MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Principle of self-determination
The following column was published in The Malta Times - After her first meeting with Pope Francis, Argen¬tina’s President, Cristina Fernandez, admitted that she tried to recruit the newly-elected Argentine-born Pontiff to support her efforts to gain control of the Falkland Islands. In spite of this predictable move, the Vatican is unlikely to intervene publicly in this conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell said MALTA
Apr 04th, 2013 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ The referendum result presents a quasi-unanimous consensus among Islanders. One hopes that Argentina will respond with a willingness to engage in dialogue and a readiness to accept the wishes of a small but by no means insignificant population.”
Apr 04th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But, we all know there is no chance of that.... So, keep calm and carry on
“The Islands enjoy an elected Legislative Assembly and an independent government headed by a Chief Executive.”
Apr 04th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The website below agrees.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/the-falkland-islands-government/
“The Falkland Islands Government is far from just an administration. It provides a diversity of services to support our thriving community. From provision of power and fresh drinking water, to building roads or carrying out scientific fisheries research, the Falkland Islands Government fulfills a variety of roles that make it the largest employer in the Islands.”
The Constitution, on the other hand....
“The executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him or her”
That makes the Governor the head of the “independent” Government. Except it isn't independent, it's subordinate to the UK Government. They just had a referendum to confirm that's what they wanted.
yep thats what they wanted thats what they got so accept it and stop whinging
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Will not know who wrote this little article, but what an incredible simplicity.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could say it is the “sanctification” of self-determination of the thieves.
Well said when he states that the Malvinas Argentinas Islands have been under British control since 1833. I repeat: very well said.
The detail that escaped, is that before 1833 the Malvinas Argentinas Islands HAD ALREADY OWN and were not the pirates of his gracious Majesty, precisely.
Malta: what can know Malta the “remote” Malvinas Argentinas Islands.
Apparently more than you Jose they know they are the Falkland Islands NOT malvinas
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does this mena that Australia is subordinate to the UK Government? Given that section 61 of the Australian Constitution states :
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative ......”
Of course it wasn't ever thus for this all-powerful colonial panjundrum, of course. A certain DoveOverDover previously unmasked him as a mere figurehead :
”Doveoverdover (#)
Dec 24th, 2012 - 04:07 pm
Report abuse
@52 By April 2014 the Referendum will be but an embarrassing memory. From Ambassador to a NATO ally via a desk in Whitehall to figurehead in the Falklands isn't just a demotion it's a career crash and burn.”
Of course logical consistency has never been a strong suit in the Malvinaverse.
5 José Malvinero
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0where it says “OWN” meant “OWNER”
And Josey...wrong once again! And...what do you know about the UK...nothing, you are to far away, therefore you know nothing according to your logic.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 he's closer to the UK than he is Rgenweener
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@8 José
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malta knows quite a lot about self-determination, since they got it from the UK in 1964.
@11 well said Hans and boy they earnt it, although last time I was there an awful lot of the Maltese wished it was still a BOT
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 I think you'll find that the Queen of Australia appoints an Australian Citizen as Governor-General of Australia. The monarch of the British Kingdom of the Falkland Islands will do the same in due course, perhaps. Meanwhile, a UK civil servant working in the FCO gets the job and has the full weight of all the UK Departments of State above him courtesy of Mr Hague.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have we reached April 2014? I must have dozed off.....
@13 no surprise at your age
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 011
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, and in 1979 when the British army left Malta, at that time is called “Freedom Day”! The Pirate boot (when not!) just came out in 1979.
Either way, I will not losing saliva with insignificant countries like Malta.
@13
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see. So it's not the role or office of Governor per se that's the problem, it's the c.v. of the appointee?
But I thought that ALL countries in the world supported Argentina's claim.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely little Malta (the most bombed place on Earth during wwII) can't be breaking ranks with another fascist agressor!!
@15 of course you won't Jose
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In 1800, Malta voluntarily became part of the British Empire.”
What was that about a Pirate boot, again?
Ignore Jose, he makes it up as he goes along and hopes people will believe his ramblings.......
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the only country falling into insignificance is clearly Argentina which is once again unable to pay its debts or act in a reasonable way. Even your beloved SA is turning against you and ignoring you!
