnic cleansing of the land.

    That in some way explains why I'm not a catholic.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    70 Devolverislas
    2) The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account
    Only their interests,
    We promise , we swear , says CFK,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    OK
    Falklanders what is your interests,

    Our interests are to live in peace and remain British.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    CFK
    No we don’t accept that, we wont accept that,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    But you promised , you swore you would put our interests first,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    CFK
    Fxck off, if your interests are not argentine, then you have no interests and thus we don’t have to promise nothing,

    Would you trust the promises of an ally cat..lol.

    .

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @138 You seem smart ,so tell me in your opinion whats the solution to the conflict?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    @138 There is a conflict? Where?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @140 Grow a pair of some and answer the question...

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    @141 Syrian conflict? You need to be more specific before people can answer your ambiguous questions.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    141 Pesky Army

    What conflict? The one with TMBOA screaming lies to any poor foreigner who will listen to the shit?

    That's not a conflict! If TMBOA ever tries another 'landing' on the Islands then that will be a real conflict but it won't last very long.

    We will kick your arses to death BEFORE you even get anywhere near them AND then we will obliterate most of your governmental infrastructure to ensure it will take generations before you pester the Islands again.

    No conflict there then.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    No balls...I see

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    @144 Well if you're looking at photos of testicles on the internet, that's up to you. Whatever lights your candle.

    So I give up, which conflict were you talking about?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    And yet still No balls...

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    @146 ...and yet, still no conflict.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Pesky Army, There is no conflict.there was in 1982 when Argentina illegaly invaded The falkland Islands and even though The United Nations told them to get out VIA resolution 502 which they chose to ignore to there cost-the rest is history

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    andy you invaded the islands first in 1833, selective memory you have mate...Maybe is it because you are reaching the 50's? Watch out for Alzheimer..

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    @149 No one invaded, there was no fighting. HMS Clio just pulled down some rag and returned right and correct flag on the flagpole. Argentina (yes it existed in 1850) signed up to our rightful ownership of the islands in 1850. Even your own maps showed the islands as being non-argentine.

    Can't see any conflict or invasion in that. Simply an act of reaffirming sovereignty.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Arrogantina occupied the islands in 1833 and were peacefully removed.

    Arrogantina occupied the islands in 1982 and were removed in pieces.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • andy65

    @Pesky Army, Not sure you can invade what belongs to you,talking about selective memory tell us about your European immigrant ancestors.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • you are not first

    All Brits,

    It has to be hard living in other land and finding that the world consider UK and OLD EMPIRE. I am glad you have this forum as SUPPORT GROUP. I think
    you should have a referendum and VOTE for continuing to Be
    SECOND CLASS CITIZEN IN THE WEB. You can even consider the
    the WEB as your EXTENDED TERRITORY , TOO.
    After all, you invented it as Football, Tennis, the Tea, etc. EVERYTHING
    THANK YOU FOR SHARING !!

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    There's a conflict?

    Who's winning?

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    139 Pesky Army (#)
    @138 You seem smart, so tell me in your opinion what’s the solution to the conflict?

    Well im not smart, just a genius .lol.

    Ok,my opinion,

    First of there is no conflict, the islands are British, and the inhabitants wish to remain British, [and you know this full well]

    You have no claim whatsoever, [and you know it]

    Everything you accuse us of, is a mirror translation of Argentina in part,
    [as you well know

    Argentine illegally invaded a tiny innocent unarmed peoples for no other reason than distraction from home problems, and thus directly responsible for the deaths of over 700 innocent people,
    This in turn killed of any and all false claims,

    The fact is, and has been proven many times,
    Argentina /CFK has no interest in the islands, or the people on them,
    Both could disappear under the sea tomorrow, and you would not miss them,
    You are, and we all know it,
    Just interested in what is under and around the islands, [OIL] and [MINERALS]
    Worth billions, and Argentina is billions in debt,
    You work it out,

    So what can be done,,,,

    1, argentina recognise British sovereignty
    2, agree to leave them in peace forever
    3, change your bad attitude to the islands
    4, try to become more friendly
    5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
    And then come back and ask the same question,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Argentina is ten time the size of us and fifty time the Falklands, argentina has great wealth of her own, oil and minerals, vast open plains, argentina could well and truly be one of the big 10, instead of the bottom ones,

    You have everything, but to put it simply,
    Your government is to lazy, corrupt, and greedy to explore, find , and extract all these riches, instead all CFK wants is to steal from others like the Falklands..
    Just my opinion,

    And no argentine was hurt or insulted in making this point.

    ....

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shed-time

    Who is conflicting again? I can't seem to see any conflict.

    Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • you are not first

    Briton( Sussy between us)

    1, argentina recognise British sovereignty
    2, agree to leave them in peace forever
    3, change your bad attitude to the islands
    4, try to become more friendly
    5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
    And then come back and ask the same question,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Argentina is ten time the size of us and fifty time the Falklands, argentina has great wealth of her own, oil and minerals, vast open plains, argentina could well and truly be one of the big 10, instead of the bottom ones,

    You have everything, but to put it simply,
    Your government is to lazy, corrupt, and greedy to explore, find , and extract all these riches, instead all CFK wants is to steal from others like the Falklands..

    Yes, Yes, Yes, to all my Darling I love the wig you wear for me tonight.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pirat-Hunter

    Dido british hypocrites. Our answer to that is ”the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina will not be tolerated. Thanks for the regurgitated BS but there is no need, I hear gypsies in UK get deported and the IRISH want your flag eradicated from their land how is their self determination being taken care of by brits? Do us all a favor and fix your home before squatting in Argentina and trashing our country.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • BritishguyfromLondon

    @158 The Gypsies of Basildon were moved as they were building on the land without planning permission, and were deliberately making the lives of the people around them a misery with constant harrassment and verbal abuse. The Irish people in the Republic of Ireland want Northern Ireland back, but as for the Irish people in Northern Ireland (y'know, the Irish people who actually matter in this dispute), a majority of them want to be part of Great Britain. I fail to see how Britain is trashing Argentina when at the moment no part of Argentina's sovereign territory is being occupied by British forces. As for regurgitated BS, I think you need to take a look in the mirror there my friend. All in all, I think it's safe to say that your entire post is utter rubbish. Good day to you sir.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    Prat-Junta is back folks.

    Hey Prat, been in hiding from the Canadian authorities who want to get hold of you for all the bad mouthing of the peace loving legally abiding people in the Falklands?

    I think castration might be in order but I seriously doubt if they could find any balls on you.

    Still after the nuclear weapons 100% argie shit made then I suppose.

    I have to admit to missing your posts, they are SO funny.

    Keep up the crap work! Oh sorry, you don't work do you?

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    piss hunter.......do us North Americans a favor, if you are argentine as you pretend you are, go back home and stop squatting in Canada.......the USA AND Canada will appreciate your rapid departure.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @155
    Thank you for your polite repply. Now, and briefly because I don´t have much time.
    Regarding our claims no one here can explain the 1825 treaty and the 1776-1833 gap.
    Furthermore, regarding Britain´s sovereignty, please read a letter dated in 1829 which belonged to the Duke of Wellington

    http://www.archives.soton.ac.uk/wellington/results.php?count=2
    DOC REF=WP1/1036/14
    “I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Enmont [Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.

    If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly [f.1v] every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port Enmont is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable to avoid such acts.”...
    1, argentina recognise British sovereignty (Not According to Wellington)
    2, agree to leave them in peace forever (No problem with the people)
    3, change your bad attitude to the islands (????)
    4, try to become more friendly (You mean like in 1960's and 1970's..Sorry didn't work once)
    5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
    And then come back and ask the same question, (I can tell you just the same)
    Kind Regards

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    We have covered this ground before.

    The nub of it, including the Argentine sources, fills almost 6 000 characters and thus needs 3 postings.

    The Falkland Islands were ceded to Britain by Argentina in the 1850 peace treaty (“Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, …”). Signed in Buenos Aires 24 November 1849 and ratified 15 May 1850.

    “VII. Under this convention perfect friendship between her Britannic Majesty’s government and the government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”

    2. Presidente de La Republica Argentina Bartolomé Mitre al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1865:

    “there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments.”

    3. Vicepresidente de la Republica Argentina Marcos Paz al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1866:

    “The British Government ...for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”

    4. Presidente de La Republica Domingo Faustino Sarmiento al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1869:

    “The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”

    So: Only one dispute, British (merchant’s) losses. No dispute between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands.

    Commencing 1833 and through December 1849, Buenos Aires regularly and officially protested British sovereignity in diplomatic letters and in the “Message to Congress”. When the peace treaty was ratified in 1850 the Argentine protests stopped.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steveu

    @163 and, of course, the protests from Argentina didn't start in earnest until 1941 - some ninety years later. On ground of prescription alone the islanders have possession. If I had an old house which had been in the family for 100 years and some bloke knocked on the door without a court order and told me the house was his due to a dispute over 100 years ago and we had to get out despite our having a legal document indicating the dispute was settled, I think he would get short shrift!

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @163 Dear John
    The Southern/Arana Convention states the following:

    Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, animated by the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata, thereby giving a proof of its conciliatory sentiments....

    VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.

