MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands at C 24 June 20; UN Committee supports sending missions to Non-self Governing Territories
The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, or C 24, will be hearing the Falklands/Malvinas question in a week’s time, Thursday June 20, after having heard those relative to Gibraltar and Western Sahara on Wednesday 12 June. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMorejón has made it perfectly clear where he stands on sending a visiting mission to the Falklands in previous interviews and unsurprisingly it is in total contradiction to the statements above. What is surprising is that he remains in his job after revealing such blatant bias.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0It will be interesting to see if the Falklands are are removed from 'the list' this time as, according to the C24 President, they should not be there anyway,
Jun 13th, 2013 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“And when the issue refers to sovereignty, the Decolonization Committee has nothing to do or even suggest.”. Taken from:
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/04/c24-president-insists-falklands-dispute-is-over-sovereignty-not-self-determination
#2 The C24 has no power to delist the Falklands. The list was created by the General Assembly, and one of the real weaknesses of the C24 is that it has no clear roadmap to delisting other than through a declaration of independence. The whole thing is an anachronistic mess and a talking shop for bored Ambassadors.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Diego says a lot of things inconsistent with his position. Surely he should at least pretend to be impartial.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“..I would say that the Malvinas theme is misplaced in the Decolonization Committee. Because we are not talking about a colony. It is Argentine territory occupied by a foreign power. It is a military occupation by a foreign power”
I believe everything you need to know about this little weasel, he has revealed in these two interviews.
http://www.elcomercio.com/mundo/Diego-Morejon-Comite-Descolonizacion-ONU-Malvinas_0_718728258.html
http://www.elcomercio.com/mundo/Diego-Morejon-Comite-Descolonizacion-ONU-Malvinas_0_718728258.html
I entirely agree, though China got Hong Kong and Macau removed from the C24 list in 1972, long before it signed agreements with Britain and Portugal for their return, on the grounds that the settlement of their future was entirely within China's sovereign right. Argentina and Spain have never done that with the Falklands and Gibraltar, maybe because their diplomats have nothing better to do.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I and all other Falkland Islanders look forward to the first ever “impartial” visit from the C24?
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4
Jun 13th, 2013 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed
One thing that is rarely brought up that in the 1830's acquisition by military force was considered an acceptable way of acquiring territory, the United Provinces acquired the Territory that became Argentina by this method, so what is wrong with the UK having acquired the Falklands in the same manner regardless of any other sovereignty claims?
@6 I agree, it could be “interesting”. Considering that the “Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” was created in 1961, one wonders what it has been doing for the last 52 years. But one thing you and your compatriots should note is the proper name of the committee. Our argie bloggers and the argie “government” deny that the Falkland Islands is a country or that Falklanders are a people. In that case, the “Special Committee” has no business considering the situation or interfering. If you have access to those who will, presumably, form the delegation to the committee hearings, may I suggest that they start by being as forthright and combative as Gibraltar has been. Take the time to mention, as Gibraltar has done, that transferring sovereignty is not a matter for the Special Committee or, indeed, the General Assembly and there is, therefore, no need for argieland or its stooges to be heard.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 While we note the point, the UK did not acquire the Falkland Islands by military force. It may have recovered them by military force, or the threat of it, but it did not acquire them by such means. Bear in mind that there might be two steps to acquisition. First, there is discovery, landing, settlement and so forth. For Britain, that step took place in 1690 and subsequent years. The second step is the formal claim. That took place in 1765. Everything after that is “recovery”. For example, 1770/71 saw the “Falklands Crisies” where the Spanish were forced to “back off” under threat of war. I see no “formal” claim to the Islands by the French. And, if the Spanish were forced to reverse their actions of 1770, they tacitly admitted that they did not have sovereignty. Therefore, argieland cannot have “inherited” sovereignty from a country that didn't have it. Q.E.D.
What's all this talk about visiting Non-self Governing Territories? that Ecuadorian changed his tune!.
Jun 13th, 2013 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The Assembly would also request the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee in exploring the possibility of undertaking visiting or special missions in furtherance of the decolonization mandate”. umm.. get on a plane or do they expect the administering Powers to pay for there gravy train?
I'm thinking someone's given the UN decolonization committee a good talking too?
Excuse me! Have I missed something here?
Jun 13th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought that the FALKLAND ISLANDERS were SELF GOVERNING their country. So why is the FALKLANDS considered a NON SELF GOVERNING TERRITORY.The UK is advising on Foreign Policy and the UK pays for the defence of the islands, of course this will change in the future when the FALKLANDS declare INDEPENDENCE ( once oil flows in 2017 ) Could be within 10yrs.
@8
Jun 13th, 2013 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with your response to me.
I was just trying to point out that even should the RG's ever be able to satisfactorily PROVE that they had sovereignty in 1833 then they lost it when they meekly walked away from an implied threat of force.
“the General Assembly would stress the need to dispatch periodic missions to facilitate the full, speedy and effective implementation of the Declaration.”
Jun 13th, 2013 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do I s'spect that the periodic missions will be “Once in a Blue Moon?”
The Security Council have 5 members=
Jun 13th, 2013 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today Russia came out in favour of the argentines, and we already know china has said they support Argentina,
This leaves 3,
The British support the Falklands , and the Americans sit on the fence,
And the French ??????????????????
What happens if the security council voted for talks,
Can this be done if Obama comes of the fence or the French decide to back talks?
What happens?
??Can the security council even suggest this kind of thing,
What powers do they have ,, if any…
Interesting to know…
.
@13
Jun 13th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have the power of Veto....I forbid!
read this.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
,
Jun 13th, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So they can’t force anything on us,
But we can prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members,
Mmmm
Interesting..
