MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ lawmaker underlines that “self-governance” is achievable and points to March referendum
Falkland Islands’ lawmaker Roger Edwards said that ‘self-governance or sovereignty was achievable’ and pointed out to the March 2013 referendum when an overwhelming majority of the Falklands’ people decided to support the current sovereign status. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe question of sovereignity cant be discussed on a referendum. Get facts right. The question was made by britishs if they want to remain british. Nothing we didnt know already.
Sep 02nd, 2013 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remaining British as opposed to being Argentine? Or remaining Polish/Dutch/Danish/Czech as opposed to German? You malvanistas really are thickest bunch. You have no clue whatsoever as to how badly you look to the rest of the world (even dare I say, your closest neighbors).
Sep 02nd, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is Argentina taking the UK to the ICJ? No (not today, not tomorrow not ever because they know they have no case). Will they comply with 20t65? No they walked away in February for the most embarrassingly childish of reasons that everyone else outside of you childish bubble saw clear as crystal, rather than act like a statesman worthy of international respect.
There IS no sovereignty dispute, because your government has no interest in it. They have effectively vacated the conduits to pursue it on the adult world stage. They just need the Islands as an “unresolved” matter making your country “incomplete” and “wounded” so they can ring Las Malvinas Bell so you can drool like trained dogs and forget and ignore what CFK and her government is doing to your country. The Junta pulled it on you in 82 and you cheered them on, and sure enough CFK is playing you like a cheap ukulele, falling for it again.
'The question of sovereignity cant be discussed on a referendum.'
Sep 02nd, 2013 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It can. And it was.
'Get facts right.'
They did.
'The question was made by britishs if they want to remain british. '
No Malen, The referendum was about the sovereignty of the territory, not about the citizenship of the inhabitants.
“Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?”
'Nothing we didnt know already.'
Well, here's something you didn't know.
@1;
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a stupid statement to make.
Utterly stupid, and arrogant, - Which only enhances the stupidity of the individual making the statement.
Yes, and in 1814 a bunch of Spaniards and Italians were asked if they wanted to remain Spaniards or Italians and they chose to be Argentine.
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Americans already made that choice, and the Canadians and Australians made it later.
It's called self-determination.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a level of retardation with you Malen, that sees one thing for every other country in the Americas and elsewhere and a different thing for the Falklands.
@1 The question of sovereignty (of the Falkland Islands) can't be discussed or determined by argieland. Because argieland is an alien place with NO jurisdiction. Now will it EVER have jurisdiction. Because it's always open season on argies. And you don't need a licence! And the question of sovereignty CAN be determined by referendum. In fact, it usually is! You should complain about the sub-standard nature of your educational system. Do you realise that when you, eventually, leave school it will take you YEARS to attain the same level of ignorance as your compatriots? Argie “adult” level of ignorance = British 16-year old. Most argies don't manage intelligence, if ever, until just before they die! Want to attain intelligence? You know what to do now, don't you?
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 07:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Refuted all the arguments, the British needed a false self determination.
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5 “Yes, and in 1814 a bunch of Spaniards and Italians were asked if they wanted to remain Spaniards or Italians and they chose to be Argentine.”
Precisely is this the difference.
A British referendum, asking to British, if they wish to remain British.
7 Îles Malouines 1764
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't understand self-determination, I don't understand self-determination, I don't understand self-determination, I don't understand self-determination,I don't understand self-determination,I don't understand self-determination, I don't understand self-determination.
I am a Argentinian and I don't understand international law!!!!
there you go 1833, do you need us too explain, why your crappy little country CAN'T ethnically cleanse the Falkland islands.
Question for everybody else. Why don't they (the Argentinians) get that they sound like fascists?
@8 You feel good?
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@8 You feel good?
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Last time i checked the Falkland islands are still free from colonist Argentina, so yep i'm good thanx.
ethnically cleanse ?