@20 correct xect he knows nothing of Malta except what he gets off Wiki
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think you'll find that the Queen of Australia appoints an Australian Citizen as Governor-General of Australia”
Apr 04th, 2013 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No. There have been many non Australian citizens serve as governor general of Australia. Most lately in 1982. But that was some time ago.
The Governor general of Canada from 2005 to 2010 was born in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.
The previous General was from Hong Kong.
But it is really a crap point to dig at.
Malta was once offered the chance to become part of the UK and declined on the back of a large intervention by the Roman Catholic church (it is a very devout country). Malta is still a very good friend to the UK though, and I bet the many warnings about the danger the Euro would pose to them are now being remembered.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DoD never mentioned Malta's very strong naval past...maybe Think needs to brush up on his history for the old RN character. Claiming he's had a drink in the British Legion in Valletta would have raised a chuckle or two (from me at least).
@15 Jose Malvinero it seems knows little about Malta as well: it may be little but insignificant would be a word more easily applied to Argentina... and as for boots, well as a rule the Maltese used to be barefoot until WWI, after which shoes became the norm due to the large number of Maltese that served in the navy.
The history of Malta (and Gozo) also shows up how pathetic your Argentine little hissy fits over 'British Pirates' is. They suffered at the hands of REAL pirates for centuries, and the British helped bring stability to those Islands.
20 Xect
Apr 04th, 2013 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“insignificance is clearly Argentina”
hahahahahahahah!! Envy! The eighth largest country in the world. So much coveted by small countries like England.
#24 yeah, lovely country, shame about the colonialist inhabitants. Lying, cheating bunch of poofs and crooks.
Apr 04th, 2013 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 024 José Malvinero:
Apr 04th, 2013 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the landmass is mismanaged to the extent that your government(s) have, then size has no baring.
Argentina, in world terms, has not been significant for a century in any manner other than as a nuisance.
For a country whose current approximate borders are less than 150 years old, that is quite a record to have.
Well done Malta GC. You care about the fate of small island communities like yourselves
Apr 04th, 2013 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the debacle in Cyprus is ever extended to Malta,
Apr 05th, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0She may well change her mind,
Yet again if Britain withdraws from Europe,
Malta may re-join us, stranger things have happened,
As for argentina, it’s a furlong conclusion she will break up under the corruption her people have to bear, thanks to CFK & co..
.
“So much coveted by small countries like England.”
Apr 05th, 2013 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0No.
@7 HansNiesund
Apr 05th, 2013 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0@22 Zethee
What DoD either forgets or ignores in his dotage (highlighted in post 13) is that the Westminster system operating within the Commonwealth Realms operates on a mixture of written and unwritten laws, in other words, convention is just as important and recognised as something codified.
For instance, Australia's constitution (an act of the UK's parliament) doesn't include the role of Prime Minister or cabinet. The executive in Australia is the Queen of Australia, exercised through her representative.
“The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth”
And yet convention has given us the Prime Minister and get this, this uncodified position also decides who is the Governor General. Convention also says that the Queen cannot ignore the person nominated for the position of GG.
The GG can dismiss the government - codified.
The PM can dismiss the GG – convention
Convention also restricts who the PM nominates for the role.
The Falklands is following a tried and true recipe for increasing autonomy and future independence.
For some reason he loves to highlight this. For the life of me I don’t know why.
PS:
@24 José Malvinero
“hahahahahahahah!! Envy! The eighth largest country in the world. So much coveted by small countries like England.”
Hahahahahahahahaha Australia is nearly 3 times larger than Argentina! So first off, stop being such an envious little country to our greatness and secondly, be quiet as my opinion is obviously more important than yours due to the amount of square kilometres my country has........ God help me these trolls are pathetic.
Italy's claim on Malta died with Mussolini - it seems a lot of his supporters emigrated to Argentina and joined the Peronists.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thing that sank integration in Malta wasn't just Catholic Church opposition, but Dom Mintoff wanting way too much money from the UK.
Malta became a republic in 1974, but kept the Westminster parliamentary system - just as India did. The President is a ceremonial head of state - a pity CFK isn't the same.
By the way, Governors-General of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are citizens of their respective countries, irrespective of whether or not they were born there, so you don't have loony 'birthers' saying Barack Obama wasn't born in the US.
“God help me these trolls are pathetic”
Apr 05th, 2013 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have no dog in this silly fight but you should look into the mirror, because you are the troll here and pathetic. No matter where they are, the sun never sets on the ugly brits (with bad teeth) because god doesn't trust a brit in the dark (though he prefers them in the dark because they are ugly). if you scratch a brit, you find a pirate.
