MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ fresh with referendum results will challenge the C24 and Argentina
Argentina and the Falkland Islands meet on Thursday at the UN Decolonization Committee, C24 to discuss the South Atlantic Islands sovereignty dispute, and contrary to last year when the big show was the attendance of President Cristina Fernandez, this time it will be the Falklands’ turn with the indisputable fresh results of the March referendum and their right to self-determination. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAh, the Hector show is about to start again. However this year he could only manage a couple of governor's, not the President. They really are going backwards here, aren't they?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I also like the line in this article where it says that they are going to the C24 to discuss sovereignty!
Eh? The C24's remit is to decolonise. It has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.
Come on Mr Timerman, if you really want to solve this 'dispute' you should take it to the ONLY UN body that can, namely the International Court of Justice.
If you won't then the world can only assume that Argentina really isn't serious about it's sovereignty claims.
As for India supporting Argentina, where did they say that? Is that like when they said the Irish supported Argentina? Lots of hot air but not one single solitary statement from ANYONE in the Irish government. And not one single solitary statement from ANYONE in the Indian government.
I also believe that Russia and China might make some cooing noises about peaceful resolution (but that isn't support Mr Timerman), and Iraq would probably laugh at you.
Seems Mr Timerman is planing on lying at the C24, but then, why change the habits of a lifetime.
What the hell is an “implanted population”? Is there any definition? And why are the Falkland Islanders more “implanted” than the 98% of the Argentines of European origin? Mr Timerman (who uses this term) is first generation Argentine. Russia (who is supposed to support the Argentine claim) has the Kaliningrad area which was populated by the Soviet Union after 1945, when the Germans were forcibly expelled. The people of that area could possibly be called an “implanted population”. Bur that does not mean that they have no rightsas many of them are born and raised there. So, please explain why just the Falklanders are “implanted”!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0While the Russians are there maybe they can discuss removing all the Russian civilians implanted into the land stolen from Finland at the end of WW2 as well.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hector, didn't you read that resolution your lot voted on last year, even populations have the right to self determinations, I guess that must cover implanted ones too (whatever they are ?!?).
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0This forum has NOTHING to do with sovereignty. It has all to do with colonisation. The sovereignty issue should be settled in the International Court of Justice.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islanders do not want to be an Argentinian overseas territory !
Jun 20th, 2013 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0So people that have migrated from all over world to an uninhabited land, and have now lived there for 9 generations, are implanted?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try arguing that at the ICJ...
Is Timmerman so thick he doesn't realise the irony of his comment.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0UN Web TV
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://webtv.un.org/#
It is a bit peculiar with Mr. Timerman. Once a human rights advocate, his father arrested by the junta regime, he now sounds like Galtieri et consortes. But, Malvinism seems to be the one thing that could unite all Argentines.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 trenchtoast
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0As Argentina voted 'for' UNGA Resolution 67/134 it could be reasonably concluded that they support said Resolution and a logical interpretation of that would mean that Argentina supports the rights of POPULATIONS in NSGT's to self-determination! Quite a turn about in RG policy!!
Either that or the RG delegation that voted for the Resolution were 'asleep at the switch', a more likely scenario I think.
One thing I have noticed is that at last years C24 charade Mr Sawle challenged the committee to ask for evidence that the 'original population' was expelled in 1833 and that said claim has no 'disappeared' from the official RG website:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history#09
In view of this perhaps the Islanders should issue a similar challenge this year about some other untruth in the RG 'claim'.
I think they will find it hard to divide the committee, the cards are heavily stacked against them with the current membership.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Won't support Falklands;
Bolivia, Venezuela, Syrian Arab Republic, Ecuador, Cuba, Iran, China, Russian Federation
Probably won't support Falklands
Chile and India
Members of Alba (get cheap Venezuelan Oil)
Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Leaving
Congo, Côte D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, Indonesia, Iraq, Mali, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste,Tunisia and United Republic of Tanzania
@12 trenchtoast
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed with the current make up of the C24 and the chairs blatant public comments of support for Argentina, it will be an uphill battle. However against that we do have weigh the chairs public statement to the effect that the sovereignty issue is nothing to do with the C24 committee and the Secretary General's warning to the committee to 'get their finger out'. Just maybe the committee will recommend to the Fourth Committee that the Falklands and Gibraltar be removed from 'the list'.
SENOR TIMERMAN,
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND HOW A PERSON OF YOUR “INTELLIGENCE ” KEEPS QUOTING THE EXPRESSION
“IMPLANTED POPULATION” , WITH RESPECT TO THE INHABITANTS
OF THE BRITISH FALKLAND ISLANDS.
-WITH YOUR UKRAINIAN ROOTS , TOGETHER WITH ALL OF YOUR
ARGENTINIAN COMPATRIOTS , MOST OF WHOM ARE OF EUROPEAN
ORIGIN , YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER! :::::::::BESIDES , WHAT ABOUT
YOUR CHINESE “FRIENDS” AND THEIR IMPLANTS IN TIBET ?
The way this Soap Opera is going Timerman will be dragging dogs and cats to New York next year.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@15 andy65
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, no not cats and dogs, birds. Do you not recall CFK's address last year. The birds show the Islands belong to Argentina?
The Argentinian delegation can put an end to all debate on the referendum and self-determination by emphasizing that the Falkland Islanders, according to terms of discussion laid down by the United Nations itself, are a “population” and not “ a people”.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your referendum is meaningless you are a part of GB.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL Devolverislas.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only if Argentina wanted to appear as stupid as you do right now.
Which is pretty stupid.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't think this applies then ?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134&referer=http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/resolutions.shtml&Lang=S
”c) Siga examinando la situación política, económica y social de los
Territorios no autónomos y le recomiende, según proceda, las medidas que más
convenga adoptar para que las POBLACIONES de esos Territorios puedan ejercer su
derecho a la libre determinación, incluida la independencia, de conformidad con las
resoluciones relativas a la descolonización, incluidas las relativas a Territorios
concretos; ”
Is there really such a fundamental difference between a “people/pueblo” and a “population/poblacion”. Some linguists here to explain this?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not only can s/he not understand that the comments on this site are supposed to be in English s/he is also in denial that the subject paragraph exists. Please see his/her post #69 in the thread:
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/06/13/falkland-islands-asserts-their-democratic-rights#comments
where s/he states:
“Resolution A/RES/67/134 applies only to “peoples” and your extract coincides with no paragraph in the text.”
This is very difficult to comprehend particularly as Argentina voted 'for' the Resolution and it would therefore seem very reasonable to assume that they agreed with it.
@22
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0The United Nations uses the term “population” discerningly in regard of the Falkland Islanders. The UN's intention is to distinguish them from a “people”. In the narrow UN context, a people has collective rights such as “self-determination”. A population has no such collective rights. It is a vital distinction. The Falkland Islanders and the British Government have done their best to blur the distinction.
But WHY should the Islanders lack the right of self-determination? WHY are they a “population” and not a “people”? WHO has decided that?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0My apologies, my post #23 above was supposed to be in answer to #21 trenchtoast , not a blank.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 24 Devolverislas
Please explain what piece of:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”
that you do not understand.
The above quote is from paragraph 7(c) of UNGA Resolution 67/134, which Argentina voted for and is available for examination here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
I just hope the FIG people there are recording as much as they can of the bias against them. Getting the sort of stuff that the chair of the commitee was coming out with last year onto the web would be a big plus for the Falklander cause.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0@18
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your referendum is meaningless you are a part of GB”
okay..then there is no problem, the Islanders meet the decolonization criteria, and should be off the list.
There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, anytime that makes them part of Argentina. Spain (once, maybe part of the islands), Argentina never!!
thanks for the endorsement.
@24 Devolverislas:
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Repeating the same rubbish in the face of documented evidence makes you look like a compulsive liar.
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
Are you a compulsive liar?
@26 I wouldn't hold your breath, its not easy to explain away a UN Resolution adopted by the majority of the assembly, including Argentina, that spells out self-determination is applicable to peoples and populations in black and white in six different languages.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Dev
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where exactly have the UN stated that the Falkland Islanders are a population not a people and as such have no right to self determination?
I'm starting to think we should withhold our payments to the UN until they reform the C24 committee, i believe someone on here said we pay more then
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all of South america combined (plus the US has dun it before). Anyone know how much we give these corrupt people?.
All of this is completely irrelevant. Even if we are an 'implanted population' (whatever that means), and even if we are a 'population' and not a 'people' (whoever decided that?), we have rights under the UN that are more important. We have the right not to be 'dominated and subjugated' by a foreign power.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no getting round this. Argentina tries, by bleating on about territorial integrity. However, this is not part of Argentina's territory, and there is no way for Argentina to get control of the Falklands without subjugating the islanders by force.
This is what the C24 should be concentrating on. By supporting Argentina in its colonial ambitions, it is making a mockery of the very purpose it was set up for. The only way out of the C24 for any territory, including us, is by working towards independence. If you look at the territories left on there, very few of them will be capable of independence any time soon, and most of them don't want it. What are they proposing then? To force them to become independent? Are they really suggesting that the UK cut of financial support to places like St Helena and Montserrat and leave them to their own devices? The whole thing's a complete farce.
@18 Vestige: “Your referendum is meaningless you are a part of GB.”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By GB I take it you mean Great Britain? Great Britain is a geographical land mass, and even an idiot can see that the Falklands are not part of Great Britain (just as even an idiot can see the Falklands are not part of Argentina). The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory, and in the modern world they can expect to have the final say in how their homeland is ran: the C24 was set up to try and ensure this, but unfortunately it has been hijacked by Argentina's cronies for their own propaganda purposes.
@24 Devolverislas
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you have taken to saying the same LIE again and again and again on each thread I will now copy and paste this reply. And any person that knows nothing about this debate will read your SHORT and PATHETIC post and then scroll down to my post which will not he's short and will provide quotes from a UN document.
You will only cause my words to resonate and not your LIES.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
“to take all steps necessary to enable the PEOPLES of the Non-Self- Governing Territories concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination, including independence”
5th paragraph 2nd page.
“Affirms once again its support for the aspirations of the PEOPLES under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence”
8th paragraph 2nd page.
