MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas: Argentina invites Chagos group to expose contradictions in UK's decolonization policy
Argentina's Foreign minister Hector Timerman will receive on Tuesday Olivier Bancoult, president of the Chagos Refugees Group, the entity which represents the 'Chagossians' forcibly ousted from their lands by the United Kingdom. The administration of President Cristina Fernandez pretends to expose contradictions in the UK's approach to the Chagos case and the Falklands sovereignty dispute. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“Once again the UK displays its disdain for international law and double standards regarding the right to self determination of peoples, since it ignores the right of Chagossians to return to their lands and on the other hand pretends to force the right to self determination for the Malvinas question, even when the United Nations do not consider such option applicable”,
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0So in one paragraph according to Argentina the UK ignores the right of the Chagossians to return to their lands and yet at the same time they claim the United Nations do not consider such option applicable.
What route are they going to take? Are they inviting the Chagossians to Argentina to say - look, it happened to these people so it can happen to the FI - If that's the case then surely they're supporting the actions the UK government took - Not sure the Changos deligation are going to be too pleased.
If they're claiming it's unfair (and it was) how does this support their case?
Keep up the good work Hector!
Timmerman = Desperate little twat.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Hector, what a dimwit, just as Damian says above, how can you possibly use this case to your advantage! And the Chagossian guy's mindset is equally dim... hey let's help Argentina do to the Falklands what Britain (did not) do to the Chagossians! These guys have lemons for brains! Apologies to lemons everywhere!
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“and on the other hand pretends to force the right to self determination for the Malvinas question, even when the United Nations do not consider such option applicable”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN has NEVER said this and self-determination enshrined as a fundamental principle of the UN!
How desperate are they to dig this up? I mean at the same time Argentina was still slaughtering its indigenous population and chucking innocents out of planes. In fact it killed over 30,000 during that same period whereas the UK (wrongly) relocated 1,200 people.
So really who is the hypocrite?
Argentina supports the Mauritius claim to the Chagos Islands ? I bet the Diego Garcian's will be well pleased with that, - being their biggest cause of complaint when they were moved back to Mauritius.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The removal of the Chargossians has been compensated - so said the Courth of Human Rights. Therefore they no longer have any claim - as Mauritians !
The daft thing is, once the UK and USA are done, the archipelago will almost undoubtedly be given to Mauritius (although they are not the only claimant). I guarantee that the Chagos Islanders will still not be happy!
So what? Desperation breeds idiotic behaviour obviously - in Argentina!
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've never understood using the Chagossians as an example or lesson.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Either Argentina:
*doesn't believe in self-determination and supports what the UK did and is therefore not a supporter of the Chagossians
Or
*doesn't support what the UK did which means the Islanders have a right to decide their future and therefore Argentina believes in the right of the Falkland Islander's self determination.
Argentina is only going to expose its own hypocrisy today in 2013 and not the UK's hypocrisy of 40+ years ago.
@ 4
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Article 73 of the UN Charter:
”“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:”
Please pay special attention to the phrase ‘the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount’. Now for that not to apply to the Falkland Islanders they would not have to be the ‘inhabitants’ of the Islands. Further the fact that their interests are ‘paramount’ means that their interests rank above everything else be it ‘wishes’ or whatever else anyone can come up with.
The full text of Chapter XI of the UN Charter (which contains Article 73) is available here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml
As one of the Chagos Refugees Group patrons I want to know what Ben Fogle has to say about this. He is on record as saying Sean Penn should be fed to crocodiles for his Falklands views.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Further to my post #8 above.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0The International Court of Justice (ICJ) have twice, in advisory opinions stated that the right self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories (NSGTs). The last being in paragraph 54 available here:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf
'The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ...” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Those provisions have direct and particular relevance for non-self-governing territories, which are dealt with in Chapter XI of the Charter. As the Court stated in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970):
“... the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them” (I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31).'
Please note, very carefully, the last sentence.
Aren't we getting desperate, Argentina?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You must really want OUR lslands,
lt must burn you up to know that you will NEVER get them.
While we're being oh so high and mighty, Argentina, what about the Patagonians' rights?
And what do you intend to do with the Argentine squatters in Patagonia?
What a hypocritical nation, Argentina is. All humbug.
Want to try the military option again?
l'll say this for you, once you get that idée fixée in your heads, its hard to move.
tyrants always rewrite history.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seems to me that albeit wrong, these people were brought to the Chagos as plantation workers. The world was a different place when they were moved back to the neighbouring islands from whence they came, they were however compensated, lets not forget, this was around the same time that black people in the US were being told to sit at the back of the bus.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have thousands of eastern europeans that come to work in the UK to pick sprouts and cabbages, does that mean they get to own the fields they are plucking them from, of course not.
One thing is for sure, once they align themselves with Argentina, that will be the kiss of death for them as far as the UK is concerned. A fate that Spain very sensibly took a step back from the precipice on.
In any event, the UK has already stated that the islands will go back to Mauritius when the time comes
@13 Britworker
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct.
Another thing that the Chagossians fail to mention is that there is no FRESH water ANYWHERE on the Islands. It all has to be imported.
This is the very reason why the plantation owners packed up and left, they were not financially viable any more. The French plantation owners then sold the islands to the British.
The British removed the people from the Chagos islands back to where they had come from because they couldn't support themselves, and quite frankly why should the British pay to have water imported to support them?
The Chagossians certainly couldn't have afforded to support themselves.
Argentina is desperate to distract their populace from the impending doom of a bigger default than happened in 2001.
The Chagos Islanders should say clear of Argentina, but if they want to attach themselves to Argentina's ridiculous claims it'll certainly be a death knell to their cause.
