MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 2nd 2023 - 15:25 UTC



Falklands reaffirms right to self-determination on UN charter and documents going back to 1960

Friday, May 23rd 2014 - 11:06 UTC
Full article 158 comments

The Falklands Islands reaffirmed its right to self determination supported by the UN charter and different resolutions going back to 1960, and at the same time accused Argentina of doing its utmost to damage the Islands economy. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • LEPRecon

    Excellent speech, Mr Edwards, and you have shown both Argentina up for it's childish and spiteful attitude, and the previous chair of the decolonisation committee for their biased attitude towards the Falkland Islands and it's people.

    I hope the Chairperson of the C24 does visit the islands, after all the C24 was set up to PROTECT the rights of colonised territories, not pander to the wishes of wannabe colonisers.

    Now let's sit back and away the childish and petulant response from Argentina. It should be good for a laugh, and will further show just how far they are removed from reality, and the proper way of applying diplomacy.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    It is no wonder Argentina's fantastical claims have achieved nothing after all these decades.

    There's no way for them to refute what Edwards said.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ #2
    I'bet they will try, with unsupported 'claims' and 'interpretations'!

    May 23rd, 2014 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • falklandlad

    The C24 Chairman and the Argie position = wholly fearful of the self-determination transparency in the Falklands. The invitation to visit the Falklands has been on the table since Alfonsin times; oft repeated, as it should be. It illuminates that small but very significant little stone lying transpareently on the ground to trigger a massive slip, trip and fall! Thats what they are afraid of. Nowt else.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @3 I can see this one coming. “Article 1. 2. 2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”. Argies will point at the words “nations” and “peoples”. They will say that the population of the Falkland Islands is not a “nation”. Although, by any reasonable definition, it is. Perhaps argies should investigate the definition of the word “nation”. They will also say that the population of the Falkland Islands are not a “people”. And argies are? Argies themselves refer to their “country” as “crisol de razas”. Alternatively, mongrels. “Argies” consist of Italians, Germans, French, Spaniards, Scandinavians, Austrians, Swiss, Bulgarians, Czechs, Irish, Lithuanians, Dutch, Polish, Russians, Ukrainians, Welsh, Jews, Arabs and Levantines, Amerindians, Mestizos, Africans, Asians and even British. Presumably that's the scotch. And yet the “constitution” of argieland starts with the words “We, the representatives of the people of the Argentine Nation”. Who said they were a “nation”? Who said they were a “people”? Just squatters who haven't even been there as long as the Islanders. And squatters who are pretty useless at thieving as well. How long did they manage to “occupy” in 1832? A month at best. Useless bunch of whining, mendacious incompetents.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “after all the C24 was set up to PROTECT the rights of colonised territories, not pander to the wishes of wannabe colonisers.”

    And this is one of the reasons that the UK are free to ignore the dictats from the C24.

    As the C24 do not fulfil their purpose as outlined by the UN withsde-colonisation/ the Falklands Islands and I believe I the United Nations have stated on more than one occasion that the C24 should visit the territories they are discussing then the UK are free to ignore them.

    Of course the C24 will still ignore the Falkland Islanders and turn a deaf ear to the truths that Roger Edwards puts in a diplomatic style, which effectively gives the UK the right to turn a deaf ear to the C24.

    I wonder if the C24 realise that if you are in a bog applying screaming revs to a bogged vehicle in 2 wheel drive, all that will happen is it will stay there and run out of fuel?

    This could be learned by the C24 if only they were to visit the Falklands and see someone offroading pffft!

    May 23rd, 2014 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Philippe

    Since there is nothing to “decolonize” in the Falklands, why do they participate
    in such undemocratic meetings, like the C24 group??
    And yes, Roger Edwards is an outstanding Falkland Islanders' representative.


    May 23rd, 2014 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ #6
    Last year at the Fourth Committee meeting RGland and Spain both said that UNGA resolution 580 forbade the C24 from visiting a 'territory' which was subject to a sovereignty dispute.
    UNGA resolutions are available through this website:
    UNGA resolution 580 was in 1954 in the IX session

    May 23rd, 2014 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    News just in: Neil Armstrong and Buzz have held a referendum on ownership of the moon, its now an American protectorate.
    Although nobody on earth recognizes the moonlanders as 'a people'.

    In other news a stadium of blue team supporters have democratically voted through the inalienable human right of self determination that the red team goal was a foul.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    9 well, there is an example of the 'quality' of an Argentine response.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Why thank you.

    Although you dont know my nationality.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    Good speech Roger. I can't think of any key aspect of this argument that you didn't cover. I am particularly pleased that we have once again invited the chair of the C24 to visit.

    Now there's a good example of why I haven't bothered looking at this site since sometime in early March.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Great fuckin speech mannie!