“Urges the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the PEOPLES of the Non-Self- Governing Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources, and requests the relevant administering Power to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the PEOPLES of those Territories”
12th paragraph 3rd page.
“assistance to the Non-Self-Governing Territories and to continue to do so, as appropriate, after they exercise their right to self-determination, including independence”
3rd paragraph 4th page.
Note the liberal use of the word PEOPLES throughout the document. And not once does it qualify this as not applying to the Falkland Islands. NOT ONCE.
So please now show proof that none of this applies to the Falkland Islands. Because this document clearly applies to ALL non-self governing territories as listed by the UN.
Betcha can't. Betcha fudge the issue. Betcha deflect. Betcha lie lie lie.
Thank you for this opportunity to make you look stupid Devolverislas.
#32 Based on the 2013 figures (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/866) the UK contribution was 5.18% of the budget (c.f. the UK holds 1% of the world's population). Argentina: 0.43% Bolivia: 0.01% Brazil: 2.93% Chile: 0.33% Columbia: 0.26% Ecuador: 0.04 Paraguay: 0.01 Peru: 0.12 Uruguay: 0.05 Venezuela: 0.63, total = about 4.5%. So yeah, we pay more.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Devolverislas There is no doubt that practically 97% to 98% of Argentines are of European descent what make's you so different from The Falkland Islanders after all you yourself or your ancestors were IN PLANTED or do we wish to ignore that part of Spanish history
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn.......An exercise in futility...!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Timerman is an oddity. He has done much for human rights and like his father, has been a fervent advocate of freedom of speech / the press. It's strange that he now finds himself working for a regime which goes to almost any lengths to block an anti-government media coverage. He also refuses to recognise the rights of a group of people to the extent that he won't even talk to them. Could the Hector Timerman from 20 years ago have ever envisaged that he would end up being a dictator's puppet in the future?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Under the influence of the halocinogen “malvino” drug everything is possible for an Argentine citizen.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#39 Timerman is a foreign object. I thrall to a crazed dictator, he has proved to be a hypocrite and a coward (excellent qualifications for an R Juntinian). A hypocrite for his cries of freedom and human rights whilst he clearly doesn't believe in them as you have pointed out, and.... A coward because he won't engage with the Falkland Islanders who can point out to the world his slimy tricks and lies.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still, his visit to NYC will ensure that he has stuffed more $ in a non R Juntine bank and his supply of shirts is maintained.
@35 - I bet Devolverislas does one of two things
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Completely ignore your ratonale argument
2. Just repeat that UN principles do not apply to the Falklands and once again provide no basis or proof of this
Timmerman, CFK etc MIGHT have started off with good intentions many moons ago but their bitterness and egos were just to strong and once they got a whiff of power and money it totally went to their heads. And now they are junkies deeply addicted to the power and money justifying their actions because they ''deserve it'' for all the good they do and if they dont take the power and money then someone else will.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fascinating- Devoler - Think- Marcos -Raul
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please correct me if I am wrong and factually incorrect in the following - and show your evidence;
1 Arg appears to no longer clain that Argentine civilian settlers were forced to leave in 1833 - WHY?
Because it has had to accept that this story was a LIE. After all the names of all those concerned are listed in its own histoical records of the time.
2 - Arg seems to be shifting the story of “Militarization and Missiles” to one of “occasional”. WHY?
Because again as in 1 above - Arg has been found out as a LIAR - as there is a LESS British Military in the Islands in the 21st century compared to the 1982-1990s. Visits by a Frigates or a Destroyer are only intermittent with long gaps in between, very short range surface-air missiles with a range of only well inside the territorial waters are
the only missiles occasionally test fired - and even then well advertised in advance for marine safety.
Timerman was found to be an idiotic arse at the UN when he produced pictures of International Antarctic Ionospere research antennae and the hilltop positions of domestic internal telephone relays within the Islands, all as alleged “military positions”! - Oh nearly forgot - and the ICBM submarine pictured in Scottish waters!
3 - UN Sec General has issued a very clear request to the C24 - to get real and get on with it in the 21st Century.
The C24 Chair has also basically said similar.
Arg response - appears to be to churn out the same irrelvant false claims and bullshit they have pushed for years and years!
4- UN Sec General has confirmed that UK is NOT contravening ANY UN Declaration or Binding Request.
5- Arg continues to Lie claiming countries/governments/parliamentary associations have issued statements in support of Argentina - when it truth and reality -often no such statements have been made.
get you're popcorn and cheesy nachos ready
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/8th-meeting-resumed-session-of-the-special-committee-on-the-situation-with-regard-to-the-implementationof-the-declaration-on-the-granting-of-independence-to-colonialcountries-and-peoples/2399711945001
@Devolverislas
Jun 20th, 2013 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1593751-la-argentina-volvera-a-reclamar-por-las-islas-malvinas-en-la-onu
(Comment #1)
Yes, stick to selling smoke to your own dumb people.
You know full well why 'serious countries' look down on you and your 'potato queen'.
45 trenchtoast :) has it been a year already! lol, I wonder what twitterman will say?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0something about pirates and usurpers no doubt
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 The argies can put an end to all “debate” by shutting up!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 Lovely. Thank you. Then it isn't a “colony”, is it?
@33 Since you say “we”, I assume that you're an Islander. In that case, can't you make some suggestions to Mike Summers? Suggest to him that “attack is the best form of defence”. He could start by asking why argieland has a delegation present? The subject is decolonisation, not sovereignty. He could point at various other south american attendees and ask what they are there for? He could point to Maria Angelica Vernet and ask what the great great grand daughter of an individual best described as a liar, traitor and pirate might bring to any presentation on decolonisation. He could point to Alejandro Betts and ask what an individual that left the Falkland Islands after the failed 1982 Argentine invasion and occupation brings to the subject of decolonisation. He could point to Chapters XIII, XIV and XV of the UN Charter and state that the UK is carrying out its duties enumerated therein to the satisfaction of the Islanders. If anyone is ignoring the Charter it is argieland. At the very moment of speaking, it is conducting an economic war. He could ask what the Committee has done for the Islands since its inception. Has it protected the Islanders? In 323 years, only two “bodies” have “protected” the Islanders. The United Kingdom and the Security Council. And the latter has done little except, in 1982, to tell argieland to get off the Islands. A “resolution” that argieland ignored. And now has the hypocrisy to use non-binding resolutions that it has engineered to steal the Islands to progress its own colonialism. Time to recount selected parts of the real history. The Spanish attempt to steal the Islands by force in 1770. The attempt by an argie criminal in 1820. The treacherous attempt and piracy by Vernet 1829. Mestivier's murderers in 1832. The Arana-Southern Treaty. The referendum. Let the Committee state its requirements or stop interfering.
Nice hodgepodge do the okupas between the desires of the people and territorial integrity.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The territories do not speak, so you can not ask the occasional inhabitants, implanted, whether they want the territory they occupy, stay still “british overseas territory”.
The only discussion possible -and always understood so the ONU- it is whether the Malvinas Islands are historically, legally and geographically Argentine or British.
It is a question of territory and not their current occupants.
Desperates.
@50 Jose
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands Islands are a Self Governing Territory.
Like all places, people come and go.
Tell me, what business is it of yours?
@50 José Malvinero: “The only discussion possible -and always understood so the ONU- it is whether the Malvinas Islands are historically, legally and geographically Argentine or British.”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that is your position, then petition the Argentinean government to take their case to the ICJ for an answer.
Travelling around the world, whining, trying to spread very, very refutable arguments is desperate.
And (I find myself asking this again) if the Argentine position is one of historic territory not current occupants, then where does that leave Argentina? Because the indigenous population didn't invite Latins to South America did they?
very true @52 the more they refuse to take their sovereignty claim to a court of law ie.. I.C.J, Only proves to the world they don't wish to resolve it, and like past governments in Argentina have done, a tool to distract the world but most importantly the public of Argentina of their corrupt ways.........
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is Devolverislas??
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very conspicuous by his absence.
He makes unsubstantiated statements and then bravely runs away.
At least José is better at arguing.
:-)
Jose malvinero
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are historically NOT Argentine
The Falklands are legally NOT Argentine
The Falklands are geographically NOT Argentine
Historically, Britain has a FAR superior claim to Argentina, as the Argenine claim was based on “inheritance from Spain” which is rubbish. The Spanish South American territories gained independence based on self-determination, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile..all defined by the implanted Spaniards determining to be something else. The Spaniards on the islands left in 1811 and decided to be Spanish in Spain.
The various and dubious handful of characters in the Argentine pantomime, Jewitt, Vernet and Mestevier are weak claims at best, fatuous and ridiculous at worst, and certainly far weaker than the british claims from 1690, 1766 and continuously from 1833.
Legally, the title is has never been tested by the ICJ, and as Argentina has lost wars, let claims slipped, signed treaties and attempted human rights attrocities..probably a far weaker case than Britain.
Geographically? Yes, Argentina is closer than Britain to the islands. Argentina used to be 1000 miles further away than Chile for example, but massacred indigenous Amerindians in a blatant act of 19th century colonialism, whilst stealing patagonia. however there is no precident that island groups automatically belong to the nearest mainland landmass, and numerous where they dont.
Please note that one of the points which Argentina wishes to make is that the Falklanders are an implanted population. It has to be said that Argentina also has an implanted population, which is the fruit of European imperialism, ethnic cleansing, murder. The Falklanders have kept their links to Europe by their choice, the Argentinians, having come the same distance as the Falklanders broke their links to Europe also by their own choice, so there is no real difference in that respect. As far as Sovereignty Argentina has never been in the picture. The Province of Buenos Aires invaded in the XIX century and was driven out, and Argentina invaded in the XX century and was driven out. Among the European Countries who could argue Sovereignty Argentina isn't included because it didn't exist at the time of a Sovereignty dispute.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because a lie is repeated many times to school children and other countries, that doesn't make it is the truth. The truth is that the beleaguered Argentine President after a disastrous time in power with her blackshirts (camporas) is trying even to control prices, she has invested a lot in trying to bring even Irish Republicans on to her side and she needs all this only for internal reasons. No Argentine wants to go and live in the Falklands and they would only mess the place up just like they have messed up the much richer territory of theirs, CFK is in the same situation as Galtieri so she resorts to the Falklands to see if it will help her, like Galtieri she has invested a lot of capital in this last throw of the dice. The UK must remain firm to protect the Falklanders and the Argentinians alike, until the truth is accepted and justice is done.