@31 Britsnico
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0“By the way, Governors-General of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are citizens of their respective countries, irrespective of whether or not they were born there, so you don't have loony 'birthers' saying Barack Obama wasn't born in the US.”
The “looney birthers” were frustrated when Barrack Obama publicly released a copy of his Birth Certificate, showing that he was born in Hawaii - a US State.
Britanico - no logic is going to override the prejudices of the Argentine erhnocentric racists who believe SOME people are entitled to Self-Determination, but other 'lesser' people, or 'non-peoples' are not.
@32 Fido Dido
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks mate.
But I'm not British!
Jose Malvinero
Apr 05th, 2013 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was already owned by the indigenous tribes when you arrived and stole it from them in the 1500s, (thieves, pirates), Patagonia was already owned by the indigenous tribes when the Argentines committed genocide in the “genocide of the desert campaign” in a blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism.
As you identify...YOU STOLE the 8th biggest country from the indigenous population through genocide against the original population who had owned the land for millenia.
You then have the gob-smacking hypocrisy to compare the Falklands favourably with your own crimes against humanity.
the Flaklands were RECOVERED by Britain in 1833 by peacefully (not a single person was harmed) removing a 50 strong MILITIA, who had been on the islands only 2 months...and had already mutineed, murdered and raped...None of them were born on the islands or had ever visited the islands before November 1832.
So..YOU MURDERED 100,000s of long-standing indigenous population to STEAL the 8th biggest country in the world.
We PEACEFULLY RECOVERED some remote islands from a 50-strong murdering rapists whod been there 2 MONTHS.
And you think you have the moral high-ground...PMSL youcomplete tool.
@ Fido dildo
Apr 05th, 2013 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still sore about your Brazilian girl you picked up in the bois de bologne
@24 size isn't everything it's what you do with it that counts
Apr 05th, 2013 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Malta GC. You understand bullying and occupation better than most.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The principle of self determination is indeed critical to the human rights of peoples around the world. Argentina's naked colonial aspirations are a danger to all of its neighbours.
Given that we are making comparisons between Malta and the Falklands, I am surprised that no-one has yet pointed out that that during the darkest hours of the onslaught of Nazi forces, Malta was successfully defended by RAF 1435 Flight, which was at the time equipped with just a handful of mainly obsolete fighter planes. 1435 Flight today operates the 4 state of the art Typhoon fighter planes stationed at Mount Pleasant, bearing the same names as thier WW2 predecessors, and ready to perform the same role of defending a small peaceful island nation against nearby aggressors.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@although 1435 flight has 1 more plane than it had when it was defending Malta - it is called 'Desperation' named after the state Argentina finds itself in over the Falklands
Apr 05th, 2013 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 Curiously, there's even more of a similarity. From 1940 to 1942, Britain protected Malta against a bunch of nazis. In 1982, although caught wrong-footed, Britain proved it could do much the same for the Falkland Islands. And, although protection was maintained from 1982, it has continued since 2007 when the Kirchner dictatorship tore up mutually-beneficial agreements because it couldn't get its own nazi way.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21 He'd get more off Wiki if he learned to read it!
@32 But YOU are the dog. Down Fido!
@39, 40 Actually, if you look it up, No 1435 Flight wasn't the Flight in question. That was the Hal Far Fighter Flight and had more than 3 aircraft, although they were not all operational at the same time. And the names Faith, Hope and Charity weren't given until after the battle was over, by a Maltese newspaper. The suggestion in the item I read was that Hal Far Fighter Flight may have had 12 aircraft. Although some were being used for spares. More reading suggests that 8 Gladiators may have been used operationally with the remainder as spares. Particularly “Faith” used an engine salvaged from a Bristol Blenheim bomber and was fitted with the Blenheim's 3-blade propeller, rather than the standard 2-blade. No 1435 (Night Fighter) Flight was first formed on 4 December 1941. Subsequently, it was re-equipped with the Spitfire Mk V and raised to squadron status (No 1435 Squadron) as from 2 August 1942. Nevertheless, a magnificent unit with an astounding record. And, not unreasonably, their motto is “Defend the right”. Quite close to the Falkland Islands “Desire the right” motto!.How appropriate!