    May 23rd, 2014 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    It doesn't matter what your nationality is. You're quite clearly an anglophobe Malvinista on the Argentine model, contemptuous of those who oppose you, with a mentality straight out of the 19th century and a political culture from the 1930s.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... you might as well just lump it in with the ducks, it's only the Internet after all.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islas Malvinas


    May 23rd, 2014 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @ 15 Five UN ICJ Advisory Opinions and Judgment categorically confirm that 'the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL non-self-governing territories.' There are NO exceptions. On 17.10.2008 the UN Fourth Committee voted and decided NOT to apply any conditions on the right to self-determination, affirming it to be a fundamental right. Article 73 of the UN Charter on decolonization states, 'the rights of the inhabitants are paramount.'


    May 23rd, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI


    Back your statement with evidence that the contents of MLA Edward's speech is propaganda.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Let's say the “moonlanders” paid for their visit there, had stayed there for 180 years, built businesses, a society, a culture, homes and developed a prosperous economy....would they have rights...or would the moon belong to Argentina.

    Argentina having inherited irrefutable rights from Gallileo (an Italian) based on a “succession of moons” myth that nobody recognises, and that the moonlanders evicted a mythical Argentine authority that also never existed.

    My money is on the rights of the moonlanders.

    However, the much bigger “Marslanders” next door, who massacred the indigenous Marsian population and continue to threaten the moonlanders existence should stop being such a bunch of hypocritical twats.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    18 Monkemagic

    I love it. I was going to come up with something similar but then I reminded myself that it was only a deadbeat Malvinista so not really worth the effort.

    Let's hope the Marslanders don't attempt to invade the moon using their spaceship Libertad because if they do that is hardly going to give the Moonlanders anything to practice on with their massive nuclear arsenal.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Apparently [15] belongs to the Argies truth patrol, and they never

    May 23rd, 2014 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britworker

    The only change in of sovereignty in the FI, will be due to war or a wish for independence by the residents. WE ALL KNOW THIS, even the Argentines.

    Everything else is just talk as it has been for decades.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo


    A noted European head of state was quoted recently that the “...Falkland Islands” nothing more than a “fictional delusion of foreign colonists that illegally continue to occupy the rightfully national territory of Argentina.”

    Argentina actually will eventually win this debate in world opinion as several countries recently have been given certain financial and future trade incentives to recognize the pretensions of the Argentine government in respect to their “rebellious” provence of the “Islas Malvinas”.

    This week the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a monarchy led by polo fanatic Duchess Gloriana XIV, allegedly received eight Argentine polo ponies after her recent deciding vote to officially remark that the term “Falkland Islands” was nothing more than a “fictional delusion of foreign colonists that illegally continue to occupy the rightfully national territory of my new most dearest Argentine friends.”

    The Fenwick national parliamentary debate had been quite contentious over the past few weeks as the two political parties were tied in deadlock over the change of territorial recognition. The Dilutionists, led by David Bentner III (supported by the Grand Duchess in the final vote) has purportedly been romantically involved in a scandalous relationship with the Argentinian model, Matilde Bonasera.

    There were a number of indignant outcries by the Anti-Dilutionist party who accused the Argentinian wine industry flooding the European market with Tetrapak wine from Mendoza and threatening Fenwick's prime market.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Falkland Islands

    @22 say what you want, we are here that is fact, and that is the way it will stay.

    May 23rd, 2014 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    I don't think you should be so confident, as the DVF government is also being asked to provide advanced military training from the DGF defence forces that are famous for successful military assaults against other larger nations.
    Even the USA has had to admit the superiority of the DGF forces.
    Over confidence and complacency on your part could be disastrous...

    May 23rd, 2014 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Falkland Islands

    mmmm, must say what happened to the peace bit....

    May 24th, 2014 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    The DGF defense policy is to conduct an anticipatory defense which may sometimes require assaults to insure the safety of defenseless citizens that achieve peace through strategic strength.
    They are also known for their unique surrender strategy...

    May 24th, 2014 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    I think that sending a guy that was born in Brinkworth, Wiltshire (uk, europe) and was a royal marine to represent islanders as a non colony, speaks for itself about the colonial nature of this problem.

    Quote: “I have no doubt that Britain has retained sovereignty over our beautiful Islands since 1765”.
    What sovereignty could they possible have in 1765 if they were there for a few years without having discovered them, or being the first to claim them or being the first to settle. Of course if ignoring the existance of Spain and Argentina that administered them alone for over half a century without a single british protest. Or ignoring the french, that recognized spanish rights. Or ignoring the whole history of the islands, then, and only then, the british could retain sovereignty since 1765.

    Quote: “ Our population has evolved in the same way as that of other countries in the region.”
    hahaha Come on!!!!. Not only Roger Edwards is transplanted from britain to the islands, but the doctors in Stlanley too, their lawers, their judges, their LAWS!!!!, their teachers, their EDUCATION!!!!!, etc. All comes from London.
    This Roger is an european fool that try to convince a UN body that he is south american. Pathetic.

