MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: “there are three parties to the debate” UK tells Cristina Fernandez
The United Kingdom reiterated on Tuesday that there can be no Falkland Islands sovereignty discussions with Argentina unless and until the Islanders so wish, because there are three parties to the debate: UK, Argentina and the Falkland Islands people. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesShe spouts democracy and multilateralism yet this queen of democracia refuses to talk to a group of people. Embarrassing but I guess another photo opportunity for her. Hope it's not too hot in NY or the face will start melting
Aug 06th, 2013 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 because everyone knows the UK uses the people settled in malvinas as a pretext to suit their agenda. they had no quarrels in getting rid of the natives of the chagos islands nor do they wish to discuss the sovereignty of the south georgia and south sandwich which are uninhabited, and they too are part of argentina.
Aug 06th, 2013 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Precisely when did Argentina- or Spanish predecessor governments- first exercise or claim any kind of authority over South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands?
Aug 06th, 2013 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the problem when people live in a rotten to the core kleptocracy like Argentina. The urge to steal trickles down through the strata of society until you end up with human trash like the Malvinistas.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2
Aug 07th, 2013 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0GET REAL. And the agenda is to piss off Argentina, is that it? Tell us the TRUTH about how Argentina took Patagonia. How did Argentina get populated? You are certainly not the indigenous poulation, you all came from EUROPE.
FORGET IT, YOU WILL NOT GET THE FALKLANDS UNTIL THE FALKLANDERS WISH IT. END OF. Toodle Pip
All for domestic consumption - elections coming up :-)
Aug 07th, 2013 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know why HMG does not just say, “On the subject of the Falkland Islands, we refer you to the numerous previous statements on the matter.”
Aug 07th, 2013 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just release that every single time, because frankly, it is not worth dignifying her rubbish with any other kind of response.
This odious woman and her lackey, Hector Timerman, are only upholding what is written into the Constitution of the Republic of Argentina which was amended immediately after the armed conflict of 1982 was resolved by Britain.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinians are taught from the cradle by way of propaganda, myths and fairy tales that the Falklands archipelago was usurped by Britain in 1833 - it is brain washing that is not even subtle.
All this in spite of the existence of a treaty, the Arana Southern treaty, which was ratified in 1850 by the United Kingdom and Argentina and clearly states in its Article 7 that there were no matters which impeded friendship between our two nations.
Furthermore, Argentina fails to show any inclination to use the offices of the International Court of Justice to resolve this long standing dispute. And, claiming that Britain fails to recognise UN resolutions, Argentina should also acknowledge that it failed to recognise a UN resolution which required it to withdraw its invading forces from the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Britain must remain firm in this matter.
@ Troneas
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0South Georgia is the really easy one. The UK definitely claimed it first and tried 3 times to take Argentina to the ICJ to settle it. You can't refuse to accept arbitration 3 times and still retain any kind of credibility.
Regarding the “settlers” on the Falklands, when will you realise that almost all Argentinians are also European settlers? Dismissing the FIs as settlers merely undermines your own claim to your own country. The FIs have the same right to self-determination as you do.
@9 Redrow
Aug 07th, 2013 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one. These guys dismiss history and human rights, there arguments are hypocritical and they are lost in mindless mantras
@2 What actually is the basis of your county's claim over South Georgia and the south Sandwich Islands?
Aug 07th, 2013 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that “they too are part of Argentina”.
maybe the UN should amend its charter to leave out vital human rights like self-determination just for The Falkland population to appease the crazy wench,
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0it seems that is the only outcome she wants, very sad individual indeed,
so looking forward to the UN show this month, should be a corker.
#11. Gollum, Gollum. It's ours, you stole before we were here! We wants it! Nasty British threw out our soldiers in 1833. We were only having fun murdering our boss and fooling around with his wife? Why did you leave all the other folk there? We wants it, we claims it because its near to us even though you found it hundreds of years before our country even existed. We didn't kill all the Indians here, they just died or ran away? We never invaded in 1982, it wasn't us, it was the Junta. We were never on the streets celebrating. It wasn't us that borrowed all that money and then refused to pay it back. It isn't us that is blockading the islands, it was Mr Chavez and he supplies our oil. Oh, he's dead!