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfb39YKRsOw
I'm curious what the reaction from the Malvinistas on here would have been had the March referendum had a different outcome. Say 52 to 48 percent NOT wanting to remain a British Overseas Territory. Or let's just say for fun the referendum question was “Do you wish to become a province of Argentina?” and the majority voted “yes.” Would they then be howling about the right of self determination for the Islanders? You better believe they would......
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 I have curiosity about the reaction of the British in the Falklands if most people are Argentines. Would place the referendum?
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@12 I have curiosity about the reaction of the British in the Falklands if most people are Argentines. Would place the referendum?”
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falkland islanders saw themselves as Argentinians, then this wouldn't be a problem. Argentina would have the falklands (but not South Georgia), you really have to understand its up to the islanders. And everything KFC has done in the last couple year, is to push them away. Its the Argentinian government who have done more then anyone else to make the Falkland island self-governing (a bit like when America invaded Canada in 1812, it gave Canadians a national identity).
@7
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0So how do you see the up and coming Scottish referendum? In essence, it is British people voting to remain or not remain British. It is the same as the Falkland Islanders voting on their political status.
In the eyes on the worldly and intellectual Argentines, does this constitute as a legal referendum? Because according to your innane posts on the Falklands referendum, the Scottish referendum would be illegal too....
I am looking forward to your hypercitical explanation....
@1
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give us one reason why they should have voted to be Argentine?
ONE. GOOD. REASON.?????????????????????????????????????????????
If you have any grasp of human pyschology, you could attempt to give us more than one reason.
In 1816 (or whenever you didn't wish to remain Spanish), there must have been a REASON the United Provinces of the River Plate (or whatever you were called then) DID NOT want to remain Spanish, and that exercising self-determination surely meant you preferred to be independent of Spanish rule.
So there must have been an advantage in not being Spanish, or that being ruled by Spain was not fulfilling the aspirations of the people that lived around the River Plate.
But presumably as your country is still infected with the Nazi principles that Peron imported from Mussolini and Hitler, the fact that the Falkland Islanders do not have Spanish as their primary language, means your country is a thinly veiled, racist group of expansionist Imperialists (ie you seek to copy how Britain used to be) seeking to change 21st century rules with early 19th century philosophy.
@7 If these arguments are all refuted then where is the ICJ ruling? Oh yes. You won't go. Because your government knows the UK case is far far better than AR's. A moot point since it's not really interested in annexing the Islands. It's just a bloody shirt to wave in front of your gullible and well trained eyes to distract you from its serial mismanagement of your country. And you fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinese
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are thinking like an Argentine.
The answer to your question is of course Britain would. Look at the evidence.
The majority of people in Canada wished to become Canadian and not a British colony, that's what happened..peacefully.
The majority of people in Australia wished to be Australian and not a British colony, that's what happened, peacefully.
Ditto, one third of the surface of the planet in the last 100 years. From SE Asia with Malaysia and Brunei, through Africa, North America, Central America, Europe...all former British colonies, many full of British people choosing to be independent, join other countries or not.
The Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British..tough shit.
The majority of islanders could choose to become Argentine, but they won't because Argentina is a shit country that wants to steal from them,
Look at what you did to the Amerindians in Patagonia that you stole from, did you allow them a referendum in 1880 when you slaughtered them?
You get a choice, live under Argentinian rules of society, such as they are, mind you they may change tomorrow! or live under British rules of society.
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No brainer as the younger generation say!
@ 19 As an American I thank God that the two greatest gifts Britain gave the United States were the English language and the English rule of law. It formed the basis for us to become a successful and prosperous nation. I shudder to imagine if Spain had been more successful in North America in the 1700s. We could've turned out more like a giant shitbox Spanish speaking mess like Argentina.....
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”In March 2013, the current (Falklands) legislature assembly held a referendum in which the question of sovereignty was discussed. 99.8% voted in favor of retaining the current sovereign status“:
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go to the shit!