    It never mentions the islands simple because it clearly refers to the Anglo-French blockade (Art.I). This was conveniently forgotten by “Gettin-it right” (I assume you are just copying and pasting).
    Art VII ....its former state of good understanding and cordiality, refers to the situation previous to the blockade not to 1833, since this was the reason the treaty was signed.
    The citations you are quoting next have no legal value since though there was a dispute for the islands, the relationship between the two nations were very cordial.
    “When the peace treaty was ratified in 1850 the Argentine protests stopped.” Not true, Gettin-it right mentions Ricardo´s Napp book but “again forgets” to quote p.450 p.451. It reads as follows:
    “Pertenecen al territorio de la Patagonia las Islas Malvinas o Falckland, de que, contra todo derecho, esta posesionada la Inglaterra desde el año 1833… …El Gobierno Argentino tuvo que limitarse a una protesta en toda forma, entregada en el acto al representante ingles en Buenos Aires que, algunos meses después fue repetida en Londres ante el Gobierno Británico por el enviado Argentino, y por mas que este paso no haya producido consecuencias practicas, ha servido, sin embargo, para resguardar nuestro buen derecho......

    Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    165 Pesky Armless
    “Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?”

    Yes, and I bid a T45 and a nuclear armed sub.

    Game, set and match to us over the cinder-block that would be argieland?

    See, you have me behaving just like an argie!

    LMFAO

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @166 Dear Christine
    Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause - Victor Hugo

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Pesky Army

    Nobody is disputing very much of the history before 1811.

    Who spotted the islands first, whether the British knew the French were already there, the Spanish-British disagreements, Papal Bulls etc...all very interesting but not especially relevant.

    As of 1811 the islands were vacant. The Spanish and British both left “historic claims”, which in my view are valueless without a population to back it up.

    Argentina “claims” title was passed from the Spanish, through the Viceroy, through the United Provinces to Argentina. Again, without a civilian population, it's a bit academic, and no more relevant than Britain claiming its title remained during the period of vacancy.

    This ambiguity led to Vernet requesting permission from both London and BA for his business. He knew even in the 1820s it was unclear who sovereignty resided with.

    In November 1832, the UP attempted to usurp, (steal pirates jajajajajaj) the islands, and ignore the British historic claim. This was the 19th century colonialism, this was the crime. Just as in 1982, they didn't expect a British response.

    Once they'd completed their murdering and raping, these attempted thieves, we're removed peacefully from the islands. if in 1832 the UP were prepared to usurp, steal and ignore historic claims...why shouldn't Britain???

    So, Britain responded peacefully to UP piracy in 1832.

    The islanders now own the islands....and 1982 FOREVER removed any sympathy anybody should have with the Argentine claim.

    game over

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @ Dear Monkey

    ....“As of 1811 the islands were vacant.” And since even Wellington admits Britain had no rights, except and maybe he remarks only to P. Egmont... you just proved me right ;

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Neither did Argentina....

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steveu

    @169 Although the islands had no permanent population, they were used by whaling and sealing ships. Sovereignty and habitation are two things. Spain claims sovereignty over the island of Persil off the coat of Morocco and yet it is inhabited

    As Monkey says, this is all very interesting but irrelevent. Maybe we should just call it (re)conquest and done with it (although if it is conquest it is the most reasonable and gentle that I have encountered). The UK and Argentina settled their differences in 1850 (irrespective of what some observers have stated). The lack of protest letters and the Latzina Maps seem to confirm that this is the situation and so this is a very strong case for prescription (and this is the main tenet on which the UK bases its claim). This is why Argentina won't go to the ICJ - it knows it will lose. The same maps were invoked by Chile in the Beagle Channel dispute in their ICJ case so a legal precedent has already been set.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    169
    if CFK feels so strongly, and thinks she has a cast iron case,
    then why not stop all this and take the british to the ICJ,
    and end it once and for all.

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 165 Pesky Army

    The peace treaty never mentions the islands simple because there were no longer a dispute.

    “I assume you are just copying and pasting”

    In which case you are wrong - didn't you notice that I wrote “including the Argentine sources” and used the headlines of the 'State of the nation' speeches - the Argentine sources take a lot of space.

    “The citations you are quoting next have no legal value since though there was a dispute for the islands, the relationship between the two nations were very cordial.”

    As vice president Argentina Marcos Paz said in his 'State of the nation' speech 1866, under Relaciones Exteriores:

    “El Gobierno de S. M. B. concurrió igualmente al mismo designio aunque sin el éxito deseado, como lo he referido en otra parte. Este mismo gobierno aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”

    la única - can you make that into two?

    Mar 16th, 2013 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steveu

    Wilson was a duplicitous politician at the best of times in my opinion (he also cooked up the nasty deal with the US regarding Diego Garcia)

    The UK probably saw it as an opportunity to lose a remote “colony” (as it was then). Unfortunately the 82 invasion put the Falklands and its people on the map and turned it into a cause celebre for freedom and self determination

    Of the six attempts of mediation to which you allude, please can you name them (dates, times etc). Were any of these the ICJ in specific relation to The Falklands? If not, why not?

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @175 Steve unfortunately you are not refuting the obvious contradition here. If you don´t speak spanish, here is the link in english
    http://the-hug.org/paul/falkland.html
    The last quotation is pure gold...
    As for Wilson, whatever he was is not Argentina´s problem, after all we don´t blame the UK for CFK do we?

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    176 Pesky Army

    And that was the evidence, was it?

    Some out of context memo's from the early 1900's published by a wacko who can't make it in the real world, so now he's attempting a server farm, and he has two servers?

    I think we should hand over the Falklands and the whole of the UK on this evidence.

    I have seen some stupid fcukers on here but you most certainly take the number one position, and think of the other argie prats you have beaten!

    LMFAO

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @177 Christie
    I wonder what life would have been like if you had had enough oxygen at birth....
    I beg you, don´t hit me with your purse
    ROFLMAO

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @176

    I don't know how this works in Argentina, but typically in the UK it's not assistant librarians who decide matters of international law or strategy. All you've got here in fact is some out of context references to one side of a debate. You can find plenty of conteary opinions on the other side if you look. What you seem to be missing is that a perfectly normal process in a society where policy emerges from debate, rather than the current caudillo's electrodes.

    You're also the victim of a further logical fallacy, in that you seem to believe that any weakness you think you can identify in the UK's position automatically translates into a strength in the Argentine one. But the fact remains that the Argentine claim is based on the notion of a colonial inheritance that was never left you. This would still be weak as water, even if it turned out that your 1833 rapists and murderers had really been expelled by aliens from outer space who took a wrong turning at the Lines of Nazca, rather than a British law enforcement operation.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @179
    Since Foreign officer are assistant librarians, we should go and look for bakers and butchers, surely they are more qualified in this matter
    Was Harold Wilson an ¨assistant librarian¨?
    Where did I mention colonial inheritance?
    Why do you people hate aussies so much? I've always thought they were just like you...

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @180
    Harold Wilson was one of many politicians who would have been perfectly happy to transfer the Falklands for reasons of expediency. It doesn't mean they ever accepted the validity of the Argentine claim. This kind of reasoning is however no longer feasible since the small matter of the 1982 invasion.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @181 Whoever Wilson was it is your problem not ours...

    “This kind of reasoning is however no longer feasible since the small matter of the 1982 invasion”...
    So this leads us to...
    There is a certain futility in interposing the lean and ascetic visage of the law in a situation which, first to last, is merely a question of power.’ J Goebel The struggle of the Falkland Islands 1927.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @182

    If you didn't want it resolved by power, you maybe shouldn't have started awar over it. But you're missing something again. It's not a question of power, it's a question of political constraints. Your governments have been so inept they couldn't even negotiate a deal when UK governments wanted to give you the islands. You chose to invade instead, and 1000 people got killed. The consequence of this is that no british government, even if one wanted to, could possibly attempt to transfer sovereignity to you and survive. But you're too dumb even to recognize that what has cost you the Malvinas is the Malvinistas. Ironic, isn't it?

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @183
    It's not a question of power you say but yet you have refused to sit down and negotiate for almost 200 years (Wilson the exception maybe). Anyway I don't expect you to understand that.
    PS Never say never...Allegedly no British government was ever going to sit down with the IRA. Ironic isn't it?...but of course you people are too dumb to realize that.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 180 Pesky Army

    if the quotations in had not been taken out of context, you would have known, that they are all based on reading ONE secondary source, namely a memorandum written by Gaston de Bernhardt (F.O. 881/9755), an assistant clerk In The Librarian's Department in 1910, a memo based on whichever sources he used more than a one hundred years ago.

    One more quote, which tells it all:

    “If you carefully read **the memorandum of December 1910**, surely must have realized that Argentina's attitude is not ridiculous or childish. I had assumed that our right to the Malvinas Islands was irrefutable. This is far from being the case”, Sir Malcolm Robertson, ambassador to Argentina, 1927

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @184
    The Uk only attempted to negotiate in the 40s, 50s, 60s,70s, and 80s. In he 90s Argentina inilaterally repudiated the agreements that had arisen from post-war negotiations. The only thing that prevents negotiations now is that Argentina has somehow got it into its head that it is entitledto determine the participants, timetable, outcome, and course of these “negotiations”. Thus demonstrating an inability to grasp elementary vocabulary and semantics.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @185 John

    Are you telling me that a librarian who actually worked for the Foreign Office intentionally misquoted 6 foreign office servants, to give Argentina a claim?
    What about these:
    V. A. Mallet, , 1929 [F. O. 371/12735] -
    J. M. Vyvyan, 1935
    Memorándum Fitzmaurice G. H. 1936. [F. O. 371/ 19763; A. 1140/889/2]
    Memorándum William Beckett; ” [F. O. 371/17111; A. S. 5728/311/2])

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 187 Pesky Army

    how could de Bernard possibly misquote them when he wrote in 1910?