    May 24th, 2014 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    The lies of always that the pirates repeated ad nauseum . Especially this one, a pirate with all the letters , born in the UK, fellow of the Royal Navy, etc. .
    Said to have sovereignty over the islands since 1765. Did Trinidad island? Ha ha ! “Forgets” the 20 Spanish governors in Puerto Soledad from 1767-1811 , and 5 Argentines from 1821-1833.
    But to the ignorant like him transcribe the wise words of Nicholson Calvert the February 13, 1771. This member of the House of Commons man , said at that time:

    “I have no qualms in holding that Britain is the aggressor in the last conflict with Spain. In time of peace we have taken over an island that the French, after forming a complete establishment in it, were forced to leave because it was really a membership of Spain. The gentlemen may talk very strongly about the care with which it is necessary to monitor the rights of the British Empire: but when they became the Falkland Islands one of these rights? , how for the first time took possession of the island ? If our claims we were prior to the Spanish nation why not before we held our titles? And why do we tolerate the French invaded our domain? Or why endure even greater disgrace to bear than the Spaniards evicted like a sensibly his territory and never recognized our claims or energy demand with an apology ? ... Instead, Sir , if we have some claims, we sleep until a moment of peace confident we introduced clandestinely among Spaniards in open violation of treaties, erect a fort, and when the Court of Madrid unsuccessful restitution claims made by his minister, overly surprised us, and even more outrageously offended that were take by force what they peremptorily refused ... No, Sir, we rob them sneak a facility in place for a period of absolute quiet and we are now about to stab the Spaniards for daring to believe that theirs.”

    Although they do not like, we must go back to history, and you will see .... that the Malvinas are Argentine.

    May 24th, 2014 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Since we seem to be quibbling about borders, Patagonia belongs to Chile....
    The north of Chile seems to have Peru and Bolivia a bit upset as well....
    Oh yes all those European imports of law from Spain, France England...
    Those languages, forms of government, trade... And of course corruption...

    May 24th, 2014 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    But someone noticed the madness that is this news Mercopres ? The colonialist who has the nerve to go to a committee where the is slope decolonization precisely to defend colonialism ! No, silly, what it is to end colonialism , pirate Edwards, if you dont understanding .
    All references this man does on the provisions of the UN, such as the 1514, the 2625, is in the interests of ending colonialism on PEOPLES subjugated , as England has been practiced for centuries and Malvinas Argentinas Islands is one of the last strongholds of the practice. But Britain wants to use these resolutions to their horrendous interests.
    He says “ have sovereignty ” since 1765 , but forgot that by pirates, in 1770 Spain expelled forever. The fact that back in 1833 after 60 years only serves to demonstrate the garbage that has historically been England.
    Says they who live there (and he says that he was born in Brinkworth , Wiltshire, UK ) from 181 years ago , but forgot that English pirate colonization began in 1845 and had been born in the Argentine Islands in 1830 , as Vernet 's children .
    He repeat as usual , is a rhetoric to deflect our own problems , but forgot that the “ rhetoric ” began in 1833 ...
    He says he would be happy to have normal relations with neighbors . What neighbors? South Africa ? ? Have no neighbors .
    We could go on ridiculing this, but for now it's enough.

    May 24th, 2014 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • downunder

    “However “our focus will not be diverted by antagonistic attempts to prevent us from pursuing our aims. We are clear that we will concentrate on our goals and our agenda, not on someone else’s.”

    Well said Mr Edwards, well said. Your commentary is spot on and if the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, is to have any credibility they will 'listen and take note'.
    Congratulations for having the courage to stand up for your Islands, but across the years, you Falklanders have demonstated that you are a tough lot!

    May 24th, 2014 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    You are talking shit man....

    Spain voluntarily left in 1811 and those people either went to Uruguay to fight Argentina or back to Spain...none ever were or wanted to be Argentine.

    The five Argentine “governors” that made me laugh.

    1)Just visiting somewhere and then leaving doesn't make you a governor
    , 2)never visiting somewhere doesn't make you a governor,
    3) never being governor, leaving voluntarily and putting in place TWO British deputies doesn't make you governor
    4) Mestevier was appointed governor, for a few days, before he was murdered and his wife raped in front f their children, by his own crew...thus losing his status
    5) Pinedo was never governor

    Silly silly boy

    May 24th, 2014 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    You are welcome to the Malvinas. Where ever they are?

    The Falkland Islands however? are British as long as they choose to be.

    Out top secret NATO, Nuclear Base located on the islands will ensure that they stay that way?

    May 24th, 2014 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RICO

    I am sure the chair of the C24 has spoken with the Argentine Foreign Minister and will realise how scary talking to non existent people is and will choose to run away from the problem.