What will Argentina's next demand be? The Sudetenland? After all, plenty of Germans settled in Argentina. No to Lebensraum, no to von Ribbentrop's spiritual grandson, where is the apology for starting a destructive war once you had run out of your own people to kill?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0wow... this Alex Bett is a bit of a dick! and a lair. Fits right in with the Argentinian!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@52
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You easily forget that Independence was fought for bravely and won by ALL those living in what is known as Argentina. The day they won they all skipped hand in hand in the dirt, The indigenous, the spanish descendents, the smugglers, the mercenaries, the chancers, from the Andes to to the plains, and a beautiful egalitarian society was born.
Oh but for the damned British...
He started off by saying the British won't let books on the island that contradict the British version of History and didn't stop lying till the end of his speech. So much hate and bitterness for such a little man.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 is a committee peopled with governments that have got an axe to grind with the UK for one reason or another. I personally have never understood why a representative of the Falklands attends there, when they all have pre-conceived viewpoints before they step foot through the door.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One could say it is a little like having dialogue with Argentina, when their constitution only has one possible outcome.
What is the point of it all??????
With their ambivalence towards “implanted populations” perhaps Argentina would be kind enough to hold a referendum on expelling Argentinians of European ancestry from Argentina. After all removing the rights of “implanted” populations to decide their own fate is clearly important to Argentina. Naturally on this basis only the indigenous population should be allowed a vote.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When the majority of Argentinians are evicted perhaps the Falkland Islanders will be kind enough to house some of the refugees? (3 or 4? be generous guys).
Or maybe the implanted Argentinians will simply implode as they try ever more convoluted explanations as to why they are either a) not implanted or b) a better kind of implanted.
Listening to this live at present.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what has any of this got to do with de-conolisation exactly?
We are all paying for this through our taxes ... ! Giiiir!
@58
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0exactly, the boundaries and independence of Argentina was determined by the people who lived there, as was uruguay, paraguay, bolivia etc...you all stopped being Spanish and became what you chose to be.
As there were no Spaniards on the islands, they couldnt chose to be either Argentine, uruguayan or Chilean..when eventually there were civiliands on the islands, they chose to be British.
QED.
Did the Amerindians in Patagonia chose to be Argentine as you slaughtered them in 1880?
Ok now this woman is talking about Argentinian colonialism! brillant!!!!!!!!.i feel sorry for the natives.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@59
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats the thing that stands out the most isnt it? The bitterness. All that land all that opportunity and still they whine about some small islands hundreds of miles away. Whats even more pathetic is that it isnt even genuine the injustic they purport to feel - they know its a political game that they use to their advantage. Fuck whether its right or wrong to do so.
What a way to live - whining, deceiving, stealing... Meanwhile the Islanders are just getting on with life .
Tin pot on stage... This should be good!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@25 Swede
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas was passed by the General Assembly in December 1965, Sub-Committee III prepared a report on the Falkland Islands. The same committee made recommendations having heard representations from delegates from various countries, including the UK and Argentina. In those initial recommendations the islanders were defined as a population as opposed to a people. The Fourth Committee then also considered the same report and heard further representations, before drawing up the draft resolution for the consideration of the General Assembly. All UN recommendations, conclusions and resolutions concerning the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have referred to the inhabitants as a population. This nomenclature only applies to the Falkland Islands and not to any other British self-governing territory.
Why a population, you ask. Because all the original inhabitants came from Great Britain and they and their descendants have no separate ethnic identity. They are considered by the UN to be British - and that was what they themselves confirmed in this year's referendum.
Is there a video live link??
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/8th-meeting-resumed-session-of-the-special-committee-on-the-situation-with-regard-to-the-implementationof-the-declaration-on-the-granting-of-independence-to-colonialcountries-and-peoples/2399711945001/
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/8th-meeting-resumed-session-of-the-special-committee-on-the-situation-with-regard-to-the-implementationof-the-declaration-on-the-granting-of-independence-to-colonialcountries-and-peoples/2399711945001/
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tin Pot saying to decolonise to recolonize... This guys mental... Top humour value however!
@ 50, since when has any referendum been a matter for people other than the current occupants of a territory? It would appear that those entitled to vote would not be those living there, but if they don't have the right to vote on the matter, then by what right does anyone else claim that right? By not living there? So why doesn't the USA hold its Presidential Election amongst the population of say, Brasil or Indonesia?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Elections are relatively novel in Argentina, anyone over 36 would mainly remember coups.
who
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0cares
what
the
c24
think
anyway?
@68 Jose “Why a population, you ask. Because all the original inhabitants came from Great Britain and they and their descendants have no separate ethnic identity”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, if you came from Spain, Italy Germany, Ukraine...etc took up Spanish and usurped/ murdered the indigenous population. Then, and only then you have the right to self determination?
Argentina supports self-determination where it deems it applicable???!!!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOLOLOL
Tinpot has lost the plot
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 070,71
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link
Unfortunately, I could not log on .
I' catch it on YouTube
He has nothing to say so repeats himself, again and again and again...
Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what a twat!
It is a total farce
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Had the falkland islands rep spoken yet?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 080 yep for like 5minutes at the beginning
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was wonder that also. Someone needs to put a different point out to this lot.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder what Mr Bankimoon (excuse the spelling) will make of his warming being ignored!
mmm..Cuba and Syria first...LOL
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 068 Devolverislas
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''Because all the original inhabitants came from Great Britain''
No we didn't. Falkland Islanders are descended from Scandinavian sailors (Hansens, Berntsens, Pettersens etc), Argentine gauchos (Llamosas etc), St Helenians, Chileans, Russians, Canadians. Inform yourself before making such falsehoods and exposing your ignorance in a public place.
''that was what they themselves confirmed in this year's referendum.''
No we didn't. We said we wanted to remain a British Overseas Territory. That has no bearing on our ethnicity or right to determine our future, now or in the future.
Just listened to Mike and Sharon's speeches, They know how to kick ass..............holes
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it's a sovereignty dispute, so why are you lot dealing with it??
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0venezuala next...LOL Its a charade!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To the trolls - why are you all liars? Why can't you get your stories straight? Read the history books and ignore the lies, the fairy stores and the myths with which you are brainwashed since infancy.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are collectively a group of nonentities!
68 Devolverislas (#)
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 20th, 2013 - 03:28 pm
“... All UN recommendations, conclusions and resolutions concerning the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have referred to the inhabitants as a population. This nomenclature only applies to the Falkland Islands and not to any other British self-governing territory...”
So what????????
According to UN A/RES/67/134 populations have the same right to self determination as peoples: ”... (c) To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories; ...”
Please see: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
You'd better look for another excuse for not allowing the Falkland Islander people or population to have the right to determine their own future.
Tarado!!!!!!!!!!!
The C24 has nothing to do with Sovereignty claims!.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All these idiots are proclaiming their support for peaceful talks to solve the dispute in favour of Argentina.
The Falkland Islanders are happy to be a BOT they don't want to be an AOT.
This meeting might as well be held in the backroom of a gambling den on the outskirts of BA...
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This meeting makes me want to pick up a gun and defend the falklands islands, bunch of racist pricks!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would feel dirty just sitting in the same room as the likes of these scum.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This commitee would not no justice if it bit them on the arse.
Its a totally staged presentation, they are all sing from the same sheet.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is nothing democratic about this committee.
If i was the Falklanders Ml, I'd walk out of this meeting!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So they adopted the resolution again, nothing new, though I do feel rather put out that the chair was not polite enough to extend them an invitation to next years meeting, to adopt the same resolution again.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No talks over sovereignty, it is none negotiable, end of. See you next Argentina!
why is everyone talking about a sovereignty dispute, it the decolonization committee for pete sake.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@50 Indeed you are desperate. Let's do some simple arithmetic. DISCOVERY of the FALKLAND ISLANDS by BRITAIN in 1690. Occupation by BRITISH people until 1776. That's 86 YEARS! No sovereignty was relinquished by Britain in 1776 and Spain never gained sovereignty. Then the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 until the present day. That's another 180 YEARS! Total British occupancy 266 mostly peaceful YEARS! Now let's take a look at your cesspit. Your claim to “inherit” the territory from Spain is laughable. No such method of acquiring territory exists or has ever existed. Jewett's “proclamation” in 1820 is inadmissible. Criminals cannot undertake legal actions. Vernet's period on the Islands is not admissible. He lied to the British to get permission to go to the Islands. Incidentally, an acknowledgement that the Islands were British territory. He then committed piracy. That criminal act voids anything he did on behalf of the United Provinces. 1832 and the UP sends Mestivier and his band of murderers. Total time of occupation by the UP? No more than 3 years. Adding the 3 months of illegal argie occupation in 1982 hardly makes any difference. So, 266 YEARS for US and 3 for you. Not much to “dispute” is there? Besides which neither argieland, latinamerica or the UN has the power to force the UK to do anything. So all your “claims”, your re-writing of history, your demonstrable lies are pointless. You will NOT be getting the Islands. Not EVER. You should get used to it. Protecting the Islanders is sufficiently important to the UK to justify 1500 troops, 4 Eurofighter Typhoons, a patrol vessel and a frigate/destroyer. Maybe a submarine. Enough to scare the argie armed “forces” shitless. Here's a thought for you. Next time we have to come down there “in force”, why don't we wipe argieland off the face of the planet? After all, that's what your “friend” Iran wants to do to Israel. The place that should be “home” to your foreign minister. And supplies you with weapons.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK foreign office spokeswoman as already given the predictable response to this utterly predictable meeting. See you next year Mr Timerman and Co, you can rxpect the same response to that utterly predictable meeting too?
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Sierra Leone at least someone remembers what this committee is for!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sierra Leone have just put what should be some embarrassing points. Doubt it will make this scum even flinch though.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lots of talk about 'resolving' and 'justice' but no one suggests going to the ICJ. We all know why.
“The only questions is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands? I thinks undoubtedly the United Provinces od Buenos Aires, now Argentina. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject”
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ronald Camp, Foreign Office 1911.
Nice quote an internal memo from a clerk working at the foreign office in 1911.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now fast forward 71 years and quote what a serving foreign secretary Francis Pym, said at the time.