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Etc etc etc....
Contrast that with the clear and unequivocal statement from his Excellency and the clear and unequivocal referendum result from the Falkland Islanders.
KFC and Gollum are Falked...
The UK has this wrong...there is only one party in the debate, the Falklanders.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever Argentina/UK offer the Falklanders is up to them, but only the Falklanders really have the last word in their land. Cynics can bang on about the role the Queen/Queen's representative plays in government, but everyone knows that is BS.
As for negotiations, what have the Falklanders got to gain in negotiations? Negotiations would be all about taking something that the Falklanders already have. If someone knocked on my door and said they wanted to have negotiations on how much of my property they were going to take, why would I say okay? And if they came back with some of their friends and said the same again, would that change my opinion?
Take it to an International court Argentina
@2 Troneas,
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Prove that you own South Georgia etc,
Prove that you own the Falklands.
lt should be easy for you if “everyone knows” as you said.
You're a liar,
Your president is a liar,
And Argentina is an immoral, lying, murderous,thieving country.
Tronieas - you have a simp,e choice:
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 01 - Come back on here with verifiable concrete evidence that backs up your claim to South G and South Sandwich Islands.
2- Verifiable evidence that the Falklands were settled by force and a previous civilina population evicted.
Or - 3 - Forever stay off this site and admit to yourself that you are a big a liar and arse as your President.
Troneas, you refer to the people of the Falklands as “settled” people, what do you call the non indigenous people in South America that descended from Europe? As an America, North that is, I know my country displaced natural people and settled this country by force. Have you Latam's accepted that you are a settled people as well and a product of Spain and Portugal?
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0GB and the people of the Falklands will never give up the Falklands just as Argentina will never give the country back to the Qoms. Get that through you think skull.
@2 Torneas.......I suggest you go and read a little on the Chagos Islands.....you may learn some thing, I know Argentina likes to start the history lessons at a point that suits them, but some of us actually bother to research a little and that way we can see the whole picture not just one that perhaps suits our argument.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try it, read and research, I know its not some thing you have been taught to do, but it is amazing what you can learn if you open your mind.
@2 Your ignorance is astounding, but not unexpected. First, the only place called “malvinas” is in Cordoba. And you are welcome to it. Second, there have never been any “natives” of the Chagos Islands. Third, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are NOT part of argieland. Their names alone give the clue to that. They are 1,681 miles from argieland. British sovereignty over South Georgia was established in 1775 (35 years before argieland was thought of) and over the South Sandwich Islands in 1908. And argieland did nothing until 1927 and, at Hitler's urging, 1938. Pity he lost the war, eh!
Aug 07th, 2013 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@16 Islander1:
Aug 07th, 2013 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0TBH I don't even see how your point 2, 'Verifiable evidence that the Falklands were settled by force and a previous civilina population evicted' would even make any difference, given that we are talking about 1833. How much land would have to exchange hands based on anything like applying actions going back to that era? And can you stop at 1833, why not the 1700's, 160o's, 1000BC?
The setting up of the UN is the line in the sand, Argentinean pathetic lies are just a bonus
@19 Some people don't give way to reason and logic. That's why they call them “brainwashed”. The rest of Argentina is worried about, well...
Aug 07th, 2013 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina. The retards are the only ones that clamor over islands that really don't affect us one way or the other.
Haven't you noticed that I don't bother with articles on the Falklands anymore?
“”“Haven't you noticed that I don't bother with articles on the Falklands anymore?”“”
Aug 07th, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0yup, its a waste fo time * effort on the whole - nothing will change, and nothing should with regard to the Islanders...until they wish so.
end of.
19 Conqueror (#)
Aug 07th, 2013 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 07th, 2013 - 06:03 am
“... First, the only place called “malvinas” is in Cordoba... ”
Actually it isn't. There is a “partido” (county?) in the Province of Buenos Aires, North West of the Capital called “Malvinas Argentinas”. It was created in 1994.
11 Steveu (#)
Aug 07th, 2013 - 04:46 am
“... @2 What actually is the basis of your county's claim over South Georgia and the south Sandwich Islands? ”
As Troneas will not answer you, I'll give it a try: The official Argentine claim to the Falklands was made in 1941 for the first time since 1849 when South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were administered from the Falklands, thus we claimed the whole lot at the same time!!!!!!!!!