    The C24 repeatedly refuse to look at either international law or the history of the Islands and instead relay on information from Argentina, a nation of cheats, liars and bankrupts.

    May 24th, 2014 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    The various “malvinistas” who jump up from their petty existence to throw lies, myths and other nonsense at us really are pathetic, sad and useless individuals. They contribute nothing but written “basura” which deserves no attention other than total derision.

    May 24th, 2014 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Only a nation as cruelly lacking in self-awareness as Argentina could appear before a decolonization committee to argue that some principle of colonial inheritance allows it to seize a territory regardless of the rights and wishes of the inhabitants.

    Such is life without a sense of embarassment.

    May 24th, 2014 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato 27- Ok then WHO first sighted the Islands- WHEN? - and WHERE is the written proof of that?
    The English sailor John Davis in his vessel “Desire” was blown in a gale off the coast of Patagonia in 1592 and found himself among some previously unknown Islands and recorded their position - which coincides with the position of the Falklands. - That is a recorded fact in nautical written archives in UK.
    Others may have found the Islands about that time but NO sighting records were ever made so there is no PROOF of discovery.

    The first RECORDED Landing and formal flag raising and claim was made by an English Naval captain- John Strong - in 1690. Again the written record exists - so tell ne where is your one?
    So much for your fantasy history!

    Doctors - the Chief Medical Officer of the Falkland Islands is a local doctor, fully qualified. Many teachers are local people - fully qualified.
    Yes we do follow the UK Education system- very simple reason - THAT is where we send out students for most 6th Form and University education so it makes sense ( appreciate that common sense is a foreign word for most Argentines!) for the students to be studying similar systems.
    As we are a population of only 3000 it is not realistic to have that level of higher education here - tell me do remote parts of Argentina have their own such facilities serving just a few thousand people then?
    Lawyers? - Facts show you that the Islands have their OWN Legal System and Laws - made and passed by the Elected Islands Govt. Again for commonsense reasons they follow the British Legal System. You can take a look around and you will find many larger independent British Commonweralth Nations that also have a Legal System based on the British one.

    Roger Edwards was elected to his position by Islanders. Where he was born is irrelevant.

    FACTS show that it is Argentina who takes the Colonial attitude to the Islands
    and who wants to impose Colonialism over the people.

    May 24th, 2014 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    To a point Id agree with our Latin friends that reference to 1592, 1690, 1765 etc etc are pretty useless other than to set a context.

    Where Liberato and Jose are correct, is that there was a significant Spanish settlement on the islands between 1766 and 1811.

    Had that settlement stayed, then those people today in 2014 could choose to be whatever they wished, using the fundamental right to self determination.

    However, they left the islands, voluntarily to go to Montevideo to fight the Argentine uprising. Some remained in Uruguay, most returned to Spain. NOT ONE BECAME ARGENTINE.

    So, the key and important rule of maintaining sovereignty by virtue of permanent settlement failed for both Spain and Britain.

    In 1811 the islands were empty and available to whomever could colonise them.

    Jewitt is a nonsense story.

    Vernet appeared to try and play one side of against the other, and there is no doubt in 1828 he accepted a ceremonial title from Buenos Aires, and as Jose points out, his children were born on the islands.

    However, interesting when Vernet left the islands in 1831 he left two Britons in charge, neither of whom had any title, and clearly Argentina didn't recognise Vernets ongoing role because they sent Mestevier there in 1832.

    To suggest that the Vernet community was either permanent, or Argentine or a ssettlement is stretching the truth to breaking point too.

    Vernet eventually sought loses from the Lexington raid from the UK, on the basis that the UK as owners of sovereignty, and as having given him permission to be there should have defended his business interests...LOL...interesting for someone Jose claims was Argentine, representing Argentina...LOL.

    So, then we come to the only real Aegentines ever to have held sovereignty...Mestevier and the crew of the SS Sarandi. 6 weeks in which time they managed a mutiny, a murder and a rape.

    180 years later Jose and Liberato think that gives Argwntina sovereignty.....hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    May 24th, 2014 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @30 Jose
    “in the interests of ending colonialism on PEOPLES subjugated , as England has been practiced for centuries”

    Britain are not subjugating the Falkland Islanders, your imperialist colonialist pirates of Argentina are trying to do that.

    It is Argentina's wish to do so because Argentina admires British colonialist methods of the past and wishes to adopt them and subjugate the Islanders as the colonialist imperialist nation Argentina has become.

    “But Britain wants to use these resolutions to their horrendous interests.”

    Wrong. They are using them for the Falkland Islander's interests, not for the UK's interests a distinction you are incapable of recognising.

    “in 1770 Spain expelled forever.”

    Wrong. Spain agreed to shared sovereignty to avoid a war with Great Britain and recognised British sovereignty in 1863.