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX), 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41 / 40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. Reaffirm resolution 2065 (XX) Parties (Argentina and the UK) ”to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee, in order to find a peaceful solution to the problem, with due regard to the provisions and objectives of the United Nations Charter and Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the people of the Mlavinas Islands. ”
The Committee on Decolonization and the resolutions of the United Nations assembly is very clear about this. The conflict is sovereignty. No self-determination.
Yes it does Raul!
Apr 05th, 2013 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 042 Raul
Apr 05th, 2013 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With the exception of the Security Council the UN cannot override the self-determination clause of the UN Charter as it is ultra vires. At best they are merely an advisements, hence it cannot effect international law such as the UN Charter. Which states “2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,...”. I don't see any qualifying words like 'yet' or 'but'; nor hierarchical words such as 'greater' or 'less. Moreover, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states PART I, Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination....
“disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina.
Cannot be applied to an issue from 1833 as international law prohibits the application of law retroactively.
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
“...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...”
Raul there is no conflict, there is only Rg whining which doesn't bother us its just normal background noise. If you believe that tripe take it up with your government and go to court, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time!
Apr 05th, 2013 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders have spoken, can't you get that through your thick head? The only way Arg will get back on the Falklands is by force of arms and you know what happened last time you tried that.
Bigger off!
@42
Apr 05th, 2013 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, in your head and your indoctrinated country men's minds self-determination doesn't matter. But step away from the chaotic back stabbing arena of South America, you will find that it matters a lot.
Keep treating the Falkland Islanders like you have been doing and you will never have any contact with them or their islands. Kirchners policy has failed, they have got absolutely nowhere with their aggression towards the islanders, they are more resolute than ever in having nothing to do with Argentina and the UK is more resolute than it ever has been in defending them, both militarily and economically.
Argentinians are insane, period. There are a few exceptions, and upon them rest, not the future of the country, for the country has no future. But, upon them rests Their future. That is, if they are allowed to have one. Meaning, if the overwhelming majority of sick, crazy and stupid ones don't ruin it completely for the few. And the focus of those few is global, not national.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because they know that the Nation-State has no future.
One only has to look at what happened to La Plata this week to see how unprepared Argentinians are for a simple rain storm in a city of almost 800,000 to see how they would handle a small island of less than 3,000.
They would ruin it, like they do everything they come into contact with.
They are just too sick, crazy, and stupid to be able to manage anything properly.
@30 Anglotino
Apr 05th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, written constitutions are generally for countries whose politicians don't innately understand how to act and have to be forced to act properly by written laws. Simply trusting each other to do the right thing as agreed over time is much more the Commonwealth way. Ironically, some countries with constitutions are so broken that the politicians spend more time changing the constitution than trying to keep to its spirit.
Raul.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You put great store in repeating the distorted lies about what actually happened in 1833. You use simple words as if what happened was a clear cut case of British Imperial agression when they 'as you tend to say' removed the Argentine settlers by force. What truly happened was that a band of milita criminals 'occupied' the islands that were already claimed by the British 'before' Argentina were an independant nation. Britain simply got rid of 'peacefully' the murdering band of militia that had occupied the islands for two months and invited the civilian group to remain on the islands if they wished...and most of them did. The 2nd time Argentina occupied the islands by force in 1982 they were also expelled. The nine generations of 'people' who have lived peacefully on the islands have made it clear how they want things to be on their FALKLAND ISLANDS. Now, please, please please, get it into your poor deluded head that Argentina can shout, scream and stamp its feet all it likes, they will never again occupy the islands, ever! Once this fact has finally sunk in, try getting over being lied to for hundreds of years and begin re-building all those burnt bridges, developing proper dialog and relations with your neighbors and look after your huge stolen country and vote in a new safe 'democratic' government that will not be another name for a peronist junta.
@42 Raul: You say,
Apr 05th, 2013 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands. The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.”
Well if we are going to have justice then I say:
“The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question Argentina. The specificity of the Argentina is that Latins occupied the area of South America known as Argentina, murdered/expelled/subjugated the original population and planted enough europeans that they would never democratically be able to retake their lands , thus violating the territorial integrity of South America.”
We can all spot the lies in your statement, but you can't tell me I am lying in my statement(well you can, but that is just another lie from you).