The Self-Determination of course it is achievable, but not for an artificial society as current Malvinas Argentinas Islands, hence the UN, which cites both this guy, has never promoted the ”referendum“ in the Falklands as if it has promoted in other areas where it believes that there is a ”people”. So that the Falklands (Argentine) are on the UN list of territories to be decolonized and even this year amounted to Polynesia “French”.
With regard to the “violent revolution” above, looks like it pays off: we just need to see what Ireland Republic achieved: to hell with the queen.
For more information on the “legislator” “Malvinense”, typical “Indian blond”, unborn in the islands. Born in Brinkworth, Wiltshire. Member of the Royal Navy ........................................
Jose Malvinero
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How cone then, the UN General Assembly voted that self determination was a fundamental right of ALL non-self governing territories...removing the ridiculous Argie notion of “except we're a sovereignty dispute exists”
You talk utter shit
@21
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't it funny how the only people to believe in the notion of an implanted population with no rights, are members of the implanted Italo-Iberian populations of South America?
21
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...in the Falklands as if it has promoted in other areas where it believes that there is a ”people”. So that the Falklands (Argentine)...
I wanted to put:
...in the MALVINAS as if it has promoted in other areas where it believes that there is a ”people”. So that the MALVINAS (Argentine)...
Shit!!
“...to hell with the queen.”
I wanted to put:
“...to the SHIT with the queen.”
@ 24 José Malvinero“...to the SHIT with the queen.” you want to poop with the queen? i'm sure she wouldn't go anywhere near an asshole like you!
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We could replace Jose's lips with a toilet seat, he would then get his wish
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21,24 And why oh why would the Islanders want to have anything to do with such people? Who wouldn't want to be british in comparison to being in union with a country filled with such weak worthless disgusting and *mature* little fascists.
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0José Malvineo
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide a link to the UN's definition of what constitutes a “people”.
Actually a link to any international law will.
Let me help you.
YOU
WON'T
FIND
IT!
Because it doesn't exist. So if you are going to claim that certain international laws are interpreted due to wording, then at least know what you are bullshitting about.
@24 Jose Malvinero
Sep 03rd, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep it coming Jose............your eloquence of view is pure gold in confirming why the Falklands will be just that: fact not fiction for at least the next 180 years.
You should get yourself a job in PR; your clearly wasted in your Foreign Ministry.
@21 Jose.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“With regard to the “violent revolution” above, looks like it pays off:”
It does indeed work.
In 1982 when Argentine conquistadors tried to emulate their Spanish forefathers by attempting to impose a regime, the Falkland Islanders born there did not want, the Islanders were too few to stage a revolution.
However many Islanders helped the British troops, either taking part in the fighting, or by acts of sabotage against your fascist friends .
So the islanders had help in their revolution against Argentina from the UK (in the same way that the United Provinces had help from overseas for their revolution), and the British resistance to Argentina did indeed work.
The revolution against Argentina achieved Liberation Day and has forever removed the scurge of your country's incompetent rule over the Falkland Islanders.
”.to the SHIT with the queen.”
You want to share the queens toilet?
Whatever.
Countries don't have governors, countries have presidents, or prime ministers, or kings like in Saudi Arabia. It was a reunion of non-countries to joke about self-governance.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0@24 José Malvinero
Sep 04th, 2013 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's all this about the Queen anyway? Do you think for some reason it's the Queen that prevents you getting your hands on the Falklands? I don't think even David Icke thinks that, though you might like to consult his web site to get his precise position on the Falklands/Malvinas question: http://www.davidicke.com/
I do believe, however, that outside the Malvinaverse and the world of reptilian conspiracy theorists, most recognise that it is Argentina's own twisted adolescent sense of entitlement which ensures the islands will never be theirs.
@24 After 1833, despite Argentinian protests Britain has consolidated title to the Falklands on the basis of adverse possession and effective occupation.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever the rights and wrongs of what did or did not happen in the late 18th and early 19th century, you cannot simply ignore a peaceful possession which has gone on for nearly 200 years. The British maintained possession and control and populated the Falklands.