“Malvinas: Argentina invites Chagos group to expose contradictions in UK's decolonization policy”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gasp, a countries policy is different from the of the government 40 years ago. To me not repeating the mistakes of the past is a good thing. I assume they are comparing the Falklands situation to the removal of the Chagossians 40 years ago because giving a self sustaining Island to an aggressive neighbor is not the same as repatriating people to an Island that cannot sustain itself.
Of course Argentina, and Tinman in particular, have made a virtue out of illogicality and changing your position to suit whichever emotion they think they can stir. So as completely bizzare as this is, it is not surprising. He is probably hoping that Bancould hates the Brits enough to support the Argentine claim. Idiot.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14 Indeed, not a very bright move on behalf of Mr Bancoult.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Any sympathy for his in the UK will be pissed away if he's seen to be supporting the Argentines over the Falklands.
Here is an extract from “Stealing a Nation” John Pilger's award winning documentary on Chagos.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In the middle of the Indian Ocean is a group of coral atolls named the Chagos Archipelago. On the main island, Diego Garcia, is a vast United States military base. The islands are British territory that was illegally separated from Mauritius when that country won independence from Britain in 1968. The United States needed a foreign base strategically located for future wars in Asia and the Middle East, and in exchange for a discount off some nuclear weapons, have leased the islands from the UK since 1966.
The inhabitants of Chagos, who had lived there for several generations, are the descendants of slaves who worked coconut plantations on the islands. Using a combination of deceit and force, the British government removed the Chagossians from the islands and dumped them at the port side in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Their removal was hidden from Parliament and the US Congress. Foreign Office correspondence from the time, as highlighted in Stealing A Nation, reveals the racist ignorance of the British government, for whom the islanders are 'Tarzans or Men Fridays', 'unsophisticated and untrainable' plantation workers.
Since their removal the Chagossians have been fighting to return home. In the last fifteen years their campaign has achieved some significant victories in British courts but the government is playing a macabre waiting game with the Chagossians, many of whom have died during the decades of suffering and fighting. Stealing A Nation describes how, following a High Court judgement in favour of the Chagossians, the government used the un-democratic, archaic powers of the Queen's Order in Council to overturn the ruling”
Please go to this link for more detail and the video of the documentary.
http://stealinganation.com/
I urge all to sign the Chagos petition, lets get these people home!
http://stealinganation.com/
Its funny because Timerman forgets Argentina is a stolen nation created by colonization & the slaughter of the native population. Perhaps he should address his own countries contradictions first regarding the native people & hand back the stolen land to them & pay Billions to them in compensation. Just how long can Argentina display its disdain for international law and double standards regarding the right to self determination of peoples.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly how thick are the Malvinistas?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British have evacuated the civilian population of a BOT for military reasons? They did that to Gibraltar during WWII...let's see them get Fabian Picardo to comment on the Falklands situation!!
Regarding Diego Garcia, there has been NO transfer of sovereignty, and NO hard evidence that the Chagossians will not be invited to return once the lease to the USA has expired.
@17 Lou Spoo:
Don't treat the Chagossians as one mass...
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/alex-morrison/meet-world%E2%80%99s-smallest-democratic-government
Quislings like Olivier Bancoult and Alex Betts exist everywhere.
Reasoned sharing in both cases could solve a lot.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0As a long term supporter of the Chagos Islander's campaign, I would only comment that the FCO planned to do exactly the same to the Falkland Islanders. That they were frustrated was only because the islanders had a route to have their grievances raised in Parliament.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Chagos Islanders didn't, as noted their removal was hidden from Parliament.
The odd correction. Let them fall where they may! The “Chagossians” first arrived on the archipelago as slaves imported by France from Africa. Those not imported by the French arrived as fishermen, farmers and plantation workers in the 19th century. Britain took control of the islands in 1814 following the defeat of Napoleon. The UK purchased the entire Chagos Archipelago from the self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million in November 1965. In April 1966, the UK bought the entire assets and real property of the Chagos Agalega Company. The company owned all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In 1973, the UK gave the Mauritian government an additional £650,000 to resettle the island population. Now what happened to all that money the Mauritian government was given? To put the figures into context, £3 million in 1965 would be worth more than £49 million today. And £650,000 in 1973 would be more than £6.5 million today. So, in today's terms, the Mauritian government was given more than £55 million. More than enough to resettle some 2,000 people who had never owned so much as a grain of sand. The Mauritian government could have spent at least £25,000 per person. But it all “disappeared”. And there was another £1.25 million paid in 1979. Another £5 million in today's money. In any event, the whole matter was decided by the Law Lords in October 2008. It's over. The “Chagossians” are a completely different case to the Falkland Islanders. The “Chagossians” didn't go to the islands by choice. They never “owned” the islands or anything on them. It was for Mauritius and the Seychelles to accommodate the islanders. Some islanders were transported to those places. There is still no fresh water in the archipelago and no plantations either. Even the ones that were there were uneconomic. Just as a thought, are the “Chagossians” proposing to repay the over £60 million spent? Plus interest. Or is argieland proposing to repay it for them?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@20 screenname
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link, a very illuminating article.
The differences between the Chagos Islanders themselves as to their own future makes for very interesting reading. The conflict between the rights of the people over the rights of the state was particularly pertinent in this case. It also goes some way to explaining why Bancoult seems willing to be used as a mouthpiece by Argentina.
I still stand by my statement though. Unless the differences between the different groups is made clear the majority of people in the UK would assume Bancoult represents all Chagos Islanders and by association would see them standing against the UK over the Falklands.