    They all used his memorandum as the basis for their statements.
    One source (1910), many quotes based on it.
    You need to do some research.

    Mar 17th, 2013 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • you are not first

    “FCO Hague was referring to the British government’s response to the Malvinas Islands referendum on their political status as a British Overseas Territory, which was overwhelmingly confirmed.”.
    So. what?
    By the way,
    A referendum is supposed democratic, right ? People voted and chose to be Servants and second class citizen instead of Argentinian . Argentina does not argue about that point. neither
    They want to be British . Is OK too. Hey, nobody is perfect....

    Argentina allows them to live and die there....

    They want to have that flag with the 1800's Pirates, is OK too. In America we allow Southerns to have the flag of the civil war, standing in the front of their homes.

    But, Argentina does not have any territory to donate to then, neither is and ” over sea territory from nobody more than Argentina. YEP.

    Mar 18th, 2013 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fermin

    “intimidation of Islanders must cease”
    LOL, Hague: please stop lying to everybody, even to the same british people. How can you show Argentina as a threaten when the one bringing the army to the table is this British Conservatory Government?

    Hague: The world needs more people that stands in front of people like you and say: “wait a moment, NO, you are not working for peace, you are not working for justice, you are not working for the good of humanity. Get out of the Institutions and let these seats for somebody that work for the good of people, be it british, argentine or any people, nobody really wants war”

    Hague: “The UK has privileges at the UN Security Council and an army that is by far larger than Argentine one, the difference in power is too LARGE that lies like yours can only be imposed by a corporate media that has carnal relationships with a conservatory government like yours and that has relationships with the Corporations and lazy contaminating companies that enjoy the Economic and Geopolitic benefits of keeping a military base in Malvinas.”

    Mar 18th, 2013 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ Pesky Army

    Argentine protests:

    There were two kinds of protests: A brief protest was made in the “Message to Congress” 'State of the union' speech every year from 1833 to 1849 inclusive and three campaigns by diplomatic letters, with some gaps of several years between them, in 1833-34, 1841-42 and in December 1849. All the protests by letter are printed in full in Alfredo Becerra: “Protestas por Malvinas, 1833-1946”, (301 pages), ISBN-13: 978-9879998922, Caja Editora, Buenos Aires, June 1998. (A brief list of the 81 documents in the book: http://www.angelfire.com/ab/cajaedit/kjimalvin.html ) which also includes British protests.

    After the above peace treaty of 1850 was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased. The Falkland Islands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance, because they were made in a top-level diplomatic forum that among other subjects dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (e.g. Chile, Paraguay and Brasil), but the Falkland Islands were no longer mentioned after May 1849.

    Foreign diplomats attended, international affairs were treated in detail, and the addresses were published, not only in Argentina but in other countries including Britain (in English translation) in the volumes of “British and Foreign State Papers” during the 1830s and 1840s, and all of the Messages, dated 1810 to 1910 inclusive, were reprinted in full in Spanish in “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, by Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910.
    .

    BTW: “Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?”

    I simply quote your remark, with which you reject the 'State of the nation' speeches of two Argentine presidents and a vice president: “The citations you are quoting next have no legal value”.

    Mar 18th, 2013 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    191@St. John
    You fail to acknowledge the obvious:
    The speeches you are mentioning have been challenged by the sayings and actions of bothThe Foreign Office and a Prime Minister of the UK…
    Since De Bernhardt´s memorandum was written in 1910, and was being used by the FO until 1936, please explain me the following:
    1) No one in the FO EVER questioned the veracity of this Memorandum during these 26 years? Not even one them tried to prove the memorandum wrong? (Although what is written in it is confirmed by British historians Belsham, Miller, Coote, Hughes & Wade )
    2) The Southern-Arana Treaty is hardly a secret pact, why wasn´t it mentioned as an irrefutable proof during all those years?
    3) The Foreign Office file :“Proposed offer by Her Majesty's Government to reunite Falkland Islands with Argentina and acceptance of lease” from 1940 (HC Deb 23 January 1984 vol. 52 cc392-4W)
    4) Why did Wilson begin negotiations? The memorandum was no longer “officially “in use, and yet negotiations took place. Why? Had Argentina claimed the Isle of Wight, would have Wilson negotiated? The FO experts who advised Wilson were using which documents to advise him for or against negotiations?
    5) Another poster pointed out that the librarian was a whacko, was Wilson a whacko too? Were all FO officials from the 1910-1974 period whackos?

    In any case that´s not Argentina´s problem.

    PS: Regarding the “lack of protests” you have mentioned, what about the 60 years gap? Are you telling me that this works only one way? Please explain.

    Mar 18th, 2013 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    1. We have no idea if they did. You are asking me to tell you how other people thought - can't tell you, my cystal ball is broken.

    2. You are asking me to tell you how other people think - my cystal ball is still broken. There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FCO. Sometimes they appear to be not the brightest lot.

    Why doesn't Argentina claim the Isle of Wight? after all, the Spanish Armada was close to it in 1588.

    Argentina claims to be the sole heir to the Falkland Islands, although The Viceroyalty of La Plata consisted of Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, parts of Brasil and about one third of what is today Argentina. Uruguay probably has a better claim of the islands, as the last Spanish governor was in Montevideo.

    3. You may not be aware of it, but at that time the UK was involved in a war, which threatened its survival. Sorting out minor poblems may have seemed a good idea under the circumstances.

    4. You are asking me to tell you how other people think. Wilson had more important problems, so it was probably tempting to clear a minor one.

    5. I cannot answer for what other poster write. I doubt Gaston de Bernhardt was a wacko, but his task may have been to point to weak points in the British position, similar to Ronald Campbell who issued a document resuming the previous work, playing 'The Devil's Advocate'.

    6. What gap?

    The 1771 declarations states that the mutual claims “cannot, nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” Both Spain and britain reserved their claims. Nothing to protest.

    Britain protested the Buenos Ayres occupation in 1829 and the Argentine map whach was to show the Falkland Islands as part of Argentina in 1884.
    “Protestas por Malvinas” #9. Protesta británica. De Parish a Guido. 19 de noviembre de 1829. and #27. Protesta por un mapa. De Monson a Ortiz. 15 de diciembre de 1884.

    Mar 18th, 2013 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    All you've got here is the traces of an internal process of questioning and assessing the British case. You quote one viewpoint that emerged during the process, without quoting alternative viewpoints or the final result :

    'In December 1927, British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austin Chamberlain has a meeting with Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Angel Gallardo, in which the Minister says that, “ .. he had been looking into the question of the Falkland Islands, and had come to the conclusion that (the British) position and claim were exceedingly strong.'

    http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1900-1965/

    'Sir Anthony Eden’s confidential note to Ambassador Henderson of August 28, 1936. P.R.O. / F.O. 371/10763 (A 6461/889/2). “In the first place, 100 years’ possession, whether disputed or not, should found a perfectly sound title to sovereignty over the islands in international law, and there should be very little danger of such a title failing of recognition by the Permanent Court of International Justice or an international tribunal. Meanwhile, each year that passes, and in addition the celebration of the centenary of British occupation, strengthen His Majesty’s Government’s case. At the same time, there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. '

    http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1900-1965/

    Note that last sentence in particular.

    And why the focus on Wilson? Virtually every post-war British government would have been quite happy to reach an accommodation with Argentina. The Thatcher government in particular was pursuing a potential leaseback arrangement until shortly before the 1982 war. None of this implies any acceptance of the Argentine claim at all. The fact that party A sells, cedes, gives, or otherwise transfers a possession to party B does not, under normal rules of logic, mean party B owned it in the first place.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    #189

    You want us to hand them to you.

    Whats in it for the British Goverment?

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @193 St. John

    1) I know that you don't have a crystal ball, I was merely asking rhetorical questions. The point is, if your right is so irrefutable why so many doubts? Does this make any sense?

    2) Ditto. “There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FO” care to explain which arguments are those?

    “Why doesn't Argentina claim the Isle of Wight? after all, the Spanish Armada was close to it in 1588.” ???????? I was simply asking if Argentina starts claiming rights to the Isle of Wight would the FO or a PM even consider the possibility of negotiations?

    “Argentina claims to be the sole heir to the Falkland Islands, although The Viceroyalty of La Plata” ...You went back a few years, but to answer your question Montevideo became capital of the latter only after 1811.

    3) Yes I am aware of it since family members took part in it. Anyway this FO file (1940) raises another interesting question. Allegedly Argentina remained “silent” about the Islands until 1941. Are you telling me that the FO indeed could foresee the future?

    4) Maybe, but I must ask you again the same question: if Argentina starts claiming rights to the Isle of Wight would the FO or a PM even consider the possibility of negotiations?