The UN Recognises the islanders right to self-determination and 'people' have always been defined as the population of a recognised colony.
@33 The UN don't recognize the right to self-determination of the islanders, the UN recognizes that there is a group of people, of British origin, with British passports living there, in a disputed piece of land, but that's all.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@34 That boldfaced lie has been put to bed here over and over again. The Argentina and Spain tried to have special clauses to de“peoplize” Gibraltar and the Falklands written into UNGA's self-dtermination language. The adult world saw through it and the motion failed. The right to self determination applies to the Falklands as it does to everyone.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@33
Sep 04th, 2013 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually not true.
The UN Charter recognises the right to self-determination of all people's.
The UN General Assembly has voted that all non-self governing territories have the right to self-determination EVEN WHEN there is a sovereignty dispute.
The UN recognises there is a sovereignty dispute and has a body set up for such instances, the International Court of Justice.
What happened when Argentina made up fantasies about the Beagle Channel and took them to the ICJ?
However Gonzo, I ask you the question...perhaps you can answer.
What happens to the hundred or so distant island groups around the world with tiny populations who are quiet happy being aligned to a larger distant country, whilst still having a level of autonomy. What happens when these island groups consider their population too small to manage foreign affairs and want the help from a larger state.
look at the map, there are probably 100 examples of island groups not governed by geographically the nearest country, but by a country of their choosing.
This would include the Faroe islands, closest to the UK but governed by Denmark.
It seems you would deny all these people the choice and force your choice on them. Interesting.
So, whose are the Paracel Islands, the Spratley Islands, whose is Pitcairn or Tristan de Cuna, whose are the Faroe Islands? How did Hawaii become part of the USA but not Cuba which is closer, whose is Bermuda? Whose is Aruba or Greenland?
Probably Argentine right, based on some other made up shit....
The answer is always the same, ask the people who live there what they want.
@36 You surely know how hard is for those tiny populations that you say are quiet happy with this situation, to gain independence from their masters, and finally be allowed to take care of themselves and their natural resources after centuries of colonial rule. You can imagine that when countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and others, all being independent countries and nations, can't protect themselves from invaders, how could those tiny populations change that situation of being aligned to a larger distant country? It's not easy man. I know you really don't give a toss what those people think or wish, but anyway, if you care, you'll find something. The case of the islanders is different, they are British people with British passports, and there is another country (Argentina) claiming sovereignty over the islands, something the UK government simply ignores.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not that the US government cares what the Hawaiians say, but there is a site about Hawaii Independent and Sovereign http://www.hawaii-nation.org
@ 34 Gonzo22
Sep 04th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you know that in 1965, only 4 days after the UNGA voted on resolution 2065, they voted on another resolution, 2105, and that Argentina voted 'for' that resolution. Do you know that resolution contains a clause which specifically asserts that the 'populations' of small territories which are not fully independent have the right to self -determination. Further did you know that similar resolutions have been issued almost annually, the last being 67/134 at the end of last year. Further, Argentina has voted 'for' them all.
Over the years the wording has changed slightly, they no longer speak of 'small territories' but of 'Non Self Governing Territories' (NSGT).
There are no conditions, exclusions etc to the right of self determination mentioned or referenced, it applies to all territories that do not govern themselves.
Additionally in 2008 Argentina and Spain tried to get a clause inserted in a similar resolution dealing with territories other than the Falklands to the effect that where a sovereignty dispute existed self determination would not apply. Conjecture had it that this was a 'back door' attempt to remove the right to self determination from the populations of Gibraltar and the Falklands as no territory being dealt with by the resolution was subject to a sovereignty dispute. The proposal was rejected because it was argued, successfully, that the basic right to self determination was to important to have conditions placed upon it.
I believe the Islanders' exercised that right earlier this year in their referendum and can now, therefore decide what their own 'interests' are as per UNGA 2065. The fact that I believe 2065 to be 'dead' due to contravention by Argentina in 1982 makes no difference, contrary to popular RG myth it does not require RGland and the UK to talk about sovereignty but about how to comply with the UN Charter and UNGA resolution 1514. I suggest you read it very, very carefully.