How many times has Tinpot been given the opportunity to address the committee, he is now given the chance to close the session for the day !
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What bias ?
@102 Quoting people with a poor grasp of International Law will not help your cause
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Facts are
1) Although the UK has a strong case regarding 1833 and before, it actually makes no difference - Britain either exercised its rights or won by conquest - your choice which one you choose
2) Point 1 doesn't matter a jot one way or the other because of the 1850 Southern Aranas Treaty between UK and Argentina and, importantly, the lack of official protest for ninety years. The islanders have the right of abode by virtue of treaty and prescription. The Argentine Latzina maps of 1882 would seem to confirm this - at least the ICJ were persuaded in the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile.
3) Why take your case to the C24 “talking shop” - why not the ICJ. You've tried everything else. After all isn't all the world (eg India, Ireland, Russia, China, Vietnam etc etc ad nauseum) on your side with their well publicised (by Argentina, if not by them) unwavering support for your cause?
There is no evidence that Argentina is supported by Eire and India only the words of that scheming “toad” Timerman whose concept of truth is sorely lacking.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@104
Jun 20th, 2013 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hang on, one of the parties involved in the so called dispute, is invited to adjourn the proceedings.
Tell me your making this up, not even they could be that fucking stupid!
Pantomime, pure and simple. Reiterating the pre-scripted handout, simply wasted time, especially for the interpreters who eventually called time on proceedings.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sovereignty is a legal - not a political question, so go to the ICJ to seek a solution.
Timerman's finale requesting the committee to decry the presence of UK nuclear submarine threat to the peaceful south atlantic arena, brought a tear to my eye. Tell it to the Russians.... (and France and USA : )
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/06/02/306728/russia-nsubs-to-sail-southern-waters/
68 Devolverislas
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You still do not ‘get it’ do you?
Whilst I agree that UNGA Resolution 2065 did refer to the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands as a ‘population’ and that the UN Charter referred to ‘peoples’ I could never, to my own satisfaction, determine the difference.
That being said I have seen it stated by several RG trolls in different threads that the reason for the description was basically as you have stated. However I have never seen any definitive evidence that this was the case. Can you provide such evidence, not just an opinion?
I acknowledge that the RG supporters have, since the passing of UNGA Resolution 2065 attempted to claim that the right to self-determination does not exist for the Islanders because they are a ‘population’ not a ‘people’. In fact the RG Government go as far as claiming that because an attempted amendment to a Resolution proposed by the UK in 1985 was voted down, by Argentina amongst others, that the subject right was, for the Islanders’ non-existent. http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history refers, just scroll down to where they deal with 1985. What I find amusing about that reasoning is that the RG Government totally ignores an attempt by themselves and Spain to specifically remove the right to self-self determination, where a sovereignty dispute exists, in 2008 was voted down. I have always thought that by the RG’s convoluted logic for the situation in 1985 it would therefore be perfectly obvious that in 2008 the right to self-determination was established.
All that however is now history as UNGA Resolution 67/134 quite clearly endorses the fact that ‘populations’ do have the right to self-determination, with the support of Argentina I am happy to say. Please note the said resolution does not limit, or restrict the description of ‘populations’ in any way, therefore it applies to all populations. Additionally as you have stated, I am not sure how correctly, that in UN documentation the word ‘population’ is only used to describe
.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At this meeting we will see the beginning of the end to Argentina’s liars,
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We will see the desperation of liar’s losers and the guilty.
Still,
We knew they had no case,
The UN knew they had no case,
And the world knows they have no case,
And after this meeting,
Argentina will also know they have no case..
.
Timerman is the one to watch. The “Comical Ali” of Argentina.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He will keep spouting the rhetoric and the propaganda with a straight face, as long as he can make money from his position in CFK's government.
But as soon as he sees that it is over for CFK, and the exit door is about to slam shut, he'll duck out quickly.
That will be the sign that the regime's collapse is imminent.
I bet he even bails on CFK and hops it to save his own ass.
Somewhere he has pre-arranged, safe, comfy, untraceable, untouchable.
I know how the C24 can save money. Send out a secretary to buy one of those rubber stamps. You know, the ones where you can alter the day, month and year on.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then all they have to do is simply rubber stamp the same resolution again and again. It will save them a fortune in stationery bills. At the end of this decade, they just go out and buy another stamp, same at the end of the 20's.
It's so simple, I can not understand why they have not thought of it for themselves.
@109. Devolver doesn't care. It's been explained to his deaf ears over and over. For him he just needs something, anything to hang on to so he can deprive the Falklanders of their personhood and make them untermensch, just like the Jews, Gypsies, Dissidents of any flavor before them so he can do whatever he wants with them. Fascist like him never change, they are dehumanizers to the end.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ My post 109
Jun 20th, 2013 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I ran out of characters, it should have ended:
“All that however is now history as UNGA Resolution 67/134 quite clearly endorses the fact that ‘populations’ do have the right to self-determination, with the support of Argentina I am happy to say. Please note the said resolution does not limit, or restrict the description of ‘populations’ in any way, therefore it applies to all populations. Additionally as you have stated, I am not sure how correctly, that in UN documentation the word ‘population’ is only used to describe the Islanders I am sure you will have no difficulty in accepting that the UN now unequivocally endorses the Islanders right to self-determination.”
@102 Shame you keep bringing up this old crap. Let's try something more up to date.
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict. Remember 1982, do you?
The principle was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali. There. Long after 1911.
So you faggots with your sinking “warships”, your wingless aircraft, your useless “army” can go whistle. Or shag each other. Makes no difference to us.
But let''s make one thing totally clear. If WE have to come down there again, it will be for the purpose of killing you. Try some history. WE fought World War 1. WE won. Twenty-one years later, we had to start fighting World War 2. After WE'd beaten Germany again, WE made them pay. And pay. And pay. WE've made them pay for at least 50 years. As you will be made to pay. I will be demanding that my government makes YOU pay. What I want to see is argies dying from malnutrition and starvation. Hypothermia. Cannibalism. I want argies declared to be sub or, preferably, non-human. I want to see YOU become extinct. There is no place in the 21st century for argie throwbacks. They (YOU)need to be expunged.
@ 116
Jun 20th, 2013 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Expunged” I have always, well since I discovered what meant, more years ago than most of the posters on here have been alive, loved it.
@103 While the Committee believes that the historical evidence is finely balanced, we are forced to conclude that the weight of evidence argues for the position of Argentine bonds to the islands, at least the eastern islands, which was, while the British occupation in 1833, more substance than it was or is accepted by government officials in the UK. In this conclusion we are supported not only by the evidence we were given during the investigation but also by doubts on this matter were repeatedly expressed by British officials during the early part of the century”, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons, in... 1982!!!
Jun 20th, 2013 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 02013 not 1982.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Idiot.
@118 Malvinense 1833:
Jun 21st, 2013 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you are so sure of the Argentinean case, petition the Argentinean government to take the case to the ICJ.
If you want to at least try and really convince others, a proper reference would be nice.
On the other hand we could all just watch a live feed of a bunch of little hitlers desperately trying to humiliate one of the tiny isolated populations that they were set up to help discover some degree of self-determination, for the benefit of one of the largest countries on earth (which also happens to have a more recent violent colonial imperialist history as an oppressor than the period they are bleating about to anyone that will listen).
Has it even occurred to you that if Argentina did have a case then their cronies would have booted the Falklands of the C24s list years ago. Argentina needs the propaganda from the C24, because propaganda is all it has.
119
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 01982 not 2013. Moron!
Australian kangaroo of shit, you do not get involved in what you do not mind. The Malvinas are Argentine affair.
#121
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, actually the so called Malvinas is an Argentine fantasy.
“Just imagine, a cow on the balcony of the [Argentine] nation, what an awful thing, what a shitty country...” - Gabriel García Márquez
121José Maligna
Jun 21st, 2013 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine of shit, you do not get involved in what you do not mind. The Malvinas are Argentine affair.
Falklands sovereignty is NOT any business of Argentina's or the C24 Committee.
Of course, anybody is allowed to post or discuss on this forum, whether you like it or not.
José Malvinero
Jun 21st, 2013 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Australian kangaroo of shit, you do not get involved in what you do not mind. The Malvinas are Argentine affair.”
Well you look after your Malvinas and I will continue to support the Falkland Islands. The Islands who have Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state, the same as my country. Therefore the Islands are historically, politicially, culturally, socially and economically more related to Australia than Argentina.
The Islands are part of the Commonwealth Realm and not part of Argentina. So piss off and enjoy your skyhigh inflation rate, low growth, enroaching police state and crumbling infrastructure.
Good try but another idiot.
119- angloaustralian: You have a really big mouth. Your insult shows little ability to discuss civilly and with arguments. Also his little education.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0125 ArgieMalvinista
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Civil arguments and discussion would be wasted on you.
I think Anglotino has shown a lot of patience with you creeps, more than I can be bothered with.
“Therefore the Islands are historically, politicially, culturally, socially and economically more related to Australia than Argentina.”
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0After 200 years of invasion is logical.
@125 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Honestly mate, that's the best you've got.
It is no wonder your post are usually short and full of bullshit. You don't argue or discuss you propagate disinformation that has no basis in historical fact.
And you know you do. But you can't bring yourself to critically think about the crap that your government spoon feeds you.
You have never introduced one new argument in the past 8 months. All you do is spew the same crap again and again and again.
It's 2013 mate. How many years have you been repeating the same stuff now? And how long will you?
As for being civil, why? What gives you the right to expect civility from me? You don't extend civility to the people on the Islands when you blithely ignore their rights and history while you vomit lies.
I don't deign to treat you civilly because you aren't worth it. You are a brainwashed troll who repeats the same thing like an imbecile repeating a mantra.
You hunger after the Islands to give your meagre existence something to adhere to in the hope that you can be more important than a no-hoper that wilfully ignores the autocratic tendencies of your government, the failing economic model and the crumbling infrastructure all the while shouting, like a simpleton, “malvinas son argentinas”.
“It's 2013 mate. How many years have you been repeating the same stuff now? And how long will you?”
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You believe that the passage of time gives you the right?
The biggest defeat of The English is that the robbed has not consented to dispossession. This despite the passage of time.