I need to correct the “Give the Chagos islanders the right to return home!” petition link, it is https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Give_the_Chagos_islanders_the_right_to_return_home/?cOlEqbb
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 Ted
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are of course incorrect. The inhabitants of the Chagos Islands were contract workers not indigenous natives. Chagos was not illegally split from Mauritius, both territories were under one single umbrella, namely the British empire, from the days where europeans and empires were all the rage and britain acquired them by treaty from the french. Britain granted dependence to Mauritius which was already a self contained entity but also purchased the islands which Mauritius, paying compensation to the mauritain workers as well as a chunk of money to the Mauritian government. Britain is clean on this and calm too.
Considering that the Argentine Junta planned to hold a referendum on the Falkland Islands future, after importing 10,000 people post-invasion, and then stealing those Islands, as clear a plan for genocide or forced expulsion of the Islanders as you will find (free, one-way helicopter flights for Islanders perhaps?), it seems to me that at most, the Chagossians would be an example of what might have happened to the Islanders had the Junta remained in control.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have some sympathy for the Chagossians. Whatever lives they led on Diego Garcia, it was their home, they were, in effect, displaced to make way for other colonisers, albeit those with a military purpose. When, not if, the USA goes bust they might get it back.
18 Ted (#)
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:14 am
Yes. We get it. It was wrong and it needs to be addressed. Are you saying that we should do the same thing to the Falkland Islanders? Two wrong make a right yes? Is that what you are trying to say?
I currently have sympathy with the Chagosians as do many others but this is not the way to address the issue and allying themselves with the Malvinistas will get them nowhere except backwards.
The wrongs of 40, 100, 200 years are just that.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Tinmann wants to pick and choose his 'causes' then he should first of all dig up his old man, pack his bags and start his 'human rights mission' from his homeland in the Ukraine.
I mean, the Chagossians teaming up with these usurpers and conquistadors from Spain, Italy etc? Looks very desperate indeed.
Go research some history Bancoult.
History has shown that had the Chagosians were under Argentine “protection” and not that of the British, we wouldn't be having this conversation -- because they would have exterminated them and the architects of their genocide would be immortalized in status, currency and otherwise celebrated.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please Timmerman please give us more of this! Always the unrepentant fascist. Always the true hypocrite. Always the best argument for self-determination for the Islanders.
I do not understand why some try to hide this injustice done to these people and yet SUPPORT tHE FALKLANDS AND GIBRALTAR. IF YOU SUPPORT tHE fALKLANDS AND GIBRALTAR then you SHOULD support these people............There are no excuses.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31, What a lie you live. You know damn well that there is a world of difference between having sympathy for the Chagosians and supporting that this is not allowed to happen again, and fascists like you cynically using them to justify doing it to others.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Bancoult, why not ask Tinmann where are all the ex-slave descendants? Should be loads; huge number.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't say I've seen many black faces in BsAs, or elsewhere for that matter. Not from my travels at least. All a bit of a mystery?
@31 Who here is trying to hide it. I don't think that anyone on this forum denies what happened to the Chagosians was wrong but giving the Falklands to the Argies isn't going to fix that wrong.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This reminds me, in a way, of the community of Gagnon in Quebec. This was a mining town, all the inhabitants were employees of the company and were forced to leave when the mine was closed down. All that remains are roads, pavements and an airstrip.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagnon,_Quebec
So glad Aussie_Sunshine has decided to supportself-determination and the rights of the inhabitants of territories to decide their own futures and live their lives the way they wish.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now if only more Spaniards followed his example, their government in Madrid might cease their amateur-hour theatrics over Gibraltar and actually deal with the more pressing issues of corruption and economic growth.
@35 And the people of Imber Village , Wiltshire
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The administration of President Christina Kirchner PRETENDS to expose.......”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Something lost in translation?
Then again, maybe not!
@35
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the ghost towns of Bralorne and Bradian British Columbia, busy mining company towns for over 40 years, with very active family communities. Generations lived there, many well organised community and recreational organisations, with sports teams competing with other communities, it suddenly started to come to an end in 1961 - only a ghost town and museum remain.
The same fate for many unsustainable communities, Kaslo, Slocan etc.
He can point out whatever differences he likes, and then we can point out why the current administrative populations in South America are no better than the white folks who ran South Africa for all those years. Invade, put down the locals, segregate, take as your own. Only difference is that South Africa is back in the hands of the native population, which is more than I can say for South America. If they think South Afirca belongs in the hands of the Africans, then South America also belongs in the hands of the indians and not the thieving conquistadors and their cronies.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 It's always difficult to know whether someone like you is incredibly stupid or, being an argie, you just like to bait the British and are happy to lie through your teeth for the purpose. Either makes me very angry. A little bit of intelligent research reveals that “proper” inhabitants had dropped to 20% or less of the population. These individuals are properly called Ilois, not “chagossians”. The remainder of the population were contract workers from the Seychelles or Mauritius on 18-month or 2-year contracts. The maximum number of Ilois that “might” have remained was 185 or less. In today's terms, the UK handed over more than £60 million for their resettlement. If the Mauritian government pocketed the money, that's their problem. But there's more. From a 1973 figure of 185, by 1982 that had grown to 1,579. That's amazing! What are they? Rabbits? But at least we know that there's 1,396 who aren't “entitled”. If any are. Because that's when they all signed an agreement that, in return for a very large sum of money, they would abandon all “claims”. It's over! One final thing. Anything argieland is involved in is a lie and a scam. Argieland now trying to make itself look even more stupid. And succeeding!
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whist I do not agree with how the Chagossians were treated, splitting Mauritius into a BOT and an independent nation is no different from Cyprus where exactly the same thing happened.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As someone noted, I think discussions are in progress to transfer sovereignty of DG to Mauritius. I think that would get us off the hook regarding Uncle Sam's abuse of the lease for extraordinary rendition flights (and possible illegal detention of prisoners) as well as storage of banned cluster munitions
I don't see what Argentina can get out of this - either way, they're screwed.