@36 Well remember Big, 2065, Ironically was explicitly complied to in spirit and letter in February by the UK. They had the Islanders there to ensure that their interests were represented. They had a chair out for Timerman and tea and cakes at the ready -- and knowing that he'd be sharing the room with 2 -- TWO -- representatives of a mere 3000 -- THREE THOUSAND -- people, the man who represented a country of 42 MILLION slinked away like a coward having had his bluff called -- for the world to see with the most transparently childish of excuses. He could have scored a diplomatic coup, he could have turned on childish bravado and ignored them, further proving that gullible Gonzo's country's facscist colonial intents on the Islands are no different than they were in 1982. But he didn't. Because he didn't care about meeting with the UK about the Islanders. He never did.
Sep 04th, 2013 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Gonzo, your country's governments care not for 2065. They care not for sovereignty (otherwise they'd take their weak case to the ICJ, the only body who is empowered to adjudicate the matter, because they know they'd be laughed out of court). They just use the islands only to distract suckers like you from them running your country into the ground. The Junta pulled the same stunt in 1982 and you feel for it, cheering on the same people that just before the invasion wanted them out. And now CFK is doing it to you again, and again, you are their trained seal.
39
Sep 05th, 2013 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“@36 Well remember Big, 2065, Ironically was explicitly complied to in spirit and letter in February by the UK. They had the Islanders there to ensure that their interests were represented. They had a chair out for Timerman and tea and cakes at the ready -- and knowing that he'd be sharing the room with 2 -- TWO -- representatives of a mere 3000 -- THREE THOUSAND -- people, the man who represented a country of 42 MILLION slinked away like a coward having had his bluff called -- for the world to see with the most transparently childish of excuses”
Gonzo,
Heh heh heh, chuckle chuckle
:-D
@37
Sep 05th, 2013 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The mere existence of a dispute doesn't mean that the dispute is legitimate.
In this case, quite apart from the numerous historical inaccuracies and falsifications underlying the claim, we have been treated to the spectacle of Argentina arguing in front of a Decolonization Committee that some principle of colonial inheritance allows it to colonize a territory against the freely expressed wishes of 99.8% of the inhabitants.
It should come as no surprise that the only countries prepared to support this bizarre contention are your fellow colonial conquerors of South America, nutters like Iran and North Korea, dictatorships such as Belarus and Syria, and a sprinkling of others who reject self-determination because they themselves covet or occupy territory where they are not wanted (India, China, Russia).
Nor is it true that the UK has simply ignored Argentina's claims. In fact the UK has met in full to every single UN obligation, and even without the UN most post-war UK governments would have been perfectly happy to negotiate some kind of agreement with Argentina. The Thatcher government in particular, probably your best bet, was negotiating right up until a couple of weeks before the lunatic 1982 invasion.
But what has become abundantly clear from that episode and repeatedly confirmed since then, is that it is Argentina's own irrational and unfounded sense of entitlement which has ensured that its claim can never be met.
And the question you should be asking is, who benefits from this? Heres'a clue: it is neither the people of the UK, the people of the Falklands, nor the people of Argentina.
Gonzo
Sep 05th, 2013 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed they are British people, holding British passports living on the Falklands, and many have ancestors who have done the same for 180 years.
This is what they chose to be.
Your ascertain that the Falklands is part of Argentina is a ludicrous joke. there is ABSOLUTELY NO CASE where this is true.
The Falklands have never been part of Argentina.
Everyone agrees that the Spanish Empire had a settlement on East Falkland between 1766 and 1811, they voluntarily vacated, never passed sovereignty on (indeed went to fight the Buenos Aires uprising), and there was nobody remaining on the islands to become Argentine, Uruguaian or anything else.
British sovereignty claims stretch back to 1690, long before Argentina existed.