    5) Maybe yes or maybe not.

    6) Which gap?, please reread Wellington´s letter. Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1764 and did not return until 1833, that´s a 57 years gap.
    Regarding 1771 (keeping in mind Wellington´s letter) please read the following:
    -Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham.” - Vol. IV – 1840 - pag. 28, 47, 57, 68, 71, 77, 87
    -Tratado Masserano - “Tratados de Paz y Comercio”– Madrid – 1843 - pag. 519
    -“Junius”; Vol. I,
    London – 1850/ Letter XLII, 30 January, p.319
    -“The Life of Augustus, Viscount Keppel” Admiral of the White, and First Lord of the Admiralty in 1782-3, Vol I, London, 1842, p.408

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky II

    @193 St. John
    Me bad :( Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774 and did not return until 1833 that´s a 59 years gap. Sorry for that.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @194 Hans
    I agree that are quotations but your 1927 one was challenged by
    John Vyvyan, 1935, George Fitzmaurice 1936 and John Troutbeck 1936.

    Regarding Anthony Eden´s note of 1936, please explain me the FO file of 1940 and the next years “attempt” of negotiatons. Pretty much a contradiction.

    “The fact that party A sells, cedes, gives, or otherwise transfers a possession to party B does not, under normal rules of logic, mean party B owned it in the first place.”
    Then explain me why would you do so? Would you negotiate the Channel Islands with us for example?

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @198

    You're only confirming what I say : there was an assessment of policy during which various points of view were expressed by different people. This is normal. And what is more, a weakness identified in a British argument does not necessarily translate into a strength in the Argentine one. It can be argued, for example, that British abandonment in the late 1700's mean the Falklands were res nullius by the early 1800's. But this doesn't mean that they were Argentine territory either.

    And even if those weak points taken into account, the British case remains far stronger than the Argentine one, based as that one is on an inheritance that was never left to you, an expulsion of civilians that never happened, and a legal principle that was only stated some years later, and never generally accepted anyway.

    And in the meantime, the world has moved on, and new legal principles come into play. You Malvinistas need to take ALL of that into account, not just wave around some redundant memo from 100 years ago as if it was a smoking gun. It wasn't and isn't.

    I really can't see either why you think any attempts at 'negotiation' amount to a contradiction. It's no secret that elements of the British government regarded the Falklands as a burden costing more than it was worth, and were prepared to make some kind of deal with Argentina to reduce that burden. This includes, notoriously, the Thatcher government pre-1982.

    But this still doesn't imply any kind of admission that the islands should have been Argentine in the first place, it only means that Argentina was regarded as a potential counterparty to a deal.

    As for the Channel Islands, it's true you have as much right to those as you do to the Falklands, but we have no interest in letting them go. Some Brits may have seen advantage in a Falklands deal pre-1982, but now Argentina by its continuing actions has made any such move politically impossible.

    Or in short you blew it, and it's time you had a long rethink.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @199
    It can be argued, for example, that British abandonment in the late 1700's mean the Falklands were res nullius by the early 1800's....If you were not so sure why did britain evict argentinean settlers, claiming sovereignty?

    As for the rest, not one straight answer.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @200

    You seem to be having some difficulties with reading comprehension.

    I said “it can be argued”, as I believe Gaston de Bernhardt argued. Other people took a different view.

    In any event 180 years later it makes very little difference one way or the other, except of course for the purposes of stoking your Cult of Victimhood. The British position remains that you attempted to implant a garrison where you had no right or business to do so. But even at the very, very worst possible interpretation of those events, all you can say is that there was a minor colonial skirmish, which you lost, and some territory was acquired from you in the same way you acquired most of yours.

    As for the rest, I can appreciate you might not like the answers, but do pray tell where I've dodged the question. Please note however that repeating the same question a third time after I already answered it twice, doesn't count.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @201
    Did Wellington had reading comprehension problems too? Based on which claims Brits evicted people from the islands?

    But even at the very, very worst possible interpretation of those events, all you can say is that there was a minor colonial skirmish, which you lost, and some territory was acquired from you in the same way you acquired most of yours.
    At last something resembling the truth reaches the surface, and tell me since we never stop claiming them, when are you going to give them back?

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @202
    I'm sure you could have them 'back' if you could prove they were ever yours. There's a thing called the International Court of Justice which I am sure would be happy to process your claim. Why don't you try there?

    Alternatively, there is another really simple route to sovereignty. All you have to do is convince the islanders they'd be better with you. Why is that so hard?

    But I suspect that you will do neither, and carry on like a character in a Greek tragedy, forever condemned by your own flaws to fail in your aims. Enjoy.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    203
    Pssst Hans
    one more thing ICJ exits to solve problems with borders and frontiers not sovereignty. UN is the proper place. See ya

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @204
    Oh dear, what a shame. You've blown it there too.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @205 Hans
    We both have an old friend called Resolution 2065 (XX). I hear he is always complaining you guys never stop by.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @206
    Speaking of never stopping by, I thought you'd left.

    United Nations Resolution 2065, that's the one that recommends what virtually every British post-war British government had attempted to do with you,right up until you invalidated it by landing 8000 armed negotiators in 1982. That one?

    And now you'd like to pretend that invasion never happened, or at least it wasn't you it was your evil twin brother, and it's terribly unjust you can't just go back to the status quo ante before the war you started, only 1000 dead after all, and you really do have the islanders' interests at heart although you also claim they don't exist and refuse to sit in a room with them, while attempting to convince the world that the UK refuses 'dialogue' with you.

    But that must all be true because North Korea, Belarus, and Iran agree with you.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    “one more thing ICJ exits to solve problems with borders and frontiers not sovereignty. UN is the proper place.”

    I'm sure that is news to all the sovereignty disputes ruled upon by the ICJ. after all what does a border or frontier signify except for the extent of a country's sovereignty.

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 198 Pesky Army

    “your 1927 one was challenged by John Vyvyan, 1935, George Fitzmaurice 1936 and John Troutbeck 1936.”

    28 August 1936 Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary, replies to the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires, Sir Neville Henderson:

    ”... you should be aware that the legal basis of the (British) claim is far less weak than at one time supposed...“ [1]

    ... ”there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. In the diplomatic exchanges of 1833 the case would seem to have been argued upon the wrong grounds by both sides. It would seem that the events in the 18th century were irrelevant, that the islands had become completely unoccupied in 1811, and that they had to be considered at that time as ‘res nullius’ open to the occupation of any State. Further, unless the occupation of the privateer Vernet, whom the Argentine Government tried rather unsuccessfully to clothe with their authority, can be considered to have been an Argentine occupation, the islands were ‘res nullius’ at the time of the British reoccupation in 1832.“ [2]

    January 1937 The Foreign Office responds to Sir Neville Henderson: ”the legal basis of the claim [to the Falkland Islands] had been discovered to be far stronger than it had been hitherto supposed“. [3]

    [1] PRO FO 373/7, quoted in Klaus Dodds: ”Pink Ice: Britain and the South Atlantic Empire”, London & New York, 6 December 2002, ISBN-13: 978-1860647703
    [2] Anthony Eden to Ambassador Henderson August 28th PRO FO 371/10763
    [3] PRO FO 371/20508

    Mar 19th, 2013 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @209

    ”there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. In the diplomatic exchanges of 1833 the case would seem to have been argued upon the wrong grounds by both sides. It would seem that the events in the 18th century were irrelevant, that the islands had become completely unoccupied in 1811, and that they had to be considered at that time as ‘res nullius’ open to the occupation of any State. Further, unless the occupation of the privateer Vernet, whom the Argentine Government tried rather unsuccessfully to clothe with their authority, can be considered to have been an Argentine occupation, the islands were ‘res nullius’ at the time of the British reoccupation in 1832.

    Fortunately the following proves Eden wrong yet once more:

    “History of the Colonies of the British Empire” - From the Official Records of the Colonial
    Office - 1843, p.45
    It clearly refers to a certain Captain Weddell, whom while in P. Egmont received a letter from the Commander of “Heroína” frigate saying that the Government of the UP had taken possesion of the Islands. Therefore no “res nullium”.

    While the “privateer” Vernet was in fact a governor
    Decreto 10 Junio 1829 - A.G.N. Fondo Luis Vernet, Sala VII 2-3-3t

    One question springs to my mind though. First you mention 1771 and now Eden´s documents “states” that the 18 century events where “irrelevant”. So what´s your claim based on, “Res Nullim” already proved wrong or the sneaky and temporary settlement in 1770?.

    Please find attached the document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain. This proves (confirming Wellington´s letter) that Britain never had sovereignty except to “maybe” P. Egmont

    http://servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/bouganville.pdf
    Archivo General de la Nación, Sala X 3-4-5.

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @210

    I see you're still hunting the snark, then, and have made the remarkable discovery of a sovereignity conflict between the UK and Spain.

    I wonder also if you aware of the testimony given by Marcelo Luis Vernet at the C24 in June 2012? He quotes from the diary of his great great grandmother Maria Vernet, wife of Don Luis Vernet as follows :

    'Sunday, 30 August 1829 was a feast day for the village. Maria writes in her diary “Very good Saint Rose of Lima day, so Vernet has decided to take possession today of the islands in the name of the government of Buenos Aires”'.