Thank you..
@15
Jun 13th, 2013 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So they can’t force anything on us”
Actually 'they' can, please see article 27 of the Charter, available here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml
For SC Resolution 502 the UK did vote for it, Panama queried the eligibility of the UK to vote but was advise by Sir Arthur Parsons, The UK ambassador, that the exclusion did not apply as as the resolution was being raised under a different Article, I believe it was something in the 40`s but am not sure.
“But we can prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members” in most instances yes unless we have to abstain as per the Charter. It is one of Argentina's continual moans.
Yep a veto.
Jun 14th, 2013 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0So sorry Argentina. Forever vetoed by the UK.
@13 fine then they can “talk”. Cameron can bring the FIG and insist that they be in the room on the front row of brit delegation chairs in next to Cameron (I'll forgo my usual shtick about him sitting then in the back of the room doing facebook and looking at kitten pictures on his iPhone).. The AR delegation will then walk out as usual. AR will be in breach of another round of UNSC resolutions. The Islands will continue to be at no risk of being involuntarily colonized by AR.
Jun 14th, 2013 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can live with that.
Perhaps the Argentinian court decision freeing Chevron’s assets in Argentina, from seizure by Ecuador, has brought about this Ecuadorian’s change of heart?
Jun 14th, 2013 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However not to be trusted, whatever the reason.
The NSGTs best course of action is to continue the line of statements made recently by Fl & Gib Governments at the meeting.
Continue appealing over the heads of the committee directly to Ban-Ki Moon and the General assembly.
If the legitimate aspirations of all the peoples of the listed territories for self-determination is to be realised, the UN is going to have to De-Colonise the C24 committee, or scrap it.
16 Biguggy
Jun 14th, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for that…
18 GFace
Cheers .
//////////////
Does one not think, that there’s now far to much rules / , agreements ,
To the tune that one only gets more bogged down, rather that advancing to sort things out..
.
@20 Briton
Jun 14th, 2013 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are welcome.
Further on the subject of UN Resolutions, GA Resolution are not binding.
The UN Charter is, or at least supposed to be, on members.
Security Council Resolutions are binding on members, or are supposed to be, Article 27.
As far as I am aware there has been no Resolution concerning the Falklands dispute since 1988, after which the UK and Argentina did start 'talking'.
The Secretary General of the UN said last December that he did not believe that any member of the Security Council was in contravention of any RELEVANT resolution, i.e. the UK is 'in the clear'.
Argentina on the other hand has violated paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Charter:
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”
by attempting to take over the Falkland Islands by force and when withdrawal of its forces was demanded by the Security Council (Resolution 502) it failed to comply, violation of Article 25 of the Charter:
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Now they (RG's) are trying to get a seat on the Security Council, no way in my book, but only time will tell.
PEOPLES BY MALVINAS
Jun 15th, 2013 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas Peoples is a project that aims to build territorial depth and massive social membership to the Cause Malvinas regional and global level.
We want more and more South American and world citizens are aware of the future importance of the Malvinas and Antarctica vector for our development and our collective prosperity. All states of South America and many brethren countries throughout the world and have supported our cause solid diplomatic realizing the intergovernmental framework that legitimized the claim nourishes our country.
Peoples Malvinas looking, in this sense, build enduring social foundations deeply embedded in the collective memory and henceforth mean the Cause Malvinas as a popular cause specific to each inhabitant of South America and beyond.
The anchor regional and global conflict, constitute the people of our people in the real partners and guarantors of the cause, those that transcend the vicissitudes of political life and the immediate interests of the states.
If Malvinas reaches deep into the hearts of our people, then, Malvinas is a cause of the future, future generations because of loyalty, but mainly seed that could grow transgenerational solidarity. To this we aim, to consolidate what is not happening, right now that the political and strategic conditions have enabled.
Peoples Falklands is just what its name suggests, the People asking for our common heritage and future of our real economy.
See the following links:
http://pueblospormalvinas.org/
http://pueblospormalvinas.org/
Mail: face1354@hotmail.com
PMSL
Jun 15th, 2013 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 01,518 people outweigh that pathetic website.
@22 raul2:“ world citizens are aware of the future importance of the Malvinas and Antarctica vector for our development and our collective prosperity”
Jun 15th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I want the rest of the world to realise Argentina has a thieving, imperialist mentality too.
@22 raul2
Jun 15th, 2013 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Verbal meaningless bullshit! You couldn't even gather 1 million in Argentina.
@22 raul2
Jun 15th, 2013 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don’t you call it “the Drang nach osten”.
Plans of “imperialistic expansion” into other people’s territories often go very wrong.
Especially when fu*k wits are in charge.
1 million signatures is 2.5% of the Argentine population, since when was 2.5% an important figure??????????
Jun 15th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ah
Jun 15th, 2013 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 022 is fishing,
dont let him catch you or it will your fault .lol
@22
Jun 15th, 2013 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly why do Argentina want the FALKLANDS? Is it the OIL? You have enough oil, you just cannot afford to extract it. Otherwise why would you want the FALKLANDS
“It would also call upon administering Powers that had not yet done so to facilitate United Nations visiting missions to the Territories.”
Jun 15th, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The FIG invited these prats to turn up last year.
They refused the invitation.
Looks like Ban Ki Moon has asked the C24 to pull it's finger out and be guided by the UN Charter, not the LATAM Charter.
“As for sending missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories, “it was a vital means to establish and ascertain evolving issues”.”
Took them 52 years to think of this?
Wonder what marvels they will achieve in the next 52?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!