1833 is irrelevant anyway (although it would still be enough of a case for the UK)
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina signed the 1850 Treaty with the UK and the islanders lived there uncontested (in terms of official protests) until 1941. The lack of RG protests for 90 years and the Latzina maps are the icing on the cake.
Clear case of ownership prescription - trumps everything else. End of...
This is why Argentina won't go to the ICJ - it has tried everything else (Papal mediation etc.) but knows it will get its arse kicked in short order if it takes the UK to court
We should forget about 1833 - 1850 is the only one that matters.
@51 Steveu:
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would say 1811 matters, as the Spanish pulled out of the Falklands from Montevideo (not BA).
And then 1836 matters, when the Spanish officially gave up their claim to the Falklands.
Sort of makes everything Argentina's claim is based on weak even in that era.
So Uruguay has a stronger claim
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They would have a stronger case under uti posseditis juris (not that we recognise that) and didn't sign any treaty with the UK
Having said that, prescription would still trump everything as there would be 180 years without protest
It just shows how flimsy the Argentine case is!
True historical facts show that the specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You always have to contextualize the conflict and related social processes.
That is racism, colonialism and imperialism 18th century English and 19. Something the British forumers never find answers and want to hide.
Argentina suffered four 1806-1807-1833-1845 British invasions. Besides the already known English cultural and economic colonialism that Argentine people suffered during the 19th and 20th century. Remembering the Roca-Runciman who starved the people of Argentina and support English patriotic fraud.
In the 20th century UK Argentinas support for dictatorships in the application of the doctrine of national deseguridad the result of torture and disappearances. Before the 1982 war UK Videla and Galtieri support in the implementation of the economic plan of Martinez de Hoz and state terrorism with 30,000 missing.
I recommend reading the book: British policy in the Rio de la Plata written by Raul Scalabrini Ortiz.
Alli is proven by historical facts economic genocide carried out by the UK to the Argentine people.
“The international community is more than ever convinced that colonialism has no place in the modern world,” said Ban-Moon. “The eradication of colonialism, according to the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, is our common endeavor.”
Was referring of racism, colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century English.
face1354@hotmail.com
Raul - you're not listening
Apr 05th, 2013 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please read my post @51. What is your view of the Arana Southern Treaty of 1850?
you get the feeling
Apr 05th, 2013 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0raul and fido dont like the brits,
fido has a fixation with other peoples teeth,
and raul has a fixation to tell porkies,
but both have one thing in common,
both were educated to argentine standard,
enough said.
no offence lads, just facts lol.
@30 Anglotino
Apr 05th, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent post and very interesting for those of us in countries where, if it isn't written down and stamped at a notary office it doesn't exist.
@Fido
I thought you were Dutch? The dutch were prolific pirates in south east asia and along the coast of South America - they even tried to take my beloved Chiloe once...unsuccessfully of course.
Raul
Apr 05th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why did you commit genocide on the indigenous population of south America, why did you disrupt their territorial integrity, why did you expect the world to recognise your self-determination in 1814 after these genuine inhumane acts of genocide?
Why did you in 1880 further disrupt Patagonians territorial integrity by massacring them and stealing their land.
Until you can fully answer those questions, satisfactoraly, you will never understand the rank, disgusting hypocrisy that you spout on these boards.
You were granted the right to self determination after the genocide of an entire race of people, fully disrupting their terrifically integrity, yet somehow you feel you have the right to deny the islanders the same right when instead of massacring 100,000s of genuine indigenous people....they evicted 50 murdering rapists who had no right to be ther anyway.
You hypocrisy is repulsive.
Condorito
Apr 05th, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unwritten constitutions are a very difficult concept to understand? I always marvel at our so called constitutional lawyers and experts, because by it's very definition, one decision in our courts by a magistrate or a judge, one small piece of legislation introduced by a single elected member of our parliament, can change it at a stroke!
In essence it is written, but it is not written in one document, it is all of them and more confusingly, none of them. Take common law, written no where. No where is it written that murder is a crime, there is written law that defines how it is proved, but no where is it written that it is a crime. It simply says, it is contrary to common law.
Raul
Apr 05th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Put simply the true facts that you spout are not true.
In 1833 the British did not expel the original population.
There have only ever been 5 populations on the islands and none of them were expelled in 1833.