    So what do we learn from this?

    1) If the “Governor” is only “taking possession” in 1829, then clearly “possession” can't have been taken already. So it appears that not even the United Provinces and its duly appointed “authorities” recognise the Jewett “claim” of 1820.

    2) The good Marcelo having read this out before an Argentine delegation of some 90 people led by CFK and comprising Ministers, Mayors, Governors, and what not, it seems reasonable to assume that this is also the position of the present Argentine government.

    Ot has some terrible mistake been made?

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @211

    ...“and have made the remarkable discovery of a sovereignity conflict between the UK and Spain.” Nope just pointing out that your so called “Gettin-it ALL WRONG” is merely a collection of fabules for children.

    Regarding your “interpretation” of Maria Vernet´s diary, and to put it mildly is simply ridiculous. The diary simple says that HE (Vernet) is taking possession of Islands, as governor. He doesnt specifically say “first” does he? You better read the original in Spanish. Another mental projection of freudian desire.
    BTW by confirming Vernet´s appointment you are proving Eden was wrong. There was no res nullius

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @212
    The original in Spanish :

    “Muy bien día de Santa Rosa de Lima, por lo que determina Vernet tomar hoy posesión de la islas en nombre del Gobierno de Buenos Aires”

    Don't see any translation difficulties there, unless of course you are using those special Malvinista reading glasses that allow you to read what isn't there, and not read what is there.

    So all we can say is that there was an attempt in 1829 to “clothe the privateer Vernet with authority”, which was immediately rejected by the British authorities of the time. The Vernet settlement prior to 1829 quite obviously was not “Argentine” (or more correctly, BA) in character, and the Jewett story has more holes in it than the Santissima Trinidad.

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @214
    So where does it say, he is the 1 governor? According to your logic I can assume he got there by plane.

    which was immediately rejected by the British authorities of the time...based on what?

    The Vernet settlement prior to 1829 quite obviously was not “Argentine” (or more correctly, BA) in character... Sure...they were from Mars.

    Jewett story has more holes in it than the Santissima Trinidad.
    Care to explain

    Running out of arguments....

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    204 Pesky Army

    “one more thing ICJ exits to solve problems with borders and frontiers not sovereignty. UN is the proper place.”

    Your incorrect on both points, the ICJ or the PCA are the only places that can give a definitive legal answer to the question of sovereignty. THe UN cannot it is mainly a debating chamber, so it is beyond it's remit to answer the question of sovereignty.

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @214

    Let's recap a bit. Here we have eye-witness testimony by the wife of the main man, no less, and this testimony has been publicly presented to the UN and the world in the presence of the upper tiers of the Argentine government, including the President herself. This is a matter of record.

    I think it's reasonable to assume also that this testimony was checked out beforehand by lawyers at the Argentine Foreign Ministry.I man, La Presidenta and the UN, after all. So all in all, I think we can say the information is credible, and verified, wouldn't you agree?

    Now you maintain that none of this means that Vernet was the first to take possession on behalf of the government of Buenos Aires. I don't buy this interpretation myself (for reasons we can come back to later if you like), but let's run with it anyway, and say for the sake of argument, no, Vernet wasn't the first to claim possession for Argentina.

    Now this begs the obvious question, if Vernet wasn't the first, who was? Logically, it can't have been Vernet himself, since he couldn't have been claiming a possession he already possessed, could he?

    But then if Vernet wasn't in possession of the islands, then surely by definition this would mean that the Vernet settlement can't be regarded as evidence of Argentine possession?

    Or to put this another way. If Vernet was first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession. On the other hand, if Vernet wasn't the first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession either.

    So whichever way you look at it, by Argentina's own records, the Vernet settlement in the islands does not support the Argentine claim to them.

    On the other hand, maybe there was somebody else on the islands. Could this be perhaps where J.J Abrams got the idea for “Lost”?

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mortiboy

    What always amazes me about Argentina's claim to the Falklands is the lack of proportionality and comparison to what is happening in the rest of the World.

    The reiterated arguments are whether or not Vernet was acting for the authorities in BA, what his wife wrote in her diary etc, but - Hello! - this is 180 years ago. A lot has happened elsewhere in the World since then. In 1833 much of the USA was still the Wild West and some states still had slavery and would continue to for another 30 years. The source of the Nile remained undiscovered. No white man had seen Lake Chad. Germany and Italy did not exist as political entities,

    Is Argentina really such a political backwater that it needs to carp on about this?

    In the 180 years since then we have fought God knows how many wars. France has exchanged the province of Alsace Lorraine three times with post Bismarck Germany, several European countries have made and lost empires.

    In the UK we look at Argentina and this squabble over the Falklands chugging along and we can't believe that you're still weeping and wringing your hands over those islands which were never yours in the first place.

    The fact that you call them the Malvinas shows they were never orignally yours because the name 'Malvinas' is a Spanish version of the original French name 'les Malouines' because the first French sailors to go there came from the Breton port of Saint Malo.

    And yet you have even written this lie into your constitution. It is like a new money family pretending to be of noble blood and telling a story about themselves of lost nobility, buying crested silver etc and repeating the anecdote ad nauseam, “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” until you believe it yourselves, only you are doing it on a national scale again and again and again, for generations, so that even the new Pope believes it. What happens when a schoolboy checks you all out on ancestry.com, that you're all immigrants from colonial and imperial countries yourselves?

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    217@
    “If Vernet was first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession. On the other hand, if Vernet wasn't the first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession either”. ??????

    Where did you get the idea that one excludes the other?

    So whichever way you look at it, by Argentina's own records, the Vernet settlement in the islands does not support the Argentine claim to them...
    He was elected governor by a government already recognized by Britain
    according to the Treaty of 1825. (Who btw did not contest Jewett claim on the islands)

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mortiboy

    Even if it is correct that Argentina was illegally forced off Las Malvinas by us in 1833, which I do not concede, if the islands were to be returned to Argentina by that logic how many other territories around the World would have to be returned?

    The borders of Eastern Europe would be under constant revision, leading to war. The legality of several states making up the United States of America would be massively opened to question. So too would a large number of present day boundaries in Asia.

    In the UK we have a statute of limitations in common law preventing us from suing someone in court for money after six years, and after three years in medical cases. This principal should be extended to disputes between nations by both the UN and the ICJ.

    Argentina clearly doesn't like to place any value on the 1850 Convention of Settlement. But if it still regarded Great Britain as a hostile power that injured her, then why did she appeal to King Edward VII in 1902 to mediate in the dispute with Chile over Tierra del Fuego?

    In a civil dispute between individuals under Common Law in the UK, these would be winning arguments that would see an end to the matter, BEFORE we factor in recent events like the Falklands memorandum. But for CFK, Hector Timerman and other Argentinians, these arguments just bounce off. They are dismissed as 'advertising,' 'tergivisation,' and other extraordinary things that make little or no sense to most educated and fair-minded Brits.

    We are accused of being colonialists by members of a country which could never have existed without Spanish colonialism and we think it is terribly hypocritical.

    And before Argentina tells us to 'grow old gracefully' etc, just remember that several important countries in this World are the fruit of Britannia's loins.

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 196 Pesky Army

    2. (“There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FO” care to explain which arguments are those?)

    E.g.: Could a state legally acquire sovereignity over a territory by force in 1833?

    Contemporary international law confirms it. [1]

    In practice we know e.g.: All of Spanish America in the early 19th century, more than half of Mexico to USA, including the **disputed** parts of Texas (1848), Schleswig-Holstein (1864), Argentine provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones (1870), Alsace-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen (1871) and again in 1918.

    [1] Henry Wheaton: “Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science”, Volume 2 (1836)

    @ 200 Pesky Army

    “why did britain evict argentinean settlers”

    Name them. You can find the complete list in “Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas” from Pinedo's trial. Argentine source: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg - photo: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
    - - -

    Declaration signed and delivered by Prince de Maserano, Ambassador Extraordinary from his Catholick Majesty, the 22nd day of January 1771: “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”, p. 328ff (p. 342ff in the .pdf file) Online: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
    - - -

    On another note: “Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774”

    I have never evacuated Port Egmont, neither has my country - as a matter of fact I doubt “we” were ever even in the vicinity of it before 1800.

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mortiboy

    @ 220 St John.

    Well done for showing that.

    If His Catholic Majesty the King of Spain conceded and reinstated Great Britian's right to the Falklands/Malouines in 1771 then it makes it even worse that the Argentinians should be going on like this.

    Think of founding a central piece of their foreign policy on such a slender and erroneous claim and sending all those young men to die for it in 1982.

    Honestly!

    Mar 20th, 2013 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @218

    > Where did you get the idea that one excludes the other?

    Partly from Vernet himself :

    ”1856 – May 5th, Luis Vernet writes to Lord Harrowby; “… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering4 or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”

    http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1850-1899/

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 196 Pesky Army

    6. “please reread Wellington´s letter”

    “It is not clear to me ...” = I am not sure

    I have read it a number of times over the years - but in full context.

    1829 23 July the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, writes to the British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington:

    “It appears to me that the interval between the cessation of the power of old Spain and the consolidation of that of the new governments in South America would be the best time for our resuming our former possession of the Falkland Islands …. I have not spoken with Lord Melville on the subject, but I believe he is very sensible of the importance in the naval point of view of the occupation of those islands.”