To 22 JustinKuntz.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As an ardent and active supporter of both the Chagos Islander's campaign, and the fair people of the Falklands, I could not agree with you more.
The actions of the FCO, Nicholas Ridley in particular were at best misguided and at worst disgraceful.
To 28 Furry-Fat-Feck.
I'm afraid that you have got me entirely wrong my friend, I posted an extract from, and a link to, the appropriate site using these precise words “Here is an extract from “Stealing a Nation” John Pilger's award winning documentary on Chagos.” merely taking an opportunity to raise awareness, re the plight of the Chagossian people. I made no mention of the Falklands, no mention at all.
I take this opportunity to tell you that, any British Government ceding the Falkland Islands to Argentina, will do so over my dead body!
I am glad that you sympathise with the Chagos people, they need all the help that we can give them.
I hope that this tells you where I stand my friend, for I believe that you and I are on the same side!
To 26 Musky.
Your interpretation of Slaves, descendants of slaves and fishermen etc as “Contract workers” is unique!
To 31 aussie sunshine.
Well said that aussie, there are people both in the Falklands and in Gibraltar, who support the Chagossians in their struggle for justice. I know this to be a fact, because some of them are my friends both on Facebook, and on Twitter.
All for one and one for all eh!
To 36 Anglotino.
The Spanish Governments treatment of the people of Gibraltar is appalling! Catalonia would be better off out of that mess. Rock on Gibraltar! Rock on the Falklands, and Rock on Chagos!
43 Ted (#)
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ted. My friend. You posted in an article that has everything to do with Argentinas desire to procure the Falkland Islands for its own ends. You didn't have to mention them at all.
You are right to raise awareness but the Chagosian issue has got nothing to do with the Falkland Islanders and their spokesman would do well not to get into bed with the Malvinistas.
FOR EVERYONE:
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain decolonised the largest empire in human empire, granted self determination to 100s of millions of people and Gollum tries to make an argument with a few thousand people who didn't even belong on the Chagos islands in the first place?
His argument regarding Chagos only proves the exception that is the rule with the empire, 99.9% of it decolonised democratically and he thinks that 0.001% is a justification for anything?
He also seems to forget that Argentina's Spanish forefathers cared little for self-determination as well, utter hypocrisy for the Argies to even think they have an argument here.
If its not DiegoGarcia its the falklands, if its not the falklands its Gibratar, if its not Gibraltar its the north of Ireland. Always causing trouble somewhere.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@45
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know nothing you colonially implanted hypocrite.
@46
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> Always causing trouble somewhere.
Indeed. Particularly where the population rejects forcible assimilation by a foreign state.
lol - @47 - I agree with what you say to 45.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could probably say it to 48 also.
Gollum is clearly at the end of his tether here.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps TMBOA when she is back from her holiday should cut his tether and let him run off.
@47 think you meant 46, but I agree Vestige is what you said at 47
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conor, is it here you wanted to tell me the tale of how you lot did the Chagossians a favour?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Chagos Islanders case is quite simple.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many have received and accepted a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT for their relocation. They have signed all the necessary legal documentation.
Many wish for greater compensation and/or British citizenship in return for a full and final settlement. They have no wish to return.
The tiny minority (tens rather than hundreds) who actually wish to return should be allowed to.....
They should own exactly what they owned when they were removed (nothing)
Their democratic position as a minority people versus the much larger military population should be respected.
They should be responsible for their own water and food in line with the nations fisheries policy as set out by the majority people.
We dont need any lessons in ethics from a dump that threw nuns out of aircraft, recently murdered thousands of its own people, supported Hitler and Mussolini, sheltered war criminals, attacked peaceful islands without provocation, and is now a den of liars and thieves. There is no parallel with the Chagosians. Anyway they have colour, guaranteed to be treated with animosity in Argieland. Gollum wont get much support from the Villa dwellers.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@52
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nooooooooo.........if you cared to read my comment at @45 you might learn something colonial.
“Argentina and Mauritius invoke and demand the principle of territorial integrity”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And he expects the Chagossians to agree with that, does he?
Is he arguing that the Chagossians should be treated the same as the Falklanders, because the only way this works for Argentina is if the Falklanders are treated the same as the Chagossians.
This must be Herr Timmerman’s idea of the “moral high ground”.
“The right to self-determination for the Malvinas question, even when the United Nations do not consider such option applicable”.
There they go again, repeat the lie often enough in the hope it is believed.
As for the Chagossians, how exactly do they plan to survive there, in a place with little or no freshwater, and that will in the not too distant future be underwater? That is the question.
Or can we just “flying Nun” them somewhere over the Indian Ocean, and call it a return.
Actually, quite a neat little move.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And it will be all the better when Argentina shows ethical superiority by offering a home for all 'Chagossians' in northern Argentina. Now their practice of exterminating ethnic minorities has largely finished, the 'Chagossians' may be willing.
However, it might rebound into an Argentinian ethical inferiority
if the 'Chagossians' decide they are better off where they are.
this will just make her case even more sillier then it was before..
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0friggin pirates! return these poor (non-implanted) people to their homeland! and return the malvinas to the argentine people!
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@59
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sigh................You're not very bright either are you?
Oh dear Mr Bancould does not look very happy in his photo.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0poor 59
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the truth hurts,
so playing the lying game is easier..
Next the Argies will be complaining that we didn't keep to the terms of the 1938 Munich Agreement with A.H..
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So pathetic.
@59 Troneas
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually their forefathers were taken to the Chagoss Island by the French, as slaves, there were no indigenous Chagossians.