Simon68, why was it not brought up when England and Argentina signed the Settlement Convention of 1850? It essentially said that old grievances no longer exist at that point?
Aug 07th, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Screenname - totally agree! That is why it is such a farce - just that I like shutting silly beggars up at times as they know they are unable to answer!
Aug 07th, 2013 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@23 Simon
Aug 07th, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I knew that really ;-) but it is always a good ruse to put them on the back foot! Seemed to work.
So they are happy to accept that the British can set the legal jurisdiction for SG and SSI but not British sovereignty. It's called trying to have your cake and eat it!
Legal Jurisdiction but not sovereignty.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know I am going to regret asking this, pray explain the difference between the two?
Liked the cake anology, but if it's my cake, I can do what ever I like with it.
2 Troneas (#)
Aug 07th, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some historical facts to correct for you to consider.
South Georgia was discovered by the great English navigator Captain, James Cook, R.N. Who took formal possession of the island on 17th January 1775 in the name of King George III and called it South Georgia in honour of the King.
Captain Cook also discovered the South Sandwich Islands 2 weeks later. Sailing eastwards from South Georgia, be sighted first a small group of islands which he called the Clerke Rocks after the name of his lieutenant, and then, on January 31, a larger group which he called the Sandwich Land after the First Lord of the British Admiralty of that date
The South Orkney Islands (named after the Scottish islands) were discovered by the British sealing captain, George Powell, who after landing on the largest of the islands on December 6, 1821 took formal possession of the islands the name of King George IV and called it Coronation Island in honour of the King's Coronation.
In 1904, the Norwegian whaler, Captain Larsen formed a company in Buenos Aires, called the Compania Argentins de Pesca, for the purpose of whaling in the Antarctic and established a shore whaling station at South Georgia. The company was granted a lease of 250 acres of land at an annual rent of £250 for 21 years from January 1, 1906. The lease was granted to Captain Numez the then Director of Armaments of the Argentine Ministry of marine who in his capacity of Technical Director of the company visited the British legation in Buenos Aires to apply for the lease in person.
Question? Why would a member of the Argentine Government apply to the British Government for a licence to establish a whaling station on South Georgia if it was Argentine territory?
24 Captain Poppy (#)
Aug 07th, 2013 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 07th, 2013 - 10:30 am
Remember that in 1850 when the Aran/Southern Treaty was signed, there were no outstanding claims by the Argentine government. In other words our government at that time agreed that the British had sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, and had not even thought about claiming South Georgia or the SSI!!!!!!!!
Except for a private letter in 1884, there was no Argentine claim made anywhere or before any forum between 1849 and 1941. The only reason that Argentina made the claim in 1941 is that the government were convinced that the Axis would win the war (WWII) and that Britain would not be in any condition to fight forv the Falklands!!!!!!
@23 I bow to your knowledge. But then, if argieland already has two, why do they want ours? Is it some sort of Galactic three-of-a-kind? Perhaps certain people in your country should bear in mind that we have various things that called be called “trumps”. For instance, sticking with “conventional” means, how about 100 Eurofighter Typhoons and 119 Panavia Tornados in your skies? Perhaps we could add 86 Hawker Siddeley Hawks. There are also 7 fleet submarines, each equipped with 30 Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles. Trust me on this. Your dumb “president” is really pissing the people of Britain off. There are always a few cowardly dimwits that cry about not getting involved in another war. But most British people know that cowardice and appeasement are never the answer. You should take lots of photographs of man-made structures in argieland. It would be a shame not to be able to recall what they look like. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant you can see a picture. Now imagine the sides of both runways and the holding area lined with Tornados and Typhoons. Together with Sentry airborne early warning and TriStar, VC-10 and Voyager tankers.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do your compatriots not understand that there may well be media reports that the UK is reducing the size of its armed forces but whilst the argie navy has only 42 commissioned vessels, the Royal Navy has 78. The argie navy has nothing to match HM Ships Albion, Bulwark, Ocean and Illustrious.
But your compatriots should remember that Britain is a responsible nation. We probably won't start anything. Unless your country is particularly stupid. But we WILL finish it. I trust you have plans for fleeing the country!