The original population was French in 1765 in Port Luis. They certainly weren't expelled in 1833.
the next population was British in port Egmont they weren't expelled in 1833 either, they left voluntarily in 1770s
The next population was Spanish in port Soledad, they left via Montevideo in 1811, so they weren't evicted in 1833 either.
That's a lot of original populations already.
The next population was the Vernet community, who were certainly on the islands in 1833 lead by British Matthew Brisbane...they weren't evicted in 1833 either.
And then there is the 180 year current population which mingled with the Brisbane community...so it's not that “original population” either.
Those evicted...we're a 50 strong militia who'd been on the islands 2 months and committed murder and rape.....Timmerman calls them Argentine authorities... But even that is stretching it...certainly NOT an original community.
Territorial integrity....1000 miles from the nearest point of the UP.. Applied 100 years before the rule...and 50 years before you committed genocide in Patagonia.
You are a fantasist Raul....a joke
42 Raul
Apr 05th, 2013 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can see a flaw in your cunning plan. If you don't ask the islanders what they want and get their agreement, there will not be a peaceful solution. We will not go quietly. We have our own defence force.
Oh and when Ban Ki Moon spoke of colonialism having no place in the 21st Century, I think he was speaking of Argentina's plan to colonise the Falkland Islands. The only ones planning to violate the UN charter are you.
I have no idea why you people reply to Raul. He literally, literally copy pastes the same thing on every thread. Even his reply's are a copy paste of his other reply's.
Apr 05th, 2013 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul - We have been here before- Please listen carfully. Please go to The Argentine Naval Archives (in La Plata or Mar del Plata- I am not sure which).
Apr 05th, 2013 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look up 1833.
There you will find the true account of events and the names of the militia and their wives/ladies etc who were eveicted.
The names of the 4 civilains (a Ur and a Brazilian couple) who decided to leave the Islands - of their own FREE CHOICE
And -
The names of the civilans of various nationalities - including brisbane - who decided of their own FREE CHOICE to stay on and accept British rule.
The information is all there - in an Argentine(River Plate States) Official Document.
For your further information at least ONE one of the female Argentine civilians who stayed on - later married one of the early English settlers - family of their descent still live in the islands today.
For your further information the last of those settlers who were here and stayed on in 1833 - died in Stanley in 1865 and is buried in the cemetery here - if you like I can find out the grave number and it,s exact position. Several others are in the graveyard out at Port Louis.
Now - please answer me - How could this have happened if they were evicted in 1833?
Raul Says:
Apr 05th, 2013 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”“”True historical facts show that the specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.“”“”
An Argentine academic says:
“”“I began with a preliminary survey of 20th Century Argentine history school-texts that showed that, independently of the type of regime or government in power, one message that is permanently present in Argentine education is that the country has been deprived of huge continental territories during the 19th Century by the cunning of expansionist neighbors and/or by the secessions of ungrateful brethren. In the Argentine texts, the loss of the Falkland Islands is added to the loss of great territories allegedly forfeited to Chile and Brazil, and to the loss of Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay in their entirety: these countries supposedly should have been ”inherited” by Argentina from Spain. In contrast, the historical atlases that are published in Western Europe and North America unanimously award mid-19th Century Argentina a territory that is scarcely more than half its present-day area (see, for example, the historical atlases published by Hammond, Penguin and Anchor). In other words, while the Argentine textbooks reflect a self-perception as a country that suffered severe territorial amputations during the 19th Century, victimized by neighbors and secessionists, the vast majority of the material published on the subject outside Argentina depicts the country as successfully expansionist during that very same century. “””
the past is now irrelivent,
Apr 06th, 2013 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0the present is now,
and they freely choose to remain british,
the future has yet to be decided,
either way, they have voted and shown that they have no wish to be argentina,
and that is that,
so forget the past and leave them alone in peace.
An argentine resembles a sheet of used toilet-roll: it's hard enough to look at it and striking up a conversation with one is completely meaningless.
Apr 06th, 2013 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, its just not worth the effort to reply to Raul.
Apr 06th, 2013 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0He just repeats the same lies over & over.
Somewhat similar to that other misfit Axel.
While all stupid Fido Dido can offer is “bad teeth”.
Not much of a brain between any of them, l'm sure.
Up the gary glitter
Apr 06th, 2013 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 015 José Malvinero (#) “Either way, I will not losing saliva with insignificant countries like Malta.”