    “The fact that back in 1833 after 60 years”

    Wrong. British fishermen and military ships regularly sailed around the Falklands over those 60 years-so Great Britain was not wholly absent for 60 years.

    Your same logic applies to Argentina who were absent from the Falkland Islands from 1853 (when the Republic of Argentina was formed) to 1982.

    That is not an absence of 60 years but an absence of 129 years (over twice as long an absence-that's using your argument).

    ”Says they who live there (and he says that he was born in Brinkworth , Wiltshire, UK )“

    So that means that any Argentinian immigrant not born in Argentina cannot become an Argentine citizen according to your logic.

    ”but forgot that English pirate colonization began in 1845“

    Wrong, there were British citizens in Vernet's
    employ on the Falkland islands from the 1820s.

    Also, British colonisation of the Islands began in 1765, that's 80 years before.

    ”What neighbors?“

    Chile and Uruguay for starters.

    ”We could go on ridiculing this, but for now it's enough.”

    You haven't done a very good job of ridiculing Mr Edwards because your post itself is open to ridicule.

    May 24th, 2014 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    Actually Vernet's child was far from the earliest recorded birth in the Falklands.
    Francois Benoit and his two sisters Adelaide and Anne were all born there between 1763 and 1768 before the family returned to France.
    Francois Benoit was the son of Augustine Benoit who was of 'mixed blood' French and Native North American.

    May 24th, 2014 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Your CommentIn response to islander1 #37: Esteban Gomez discovered the islands in 1520. like 20 years before Davis was born.
    John Davis was a fraud. Your nautical written archives in UK were “written” the same year Sebald de Weert came back to Holand with precise location and information of the islands.
    Before John Davis that “supposedly” went there in 1592, there were many maps that showed the location of the islands:
    -Worldmap of Waldsemuller 1507.
    -Nautical chart of Piri Reis 1513.
    -Circulus Antarcticus of Pedro Reinel (1522).
    -1529 Universal map of Diego de Ribeiro (S. Antón a 49°S).
    -Giovanni Battista 1534.
    -Islario de Alonso Santa Cruz 1541.
    -Batista Agnese 1544.
    -Diego Guitierrez 1562.
    -Mercator 1569.
    -Ortelius 1570.

    The first british claim was in 1765, when byron claim formal possesion for the king George III And creates Port Egmont. One years later than the french claim and the french settlement.

    Quote: “tell me do remote parts of Argentina have their own such facilities serving just a few thousand people then?”
    As you may know, Argentina has a territory that extend way further south than Malvinas. And even as far as the antartic, we have hundred of thousens bigger communities than you have there.

    Fact is that you claim you are different than britain, but you learn what britain teach you. You are judged by british judges born in britain, with british laws. If you are sick, you are attended by british specialists that came crossing the ocean.
    Turks and Caicos government was accused by a (retired britain born) british judge of corruption, its government was eliminated and its constitution was eliminated too. While a “new” “constitution” was written in britain. Not much for a “self-determined people” dont you agree?.

    May 24th, 2014 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Entertaining though they may be. your map claims are merely unverifiable hypothesese and completely irrelevant in the light of current international law.

    You seem to have some difficulty with what 'British' actually means. It is in fact an umbrella term which covers a number of different groups, Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, English, Manxmen, Cornishmen, Channel Islanders, Falkland Islanders, etc, etc. who govern themselves by whatever messy arrangements they happen to be comfortable with, and who all consider themselves distinct peoples, as they have every right to do.

    One thing they do have in common, of course, is that none of them are obliged to be forced into Argentina.

    May 24th, 2014 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Of all the people you many are Argentine?? NONE! So you concede the British we're there centuries before any Argentine.

    Your boast that Argentine stretches way further south than the Falklands....really?...when did that happen? Before or after 1833? How did they achieve that, with full agreement of the existing population?

    Your interesting misrepresentation of Turks and Caicos....what do the people there want? To be a British Overseas Territory with all the constitutional parts....or not? Perfect example of self-determination.

    As of course opposed to Argentina, when your government is accused of corruption (which every single one of them has been guilty of), either you happy clap them and elect them again, you replace them with another equally corrupt bunch (both are democratic)...or your military takes over and starts lobbing nuns from planes and shooting it's own civilians.

    None of which, in any way supports Argentinas mythical claim

    May 24th, 2014 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Everybody know king Richard the lion heart landed 6 sailors on the Falkland's in 1113 after getting lost on the way to the holy land, and he had them picked up in 1114 on the way back,

    History, 41@ knows only what he wants to believe, just like the Richard trip, its all in his

    May 24th, 2014 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato- OK then- tell me where are the written journals of theses sailors showing the dates and loacations - the evidence.

    As for Doctors- actually 75% of urgent specialist medical treatment is carried out in top notch Chilean hospitals- nothing to do with UK at all.

    So you have several thousands of Aregentine civilians of all ages living down in antactica and they have technical colleges and universities down there then?