@23
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“... First, the only place called “malvinas” is in Cordoba... ”
That's not true.......
Where of all places do you think this is.........of course totally unconnected!
http://www.malvinahousehotel.com/
@31 Think
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You'll find that's Malvina NOT 'Malvinas'.
You should Wiki more care
fully sunshine.
hehehe... doh!......nearly!
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We all saw this coming, didn't we?
Aug 07th, 2013 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There HAD to be an answer from HM Government to TMBOA otherwise her 'claims', if left unanswered, would gain credence in the minds of the demented aka the Malvanistas.
Don’t you just love the dignified response of Mark Lyall Grant?
Simon68....that was my point. You can't be expected to be taken seriously when you wait well over 100 years and say hey, I think these belong to me. Argentina set a precedent by allowing Britain to maintain a population on the island. They should have stated something in 1850 when re-establishing a relationship with GB when they signed the convention. If that were they case.........Cuba is ours........but thank you....no thanks.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If at any time someone can make a claim against a long established population, that indeed would set a very bad precedent, which is my guess why Argentina refuses to take this to the ICJ. Can you image they win, what impact then would the indigenous people have against every country in the New World? We already have lawsuits from Indians in the USA claiming land and winning and getting the land of payments plus interest and penalties. And if they lose….they lose their glory in bitching about their so called island. So for Argentina, it is better to be a fool in the wind.
personaly in this day and age, and in the realms of democracy and freedom,
Aug 07th, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the UN should in my opinion,
either
1, tell her to shut the fxch up and stop acting like a 18th century twat.
or
2, Disband, as they are seen to defend this twit.
just my freely demorcratic opinion ..
Troneas - no reply from you so evidently you agree that you are indeed as stupid a liar as your Prseident and Foreign Minister! - Good news we are all glad to know it.
Aug 07th, 2013 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Simon68
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May I take this opportunity to express my admiration for your totally neutral postings? From what you say you are an Argentine and thus your “valour” is admirable.
@2
Aug 07th, 2013 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ because everyone knows the UK uses the people settled in malvinas as a pretext to suit their agenda”
Everyone means 100% of the worlds's population-that's a clear lie.
Europeans settled in Argentina as a pretext to suit their agenda and themnmassacre the local people who were there before you implants.
The Chagos islanders were an implanted population, just like Argentina is -so what?
When did Argentines ever live on South Georgia or the Sandwich islands (apart from YOUR FASCIST HERO Alfredo Astiz who put people into acid baths)?
Troneas-don't bother telling us-I guess all of Latin America and Africa belong to Argentina too?
FFS why do people keep on about the chagos islands, they were uninhabited till the French started binning lepers on the islands. The Chagos Archipelago was uninhabited when first visited by European explorers, and remained that way until the French successfully established a small colony on the island of Diego Garcia ie IMPLANTED ring a bell rg idiots
Aug 07th, 2013 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40
Aug 08th, 2013 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Note how Argentina uses selective pieces of history without including the background ie the Chagos islanders, the events of 1833, turning a blind eye to the British claiming the islands since 1690/1765.
That's why they don't go to the ICJ but that would really show some guts at the UN if they did, even though they can't win.
They are just children, refusing to grow up..
Aug 08th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 42 Briton
Aug 09th, 2013 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe your statement should read:
“They are just spoiled children, refusing to grow up..”?
true..
Aug 09th, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Full Response: ”
Aug 10th, 2013 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK Ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, responded to statements about the Falklands during a UN Security Council Debate. Originally given at United Nations Security Council. This is a transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant
I thank the Presidency for allowing the United Kingdom to make a further statement. I wish to respond to some of the statements made in relation to the Falkland Islands. I note the very questionable relevance of this issue to the theme of today’s debate and regret the fact that some participants have used this debate, in which we have seen a very valuable and timely discussion of UN cooperation with regional and sub-regional organisations, as a platform for expressing positions on a range of unrelated issues.