And if we do the exercise in reverse?
And if you tried to watch from my perspective?
You have never introduced one new argument in the past 8 months. All you do is spew the same crap again and again and again. (self-determination)
As for being civil, why? What gives you the right to expect civility from me? Do not extend the courtesy to the people who invade our islands as blithely ignores our rights and our history, while spewing forth lies.
I don't deign to treat you civilly because you aren't worth it. You are a brainwashed troll who repeats the same thing like an imbecile repeating a mantra. (native, plaque,1690, 9 generation, selfdetermination)
Only shouting, like a simpleton, we have no doubt about our sovereignty.
Mate Las Malvinas son argentinas y aunque te duela debes conocer que estas pisando tierra argentina.
“You are a brainwashed troll who repeats the same thing like an imbecile repeating a mantra.” (Nootka Convention, Luís Vernet, planted population, constitution, territorial integrity...)
Jun 21st, 2013 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are a brainwashed troll who does not understand what I'm saying.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The passage of time does give me the right just as it gives the Islanders the right and Argentines the right. Should Argentina and Australia be emptied of all non-natives?
You say I repeat the same things - what an original accusation.
So here goes:
Current international law does not recognise Argentina's sovereignty over the islands because of something that happend nearly 200 years ago.
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
The UN supports the Islanders right to self-determination. There has never been any UN resolution that has removed this right.
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
The UN has never recognised Argentina sovereignty over the Islands but has at the insistence of Argentina recognised a sovereignty “dispute”.
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
There was no settler population evicted from the Islands in 1833 but an Argentine garrison and their families were evicted.
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
Spain recognises UK sovereignty and has never recognised Argentine sovereignty.
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
The islands have no native population is not important.
The plaque is not important.
1690 is not important.
Argentina tried to GAIN sovereignty over the Islands in 1832 and failed as the UK did not permit that. It again tried in 1982 and again failed.
Between 1850 and the 1930s Argentina raised the matter only between 1884 and 1888. Why is there no claims during the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s, 1920s?
If this is wrong, then please provide proof!
So please rebut my claims here. And will gleefully rebut any claims you make in return.
If you are so sure of what you believe, and you are so sure I am wrong, then the floor is all yours to make you point.
Now is your chance to disprove all I have stated above.
I believe that if you get a response at all it will be some attempt at a deflection and not an objective, verifiable rebuttal.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0129 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but I don't think we have to listen to a single word you have to say about invasion, dispossession or the passage of time, because that's how you came by your own country.
I listened to one of your supporter yesterday wittering on about your inheritance from Spain. Well if you inherited the land, you also inherited the responsibility for the way in was aquired, by murder, rape and pillage.
You continue to bleat on about the fact that the British kicked out a few of your soldiers in 1833, who shouldn't even have been here. By rights, the native inhabitants of Argentina should be asking for their own justice for what was done to them. Only they can't, because they're either dead or living in extreme poverty.
And in all your talk of invasion, you never once mention or accept responsibility for your own disgraceful invasion of 1982.
You should, because it is the key to this whole dispute. Because of 1982, Falkland Islanders acquired a clarity of purpose, a vision for the future, economic prosperity and a hatred of Argentina that mean you will never, ever, get your hands on the Falklands.
We don't want you, and there is no mechanism in the modern world, and certainly not one sanctioned by the UN for you to get what you want. Do you think that the UN would allow a solution that involved our country being full of Argentine troops put here for the purpose of subduing us in our own homes? Because that's what it would take. You still haven't thought it through properly, have you.
Monty69: 1982 was a big mistake, but the responsibility is shared.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since 1833, the English refuses to talk and find a solution to this problem. They continue in the same way.
“You continue to bleat on about the fact that the British kicked out a few of your soldiers in 1833, who shouldn't even have been here”
Why? There was no British population. Spain exercised sovereignty in peace without British protests. Then how can you say that the islands are British?
If you and I can discuss this topic how is it possible that two governments can not discuss a solution civilized to this problem?
@ 135 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why? There was no British population. Spain exercised sovereignty in peace without British protests. Then how can you say that the islands are British?”
Because both Britain and Spain both claimed all the Islands and had tacitly agreed to tolerate each others presence when Spain retort the port and fort on the West Island. The agreement left the relative claims of sovereignty unchanged, that is both crowns still claimed all the Islands. Please do not be mislead by the 'official' Argentine version of the treaty which is quoted here:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history
That text was contained in a version submitted by the Spanish Ambassador but rejected by the British.
“If you and I can discuss this topic how is it possible that two governments can not discuss a solution civilized to this problem?”
A reasonable question but your Government insists that that the only possible outcome of any talks is that sovereignty will be hand over to Argentina. Not a good start.
Further earlier this year Timberhead was in the UK and 'requested' a meeting with the British Foreign Secretary. This meeting was arranged but Mr Timberhead failed to show up because he had been advised that two representatives of the FIG would be present. I find this behaviour very strange as according to the Argentine Government there are no such beings as Falkland Islanders only British Citizens (Squatters) so therefore he was refusing to meet with the British Foreign Secretary and two other British Citizens very odd I thought. How about you?
You wish to discuss the future of a people without letting them have a say in that future. It goes against all the principles of natural justice, it is simply not going to happen.
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want talks you know the circumstances under which they will take place, no need to reiterate them on here.
135 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly'England' is not a political entity empowered to discuss matters of foreign policy. 'England' does not have a political system of its own.
Leaving that aside, the UK government will not sit down with Argentina to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands without the agreement and participation of Falkland Islands representatives. That is because the day when this kind of thing was acceptable (think Chagos Islands and the Falkland Islands in the 1970s) has long passed. The UK Government would not, now, treat any of its remaining overseas territories this way.
You, and your government appear to exist in some kind of colonial time- warp, where disposing of territories and people without consideration of their inhabitats is acceptable.
Your argument doesn't really stand up, does it. There aren't any Argentine inhabitants here, and Britain exercised peaceful sovereignty here for a hundred years without Argentine protest. How can you say that our islands are Argentine?
Just out of interest, what 'civilised solution ' do you have in mind?
@ 135 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Since 1833, the English refuses to talk and find a solution to this problem. They continue in the same way.”
I am afraid that you are in error yet again, the UK and Argentina did start talking after the GA Resolution in 1988 was issued, and agreements were signed and acted upon. However when Nestor took power he tore the agreements up.
As I have pointed out, in other posts, the UK is willing to talk but Timberhead finds some reason not to.
Monty69: “Just out of interest, what 'civilised solution ' do you have in mind?”
Jun 21st, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have nothing against the Islanders.
Civilized solutions, this requires dialogue:
1)-shared sovereignty. Keep the government and justice system of the islands today.
2)-Arbitration.
3)-International Court of Justice.
In any of these three forms, put an end to a dispute of centuries and we can all live in peace.
Just out of interest what is do you like most about the islands?.
140 Malvinense 1833
Jun 21st, 2013 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I admire your optimism, but I don't see any of those as providing a solution.
You can have as much dialogue as you want, but Falkland Islanders would never accept any solution that gave Argentina any part of our sovereignty. And Argentina will never accept anything other than full sovereignty over the islands. It seems like a hopeless case to me. Not to worry- I thought we were living in peace. Aren't we?
I can't say what I like most about the islands. It's to do with remoteness and freedom, which is why Argentine promises of more contact with the coast have no effect at all. Err, no thanks. If I wanted that I would live there.
We like integration and sharing things in Latin america.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0We should do it in terms of the sea, of our south atlantic, in terms of environment, fishing, etc with the latin american countries that belong to that area, to make strong alliances to protect from overfishing or overexplotation of our resources. We should make more investment on the sea, because these brits have stolen and have illegally 3.000.000 km, we should begin protecting more what we have.
@142
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“We like integration and sharing things in Latin america.”
Then why are there so many trade arguments/territorial disputes between South American countries?
142 malen
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is the first sensible thing you have said on here.
You should be doing more to protect your resources. Unfortunately, your government has a policy of deliberate mismanagement of your fishery in order to harm us, leading to, among other things, the catastrophic collapse of southern blue whiting stocks.
Under the 1999 agreement, you had a mechanism for co-operation over fisheries management and access to the expertise of our world class fisheries scientists. Your government tore that up.
Our fishery is one of the best managed and regulated in the world. We have just fined some boats for illegally leaving our zone to fish in yours without licenses, effectively doing your job for you.
Some things are more important than the disputes between us, and protecting the environment and natural resources is one of them.
@89 Simon68
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@109 Biguggy
re. Res A/67/431
Para. 7 (c) does indeed request the Special Committee to continue ....to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination....“. . But the operative words are ”as appropriate”. In the case of the Falkland Islands/ Malvinas the United Nations has long deemed that the right of self-determination is not appropriate. The Falkland Islands are an exception and the same resolution makes any such examination (of political, economic and social situation) and recommendations conditional on “the resolutions on specific territories.”
Im talking of making agreements with and between countries of LAm that have legal and recoignized rights to the SAt.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your fishery is in itself ilegal as you are in a disputed territory, occupied by force
We have just fined some boats for illegally leaving our zone to fish in yours without licenses, effectively doing your job for you.
You should pay us for every boat in or out of “your zone of fishing” becuase it is ilegal.
How many tones you fish for year and how much do you consume compare to Arg, and lets see if that is not overexplotation....you have been called by your press squidmillonaires, not our press
There they go again, our South Atlantic. Ours, ours ours. Everything is ours with them. Every Argentine knows that the South Atlantic belongs to them up to the twelve mile limit.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The twelve mile limit off the coast of Africa that is!
147 reality check, and how much limit do you overexploit round Malvinas?? 12 miles limit??
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0146 malen
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Legal and recognised' by whom? Our rights appear to be recognise by the countries whose boats pay us money to fish in our waters.
I think we've already had a conversation about your scientific views on the 'exploitation' of the fishery. The amount of biomass that can be sustainably taken each year is not related in any way to the size of our population. It is also not related to the amount of fish consumed in Argentina. It depends entirely on whether there are enough fish left to maintain the population.
This is something that your government (and you) seem to be failing to grasp. You can't take more fish because you have more people to eat them. Not if it doesn't leave enough to reproduce and produce more fish.