And what about returning Patagonia to the Mapuche then, anytime soon?
If Argentina and Mauritius want to highlight their territorial integrity demands, why is Timerman meeting a great believer in islanders rights to self-determination the president of the Chagos Refugees Group and not the Mauritian President?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can this further Argentina's colonial aspirations...
I see no contradiction in decolonization policies. In 1971 the British FCO had no regard for either the rights of the Chagossians nor the Falkland Islanders and sought to act contrary to their democratic suffrage
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What people forget is the deadly seriousness of the Cold War and the importance of communications and early warning stations in deterring Nuclear Holocaust
Make no mistake. The nuclear democracies of the U.S, Great Britain and France were subject to overwhelming Nuclear threat from the totalitarian Soviet Union state
Whilst a fake socialist utopia was the propagandist campaign within the Iron Curtain, the reality was political and economic oppression of the masses by the self-proclaimed Dictatorship of the Proletariat
In the circumstances, the needs of the many 9i.e the free democracies of the world, outweighed the needs of the few, i.e. the Chagossians. And the few were economically compensated
The serious point is the sides were in an Nuclear Arms Race and Armageddon was a reality; any military advantage (and thereby deterrent) was eagerly sought
That is why the USA and the UK made the decision to make Diego Garcia a military hub. No more, no less
Current Argentine solidarity with the Chagossians is both belated and without sincerity, rather it is purely opportunisitic
The fact is, in opposing American use of Diego Garcia, Argentina directly threatens American Homeland Security and also that of the free world, since the purpose of Diego Garcia is the military defense of the democracies of the free world
Argentine hypocrisy is both myopic and ill-judged; Argentina's unreasonable stance shall backfire on Argentine and backfire spectacularly
And there is the tale!
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Chagossians were moved for their own sake. That, and for the good of the world.
The Africans, Chagossians included, the Indians and the rest of the world bows in awe and.... chooses not to take the pill.
But I like it, historical Robin Hoods, unselfishly sowing Peace and Prosperity in the whole World... And those who died either deserved it or it was for their own good. Or a bigger Picture. Or the frame...
Hollywood material for sure!
No. The Chagossians were victims of the US/UK choice to create a miitary base in Diego Garcia and moved for military and political expediency
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is, the USA had a strong military need for Diego Garcia in the Cold War. No more, no less
Ok, it was out of strong need...
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, we have a strong need for the Brits to leave the Falklands.
Depends on whos needs in your democratical world, now doesn't it...?
Yes, indeed
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately for Argentina, they proved themselves to be both undemocratic, weak, and in contravention of UN Resolution 2065, the UN Charter and the UN Security Council
Of course, the Argentine need can always be tested against the strict legal test of the UN ICJ, unless of course the legal claim is weak
and without legal merit?
Great, then we agree.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you surely know what to do with all your excuses and great ideas for our SA.
Because we are not that different.
We tend to our needs.
I believe in honesty, friendship and cooperation
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think if the people of the world can recognize their common humanity and aspirations and seek to find common ground and work together, then petty differences can be set aside for the good of all
Speak softly and carry a big stick ;)
Your problem is that the common ground you speak about has to be similar, or better enough identical, to your own ground, otherwise you use that big stick to change peoples dreams.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Speak as loud as you want and carry a whole tree, if you feel the need. The wolves are gone.
I have no problem, but you do, because you dream of a delusional revisionist fantasy
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stare decisis
This is Timerman at his finest, the world's moral champion. Putting wrongs right, a sort of historical Jeremy Kyle. Next week he'll be interviewing Boudicea and also making the case for a group of islanders that were illegally attacked in 1982.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Domingo, first you tell me that countries of your ideology are allowed to rearrange borders and peoples lives out of their political needs.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Next post you tell me that you believe in friendship and cooperation, using words as common ground.
My question to you is, when typing that obvious crap you don't believe in yourself, are you at the same time admiring the mirror?
No
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I am saying that the world is not made up of black and white decisions, rather many shades of gray
The US/UK motivation w.r.t. Diego Garcia was rational. To deny this, is to deny the truth
Based on honesty, friendship and cooperation, you mean?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How does that single act not interfere with your outspoken principles?
Or are your principles more selective than the “truth” you are presenting?
No
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1971 US/UK decision was selfish but also pragmatic and a military imperative, not least due to the Vietnam War
That single act by the US/UK was morally questionable and it does interfere with common fair principles; yet neither of these democratic states are alone in making autocratic decisions against minorities within their territorial control. In fact I would submit to you the dictat of the state is the political norm in all societies
Nonetheless, fair principles are worth aspiring too, despite the mistakes of past generations
If this generation does not grasp the opportunity to do better than before, it shall pass to the next generation
Therefore I say seize the day!
However, the current generations are free to make better choices and are not condemned to repeat past mistakes
All they need do is seek the opportunity to do better than before, otherwise it shall pass to the next generation
I say seize the day!
Now you are getting closer to the truth...
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the rest of your post, I can only agree.
But never restrict the options to our needs or your needs. If our common needs aren't in the offering, it will never be a solution...
Yet common belief in honesty, friendship and cooperation may permit an honorable compromise?
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where there is a will, there is a a way
Live in hope
“A cable written by D.A. Greenhill on August 24, 1966 to a U.S. State Department official refers to the Chagossians as ”some few Tarzans or Man Friday.” The racism of the British bloody flesh eating monsters comes to life once more, well, it never died, it was just resting. The reason of their disdain for international law and double standards regarding the right to self determination of peoples is plain to see, the UK and the US are permanent members of the UNSC and the ICJ, so they can do whatever the hell they want.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@82
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats twice you've written that now, do you have a literacy stammer?