Madame President,
Several Ministerial participants referred in their statements to Argentina’s so called “legitimate” claim on the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom does not accept that Argentina has any legitimate claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The historical facts and legal position are quite clear. The United Kingdom has administered the Falkland Islands peacefully and effectively for more than 180 years. In 1850, by ratifying the bilateral Convention on Settlement of Existing Differences, Argentina acknowledged that there was no territorial dispute between the two countries.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba on behalf of CELAC said that respect for self-determination was a founding principle of CELAC. The United Kingdom also attaches great importance to this principle, which is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In March of this year, the people of the Falkland Islands exercised their right of self-determination in a referendum which established overwhelmingly their wish to remain an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
In her national statement, President Kirchner said that the United Kingdom and Argentina should bilaterally dis
Carry on.
Aug 10th, 2013 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks :)
Aug 10th, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“..In her national statement, President Kirchner said that the United Kingdom and Argentina should bilaterally discuss the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom is clear that any such discussion is not just a matter for the two governments. The views of the people of the Falkland Islands cannot simply be ignored. There can be no discussion of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the Islanders.
Finally, Madame President, I reject the suggestion of the Foreign Minister of Uruguay that “illegitimate oil activities” are being conducted in Falkland Islands’ waters, which constitute unilateral measures by the United Kingdom, contrary to a General Assembly resolution. The decision to exploit its natural resources was made by the Falkland Islands Government for the benefit of the people of the Falkland Islands and in accordance with the right of self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands under international law. All activities related to hydrocarbons on the continental shelf of the Falkland Islands are regulated by legislation of the Falkland Islands Government, in strict accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
I thank you.”
@45,46 and 47 Thanks Boovis (and Chris).
Aug 10th, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a clear as possible statement that this is not a 'colonial' issue.
The main point of de-colonisation is to remove the powers of the colonising state and transfer them to the people who are native to the 'colony 'to allow them independence.
This, obviously more dynamically since 1982, the UK has been doing, (although increasing autonomy rather than achieving full independence) and a prime example is with oil exploration. At no point has the UK stepped in to say 'That's our oil' to the Falkland Islanders.
The UK are savvy enough to realise that the Falkland Islanders may well wish independence in the future (after al,l that is what the C24 is supposed to deliver), and therefore the islanders are likely to continue trading with the UK, and employ British workers owing to the Islands currently small population.
So Britain's support is investment in the future-though I don't think even the islanders fully realise the potential from all their resources-but will.
On the other hand Argentina does not have the sense to see that its' all or nothing strategy has delivered nothing instead of the millions it would be earning through supplying the Falklands, providing transport and through the many jobs it's nationals may have had.
In fact if the UK government was taking a 'colonial' stance, the Islanders (as before 1982) would be completely ignored and the UK would simply meet with Argentina without reference to the islanders and say 'No they're ours, what you going to do about it?'
The very fact that the UK could if they wanted to hold talks with Argentina without Islanders (like pre-1982) but instead seek the islanders approval, is doing what the C24 should be-allowing Islanders to develop more autonomy with a view to eventual independence.
That is however, the preferred UN outcome (ie Independence).
Other UN declarations do, of course include the islanders wish to remain with Britain.
It may come as a surprise to some, particularly the Malvis', that Argentina has voted 'for' UN General Assembly Resolutions that reiterated that the Islanders do in fact have the right to self-determination. The latest one being at the end of last year 67/134 in paragraph 7(c). Similar resolutions have been made annually for several years and Argentina has voted 'for' them all.
Aug 10th, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 049 Biguggy
Aug 10th, 2013 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ahh! But they DIDN'T know they were voting for them so it doesn't count!
Have you ever me a bunch of tossers like these Peronistas that infest The Dark Country?
OBJETIVE FACTS VS DISTORTED INTERPRETATIONS.
Aug 10th, 2013 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beyond the fact that intepretations will always be free, the problem is when some of them are distorted, which is what the u. k. has done since 1965, although many people here reject it, including some our sepoys, who love defending their so loved empire in decadence.
Objetive facts show that since 1965, the u. n. has never applied self determination for this case, as it did for other colonial situations, beside, that institution has always considered this cause like a special case.
As i said in other opportunities, people are not stupid, that's why arg., the u. k., and the islanders know that if this cause had been a case of self determination, the u. n. would have invoked that right for the population from the islands many years ago, beside, it would have never considered this cause like a special case.