Apr 06th, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly you know nothing. Malta, insignificant ???? Malta, the most couragous of nationalities and Islands in the world, stood up to the might of the Nazi's and Italians during WW2, who withstood terrible privations, death and starvation at the hands of the Germans, a pepole and nation that truely deserved its collective George Cross, a people who are warm, generous and hard working.
And then there are the Argies..... cowardly 'neutral' durring WW2 until they knew which side was going to win, a country that succured the remanants of escaped Nazi's, its military dressed like Nazi's, acted like Nazi's...failed like the Nazi's. Country who takes what it wants (and in a spectacular way FAILS), has no moral compass and refuses to open its eyes to the 21st century democratic principles.
I know which country stands tall and pround and is significant......and which one does not.
@42,54 Raul, you do spout a load of rubbish. What is worse is that you spout the same rubbish over and over again. You are wasted here. You should be in argie politics. You seem to have the same level of obtuse stupidity. With apologies to ordinary sane posters, I shall point some things out to you once more.
Apr 06th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION IS BINDING!! PARTICULARLY, IN THIS CASE, 1514 THAT THE UK NEITHER SIGNED NOR RATIFIED!! MOREOVER, ANY SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION THAT QUOTES 1514 WOULD BE VOID FOR THE UK. AND NO GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OR C24 DRAFT CAN OVERRIDE THE UN CHARTER. AND UN RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW. MAJOR ARGENTINE SCREW-UP - THE 1982 FALKLANDS WAR WON BY THE UK. THAT IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. IT COVERS THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, SOUTH GEORGIA AND THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS. THE ARGENTINE “CLAIMS” ARE LEGALLY OVER. Finished, kaput, ended. Argentina has had no legal claims for over 30 years. I can understand that you may have been brainwashed into your beliefs or that you may be paid for inserting your rubbish, but now you have to stop. Not least because you are making yourself look more stupid than you originally did. The only chance Argentina might have is to start another war. But you won't, will you? Because the odds aren't so good now. Instead of 66,000 to 80, you'll be facing around 1,500 fully equipped British troops. To maintain the odds, you'll need 1.25 million troops. But then you're committed to “peace”, aren't you?
@54
Apr 06th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 01/-the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833,
There was no force used and it was smaller than the UP force. But the UP force refused to fight back because the majority of it were British who refused to fight their own countrymen.
So a lot of the UP military (certainly the naval side ) that were expelled were in fact British whereas the civilian population allowed to stay only had a few British nationals and were mostly from South America.
2/“-expelled the original population”
As has been pointed out, Raul the original population (by only a year) were French and they were not expelled by Britain.
Your method of paralleling the Argentine government by repeating lies only draws out the truth to counter those lies.
A classic Argentine tactic from Raul.
Take aim at own foot.
Fire, shooting own foot.
Raul? - where are you? - cat bitten your tongue?
Apr 06th, 2013 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't do much good at the ICJ to rely on self determination.
Apr 07th, 2013 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.voanews.com/content/nigeria-cameroon-residents/1634181.html
@73
Apr 07th, 2013 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An excellent precedent for Argentina to take its claim to the ICJ.
There might be a little wrinkle in that Cameroon was able to show that Nigerian governments had actually ceded the territory in question, but in the case of the Falklands, everybody knows the 1850 Treaty of Perfect Friendship was actually just a simple clerical error, and I'm sure the court would be sympathetic to that point of view.
@74 So, you agree with me that territorial ownership rights trump self determination every time.
Apr 07th, 2013 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@75
Apr 07th, 2013 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I don't agree 'every time'. I agree legal judgements strongly favour the holders of legal title, as in the case of Bakassi and the Aland Islands.
But leaving aside the question of whether Argentina has anything that might be regarded as legal title (give me a break), the fact is that the Falklands are a NSGT, for which the UN has established a legal right of self-determination. Argentina claims that this right is limited, but neither the UN nor the court have established this.
Or in short, there is no trump card here, and there still wouldn't be, even if some coincidentally pro-Argentine research were miraculously to turn up the title deeds to the islands.
@74 When have I ever said that Argentina has anything that might be regarded as legal title over the Islands? I most certainly never have. On the other hand, when have I ever expressed any doubt about the United Kingdom's title? I never have. Right, got that out of the way.
Apr 07th, 2013 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is that the UN regards the Falkland Islands as a special and particular case of colonialism. This is a political not a legal categorisation on the part of the UN. That's why they always, including the US, invite the two of them to sort it out together.