    1829 25 July The Duke of Wellington RESPONDS (following your somewhat abruptly ended quote):

    “... That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King's acknowledged right of sovereignty. I think that this is all that can be done at present. It will have the effect of impeding any settlement or cession by Buenos Ayres and as we may suppose that the French and Americans will hear of this communication they will not be disposed to act in contravention to it unless determined upon a quarrel with this country.”

    1829 28 July Sir Herbert Jenner's legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”

    1829 8 August Lord Aberdeen sends instructions to Parish to inform the Government in Buenos Ayres that the British claim should not be treated with indifference ...

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @220
    E.g.: Could a state legally acquire sovereignity over a territory by force in 1833?
    Contemporary international law confirms it. [1]

    I am sure that States can legally acquire “sovereignity” by means of war, since this had happened since the dawn of times.
    Please can you show me the war declaration of Britain against Argentina in 1833? On the other hand let my refresh your memory with the Treaty of Commerce and “Friendship” signed in 1825.

    Name them. Well we know for sure that 38 men, 13 women, and 8 children had to leave the islands ie 73% of the population.

    Declaration signed and delivered by Prince de Maserano, Ambassador Extraordinary from his Catholick Majesty, the 22nd day of January 1771: “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”….
    I seriously doubt you have read this since it states:
    “ …the Prince de Maserano, at the same time declares, in the name of the King his master…to restore to his British Majesty P. Egmont CANNOT, NOR OUGHT in anyway affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.
    In other words Spain only “leased” P. Egmont, which was abandoned by Britain in 1774.

    On another note: “Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774”…Sorry English is only my third language.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky II

    @222
    …these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”

    Well this is contradictory with the events that took place on the 6 November 1820.

    Sir, I have the honour to inform you of the circumstance of my arrival at this port, commissioned by the supreme government of the United Provinces of South America to take possession of these islands in the name of the country to which they naturally appertain. In the performance of this duty, it is my desire to act towards all friendly flags with the most distinguished justice and politeness. A principal object is to prevent the wanton destruction of the sources of supply to those whose necessities compel or invite them to visit the islands, and to aid and assist such as require it to obtain a supply with the least trouble and expense. As your views do not enter into contravention or competition with these orders, and as I think mutual advantage may result from a personal interview, I invite you to pay me a visit on board my ship, where I shall be happy to accommodate you during your pleasure. I would also beg you, so far as comes within your sphere, to communicate this information to other British subjects in this vicinity. I have the honour to be, Sir Your most obedient humble Servant, Signed, Jewett, Colonel of the Navy of the United Provinces of South America and commander of the frigate Heroína.

    Weddell, James (1827). A Voyage Towards the South Pole.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @223
    I posted the link where the full letter could be read. But let take a look at this:
    It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.(DOUBTS). The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont (according to Maserano declaration and bear in mind not the sovereignty, while afterwards The Nootka Sound Treaty expressively forbade new settlements in territories within or next to the ones occupied by Spain), which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago (FACT)…
    … But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port [Egmont] is disputed, and at least doubtful (DOUBTS YET AGAIN), it is very desireable [sic] to avoid such acts.

    I am at the same time very sensible of the inconvenience which may be felt by this country and of the injury which will be done to us if either the French or Americans should settle upon these islands, the former in virtue of any claim from former occupancy, the latter or both from any claim derived by purchase or cession from the government of Buenos Ayres. That which I would recommend ...

    Here he is clearly stating the “inconveniencies” of the occupation of the Islands by others (French or “Americans”) and RECOMMENDS VERY QUIETLY (don´t make noise about this) but very distinctly….

    Question is, if Wellington had so many “doubts” and admits the fact that the islands were abandoned for 60 years, based on what he did those “recommendations”? Colonialism?, Imperialism? Lies?
    Besides the islands had already been claimed in 1820 by Argentina and such claim was not contested by the British Government while signing the 1825 Treaty.

    1829 28 July Sir Herbert Jenner's legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”

    Which rights? Acquired when?

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    > Well this is contradictory with the events that took place on the 6 November 1820.

    I wouldn't say so. It's only contradictory with the interpretation you are trying to put on the events of 6 November 1820. But it is rather hard to take seriously the contention that a pirate presenting a letter to two sea captains constitutes a claim of possession, when the authorities the said pirate claims to represent only find out about it in a newspaper more than a year later, make no effort to substantiate or even publicise their claim, and are unable to produce any record of the pirate's supposed “mission”.

    From this perspective, it's your interpretation that is in contradiction to everything else : Vernet's own words re the status of his settlement, his missus' account of his activities in 1829, and last but not least the actual behaviour of the BA authorities in keeping quiet about Jewett and only “taking possession” 9 years later. Do please pull the other one.

    Incidentally, I did learn from Wedell's book something new, which is that Jewett's crew, it transpires, was every bit as well behaved as the attempted garrison/penal colony of 1833. It seems they planned to mutiny, murder Jewett, hoist the black flag and set off pirating on their account instead of that of the authorites in BA. Unfortunately for them, Jewett got wind of the scheme, and shot 4 of them. Seems he would have shot more, but he needed them to work the ship.

    But what with the Jewett crew, the Mestivier killers, Vernet's own ventures into piracy, and the Rivero murders, I'm surprised you're not more grateful the Brits turned up at last to restore some law and order.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @227
    August 1823
    “ .. Don Jorge Pacheco and myself, CONVINCED OF THE RIGHT OF THIS REPUBLIC, AND SEEING IT RECOGNISED BY THE TACIT
    AND GENERAL CONSENT OF ALL NATIONS DURING THE 3 PRECEDING YEARS,“solicited and obtained from the Government
    the use of the Fishery, and of the Cattle on the Eastern Malvina Island, and likewise tracts of land thereon, in order to provide for the subsistence of the Settlement we should establish there...”

    Report of the Political, and Military Commandant of the Malvinas' - Buenos Ayres,10 th August, 1832, Luis Vernet, in British and Foreign State Papers 1831-1832

    Regarding Jewitt, well let me just say that it is at least laughable that Britain, the home of ”Sir“ Francis Drake, ”Sir“ Walter Raleigh and God only knows how many more accuses somebody else of ”Piracy”. Like it or not the islands where claimed in 1820.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @228

    1828
    Luis Vernet formulates a plan to convert his fledgling settlement from a commercial enterprise, to a political one; “… having realised the natural advantages that it might provide the country, I conceived the project of establishing a Colony directly subordinate to Buenos Aires which at the same time would give the state the benefit of putting the sovereignty over the coasts and islands of the south beyond doubt.. “

    So once again by the application of elementary logic, we can conclude that prior to 1829, the Vernet settlement was not regarded by Vernet as “directly subordinate to Buenos Aries”.

    This is perfectly consistent with his letter of 1850. And as we also know from Woodbine Parrish, he also sought British permission for his activities in he islands.

    The first thing about a claim, of course, is that people have to know it was made. A secret claim makes no sense to anybody.

    And dogmatic reassertion does not constitute a sensible argument either. There is no evidence that a properly constituted was ever made by BA, and when a claim is made, it turns out be on the basis if an inheritance from Spain that not only was never left to you, but was explicitly denied to you by Spain.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @229
    Hans the 6 November 1820 existed (reprinted by The Times in London on 3 August 1821, published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821). whether you like it or not. Not my problem.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @230
    I'm sure it did exist. But just existing doesn't make it credible. It's hardly credible if those who supposedly ordered it only found out about it one year later in the paper. And for some reason chose not to officialise it, announce it, or publicise it afterwards. And only sent a “Governor” to “take possession” nine years later. If this is the best argument you can come up with, it's easy to see why you've never dared take it to court.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @231 Credibility is out of the question since it was published. Why it was done almost a year later, we can speculate about that all you want, but in the end, they will we merely speculations.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @232 You don't really think that because something gets published, it's credible, do you? Or are you confusing reporting and validation?

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @234 Captain Weddell from the Royal Navy says it happened not me, and since he was there on the 6 November 1820, it is valid.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @235
    You're missing the point here. I'm not denying there was a letter. I'm questioning whether the letter constituted a valid territorial claim.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @236
    “I'm questioning whether the letter constituted a valid territorial claim.”
    Please explain why not.
    Tough day tomorrow, Good Night.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @236
    Have a nice day and try re-reading @231 again.

    Mar 21st, 2013 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 228 Pesky Army

    “Regarding Jewitt, ... accuses somebody else of ”Piracy”.”

    Read the trial ref:

    “NOTICIAS NACIONÃES, 6 de Maio [1822]

    Sentença proferida pelo Auditor de Marinha, condemnando como preza a Corveta ==Heroina== aprezada pela Fragata == Perola.”

    “Diário do Governo, Segunda Feira 1.” Abril - Junho de 1822. Nº 77-151, Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa.
    http://books.google.com.ar/books/download/Diário_do_governo.pdf?id=PQ4wAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1-kdYkUWRnqH4M8YEgOTKLV8mOBA

    [p. 752 (p. 251 in .pdf)] Noticias nacionães, Lisboa 6 de Maio [1822]

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @237
    Good Morning,
    Regarding your post 231
    Governors of the islands 1820-1833

    1820 - 1821 - David Jewett
    1821 - 1822 - Guillermo Mason
    1823 - 1828 - Pablo Areguati -Comandante
    1829 - 1831 - Luis María Vernet
    1832 - 1832 - Juan Esteban Francisco Mestivier
    1832 - 1833 - José María Pinedo

    Furthermore as early as 1810, the first Argentine government order to pay the salary to the Commander of the garrison of the Islands.