    If you can read you will have read that we are governed here by Falkland Islands Laws! Laws written and passed in the Falkland Islands - Laws that refer to the Falkland Islands - not UK - and they are Laws that get altered and updated as required by the elected Falklands Govt - not the UK Govt.
    Yes - like the laws that govern many milions in many Commonwealth Nations they are often based on British Law - not British Law word for word at all.

    Wrong - Possession was taken and claimed in 1690 with the first Landing - the French actually settled in 1764- a year before the first British settlement anyway.

    May 24th, 2014 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • carlinavarrete

    Back the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwiches to Argentina.

    May 24th, 2014 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alejomartinez

    Wow, it seems he did not get any support. And Argentina was very eloquent. Of course yiu will not find any of this in Mercopress. Go to UN and you will see:

    Argentina recalled that the United Nations had repeatedly reiterated the special and particular case of colonialism as it related to the question of the Malvinas. Resumed negotiations on sovereignty over the Territory between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom was the only way to end the dispute, he stressed.

    Argentina was a firm believer in the decolonization process, he said, emphasizing that the Malvinas question affected Argentina’s territorial integrity. The United Nations had ruled out the applicability of the principle of self-determination to that case, and the so-called “referendum” of 2013 in no way altered the essence of the question. Argentina was not against the population of the islands, and had committed to take their interests into account, “in strict accordance with the UN mandate”, he said, acknowledging the support of many regional organizations around the world.

    May 24th, 2014 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #45 Islander, dates and location???. The dates i already gave it to you in #41, and the location is right on the maps. Do you want me to use the paint of windows to mark the point exactly?. The only thing you should do is to compare the map presented by davis and the maps represented by those people i mentioned and a lot more like sebald de weert, that were not all sailors and not all passed by the islands.
    The point is, there were many maps prior to Davis and Sebald de weert showing the islands. The only uncontrovertible and accurate discovery not objected nor refuted is the one made by sebald de weert in 1600.

    Quote from “A Voyage round the World” by John Byron on the day after the creation of port egmont:
    ”On the twenty-third of January, the Commodore, with the Captains of the Dolphin and Tamer, and the principal officers,went on shore to the above inland, where the Union Jack was erected on a high staff, and being spread, the Commodore named the whole his majesty's isles, which he claimed for the crown of Great Britain, his heirs and succeasors.
    So The british formal claim was in 1765, and not 1690.

    Islander, any argentine province makes its own laws too and get altered and updated as required by the elected government of those provinces. It certainly does not makes them independent territories from the Federal Republic. One thing is having a law system derived from british law and another thing is having a british law, applied by british born in britain, in a british colonial government not represented in parliament.
    Turks and Caicos constitution and its government was eliminated by the sole accusation of a britain born judge. What Turks and Caicos law says that the constitution can be eliminated and the government changed for a direct rule from London?. Ah would it be the same law you british claim is only symbolic?. So if the law of good governance is not symbolic, it means that the judiciary system rely on London or in London born judges right?.

    May 25th, 2014 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato, Yes was aware that the islands were appearing on maps at the time- 1592 but John Davis remains the first one who wrote it down where and when and whose diary/log still exists.

    Sorry but yes the records are there in the the Archives in England of Cpt John Strong making a landing and claimed the Islands in 1690 - I think it was in February but stand to be corrected- place was at Bold Cove on the N.E side of West Falklands upper left side of the Falkland Sound that runs between the 2 main Islands of West and East. A Cairn was erected there in 1990 to commemorate the 300th Anniversary.

    Laws so yes there similarities then between the way laws are formed and operate between Arg Provinces and Central Govt and Falklands and London.
    Turks & Caicos- special circumstances- some of their Assembly members were fiddling the books, lining a pocket or two and being corrupt.
    As in all her overseas territories, UK ha s a formal obligation to the UN to ensure good fair and just Govt in those territories - T&C were abusing the rules - so London had to intervene and take over direct rule again until they can get themselves sorted out back into democracy for real.

    May 25th, 2014 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Islander: The only registry that exist about Davis “discovery” is that he saw an island fifty or more leagues and north of the strait (where there is only ocean), without giving any coordinates, or precise description. Its account was very similar to that made by Alonso de Santa Cruz, published in the same year sebald de weert returned from the islands . For historian worldwide Davis is commonly accused of fraud and the only not refuted discovery was made by Sebald de Weert in 1600.

    About John Strong, he did landed in the islands but did not claimed them. Please i would like you to describe that event and present relevant proof. And while you do that it would be interesting that you explain to me why if Strong claimed the islands, the british claimed them again in 1765?.

    About laws. The difference i see here is that in your case it would be like if chileans judges comes to Argentina to judge us, becouse you claim you are a different society to the uk and that they are only in charge of foreing relations and defense. Thanks to clear that up. So lets add judiciary system in charge of the uk besides defense and foreing relations.