On the other hand, if you investigate deeply about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict as i did, you would know that in some cases, public int. right considers that self determination is not applicable.
I think that the only one way to finish with this dispute, is the arbitration. However what we all should wonder is why neather arg., nor the u. k. decide to take the case to the i. c. j.
In 1884 and in 1888 arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, but the u. k. rejected that idea. In 1947, the u. k. manifested arg. that it would be disposed to discuss about the dependencies from the islands (south georgia and sandwich), but it hadn't included the the malvinas-falklands in the proposal. After that year, none of the two nations proposed again to take the case to the arbitration.
In my opinion, if neather arg., nor the u. k. decide to give that step, is because perhaps both aren't sure of getting a positive result for their countries, maybe that's why they insist on fine diplomacy.
@ 50 ChrisR
Aug 10th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Have you ever me a bunch of tossers like these Peronistas that infest The Dark Country?”
No, however 'tossers' are usually trying to achieve some 'satisfaction', the RG's seem to be just be 'we want it because “we want it” ' and have no regard for contracts, agreements, treaties etc.
“Objetive facts show that since 1965, the u. n. has never applied self determination for this case, as it did for other colonial situations, beside, that institution has always considered this cause like a special case.”
Aug 10th, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Based on your extensive research historic and legal investigation, please show us the objective facts that the UN considers this a “special” case? I think your Argentine ego “es mu alto” to think the Falklands is considered special other than it should be removed from the c24. As Mr. ban stated in the past, he believes no UNSC member has violated UN resolutions.
@51 axel arg: “OBJETIVE FACTS VS DISTORTED INTERPRETATIONS.”
Aug 11th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN's library of International Law, which provides high quality international law training and research materials , has this document regarding the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html
It states: ”...the Declaration was generally understood as being directed to “salt-water” Colonialism – occupation of the lands and territories of indigenous, native or aboriginal peoples, in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, who were physically separated by the oceans from their colonial Powers. There is nothing in the language or the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) inhibiting its legal extension to situations involving relations between European colonial Powers and other European or European-derived peoples overseas.”
Now another of malvinistas, Marcelo Kohen, has a document on there regarding Uti Possidetis and Maritime Delimitations
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ls/Kohen_BD.html
I found it strange that he didn't even manage to slip one mention of the Falklands in considering so many malvinistas claim the islands and surrounding sea was inherited from Spain.
Not high enough quality to get on the UN website maybe?
@51
Aug 12th, 2013 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Objetive facts show that since 1965, the u. n. has never applied self determination for this case, as it did for other colonial situations, beside, that institution has always considered this cause like a special case.”
How then Axel, do you explain that in 2008 that an attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right??????????????????????
Please show me evidence of where the UN has specifically stated that self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islanders.
People on these posts have the perfect right to expose Argentina's hypocrisy in stating that people emigrating to the Falkland Islands from Europe were implanted, whereas European settlers displacing the indigenous population were not an implanted population according to Argentina.
However, because they came from Europe and did not originate from South America, they must have been implanted.
You will also been aware through your research that many of the people that settled the Islands in the 1820s were IMPLANTED not only from South America, but also from Europe, including British settlers.
Vernet, as you know, preferred Europeans to South Americans.
I would like to ask you Axel, how can British settlers that chose to emigrate to the Falklands, before 1833 NOT be an implanted population, ( even the people from Buenos Aires must have been IMPLANTED if they were not born on the Falkland Islands), and the British settlers (and incidentally those of SOUTH AMERICAN origin) post 1833 be classified as an IMPLANTED population?
@55
Aug 13th, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The silence from the Argie trolls is deafening.
@56
Aug 13th, 2013 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The more that Falklands history is researched, the more inconvenient facts emerge like most of Vernet's original settlers being black slaves (surely implants, how could they be voluntary settlers?) and mostly German and British settlers born in Europe-so therefore as much 'implants' as European settlers in FI (and Argentina) after 1833.
I hope I get a reply from the trolls but I'm not holding my breath.
@57 Pete Bog
Aug 13th, 2013 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You still do not realize do you that RG's are fully entitled to ignore documented facts, historical or otherwise, but base their claims on lies, suppositions, and myths do you?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!