I've also told you before not to place too much importance on what the gutter press says. You should see what they call your president. It doesn't make it true. I'm telling you that I'm not a millionaire of any kind, and neither is almost anyone I know. I couldn't give a stuff what the press says; they don't know anything about it, and neither do you.
Give the numbers of tones of fish (all of them) for year.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And waiting for your answer reality check, do you fish between the limits of 12 miles arround the isles, those miles that are “yours”??
Well people always can make trade agreements, that doesnt mean that those countries recoignises you nothing.
Going to investigate that of overexplotation, and post a link. Fishing its not my subject. You yourselves always talks of the relation per capita you get of fishing, its not just the press.
In 1985, through Resolution 40/21, the Assembly again urged the parties to settle the pending dispute through negotiations, rejecting the two amendment proposals through which the United Kingdom sought to introduce, in the preambular section and in the operative section the principle of self-determination, the inapplicability of which in the Malvinas Question was thus ratified.
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@145
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the case of the Falkland Islands/ Malvinas the United Nations has long deemed that the right of self-determination is not appropriate”.
Incorrect. There is no statement in UN documents that denies Self -determination to the Falkland Islands.
This is an Argentine myth.
@ 152
Jun 22nd, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Pete, my post 151 is not complete and does not make sense. What should have been posted is as follows.
@ 145 Devolverislas
I am sorry but you need to improve your comprehension of the English Language. The words ‘as appropriate’ refer to the recommendation(s) that the Special Committee make to the General Assembly not to the phrase ‘to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination,’
That being said please also show me where the United Nations have deemed that self determination is not appropriate for the Islanders and please do not include the convoluted reasoning shown by the RG Govt. on their website:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history
Which states that:
“In 1985, through Resolution 40/21, the Assembly again urged the parties to settle the pending dispute through negotiations, rejecting the two amendment proposals through which the United Kingdom sought to introduce, in the preambular section and in the operative section the principle of self-determination, the inapplicability of which in the Malvinas Question was thus ratified.”
What a load of codswallop!
I do agree that 67/134 does place a limit/condition on the right of the populations to self-determination but that is limited to those recommended by ‘Resolutions’ (I am not aware of any) not convoluted interpretations as above so if you can show me a Resolution that limits their self-determination please reference it.
Remember, just Resolutions, please. Resolution 67/134 speaks of nothing else.
@145 Devolverislas
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was quite pathetic really.
In my post at 35 I quoted 4 different passages from a UN document and your entire pathetic argument hinges on a couple of words. So try to rebut these:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/134
“to take all steps necessary to enable the PEOPLES of the Non-Self- Governing Territories concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination, including independence”
5th paragraph 2nd page.
“Affirms once again its support for the aspirations of the PEOPLES under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence”
8th paragraph 2nd page.
“Urges the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the PEOPLES of the Non-Self- Governing Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources, and requests the relevant administering Power to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the PEOPLES of those Territories”
12th paragraph 3rd page.
“assistance to the Non-Self-Governing Territories and to continue to do so, as appropriate, after they exercise their right to self-determination, including independence”
3rd paragraph 4th page.
Note the liberal use of the word PEOPLES throughout the document. And not once does it qualify this as not applying to the Falkland Islands. NOT ONCE.
So please now show proof that none of this applies to the Falkland Islands. Because this document clearly applies to ALL non-self governing territories as listed by the UN.
@135 @140 Malvinese 1833
See you couldn't bring yourself to challenge your beliefs and answer my question in post 132.
@ 150 malen
If you think they are your waters, come and get them.
Thought not!
Anglotino
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0They are hopeless when confronted with facts and logical argument!
I am sure they never expect that, and I'm sure they're not trained how to respond effectively.
The usual tactics of
Diversion
Deflection
Derision
that resort to, and rely on,
didn't work this time.
Totally agree Troy
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does not compute for them. Devolverislas, malen, Malvinese 1833 etc just can't get out of the comfort of their logic loop. After being indoctrinated for all their lives they just can't fathom that the Falkland Islands are a small successful society that doesn't want be part of Argentina.
They can't understand that there is no legal way for Argentina to get the islands.
They can't understand that it doesn't matter what other countries say or think, the Islands are now further from being Argentine than anytime since Europeans first discovered them.
And you can tell they loathe their own country's inability to periodically descend into economic collapse and/or autocratic rule.
Economic mismanagement that sees tens of thousands of Argentines emigrate annually in search of a better life and a tendency for autocratic rule that quite literally lost them the Falkland Islands for pretty much forever in 1982.
Does not compute.
The UN Visitors Centre has just confirmed that ALL PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don't know what all the fuss is about.
http://tinyurl.com/15hbt2b
@ 154 Anglotino: The O.N.U. recognizes a sovereignty dispute, this is a win for Argentina.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The O.N.U. does not recognize the sovereignty Argentina , does not recognize the sovereignty the UK.
There was a population, the garrison with soldiers, women and children were expelled. Another part of the population also left the islands and others decided to stay.
Until today, Spain does not recognize British sovereignty of the islands, they recognized the sovereignty Argentina to recognize our independence.
“Argentina tried to GAIN sovereignty over the Islands in 1832” ??!!!
http://www.embajadaabierta.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/vernet.pdf
Argentina holds the sovereignty of the islands formally since 1820, there was no population, although this situation unpopulated of the islands, Britain does not take possession of the islands.
Nor protest the takeover of Argentina.
As protests give an example:
Argentina protest the inclusion of South Georgia, Shetland, Sandwich, etc.. a British Royal Letters Patent.
The letter included as British Tierra del Fuego, Santa Cruz and the Chilean province of Magallanes.
1908 Foreing Minister Victorino de la Plaza.
@157 Brit Bob:
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nice link, I found the comment by Nicolas Caviglia amusing. Click on his name and you get some nonsense about Ireland and English invaders.
Given the distance from Ireland to England, I bet the Irish glad that they are not that close to the Argentinian coast or they would suddenly find a load of plastic Spanish claiming they have no right to self-determination. The invaders bit is equally amusing given that, these particular plastic Spanish claim land from 22° north right down to the southpole and from about halfway across the Atlantic to 60 miles from Pacific in South America. That is quite an area of land for a 'country' that nobody would have even recognised the name of 200 years ago.
158 Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0O.N.U recognizes that Argentina claims there is sovereignty dispute, which is akin to political incest, and completely devoid of any legal authority. “The garrison with soldiers, women and children were expelled” which totaled 22 persons. “Another part of the population also left the islands” which was a further 4 persons. Contrary to your claim “Until today, Spain does not recognize British sovereignty of the islands, they recognized the sovereignty Argentina to recognize our independence.
”For the Falklands the 1860s were an even more important deeade than the 1850s. In 1863 the islands were visited by an official Spanish diplomatic and scientific expedition commanded by Vice-Admiral Luiz Hernández de Pinzón, who in January had visited Buenos Aires and initiated negotiations for the recognition of the whole of Argentina by Spain (at that time the Province of Buenos Aires had only just become reunited with the rest of Argentina, and Spain did not have a recognition treaty with Buenos Aires). The expedition's two frigates spent six weeks in Stanley harbour from 27 February to 9 April 1863; they fired a salute to the British flag and received Governor James Mackenzie on board, and the expedition accepted gifts of scientific specimens. They were official representatives of the former colonial power, Spain, and clearly accepted the Falklands as British.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
The UK had a claim of sovereignty since 1765, which predates Spain. They were prepared to go to war with Spain over the issue until Spain capitulated. As they stated they weren't going to allow Argentina what they denied Spain. South Georgia, Shetland, Sandwich Islands were discovered and claimed by captain Cook on the 17 January 1775.
@160
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.” In 1863 the islands were visited by an official Spanish diplomatic and scientific expedition commanded by Vice-Admiral Luiz Hernández de Pinzón, who in January had visited Buenos Aires and initiated negotiations for the recognition of the whole of Argentina by Spain (at that time the Province of Buenos Aires had only just become reunited with the rest of Argentina, and Spain did not have a recognition treaty with Buenos Aires). The expedition's two frigates spent six weeks in Stanley harbour from 27 February to 9 April 1863; they fired a salute to the British flag and received Governor James Mackenzie on board, and the expedition accepted gifts of scientific specimens.”
It is hard to accept that Spain either transferred their Sovereignty to Argentina, or maintained the joint claim with Britain they had previously, if they saluted the Union Jack.
Surely if Spain had maintained their claim, they would like Argentina in 1982, have invaded the Falkland Islands with their fleet.
Another point I cannot understand is that if the United Provinces claimed the islands in 1833, why did they not re-invade while the British navy/any armed forces were absent from the Islands until 1834?
The UPs logically, must have renounced any claim by not returning to Islands that had less defences than in 1982.
Malvinese1833
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is quite simple.
You claim:
1) that implanted populations have no right to self determination
2) lands gained by force in the 19th century belong to the inhabitants at the time not the conquerors (although this is dubious at best in the case of the Falklands..given there were only those who'd been there 8 weeks)
I say: prove it.
Withdraw all implants from Patagonia and return it to the Amerindians, give them full reparation for the minerals you've stolen from them, and allow them their own sovereign state.
Until you prove it well know you are just a genocidal colonialist on a land grab mission.
Malvinese 1833.
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said PROVE IT.
Not LIE again.
Gawd you people are stupid. If I said “All Argentines are retards”, that is a statement and my belief. Doesn't make it true unless I was able to provide proof. Though considering statements by you, malen, Devolverislas, Think etc, you guys are doing all the proving.
I can prove the UN recognises UK sovereignty.
I can prove Spain recognises UK sovereignty.
I can prove not all settlers were evicted in 1833.
You can disprove these facts.
And that makes me happy that you guys are so powerlessly frustrated. With no end in sight.
MALVI
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A hypothetical question for you. Why does Argentina want soveriegnty over the FALKLANDS, can it be for oil, fish. If it is for oil, you have by your own admission ample gas and oil in Neuquen Province. Fish , you have over a 2000 miles of coast to fish in. What ,pray tell me the reason your country wants to subgugate a country that wants nothing to do with you? How embarrassing it must be to be completely disliked.
@158 Malvinense 1833: “Argentina holds the sovereignty of the islands formally since 1820”
Jun 23rd, 2013 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must be great being able to just make stuff up as you see fit...