    About Turks and Caicos, lets see:
    - They ARE self governed and have democracy until the uk thinks they do not respect the rules imposed by the UN to the UK, and ergo, by the UK to its BOTs?.
    -So under special circunstances the uk can take over with direct rule as in the old imperial colonization era?.
    -So in those special circunstances where the uk suspended the constitution and removed the government, what rights have the populations of the Turks and Caicos?.

    May 25th, 2014 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Liberato...stop gibbering LOL

    1) your claim that every time a nation re-emphasises sovereignty, it must have lost any previous claim, suit us fine.

    If the 1690 is lost because, sovereignty was reaffirmed in 1765, fine, if the 1765 claim is lost because sovereignty was reaffirmed in 1833...also fine.

    It is clear that when the same rules are applied to Argentinas fantasy claim, the sovereignty claim based on Spanish inheritance, or Jewitt or Vernet were clearly lost too.

    Fine with problem.

    Secondly, it is true that in special circumstances the UK government can suspend the local government of a BOT and over-rule it. These special circumstances are supported by the BOTs. In effect, in certain circumstance HM the Queen can suspend the UK Parliament too.

    Compare this level of self determination with the one Argentina proposes, that in any circumstance, in fact every circumstance, the Argentine government could and would overrule the local government, irrespective of the wishes of the people.

    So, I am sorry Liberato, by pointing out the vague weaknesses of the British position, all you do is highlight the MASSIVE GAPING weaknesses of the Argentine claim.

    May 25th, 2014 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog


    “The United Nations had ruled out the applicability of the principle of self-determination to that case”

    Wrong, in 2008 a move by Argentina and Spain to exclude the right of self determination from areas with sovereignty disputes was defeated in the UN.

    You play your scratched record. I'll play mine.

    May 25th, 2014 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ 51
    I feel I should also point out the populations of the Falklands and the Turks & Caicos have selected, by democratic vote, the type of Government they wish to have and both have selected one that allows, under very special circumstances, the UK to step in.
    Should sufficient of the population of either of the two BOT's mentioned be dissatisfied with their form of Government it can be democratically changed.
    The RG's, as a whole, seem to have great difficulty in comprehending this!

    May 25th, 2014 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Thanks for your post, and taking the time to post.
    To any non-brainwashed individual, you have destroyed the pathetic malvanista case.

    However, like the religious fundamentalists they are (and yes , the Malvinas cause can be concidered a religion I feel) you cannot get through to their pre-conditioned mind.

    Very sad really.

    May 25th, 2014 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The Falkland's are British, full stop,
    no argument , no discussion , no appeasement..

    May 25th, 2014 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @51 MM
    Sorry, my last post was directed at your 51 post, not 46.

    Yer a dogs wanger. Did you know that?

    May 25th, 2014 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato, Well you have better research than me on the first discovery - let us agree to differ , I am unaware of evidence of the allegations against Davis , and ships navigation positioning was not perfect in those days - but there are no other Islands west of that area other than the Falklands so he clearly found some of our outer Islands, but I will agree that others were sighting the Islands apparently as maps were appearing.
    But a sighting is no claim- that comes from a landing. As to why England effectively reclaimed in 1765 what she had already formally claimed in 1690 - who knows!
    But one point I always make to all the Argentine cruise ship tourists whom I act as guide for in summer - is that whatever the arguments about who did or did not do what and when 200 and more years ago- and I accept that some of the actions at times by the British were a bit questionable by todays standards - those were the rules of the day in that era, he who had the bigger sword was the winner - they were DIFFERENT to the rules of today.
    And what is very clear is that todays people of the Islands have been living here peacefully for 181 years , developed the Islands from nothing into the small vibrant community they are today and unlike the 18th and 19th centuries - in the 21st century the rights of peoples and the principle of self-determination are the key.
    Otherwise we would indeed have to rewrite the world as it is - millions in S.America would have to return to Europe- 30 million of them from Argentina for a start!- USA would give Alaska back to Russia. All the non indegenous Americans,Canadians would have to go back to Europe, many millions of Mexican back to Spain etc! Ludicrous.
    Oh by the way- Yes High Court Judges to come here from Britain when required- and in the Islands they practise and rule their decisions under
    the Islands Laws - NOT UK Laws - its quite simple! Its because its a different Law.

    May 26th, 2014 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alejomartinez

    @52 WRONg, never the GA has accepted application of self determination to Malvinas case. All resolutions from GA and C24 exclude that anf in 1985 UK move to introduce that failed. c24 resolution of 2008 does not include such a notion and all following one do not either. Seems you force an argument.