Gonzo22 - have asked you this before- will now ask it Again:
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please show me and others HOW does the UK have some form of veto at the IJC? Uk nor any other nation is a permannet member of the IJC- there are NO permanent members and No individual nation has a veto at it.
Malvinas, Hong Kong, Chagos, there are different rules for the British, it seems.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain's poisonous hypocrisy.
Yeah whatever, but why Timerpunk brings over Mr. Nowbody from Bongo Bongo Island. If he wants to make a case of people that have being displaced from their ho he should bring over to a press conference a geopolitical heavy weight like the Dalai Lama, you can’t get any more spotlight on the Malvinas than that. The Chinese mean business and they take stuff like that seriously, the British don’t. Timerpunk doesn’t have the balls to do a thing like that.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Naughty UK and US, militarising the Indian Ocean. Unlike that nice Junta in 1982, which only militarised the South Atlantic Ocean bed and a few hillsides, with avoidable early graves.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0#85 You really are stupid if you don't see the difference between each of those cases - in all the UK has a clear and legitimate reasoning. Not to mention, as has been pointed out here, if you support the former Chagos Islanders, surely you support the Falklanders? Which is it? Let's see who the hypocrite is.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Though I suspect you will just ignore me as usual demonstrating how much of a coward you are.
Journo: Do you think the Chagos Islanders have the right to determine their own future and return to their homes?
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bancoult: Yes of course
Journo: Do you think the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own future and remain in their homes?
Bancoult: Yes of course
Tinman: Doh! interview over.
This thread is hilarious seems like our Latino (ethnic southern europeans living in South America post genocidal colonialism) want to lecture on Chagos.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Chagos Archipeligo was and is British territory. All the land, all the properties all the infrastructure and industry was purchased.
Not conquered through genocide like Latin America, Not massacred under the laughable pretence of self-defence...not vaguely intermingled with the indigenous population through rape, and certainly not blaming someone else...but it was actually us.
Now, in the 1960s and 1970s, 1200 people who lived in Chagos, but didnt own any of the land, any of the property, any of the infrastructure (which was all closing) were WRONGLY evicted.
The reason why I say wrongly, is that the process was poorly managed which leads to todays mess.
Each case should have been managed on an individual basis on Chagos.
Of the 1200 many have received and accepted full and final settlement, many weren't “Chagossians” at all, they were first generation migrants some of whom had been there only weeks.
Some wanted british citizenship rather than Mauritius, and could easily have been homed in the Uk...
A tiny handful wanted to stay. Stay for what...a US military base and no fresh water, no jobs, no homes, no work..It seems not an insummountable problem to overcome.
Britains mistake was to give the cash to mauritius and assume a fair and equitable solution would be achieved..rather than deal with the islanders directly.
Argentinas mistake is to try and find agreement with London rather than deal with the islanders directly.
However, timmerman is a fool. There is no contradiction in the UK approach, and even if there was (which there isn't) it does nothing to strengthen the Argentine claim.
Argentina has a weaker sovereignty claim to the FIs than 200 other countries of the world. The population would rather have iranian or north Korean sovereignty than Argentine.
@85
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, like China and the US, might well have got something out of the Brits if it wasn't for its own staggering ineptitude. But you couldn't even negotiate a solution when UK governments actively wanted to give up the islands, and assholes like Greenhill were running the Foreign Office.
And now one failed invasion later your Foreign Minister seems to believe he can convince the world it's really unfair Argentina hasn't been allowed its own victims of colonialism.
Such is life without a sense of embarrassment.
Timmerman says the Falklanders are an 'implanted population' - Am I right?
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0So WTF were the people who were living on the Chagos archepeligo?
In this case they really were 'implanted' slave labour.
So why all this pathetic malvanista rehtoric? (forget I asked that, as there is no 'why')
Meanwhile, back in the real world :
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This Government has expressed its regret about the way resettlement of BIOT was carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We do not seek to justify those actions or excuse the conduct of an earlier generation. What happened was clearly wrong, which is why substantial compensation was rightly paid. Both the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has been paid in full and final settlement.
Whilst we believe that there remain fundamental challenges to resettlement, we are resolved to explore these in partnership with all those with an interest in the future of BIOT. We are determined that this review will be as fair, transparent and inclusive as possible, so that all the facts and factors affecting the issue of resettlement can be shared and assessed clearly.
As part of the process, officials are meeting with a wide range of interested parties, including Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the UK and in the Seychelles. We know that there are strong views and expertise within the House and we welcome contributions from all.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/british-indian-ocean-territory-policy-review
I'm sure we can all welcome Argentina's contribution, to the effect that the injustice done to the Chagossians by the UK would be somehow mitigated by allowing a similar injustice to be done to the Falklanders by Argentina.
Comic relief is always appreciated.
And I say 'seize the day', also (#79/80).
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Timerman should offer the Chagossians immediate rights of settlement in northern Argentina (southern Argentina is too cold for them).
There are many redundant farms that can be appropriated .. and water!
What a humanitarian opportunity! Go for it, Timerman!
If you Argies gave back Patagonia,
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then it might add weight to your argument,
But then again, you have no argument do you..lol
.
British imperialism has no principles, only care about their selfish interests.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well I guess we're lucky that Britain is no longer imperialist.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Though I can think of at least 2 countries that are hoping to practise imperialism in taking over neighbouring states, subjugating their populations and removing their economic independence.
Thinking about this country?
Oct 24th, 2013 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I bet you do..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
@98
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do let us know if you ever intend to join us in the 21st century.
#98 I see you didn't reply to my question, hypocritical coward.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@98 Marcos,
Oct 24th, 2013 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, my friend we were thinking of your hypocritical, genocidal, would-be colonialist country of Argentina.