The quote above was not your only bit of gibberish, but since it goes against what an Argentinean delegation to the UN (which included CFK) said on the 14th of June 2012, it seemed like the funniest bit to pull you up on.
Well done for calling some of your fellow countrymen liars.
@153 Biguggy
Jun 24th, 2013 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@154 Anglotino
Notwithstanding resolution A/RES/67/134, every UN resolution, recommendation and conclusion , that have referred to the specific case of the Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, define the inhabitants of the territory as a “population” and indicate that their “interests” are to be borne in mind. The words “people” and “wishes” are conspicuously absent.
@158
Jun 24th, 2013 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina holds the sovereignty of the islands formally since 1820”
What, without a population????
Explain, (if you can) how Argentina can have held sovereignty over the islands since 1820 ,when the Republic of Argentina was formed in 1853?
Did not the United Provinces of the River Plate consist of what was to become Uruguay and other countries?
How can you suggest an action by a pirate when there was no settlement or population ( and also without the prior knowledge of the UP government) counts as a claim?
On the basis of that logically, via Jewett (a real pirate as opposed to the fictitious pirates you spout )you are implying, therefore that the claim by Britain in 1690 by landing without establishing a settlement, is just as valid-except that the British landing without settlement predates your date by 130 years. Note, there was no French or Spanish landing/ claim before 1764/1767.)
Logically,if you suggest that the British landing and claim in 1690 without settlement/population is not valid, nor is Jewitt's landing and claim without settlement/population of 1820.
Titter titter :-)
Jun 24th, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0166 Devolverislas
Jun 24th, 2013 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can our 'wishes' and 'interests' be different? Are you saying we don't know what is best for us?
What an amazingly colonial attitude.
It is both our 'wish' and in our 'interest' to remain a British Overseas Territory. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion. It's between us and our administering power. You are a belligerent third party.
Glad we got that cleared up.
@ 166 Devolverislas
Jun 24th, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many times has a GA Resolution referred to the Islanders as a 'population'? I stand correction but I count one, 2065.
Now does 67/134 state that 'populations of NSGT's have the right to self determination or not? Please remember anyone with an internet connection can access said resolution.
That being said you have still not provided one GA Resolution which states that the Islanders do not have the right to self determination therefore you are, to put it politely, untruthful, or if you prefer it more forcibly a bloody great LIAR!
Devolverislas
Jun 24th, 2013 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please show where the word “peoples” has been defined in international law.
As with most my challenges to you, I bet you can't. I'll help you out; it hasn't been defined.
And the fact you can't means that all the piss and dribble you keep spouting about the UN sometimes using population sometimes using people means nothing.
Argentina is not going to gain the Falkland Islands on a technicality. International law is not going to win this for Argentina. Nothing is actually.
But keep up on these minor technicalities. Year after year, decade after decade. And still no closer.
@164 golfi: Malvinas is something inexplicable. Malvinas is a feeling. Malvinas is like the heart of Argentina.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas is an absence, something is missing.
It is not oil, it is not fish.
Do not ask them to give us the reason. We only ask an opportunity. In my case as a common citizen of Argentina.
Regards.
172Malvinista 1833
Jun 25th, 2013 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0How noble your quest is!!
How can anyone blame the grieving, suffering, Argentinians, robbed of their birthright, left looking out to sea with an ache in their hearts for the islands, the very earth that is part of their being?
The land they have never set foot on, the land that 9 generations of their forefathers have never possessed or likely ever seen, the soil they've never sifted through their fingers or turned with a shovel, the well-cared for homes built not by them, but several different cultures of Northern European people, homes where children and grandchildren played and grew up, sharing memories with families that were never Argentinian, laughing in English, visitors from 'home', the UK, traditions, the Anglican Church, the Queen?
Are THOSE the Islands the Argentinians yearn for, The Falklands???
Are you frickin' serious??
What a load of trite nonsense !!
you have no connection to those islands, you only have a childish obsession.
If you feel cheated or empty, it's because your politicians promised you something that was NOT yours, and NOT theirs to give.
They use your anger to manipulate you.
Your posts are proof of that.
Too bad. Get over it.
@172
Jun 25th, 2013 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, if the sovereignty of buenos Aires was a feeling, an absence, like something was missing in the heart of every Chinaman, and they attacked causing the deaths of 7 million Argentines, but somehow you held them off....then they asked to negotiate....what would your answer be?
My guess is fuck off, right?
Investigating fisheries Malvinas has a ZEE of 320 km by a decission made by GB unilaterally.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 060 % of PBI of the isles is provided by the fisheries (pesca). Not like in Arg.
The british gives unilaterally licences for 25 years, that doesnt have any scientific sustent or reason to be.
These licences are transferibles, belong to a british that can then make associations and joint ventures with any other fishing company of the world.
In Malvinas, Britain occupators of Malvinas fishes 50 tonnes per day, 200.000 tonnes per year, 66.000 kilos per british, 63.000 dollars/PBI per capita.
In Arg, 45.000.000 argentines fishes 900.000 tonnes, that are in between 18.000 and 22.000 kilos per argentine, and represents 15.000 dollars per year.
Britain occupies many of our SAt maritim territory (75%) and makes fisheries that represent 40 % of the total of SAt. Arg boats cant fish in Malvinas ZEE.
Quite clear numbers to take conclusions of the enrichment of 1.500 adults britsh in SAt.
And if the squid is born in the River Plate, then goes south, and we want to fish in the limit it finishs our ZEE and where begins “yours”, because we are 45.000.000 of arg that we do eat more than you what we fish, what is the problem???¡? We should put all the boats there, its where we can fish it!!!!
@175 Sob sob sob Malen.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Get a life. It's like complaining that Chile fishes its own waters.
The waters over which the Falkland Islands practise sovereignty is done so according to international law.
If it isn't, then either quote the law in breach and/or have your government ask for mediation.
If not, then sob sob sob some more.
@172 Malvinense 1833
So Argentina's colonial ambitions are because of a deeply held feeling or belief?
I belief and feel that you are a retarded imbecile that molests your own children.
Now is my feeling and belief of you as valid as your feelin and belief in the Malvinas?
Didn't think so.
@ 166 Devolverislas
Jun 25th, 2013 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0As it has now been established that the Islanders do have the right to self-determination it matters not whether they have an 'interest' in joining Argentina or a 'wish' to join Argentina, by virtue of the clarification in GA Resolution 67/134 they can choose which they prefer to follow, or even non at all, which is what they seem to want.
Now as paragraph 7(c) of GA Resolution 67/134 quite clearly states:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the
Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”
and I quite agree the right to self -determination is limited by the clause “in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;” so show me/us which General Assembly Resolution, or even a Security Council Resolution which limits the Islanders right to self-determination. Please note the so called 'resolutions' passed by the C24 are essentially internal documents of the UN and do not become UN policy until/unless passed by the General Assembly, and just for the record I do not believe the General Assembly has passed one calling on Argentina and the UK to negotiate since 1988, do you have any clue why that might be?
Malvinas is something inexplicable. (it cannot be supported with reason)
Jun 25th, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas is a feeling. (it isnt anything solid)
Malvinas is like the heart of Argentina. (A country with no soul)
Malvinas is an absence, something is missing. (honesty, integrity, any justification)
It is not oil, it is not fish. (it is the land-grab colonialism)
Do not ask them to give us the reason. (because none of them stand-up to scrutiny)
We only ask an opportunity (to steal yet more land from their rightful owners)
In my case as a common citizen of Argentina (common is right)
@172Malvinista 1833
Jun 25th, 2013 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your longing for the Falklands would be like my 'longing' for your wife.
BTW, your parents instilled this feeling of thwarted entitlement into you.
Now, you teach it to your children.
It is your own faults.
172 Malvinense 1833 (#)
Jun 25th, 2013 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 25th, 2013 - 02:35 am
“Malvinas is something inexplicable. Malvinas is a feeling. Malvinas is like the heart of Argentina.
Malvinas is an absence, something is missing.
It is not oil, it is not fish.
Do not ask them to give us the reason. We only ask an opportunity. In my case as a common citizen of Argentina.
Regards.”
This just goes to prove that the “Malvinas Myth” has taken on the typical shades of a “religion” that goes with brainwashing!!!!!!
I was lucky enough to be on the edge of adolescence when Perón and evil Eva started the brainwashing process on our young, it obviously didn't take with me and the majority of our age group, although it did with Pope Francis who is only slightly younger than myself!!!!!
If, as a child of 6 years onwards, you are constantly told that “the Malvinas are Argentine” and that “the English pirates stole them from us in 1833” by the time you reach puberty you believe it with all your being, and it is very difficult to throw off that conditioning, witness the malvinistas on this thread. They really DO believe the myth!!!!!
I've just watched a news piece in which Argentine artist, Leandro Elrich, says that he likes “the idea of questioning reality”, so maybe it is an Argentinian thing.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Saimon saimon 180. You are the proof that the brainwashing education in Arg doesnt function.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its about resources, and its strategical geopolitical position next to Antarctica.
Southamerican should be everyday more and more integrated. In everything concerned to our territories, seas, defense, economy, etc.
@182 malen: “Southamerican should be everyday more and more integrated.”
Jun 25th, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd go further than that. Culturally, you're nearly all basically Iberian, so by your own Latin logic any historic armed insurrection was illegal as you should not have self-determination. Integrate you all back into the Spanish state, and then the world can have one multi-continental dysfunctional superstate to laugh at.
As for your strategic position next to Antarctica… Buenos Aires is a long way from its Antarctica, a lot further than Port Stanley.
By CFK's own logic until Patagonian's stop being puppets of the plastic Spanish around the River plate, they can claim no more right to Antarctica than Falklanders.
malen, the problem with being a hypocrite, and putting forward hypocritical arguments, is that they are so easy to turn on you.
I think “Malvinense 1833” has explained quite well what it is all about. There are really no “normal” reasons for the Argentines to long for the Falkland Islands. It is very much like a religion. You just belive in it, but you cannot explain why catholisism/protestantism/judaism/islam/hinduism or whatever religion you have been brought up with is the one and only for you. “Malvinas son Argentinas” is like a mantra or a creed. Without it you can not be a true Argentine.