If legal judgements have strongly favoured the holders of legal title and discounted to some extent the self determination claims of colonists we should not be surprised to discover that the recent Referendum will not be the silver bullet some posters seem to believe it to be.
@77
Apr 07th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you said was that territorial ownership trumps self-determination every time. I take it we can now agree that this isn't in fact the case?
And since I have never claimed that the recent referendum is any kind of silver bullet, I guess we can agree on that too.
But this is far from agreeing that the referendum is either irrelevant or harmful. At a minimum it has exposed the absurdity of an implanted Iberian population pleading colonial inheritance to a decolonization committee as a justification for denying an anglo-saxon population the right to refuse forcible assimilation.
And this is a point which hasn't been lost on the chairman of the decolonization committee himself. What's not to like?
@78 They claim the sanctity, or demonstrate the sanctimoniousness, that can only come from achieving Statehood and gaining entry into the United Nations. Meanwhile we steadfastly maintain our colonies as tax havens, make the electorates British Citizens but deny them the option of full integration into the United Kingdom. What's not to be ashamed of?
Apr 07th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@79
Apr 07th, 2013 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0... disdain, anglophobia, diversion....
Now where have I seen that before?
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/referendum-a-game-changer/
Apr 07th, 2013 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
@78 HansNiesund: I would say that the Falklanders controlling their own immigration is the trump card. Argentina bang on about a planted population, because they know that is all they have got.
Apr 08th, 2013 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html
”In the immediate political context of the drafting and the diplomatic lobbying leading on to its adoption, the Declaration was generally understood as being directed to “salt-water” Colonialism – occupation of the lands and territories of indigenous, native or aboriginal peoples, in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, who were physically separated by the oceans from their colonial Powers. There is nothing in the language or the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) inhibiting its legal extension to situations involving relations between European colonial Powers and other European or European-derived peoples overseas.”
So bingo!..and if the natives choose to pump up their own population with immigrants then bully for them.
The catch is (or is meant to be, but look at Tibet) if the colonial power floods the overseas territory with its own people to drown out the democratic voice of the natives, then self determination does not stand.
That is what Argentina is trying to trick the world into thinking what is happening in the Falklands, because that is all Argentina has. Local control of Immigration policy blows Argentina out of the water.
Dovedover
Apr 08th, 2013 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be in a minority of one on these Boards of those who against Argentine sovereignty, but also have an issue with the current relationship between the islands and the UK.
Your case that one or other are being short-changed from the deal..(UK not getting the oil revenues/Islanders not being represented in UK parliament) is academic, as neither side seem or are perturbed by it.
The current levels of autonomy, devolution and self governance of all British overseas territories, crown dependencies, and member states are incredibly varied, and throw up all sorts of constitutional inconsistancies (e.g. the west Lothian question) but generally they are resolved to mutual consent over time.
The current position appears to be supported by 99.8% of the islanders, and very few in the UK have an issue with it, so IMO there appears to be very little to be “ashamed of”.
The only people with an issue over the current situation appear to be those who support the Argentine colonialist cause as opposed to a genuine “anti-colonial” stance.
@83 The only people with an issue over the current situation appear to be those who support the Argentine colonialist cause as opposed to a genuine “anti-colonial” stance and those who have an anti-British attitude based on grievances about how we acquired and try to retain our wealth and influence. As for the indifference of the UK electorate, they clearly don't understand the parlous nature of our fiscal and monetary position.
Apr 08th, 2013 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@84
Apr 08th, 2013 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only people with an issue over the current situation appear to be the implanted Iberian populations of South America, the usual suspect rogue states, and a sprinkling of others with axes of their own to grind.
@85 Those in favour of the status quo and those who believe the status needs to be changed are no doubt vastly outnumbered by the Rhett Butlerites.
Apr 08th, 2013 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0@86
Apr 08th, 2013 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Frankly, my dear, I think we can agree on that too.
@33 Troy Tempest Point taken about Argies and logic, but set an example. Italy left Malta alone after 1945, leaving it to become the UK's problem.
Apr 08th, 2013 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://mt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampa:THE_PROBLEM_OF_MALTA_-_British_Pathe.ogv
What Malta was offered was far more generous than anything Argentina would give the Falklands - it would be nothing more than a department of Tierra del Fuego province.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!