Who, for some mysterious, in fact ridiculous reason, actually believes that it owns our country & indoctrinates its youth with these lies.
l don't think that you'll ever join us in the 21st century.....Pity, you could have been a great nation.
Can anyone explain why Argentina forced the poor 'Chagossians' from their lands and stole all their belongings when they sent them to a concentration camp?
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was it because the island was named Diego Garcia and the Argentines thought it was Martín García?
@102
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's all the fault of the Brits. Of course. If the dastardly Brits had just let them usurp the Falklands Islands for their penal colony, they wouldn't have had to use Martin Garcia instead.
@ 18 Ted
Oct 24th, 2013 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pilger completely forgot to mention the well documented fact, that the UK paid a large sum of money to Mauritius for resettling the previously indentured workers from the atolls on Mauritius.
These 1500 Creole Ilois were born in the Chagos archipelago and were indentured labourer families.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They were from French slave relocations - bought from Mauritius - also Madagascar and Mozambique, with others drifting in from India and the Malayan region - to work on the atolls.
The atolls passed to the control of the United Kingdom and came to form part of the Colony of Mauritius.
In 1965 the atolls split off from the - now independent - colony, becoming the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The 'repatriation' to Mauritius in 1973 and the migration of many to the UK completed the removal of the indentured workers as well as the landowners.
This enabled the Allied development of the Cold War military base, Camp Justice. This will remain as such during these years of the development of the Chinese high seas fleet.
The Chagos Protected Area (2010) is a marine nature reserve 'cleverly designed' to hinder any return to the atolls. It also serves to vest ownership of the seabed and marine resources to the UK. Much of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean is now so protected from 'High Seas Exploitation'. At the very least, this will help conserve fish stocks.
#96
Oct 24th, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0whereas Argentine Imperialism is for the benefit of ALL MANKIND.
That is why they claim chunks of Tierra del Fuego , Falklands ,associated islands and Antarctica.......or maybe they are just thieving gits !
99 HansNiesund
Oct 25th, 2013 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You ask: “Do let us know if you ever intend to join us in the 21st century”
And then this lovely lady said:
101 lsolde “l don't think that you'll ever join us in the 21st century”
After watching yesterday the picture of this British article I have no doubts that we are in the 21st century but I am not so sure that you are in the 16th or 17th century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10403684/Prince-George-christening-portrait-that-shows-the-future-of-the-monarchy.html
@107
Oct 25th, 2013 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I expect it's no surprise to anybody that your archaic world view extends to royalty as well. Try looking up the concept of constitutional monarchy and that might help you catch up. I would have thought you're already familiar with tabloid attitudes to celebrity, but if not just consult your own.
@107 Marcos Alejandro,
Oct 25th, 2013 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know that l'm lovely, Marcos?
You don't know what l look like.
Or what my thoughts are.
You assume, like all you malvinistas.
You are wrong about our Falklands,
You are wrong about how pure & noble Argentina is,
You are probably wrong about most things.
#107 Still ignoring my question coward?
Oct 25th, 2013 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your comment demonstrates that you understand nothing about our system of government and it's long evolution. In terms of Human Development Index, 6 of the top 10 (14 of the top 30) are constitutional monarchies.
@107
Oct 25th, 2013 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0How in gods name does the UK having a monarch effect you. Oh wait it doesn't you are just sprouting random gibberish because of your complete inability to make a cogent argument against anything that has been said.
“How does giving the Falklands away help the people of Diego Garcia”
“Because you have a Monarch gibber gibber snarf snarf!”
#107
Oct 25th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos, why do you spend so much time trawling the UK press and youtube ?
You must have an envy of the UK to spend so much time reading about it. Anyway, thanks for the reference as I had not bothered to look for any of this news on line or on the TV news.
@107 Marcos
Oct 25th, 2013 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have had Kings and Queens through much of our long history. 21st technology, 21st century science, 21st century writing, 21st century sport, 21st music... we are there, we made our contribution and we continue to do so., even with Monarchs. They give our country focus, familiarity, even stability where the serious business of governing has been (solely) in the hands of parliament for something like 400 years.
You have your presidents, we have our prime ministers... but our Queen has endured for 60 years, keeping calm and carrying on.
@112 Clyde15
Oct 25th, 2013 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It’s called “Penis Envy”.
Must admit that ol Hector and his fans makes one smile...!
Oct 25th, 2013 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0108 HansNiesund “Try looking up the concept of constitutional monarchy”
Oct 25th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did, parasites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJPv-FV5vbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJPv-FV5vbco/hermajesty.htm
A HUMBLING REMORA.
Oct 25th, 2013 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know that many people will insult me after this, as it sometimes happens, however like them or not, and beyond the usuall hypocresy of planty of people in this forum, the u. k.'s invocation in relation to the soposed right of the islanders to self determination, is just a colonial caprice.
Maybe not even the islanders believe that they have that right. In fact, if they really had the right to self determination, they u. n. would never consider the malvinas-falkand cause as a special case, beside, that institution would apply the right to self determination for the islanders, as it did for other colonial situations. I know that you'll date the charter of the u. n., however, haven't you ever wondered that if it soposes that self determination is perfectly applicable for this case, then why has the u. n., always considered this case as a special case since 1965, even after the so called referendum?. I recommend you to read the statements of the lawmakers from the islands before the u. n., where they complain about the way this cause is still considered by that institution.
I have always thought that the only one way to finish with this humbling situation for arg., is to take the case to the arbitration.
In 1885 and 1888 arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., however that country manifested arg. in 1947 that it would disposed to discusss about the cases of the dependencies from the lslands before the court, but it hadn't included the malvinas in that idea.
After that year, none of the two countries proposed again to take the question to the arbitration. Perhaps, both aren't sure of getting a positive result, if the case is discussed before the court.