    18 december of 1823 Pablo Areguatí was named governor.
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandancia_militar_de_las_Islas_Malvinas

    Besides Vernet´s letter fro 1823 confirms that he requested permission from the authorities in BA to settle in the islands. Question is why did he request such permission? Where did the government´s authority came from? Based on what?
    Vernet was appointed governor to the newly created Political and Military Command of the Islands, but that doesn´t make Vernet the first governor.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky II

    @238 St. John
    You forgot to mention the context when that event took place.
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi%C3%B3n_Luso-Brasile%C3%B1a
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi%C3%B3n_Luso-Brasile%C3%B1a
    Basically the king of Portugal fled to Brasil, and decided to take over former spanish territory which led to an “unofficial” war between Argentina and “Brazil” (Portugal), which was in turn the trigger of the war between Argentina and Brazil. But anyway just a question:
    Did Jewett commit piracy the 6 of november of 1820? Did he seize any ship? Did he ask for money to the whalers? Is the behaviour of a pirate? Keep in mind, he was commanding a frigate and there were at least 50 whalers and sealers.
    Therefore this leads to
    1820 sovereignty is claimed
    1821 is published in several countries among them Britain.
    1825 Argentina is formally recognized by Britain as a sovereign state, thus not questioning it´s sovereignty nor objecting something that was known and published 4 years before.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @240

    Under internationl law, there are a number of ways a state can claim sovereignity over a territory. Having a pirate captain's letter published by soembody esle in another country's newspapers a year later, isn't one of them.

    The context makes no moro sense either. Why, if Jewett had a mission to claim the islands for BA, did he first sail the South Atlantic for 8 months as a crap pirate, till he eventually turns up in the islands with a ship falling apart and a crew half dead with scurvy? Not even a BA ship but a privately owned privateer with only a BA piracy licence. He sets up no trappings of authority, and departs without leaving a trace. It wasn't even he who had his announcement placed in the papers, nobody would have known a thing if Wedell and Orne hadn't reported it. And BA in particular knew nothing of it until a year later, and made no attempt to officialise it as theirs, or announce it to any other countries.

    This is a sovereignity claim? A much more plausible explanation is that Jewett, on his last legs after his failed privateering venture, had a bright idea of his own which he failed to follow up on. This is also consistent with the subsequent writings of Vernet and the BA authorities. Why for example, would Vernet write a letter in 1828 offering to establish soverignity if BA had it already? And why would BA not tell Vernet there's no point, mate, it's all ours already?

    As for your list of governors, please. Mason was only Jewett's successor as Captain of the Heroina. He sailed off to resume his career in piracy three weeks later. Areguati was never appointed to any rank, and his attempt to settle in the islands collapsed after a few months. And as we have seen already, neither Vernet nor BA regarded the islands as BA territory until 1829, at which point there is an immediate British protest.

    And since you can only date an Argentine claim from 1829, there is clearly no breach of an 1825 Treaty, unless of course it's by you.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 226 Pesky Army

    “Besides the islands had already been claimed in 1820 by Argentina and such claim was not contested by the British Government while signing the 1825 Treaty.”

    I am sure you can tell me where in Jewett's 13 pages report he mentions that he should have taken possession of the Falkland Islands in the name of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces - (which in 1821 were no longer united) - or for that matter any other state. (Jewett’s report of 1 February 1821 can be found in 'Archivo General de la Nación', 'Marina Corsarios 1820-1831', 10-5-1-3.)

    I should also like to know, who ordered him to do so - published in the Gazette, perhaps?

    The government of Buenos Aires did not order Jewett to take possession of the Falkland Islands, nor did they make any official announcement of Jewett's claim, simply because they had no knowledge whatever of any such claim.
    - - -
    @ 240 Pesky II

    “You forgot to mention the context when that event took place. ...”

    NOTICIAS NACIOÃES, Lisboa 6 de Maio [1822] (link previously given):
    “... como acto de propriedade desta, e authorisação para fazero Corso, passados em nome do Director Supremo das Provincias unidas ao Sul de America, ... dados ao primeiro Commandante da Heroina David Jeevitt em 15 de Janeiro de 1820, ... declarão expressamente que a Heroina de huma Corveta de Guerra de Buenos-Ayres, e que se destinava a fazer a guerra á Bandeira Hespanhola.”

    “... document ... authorizing to operate as a privateer ... declare expressly that the corvette 'Heroina' ... shall wage war on [ships with] the Spanish flag.”

    Only Spanish ships! Upbringing of the Portuguese ships were acts of piracy, no matter how you try to twist it.
    - - -
    @ 239 Pesky Army

    “Governors of the islands 1820-1833”

    Documentation missing - please provide.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @241
    Hans
    Facts
    6 november 1820 sovereignty is claimed

    1821 reprinted by The Times in London on 3 August 1821, published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821

    Your opinions about Jewett, certainly you are entitled to, but you have to prove this facts wrong. It´s up to you to prove the 6 of november never happened or that Jewett was never comissioned. Regarding Vernet´s contradicton, since the letter you mentioned is from 1828, and the one I have mentioned dates from 1823, I only found this
    http://servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/notapacheco.pdf
    Archivo General de la Nación, Sala IX 24-5-7

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky II

    @242 Prove it wrong. Captain Weddell, says it happened

    Jewett was comissioned in 1815 as Colonel while at war with Spain. Your point is...Besides he died in guess where? Rio de Janeiro. So sure the Portuguese had plenty of time to judge him, no matter how much you try to twist it.
    Areguatí´s appointment
    http://servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/notapacheco.pdf
    Archivo General de la Nación, Sala IX 24-5-7
    BTW I am still waiting for you repply to my post 226.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @243

    Surely not. It's up to you to prove the claim that you're making.

    The only fact is that the Jewett claim was printed in the papers. There is no proof of BA involvement either before Jewett turns up in the islands or after the claim is printed. It is no more than a newspaper story. Indeed the evidence which does exist indicates that BA itself did not recognise the Jewett claim, while the subsequent behaviour and writings of both Vernet and the BA authorities is not logically consistent with it either. And it is quite clear from their correspondence that neither Vernet nor BA regarded his settlement as a specifically BA occupation on BA sovereign territory until Vernet offered that up in 1828.

    But the most remrkable thing of the lot is that this entirely dubious edifice should be considered grounds for war 150 years later, and that thirty years after that people are still picking over it.

    As somebody said earlier, it is not the early 19th century any more. You are never going to find the smoking gun that proves your claim because no such gun exists. And if you really do want to acquire the islands, it is really time to try a different approach. Harping on about an imagined grievance of nearly two centuries ago just makes you look silly.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @245
    Since you find Jewett claim so bizarre, let me show you how another pirate claimed land for Britain.
    http://bestoflegends.org/pirates/drake.html
    I agree with you that it is sad that after so long people are still fighting over this, but let me remind you that entirely dubious matter Duke of Wellington´s letter comes to my mind) did not prevent one nation attacking another just for greed or colonialism. We might look silly, but at least we are not the ones trying to find a hole to sneak through and justify ourselves. Probably this, makes you look even worse.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @246

    Who needs to find a hole to sneak through? You could parade a herd of elephants in line abreast through these arguments without touching the sides.

    Practically every argument put forward exhibits the same three weaknesses we have just been kicking around : there is no documentary evidence to support the claim being made, the evidence that does exist contradicts the claim, and the subsequent behaviour of the people involved is completely inconsistent with it.

    This same phenomenon applies for example to the Jewett/Vernet claim, the claim that a civilian population was expelled in 1833, and the claim that the 1850 Treaty was not intended to resolve the dispute.

    And typically when these inconveniences are pointed out, it ends up with some extraneous reference to the crimes of the British Empire, or in this case Sir Francis Drake, who I don't believe ever set foot in the place.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @247
    Tell you what, I didn´t expect we would agree about who is right or wrong. You have your arguments with its strengths and weaknesses and so do I ; but still it was a nice tennis game.
    Have a nice weekend.

    Mar 22nd, 2013 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 224 Pesky Army

    “Please can you show me the war declaration of Britain against Argentina in 1833?”

    I love your sense of humour. The majority of wars have been started without any sort of declaration of war.

    “Any sort of previous declaration is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a quixotism to be obligatory.” [1]
    - - -

    PA: “Well we know for sure that 38 men, 13 women, and 8 children had to leave the islands ie 73% of the population.”

    All except 4 (four) and a prisoner were the Buenos Aires garrison and their families. If you had read the official Argentine document, I gave links to, you would have known that. Do some research.

    “... to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont; cannot, nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” [2]

    Nothing in the two documents can reasonably be interpreted as other than the claims of both the Spanish crown and the British are upheld, but undecided upon, except that the Spanish king accepts British sovereignty over Port Egmont.