The Argenine claim is based on a dubious and failed business venture by Luis Vernet, who had again long since vacated the islands in 1833, never returned and had left a British man in charge...and a bunch of rapist murderers who arrived in November 1832 and were evicted in January 1833.
A more spurious and ridiculous sovereignty claim which 180 years later you use to claim “the islands are part of Argentina” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
However, there is a much much stronger case that patagonia IS NOT part of Argentina, especially if you only take into account those there prior to 1880 and those massacred by your genocide.
Patagonia should be independent and full reparation made by you returning all the mineral rights you stole during your 150 years of genocidal colonialism.
See what happens when you drop self-determination...Argentina loses again!
Two interesting 'reads'.
Sep 05th, 2013 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The official RGland website:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history
There are no prizes for noting the most errors/lies or partial truths!!
I did not know if I should laugh or cry when I read that one.
2 A very well referenced 'read'
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history
@34
Sep 05th, 2013 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The UN don't recognize the right to self-determination of the islanders,”
Wrong. Many countries do not recognise this right to self determination, however as @ 38 Biguggy states regarding the UN;
“Additionally in 2008 Argentina and Spain tried to get a clause inserted in a similar resolution dealing with territories other than the Falklands to the effect that where a sovereignty dispute existed self determination would not apply. Conjecture had it that this was a 'back door' attempt to remove the right to self determination from the populations of Gibraltar and the Falklands as no territory being dealt with by the resolution was subject to a sovereignty dispute. The proposal was rejected because it was argued, successfully, that the basic right to self determination was to important to have conditions placed upon it.”
So Gonzo22, we know that Argentina and other countries reject the Falkland Ilsanders right to self determination, but to say the UN do is totally false.
Malvanistas have been challenged many times on these post to locate a precise and unambigous statement whereby the UN clearly states that anyone has no right to self-determination, specifically the Falkland Islands.
They have never been able to.
We are all ears Gonzo-where does a UN statement contradict what was said in 2008???????
@37
“You surely know how hard is for those tiny populations that you say are quiet happy with this situation, to gain independence from their masters, and finally be allowed to take care of themselves and their natural resources after centuries of colonial rule.”
Correct. Prior to 1982 the UK did not fully respect the FIs interests and the UN's preferred goal of independence as laid out in resolution 2065 . Since 1982, the Islanders have been allowed to control a fishing zone (with no interference from the UK), and now to explore for oil ,decisions on which are taken by FIG, not UK's parliament.
So, the FIs ARE on a slow road to Independence.
@ 44 Pete Bog
Sep 05th, 2013 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Correct. Prior to 1982 the UK did not fully respect the FIs interests and the UN's preferred goal of independence as laid out in resolution 2065 . Since 1982, the Islanders have been allowed to control a fishing zone (with no interference from the UK), and now to explore for oil ,decisions on which are taken by FIG, not UK's parliament.”
I have to partially disagree to the above statement.
It is true that the UK did not attempt to push the Islanders' towards the stated goals of UNGA resolution 1514 because none of them suited the Islanders wishes (self -determination) this is one of the reasons's the UK, and very similarly, the US, withdrew from the C24.
However with the coming into force of the 'fourth option' this fitted in with the Islanders' wishes and interests and that, as far as I can understand the situation, is how it stands today. Except of course for Argentina's interference.
Further, should you care to read my link above:
www.scribd.com/doc/103643219/Falklands-History
You will find that there are, prior to 1982, numerous references to the need to abide by the wishes of the Islanders (self-determination).
Malen,Is Malvinas and oithers - so if it was just the Brits voting to stay Brits - they why did the non-Brits origen people on the electoral role also vote overwhelmingly to remain British?
Sep 06th, 2013 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please explain?
Perhaps along with your Un evidence so many are asking you lot for?
@45 Biguggy
Sep 07th, 2013 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it is of course true that the islanders did not want Independence and were free to chose association with the UK.