Jun 25th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is your interpretation alone that resolution 67/34 applies to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0The General Assembly passed a resolution in 2008 on the question of the islands. No references to hand at the moment, sorry.
@ 185 Devolverislas
Jun 26th, 2013 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have stated in the past that the word 'population' has only been used in UN documents to refer to the inhabitants of the Islands and as 67/134 very clearly states that POPULATIONS have the right to self determination even by your idiotic and convoluted logic it should be obvious that the Islanders do indeed have the right to self-determination.
The following gives a list of GA Resolutions passed in 2008:
http://www.un.org/fr/ga/63/resolutions.shtml
Further, here is the Resolution A/RES/63/110 issued in 2008 which in paragraph 7(c), the same as last year affirms that populations do have the right to self determination:
http://www.un.org/fr/ga/63/resolutions.shtml
These may be of some help to you, and oops the right of populations to self -determination has been in there for years.
@186 Biguggy: You seem to be very good at this UN lark.
Jun 26th, 2013 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how the C24 explain how they manage their “Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories” with their terrible attitude towards the Falklanders? (A/RES/63/110 on page 3, point 7h)
@187 screenname
Jun 26th, 2013 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is very easy to answer.
The RG's and most of their supporters' on the C24 do not consider the Islanders as a 'people' as they were referred to in GA Resolution as a 'population' and that gave the 'antis' the chance to say, in essence anything referring to ''people(s)” did not apply to the Islanders. therefore, by that logic point 7(h) does not apply to the Islanders.
What has me scratching my almost bald grey head is the fact that in Resolution A/RES/62/120 made in 2007 says exactly the same as 7(c) in Resolution A/RES/63/110 and 67/134, do you see a pattern or is it just my old addled brain?
As for 'be very good at this UN lark' no but before I retired I had to deal with a great many International Conventions and the various interpretations different Governments put on them when they transposed them into their National Laws.
My next self-imposed project, when I get the chance, is to see just how far back this 'right' for 'populations' goes. Like to give me a hand?
@188 Biguggy: Like to give me a hand?
Jun 26th, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately, I am already spending more time than I can really spare slapping down deranged malvinistas.
@ 189 screenname
Jun 26th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not to worry I have gone as far back as 1970 and Resolution 2708, available from here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r25.htm
does quote 'populations' but does qualify it as applying to 'small territories'. I think the population of the Falklands is small don't you?
@190 Biguggy
Jun 27th, 2013 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done for digging out Res. 2708 of 1970.
Para 14 of the same requests “the Special Committe to continue to pay particular attention to the small territories and to recommend to the General Assembly the most appropriate methods and also the steps to be taken to enable the populations of those territories to exercise fully and without delay their right to self-determination and independence...”
You win your point on the use of the word “population/s”.
The following paragraph (para. 15), however, calls upon the administering powers “to ascertain the wishes and aspirations of the inhabitants of those territories under their administration”.
“Wishes and aspirations” equal self-determination. All the resolutions that refer specifically to the Falkland Islanders instruct the two parties - the UK and Argentina - to bear in mind the “interests” of the inhabitants.
The combination of “population” and “interests” is a flat denial of the right of self-determination.
On the question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas discussions and negotiations must be guided by the wording of the specific resolutions that apply only to the Falkland Islands. In those there is no room for doubt on the vexed subject of self-determination. The islanders have no right to self-determination. It's a hard truth to swallow.
@191
Jun 27th, 2013 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> The combination of “population” and “interests” is a flat denial of the right of self-determination.
Allow me to demonstrate what a flat denial of self-determination might look like :
“We the UN hereby declare that the population of the Falkland Islands has no right to self-determination”
The UN has had numerous opportunities to issue a flat denial like this, most notably in 2008 when Spain and Argentina, via their stooges in the C24, attempted to have the General Assembly pass a resolution limiting the right of self-determination in cases where a sovereignity dispute exists. This attempt failed miserably, with the Spanish/Argentine side only managing to muster the votes of their fellow implanted Iberian populations of S. America, nuuters, dictatorships, and other actual or would-be usurpers of other people's territory.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear that Argentina no more dares try to have substantive points passed at the United Nations than it dares take its case to the ICJ.
But why admit failure when scope remains for preposterous semantic nit-picking?
@ 191 Devolverislas
Jun 27th, 2013 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First - Thank you Hans for trying to explain things to these people in your post #192
Devolverislas - You really do not think these things through do you?
1. Just supposing your ridiculous analysis is correct who, or what, would determine what the population(s) ‘interests’ were/are? Undoubtedly you would like to believe it would be Argentina but would that not be colonization and/or subjugation?
2. Again, assuming your analysis is correct, why, in 2008 would Argentina and Spain try to irrefutably get the Islanders right to self determination removed by means of a proposed amendment to a Resolution if, as according to you it was already enshrined? Furthermore, by the convoluted reasoning of Argentina, it was already enshrined by the voting down of an amendment proposed by the UK in 1985, which would have clarified the situation. Argentina claims the right to self-determination was removed from the Islanders. (Please see 1982-1989 at the following site:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history)
2a By the same token why did Argentina and Spain attempt to get the same proposed amendment passed in 2008 if they were so sure their convoluted reasoning for the proposed amendment in 1985 was correct? Surely they must have realized, that by their own reasoning, should the proposed amendment fail, it would indeed confirm that the Islanders were entitled to self–determination?
The actions of the Government of Argentina and yourself seem to me to contradictory. Why go for something you already have knowing that failure to get it in this instance will also remove it from your previous right to it. Makes no sense to me, but there again I am a 'thick' Canuck.
193biguggy
Jun 27th, 2013 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice job, thoroughly researched and reasoned.
@ 191 Devolverislas
Jun 27th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The following quote is taken from UN General Assembly resolution 2065 (the full copy of which is available here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2065(XX)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION )
“ bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interest of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas):”
The full text of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 is available here:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2065(XX)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION
After reading these two documents can anyone tell me how the 'Interests' of the 'population' can be ascertained other than by asking the 'population'?
Then would that not be ‘self-determination’?
And Monty fisheries is so realted to people and resources and soverignity, by the obvious reason that if people shouldnt eat the fish you wouldnt need to fish it.
Jun 28th, 2013 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The resources that you fish are entirely exported, like colonizators did in the past, making money for themselves while they give our resources (silver, gold, etc) to others. You are doing the same in other countries you invaded recently.
@ 191 Devolverislas
Jun 28th, 2013 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have stated before that UN GA Res 2065 is the only one referencing the Falklands specifically that quotes ‘population’ and ‘interest’. Should this not be the case please advise
Now Res. 2065 calls for the UK and Argentina to find a ‘peaceful’ solution. By my reckoning Argentina in April 1982 was anything but ‘peaceful’. Therefore Res. 2065 was violated by Argentina and rendered invalid. Thus making any RG ‘harping on it’ pointless. Should it no longer have any validity that means that the references to ‘population’ and ‘interest’ also have no validity?
The Secretary General of the UN appears to agree with my conclusion. Mr Ban Ki-moon is reported as saying in an interview towards the end of last year :
“I don’t think Security Council members are violating relevant UN resolutions. The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. Having independence or having some kind of government in their territories. I don’t think it’s an abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions, the UN has been working strongly from its very beginning to help non autonomous territories to achieve independence ”,
The report can be viewed here:
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/un-confirms-that-britain-is-not-in-breach-of-resolutions-over-the-falklands/#comments
Now, according to Mr Ban Ki-moon, the UK being a member of the Security Council at the time (Argentina was not) is not in violation of any ‘relevant’ UN resolutions. This means that therefore 2065 is no longer valid. This also means that this is the only reference I am aware of in a UN Resolution to the Islanders ‘interest’ and description as a ‘population’ is also null and void. Interestingly this means Argentina’s invasion in 1982 nullified the RG claim that the Islanders lost their right to self determination null and void.
@196
Jun 28th, 2013 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The resources that you fish are entirely exported”
So are you saying Argentina exports none of it's 'natural resources?'
Why doesn't Argentina eat all of it's Soy crop rather than export that?
You say the Falkland Islands are not allowed to export their fish.
I've got some news for you. Most fishing nations export their fish.
Do Argentina export none of their fish? What about the Chinese Jiggers caught illegally fishing in Argentina waters? Where were their fish going? On Chinese or Argentinian dinner plates?
By your logic, all ships fishing in Argentine waters should sell their catch to be eaten in Argentina.
Much of it will not end up on Argentine dinner tables but halfway across the world.
You need to field a more convincing argument than that unless your aim is to completely embarrass your motherland.
@197
“I have stated before that UN GA Res 2065 is the only one referencing the Falklands specifically that quotes ‘population’ and ‘interest’”
With reference to 'Colonial Peoples and their Countries,' 2065 also mentions 'Peoples' unless Argentines now reject their usual assertion that the Falkland Islanders are ' colonial.'
In the 1960s it is reasonable to say that the Falkland Islands were then a colony.
If 'Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands.' has no relevance to the possibility expressed in this resolution of the Falkland Islands becoming Independent, being a country and a people-why include the words just quoted in resolution 2065?
@ 191 Devolverislas
Jun 29th, 2013 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Annually between 1983 to 1988 inclusive the UN General Assembly issued a Resolution concerning the situation in the Falklands and included in those Resolutions was a ‘request that the UK and the RG’s negotiate to find a peaceful solution to all their differences. The exact wording varies slightly but essentially said the same thing every year. Should you wish to view the Resolution for any specific year they are available through:
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/gares1.htm
Now as I stated in my post 197 above Mr Ban Ki-moon, stated in an interview towards the end of last year that in his opinion the UK was not violating any RELEVANT UN Resolution. With respect to the Resolutions issued between 1983 and 1988 referenced above, this means one of three possible things:
1. Said Resolutions are no longer RELEVANT.
OR
2. The UK has complied with them
OR
3. Both 1. & 2.
Further it means that Timberhead and Chrissy waving envelopes supposedly stuffed with UN Resolutions that the UK is not complying with is just embarrassing for them and their country as what they are claiming is untrue.
Argentina has failed to get a General Assembly Resolution passed calling for negotiations since 1988 and the Secretary General has, as indicated above, passed his opinion on that.
It is of interest to note that none of the Resolutions issued from 1983 to 1988 referenced Res. 2065, could it be because it was no longer valid?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!