    Lord Chancellor Lord Camden wrote: “... The question remains as it stood before the hostility; the King of Spain declaring only that he ought not to be precluded from his former claim ...” [3]

    - - - -
    [1] William Edward Hall: “A Treatise on International Law”, 8th ed. by A. Pearce Higgins, Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press, London 1924. (p. 444)

    [2] “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”, p. 328ff (p. 342ff in the .pdf file)
    http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    [3] Sir Henry Cavendish's Debates of the House of Commons during the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain, p. 297, note 1

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @249
    “Any sort of previous declaration is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a quixotism to be obligatory.”
    Nice words but the relevant fact here is that in 1825 Britain signed a Treaty of Friendhip with Argentina. Are you suggesting that backstabbing is justified by law?

    Document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain. This proves (confirming Wellington´s letter) that Britain never had sovereignty not even to P. Egmont. Plus you left the place for 60 years.

    servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/bouganville.pdf

    “... to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont; CANNOT, NOR OUGHT any wise to AFFECT the question of the PRIOR RIGHT of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.”
    Unless you can provide a document specifically saying that Britain ever had sovereignty of the islands, interpretations are completely irrelevant, merely a sophism.

    All except 4 (four) and a prisoner were the Buenos Aires garrison and their families. If you had read the official Argentine document, I gave links to, you would have known that. Do some research.
    Again the relevant matter here is that people were evicted not their names. Get your priorities straight.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    “Are you suggesting that backstabbing is justified by law?”

    Countries do not start wars by giving the opponent a warning - surprise is essential.

    “Document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain.”

    No.
    de Bougainville received compensation for EXPENSES in connection to the establishment of the colony.
    “dineros que importa un estado que he presentado de LOS GASTOS que han causado a la Compañía de San Maló las expediciones hechas para fundar sus intrusos establecimientos”
    - -
    Again the relevant matter here is that no settlers, only the garrison, were evicted. Are you suggesting that the British should have left the armed forces of Buenos Aires on the islands?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @251
    Countries do not start wars by giving the opponent a warning - surprise is essential.
    Show me the war declaration.

    “de Bougainville received compensation for EXPENSES in connection to the establishment of the colony.”
    Well, since the French never returned again, either show me a document saying that the French kept the sovereignty or that it was transferred to Britain.

    Are you suggesting that the British should have left the armed forces of Buenos Aires on the islands?
    Well, you still have to tell me what Britain was doing there in the first place.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @252
    You seem to operating on the assumption that the sovereignity dispute between Britain and Spain was somehow resolved in favour of Spain. It wasn't. You then seems to be assuming that the UP inherited the Spanish claim from Spain. It didn't.

    As for your very own stab in the back myth, if anybody got stabbed in the back in 1833 it was the Brits. In 1825 when the Treaty was signed, there was no claim of sovereignity by BA. All there was, was a newspaper report of a letter supposedly issued by a pirate captain claiming to represent the government of BA. No official statement of any kind was issued by the BA authorities. Either this is diplomatic incompetence of the highest degree, or they didn't recognise the claim themselves. Which do you think it is?

    Sunsequenty in 1829 when Vernet finally attempts to claim sovereignity and gets himself made Commander or whatever, there is an immediate protest and restatement of the British claim. UP and Vernet pay this no attention whatsoever, and Vernet decides to go into the piracy business on his account.

    One severely kicked arse later, UP sends in a garrison which murders its commander and rapes his wife.

    And then finally at long last the landlord turns up to restore order in his own property, but makes the mistake of not garrisoning the place himself, with the result that another undesirable tenant, national hero El Asasino Rivero, is free to go on a murder spree a few months later.

    Some people just don't know how to behave.

    But I'm glad to see we dont have to go through the fictitious nonsense of the expulsion of the civilian population.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @253

    Another proof that the French handed the sovereignty of the Islands to Spain, and that Britain was merely attempting to sneak through.
    Prince Maserano
    8 de Agosto de 1766

    “Avise a VE días pasados que de resultas de una junta del Almirantazgo en ausencia
    de Milord Egmond se havia diferido la partida del Armamento a las Islas…
    Advertirá su excelencia que piensan fijarse ahí con solidez. Tengo entendido que lo
    consideran mas fácil desde que saben que los franceses deben retirarse de las
    Malvinas, porque nos tienen a los españoles por menos vigilantes y mas lentos; y se
    (¿?) que les daremos tiempo para que afirmen el pie”

    Correspondencia Príncipe Masserano – Archivo PARES

    The rest of your speech is very nice, but still you fail to show any document.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    ”The undersigned H.B.M. Charge d’Affaire has the honour to inform H.E. General Guido the Minister Encharged with the Department of Foreign Affairs that he has communicated to his Court the official document signed by General Rodriguez and Dn Salvador Maria del Carril, in the name of the Government of Buenos Ayres, and published on the 10th of June last, containing certain Provisions for the Government of the Falkland Islands. The undersigned has received the orders of his Court to represent to H.E. General Guido that in issuing this decree, an authority has been assumed incompatible with His Britannic Majesty’s rights of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. These rights, founded upon the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the said islands, acquired an additional sanction from the restoration, by His Catholic Majesty, of the British settlement, in the year 1771, which, in the preceding year, had been attacked and occupied by a Spanish force, and which act of violence had led to much angry discussion between the Governments of the two countries. The withdrawal of His Majesty’s forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty’s just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty’s Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season. The undersigned, therefore, in execution of the Instructions of his Court, formally protests, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, against the pretensions set up on the part of the Argentine Republick, in the decree of 10th June, above referred to, and against all acts which have been, or may hereafter be done, to the pre

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @256
    You are simple showing the protest letter of....1829?
    Please show me the documents, that prove that Britain ever had any right to the Islands or P. Egmont. The letter simply mention the “rights” of Britain.
    Documents please

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    I see we are somewhat short of answers and documentation from Pesky Army

    Q 173 St.John: “vice president Argentina Marcos Paz ... la única - can you make that into two?”

    Q 188 St.John: “how could de Bernard possibly misquote them when he wrote in 1910?”

    220 St.John: “Name them” (the evicted settlers) - although I gave you a link to the official Argentine document, you still haven't named them.

    242 St.John: “I am sure you can tell me where in Jewett's 13 pages report he mentions that he should have taken possession of the Falkland Islands in the name of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces” - where?

    242 St.John: “I should also like to know, who ordered him to do so - published in the Gazette, perhaps?” - who + documentation?

    242 St.John: “Governors of the islands 1820-1833” - documentation missing - please provide.

    What is your basis for offhand dismissing two Argentine presidents (Mitre and Sarmiento to boot) and a vice presidents 'State of the nation' speeches?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @257
    Q 173 - my comment was removed , but i said it means the only one.
    Q188- I made a mistake. so what?
    Q220- I gave you the number of how many people were force to leave check post@224
    @242 The claim was made and published and we know this ,thanks to a Captain of the RN.
    @ 242 Ditto
    @242 Check post @244 for Areguati´s appointment, Vernet you can google it, the others I don´t know.

    ”What is your basis for offhand dismissing two Argentine presidents (Mitre and Sarmiento to boot) and a vice presidents 'State of the nation' speeches?“
    Reread all the threads. And what is your basis to dismiss the FO opinions since 1910, and the fact that Wilson and Thatcher were ”willing to negotiate“?
    BTW still waiting for your answer to @226 and please we are talking about the 1770´s, you still fail to show a single document about the ”rights” of Britain to the islands.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @256
    I don't believe there was any kind of catastral in those days. Ot has Argentina got a deed from somewhere? I did hear that Timerman had got something from a Nigerian he met on the Internet, but I though that was just an urban myth.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @259
    Then explain me, why Britain evicted Argentineans from there since there was no catastral, based on what?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @261
    See @253 and @255.

    And Argentina was there on what basis, exactly?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @261
    253- 6 november 1821
    255- Still waiting for your documents, and since there was a garrison when Clio arrived, it´s up to you to prove that Britain had any rights to evict those people.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @262

    Sorry but you're going to have to read @253 and @255 again. Unless you can come up with something that a reasonable person would regard as constituting a stronger claim than the grounds put forward by Fox.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @263
    Hans, documents please provide documents to prove me wrong since we are “brainwashed”. Doesn´t look well I´m telling you.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @264

    I've got a letter here that my great great grandfather had published in the “Swansea Advertiser” of 1857 in which he claims Patagonia for the Welsh. I'm just waiting for a good 150 years to go by before I invade.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @265
    Good it means you are a Argentinean ;
    We were in the 1770´s remember, talking about Britain rights to expell a group of people?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @266
    I've got an idea. If you think you were badly treated, why don't you take your case to the International Court of Justice?

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @267
    We are not posing as victims, just claiming a land which never belonged to Great Britain. Argentina doesn´t go to the ICJ as we are sure that you had no rights to grab that land, as you are proving.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @268
    You don't go to the ICJ because anybody with a browser and a half hour to spare can see for themselves how empty your arguments are. But the really astonishing thing is that anybody would consider any of this worth starting a war over 150 years later, while simultaneously denying there's a Cult of Victimhood in operation.

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pesky Army

    @269 Prove me wrong, with documents not words. I want facts not words.
    PS : I´ve never ever mentioned the war nor praised the Junta.
    Good night

    Mar 23rd, 2013 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

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