@116
Oct 25th, 2013 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shia TV and a conspiracy site. Well up to the usual standard.
@117
As is Axel. Axel, how many times do you need to be told the same thing?
AXLE AARGH
Oct 25th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no 'special case' or exception to the Charter, period, either before or after the Referendum.
The UK is willing to discuss the Falklands with Argentina, with the major stakeholders and residents present, The Falkland Islanders.
As to “arbitration”, why would the Falklands and the UK negotiate anything away that they own, and have been inhabiting, administering, and investing in for over 200 years, if the Islanders do not wish to be subjugated by Argentina?
The UK and Falklands seem very confident that they would win any sovereignty challenge by Argentina in the ICJ, but for some reason, Argentina has no wish to make that challenge.
The ball is in Argentina's court.
Either enter into 'dialogue' with the Falklanders, or if that is 'not fair', go to the ICJ for a ruling.
End of story.
@117
Oct 25th, 2013 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have always thought that the only one way to finish with this humbling situation for arg., is to take the case to the arbitration.”
Go ahead-Argentina can take it to the ICJ.
Here we go again, Axel's private view on history.
Oct 25th, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Axel, the Falklands are NOT a “special case”.
Only you stupid malvinistas think, or would like that.
Unfortunately for you wishing something does not make it so.
lf you feel so sure of the rightness of your(ridiculous)“claim”, then take it to the ICJ.
You know that your country will not do this, because your country knows that it would lose.
However, it is fun to bait you pathetic malvinistas.
“u. n., always considered this case as a special case since 1965”
Oct 26th, 2013 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To quote Mr Picardo’s (First Minister of the Gibraltar Government) address to the C24:
“There was no trace of a single UN resolution stating such “nonsense” and accused Spain and Argentina of working in cahoots hoping that “if they repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.”
Axel, please tell us which UN resolution says there are any “special cases”.
If you cannot, then you must accept that the universal right to self-determination stands, and with it Argentina’s argument, falls.
@ 122 Pugol-H
Oct 26th, 2013 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Never mind the UNGA resolutions which in any event are only advisory there have been two International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinions that say the right of self determination applies to ALL Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs). These were in 1971 and 1975.
Paragraph 54 of:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf
and paragraph 52 0f:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf
The first page of each of the above two documents are blank, you have to scroll down to get the title page. Both are in English and French.
That should satisfactorily put to bed any arguments that the Islanders are not entitled to self-determination.
@123 Biguggy
Oct 26th, 2013 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.
52. Furthermore, the subsequent development of international law in
regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to al1
of them.
Well you can’t get much clearer than that, I agree.
However I still want to know which UN resolutions it is, that Axel claims define “special cases”.
@ 124Pugol-H
Oct 26th, 2013 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to be careful how you describe them.
The only ones that are supposed to be mandatory are the Security Council Resolutions. However Argentina does not take much notice of those. e.g. SC resolution 502.
General Assembly resolutions are only advisory unless sufficient countries 'sign on' to them and then translate them into their National Law(s).
Of late the C24 sub-sub-committee have started issuing 'resolutions' and at least one has mentioned the Falklands as a 'special case' or something similar. The important point here is that it did not make it beyond the Fourth committee to whom the C24 report therefore it is only useful as toilette paper.
Many malvinistas like to quote it as a UN resolution, which I suppose technically it is but they are only offering it up for consideration by the Fourth committee.
The numbered committees of the UN all comprise all members so by the time they pass a 'Draft Resolution' up to the GA it is virtually just a 'rubber stamp' job unless something drastic has happened between the time the numbered committee passed it to the time it gets to the GA.
In essence that is my question to Axel, which “UN resolutions” is he talking about?
Oct 26th, 2013 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Resolutions of a Sub-committee, of the fourth committee, of the UN General Assembly, cannot be considered equal, in any way, to UN General Assembly resolutions.
The only purpose of the C24 is to guide all the territories on its list to self-determination, according to Mr Ban-Ki Moon, and he should know.
The C24 cannot decide which territories do, or do not have, whatever rights. Only the General Assembly can do that, which it has already decided, “they all do”.
The only function of the C24 is to carry out the wishes of the UNGA, end of.
A committee of 24 countries representatives, does not speak for a UN of 193 member countries. Only the General Assembly does that.
So which UN resolutions, GA or SC, is our friend Axel talking about, I would love to know.
@ 126 Pugol-H
Oct 27th, 2013 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have asked that question of malvinistas on several threads, so far not one has provided an answer.
Similarly they like to post paragraph 59 from:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf
which states:
“The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need
to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, is not affected by the
fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the
requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those
instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a ”people“ entitled to self-determination or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances.”
but when asked for an example are unable to produce one.
Further, they omit to mention paragraph 54 which states:
'The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates,
as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . . .” This purpose is further developed in
Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Those provisions have direct and particular relevance for non-self-governing territories, which are dealt with in Chapter XI of the Charter. As the Court stated in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1 970) :
“. . . the subsequent development of international law in regard to
non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to al1 of
them” (I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31).'
@127 Biguggy
Oct 27th, 2013 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, still no nearer to defining “which UN resolutions, GA or SC, is our friend Axel talking about”.
@127,128
Oct 27th, 2013 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't think Axel is biased, do you? No can't be, oh wait could be. I don't know but sounds a little biased to me.
117 axel arg
Oct 28th, 2013 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh axel,axel, axel.......... Maybe R. Kipling will forgive me if I quote him here:-
“Son, son, son” she said, ever so many times.............
To say you are barking up the wrong tree would be an understatement. You are. Wrong tree, Wrong forest.
Now, run along and come back when you have learned something.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!