I am not however impressed that at one stage the Legislative Council were told to keep quiet about British negotiations with Argentina-I believe in 1968, and a leak to the Islanders led to every MP in the UK being written to and to the formation of the FIA, to prevent the islanders being sold out against their wishes. It is still my belief that the government of the day (Wilson's I believe) did not respect the interests of the islanders by gagging the Legislative Council, though self determination, in the end, was still taken into account.
However, interpreting interests, depends on what' interests' are. My interpretation is, that it was not in the 'interests of the population' to keep details of what HMG intended to talk to Argentina, withheld from the Falkland Islands population. Hence the fact that the UK has since 1982, given the FIG more autonomy, decreasing the powers of the Governor , has increasingly acted in the Islands interests, rather than merely its own-two entirely different matters.
@ 47 Pete Bog
Sep 07th, 2013 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I Did say 'partially disagree'.
Re your post # 47 fully agree.
One thing I do not understand is why the UK has not 'made more noise' about UNGA resolution 2105, voted on (yes bt Argentina) only 4 days after 2065. It very clearly states that 'small territories' do have the right to self detemination. Similar resolutions have been issued almost annually ever since, the wording has changed little, the now speak of NSGT's having the right to self determination (all have been voted 'yes' by Argentina)
In view of the RG govt. claiming that the Islanders do not have the right to self determination because 2065 calls them a 'population' and asks that the Govt's of the UK 'bear in mind' their 'interests' not wishes, see the link below:
http://cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history
I therefore believe the above resolutions should 'knock that theory firmly on the head'.
I further believe that everything that happened prior to the Islanders' referendum is now irrelevant as the Islanders, with the right to self determination have chosen their future path and therefore all that happened previously is just for discussion purposes.
Regards
@48 Biguggy
Sep 08th, 2013 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have to agree-the UK in the past spent more time listening to Argentine claims through a guilt complex over the past British Empire than actually checking to see if they were valid. And not sifting through UN resolutions and paperwork that contradict Argentina's claims.
Excellent point on Res2105 and thanks for pointing that out.
I need to reference more points and organise the massive files built up from these posts on history and self determination, so I can keep digging the references out.
I certainly think there is enough evidence to carry through the fact that the UN does support self-determination and has never explicitly made a case against the Islands being entitled to self-determination.
I think it is sad that HMG with all its overpaid army of beurocrats, researchers, advisors and politicians cannot find the same information that posters on here seem to find with ease showing the Argentine claims on history and self-determination can be challenged every time.
I would hold my hands up and say 'fair play' if they couldn't.
I believe that although after the Islanders referendum there is no turning back, it is still relevant that the Argentine claims regarding past history can be challenged, adding more credibility (not less) to the Islanders origins and current status.
@ 49 Pete Bog
Sep 08th, 2013 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The last of the resolutions was speaking of is 67/134 in December of last year. Just for your records/files.
I do not expect the one for this year to be very much different.
@50 Biguggy
Sep 10th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks chey, I'll c&p that.
Given how confident Argentina is that self determination does not apply to the FIs, it amazes me how much evidence is unearthed by posters like yourself to illustrate how deluded the Argentines actually are.
@ 51 Pete Bog
Sep 10th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Want some more? Try these two UN documents for some revelations:
A/5800Rev1 and A/6000Rev1.
I believe these are the first two reports from the committee that is now known as the C24. The relevant bits are pages 439-449 in A/5800Rev1 and 429-430 for A/6000Rev1
I particularly like page 449, paragraph 121 (b) which states that 1514 does apply to the Falklands, that also means that as 1514 applies so does the right to self determination. I know it is only a recommendation from that committee but the RG's are very fond of quoting items from the C24 as 'gospel'
Should you dig through them you will find that from the first the UK put the right to self determination as the priority but that could not get that included in the recommendations. My view is that it does not matter, it is in 1514 and that, according to them applies to the Falklands.
The RG rep lied at the first presentation by claiming that the population were expelled in 1833.
Happy reading.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!