    May 26th, 2014 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #57 Islander: I know we dissagree and i understand your point of view and your aversion to other culture asking for your home.
    But for us, the problem is not you, the common inhabitant of the islands. Its the uk, which your “government” form part of. And its not a problem of 200 years ago. It is a problem now. You live in south america but refuse to be one.
    30 years ago, life in the islands was managed by the Falkland Islands Company. The people were just workers for britain as you may know pretty well. When the war broke out, The british said they will fight for the islanders freedom (not for the company that were practically owner of the land), and then the islanders became the new FIC. The colonial situation did not changed at all. You live as an english town that receive people from London as brothers and chileans as cattle. As a work force. Your legislative visited our neighbours offering jobs, as if money could buy their will or turn them your friends.
    If you guys wish someday to be sovereign on those south american islands. Then you have to be south american. You are not in Europe, and you are not located in the middle of the south atlantic. Ergo, one chilean or one uruguayan or one argentine should have more value to you than 10 europeans born in London.
    Thats the very same problem bigger than the sovereignty dispute. Becouse if you have the same identity, no matter how many new nations are created in south america. If the scotish independize from the uk, for example, it will only be an administrative separation of a society of brothers. But both will always feel identify with the other and the place they live.
    Your education system rely on the british education system and personnel, with only a local flavour.;type_uid=79;section=Features

    Stop your indoctrination, and you will not come up with silly comparison with Alaska, Canadians or mexicans.

    May 26th, 2014 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    59 Liberato

    “ It is a problem now. You live in south america but refuse to be one. ”

    What is your definition of “being South American”?

    May 26th, 2014 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    And there we have it. once finally you strip all the bollocks, balderdash, and bullshit away, all you're left with is atavistic hostility to those of a different cultural origin.

    Three cheers for all those who refuse to be this kind of South American.

    May 26th, 2014 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato, Yes do please describe what is “being South American”?

    In the streets, shops pubs and restaurants in Stanley you hear people speaking English AND Spanish.
    Go into our Hospital and you will see health advice signs and information in both languages,likewise in our Immigration and Customs Dept you will see a sign in Spanish and English explaining the basic Human Rights Entitlements of all Citizens of the Islands regardless of wether they have been here for 1 month or 100yrs.

    Many of us cook and eat Empanadas.

    Ask a Falkland Islander horse-rider where his horse.s halter and girth are and you are likely to get a vague look - use the gaucho words and he will show you.

    OH, and it,s a bit difficult to be closer to South America when the country next door to us:
    refuses to recognise that we exist as a people.

    Refuses to recognise and deal with our democratically elected Govt.

    Actively encourages its neighbours to be unpleasant towards us (ery limited effect I am glad to say!)

    Refuses all meetings with our Govt on sensible issues like Fisheries Conservation etc. In fact even refuses to attend meetings where our elected representatives are present and wiling to start to discuss issues with Argentina- and then tells the world that we are the ones that refuse to talk!!!

    May 26th, 2014 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    This is absolutely according to Liberato you should value those you share a continental shelf with...10x more than those you don't.

    Ergo...the British in London should value a Latvian visitor 10x more than an Aussie.

    Ergo...A Canadian in Montreal should value a Cuban visitor 10x more than a Frenchman

    Ergo...A Cuban in Havana should value a Jamaican visitor 10x more than a Venezualian

    Ergo...An Argentine should value a Falkland Islander 10x more than a Mexican

    This s frakking hilarious...what a moron.

    What Liberato means is he value Latino blood 10x more than any other kind due to a massive in-bred racism, and can't anders tank why you don't.

    May 26th, 2014 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    You say the UNGA has never accepted the right of self determination so why in numerous resolutions it relates back to res 1514 and the un charter?

    The 1988 UNGA resolution 43/105 reaffirms this. So no bueno

    The c24 in its resolutions just refers to the special and particular situation. I.e it's an bot with a territorial dispute thrown in.

    Why is it that Latino minds love a pantomime?

    May 26th, 2014 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Sorry you are completely wrong. Resolution after resolution about all NSGTs define the requirement of self-determination. No exceptions, no qualifications, no special cases.

    Indeed the Argentine led attempt to get “qualification” was smashed in 2008

    Proving both that the right to self-determination is universal and the “world” does not support Argentine fantasy.

    May 26th, 2014 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ricagp


    “that receive people from London as brothers and chileans as cattle”

    Well, you too receive people from London as brothers and chileans (and peruvians, bolivians and paraguayans) as cattle too ;-)

    “ Ergo, one chilean or one uruguayan or one argentine should have more value to you than 10 europeans born in London.”

    Why, on earth, one chilean, uruguayan or argentine should have more value to anyone in the world than europeans?

    If an european had said “one spanish, german or french should have more value to you than 10 sudacas born in South America” everyone, including you, would say it is a deeply racist statement.

    But you're not aware of it - and I know why.

    May 26th, 2014 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @59 Liberato

    “life in the islands was managed by the Falkland Islands Company”


    And since then the FIG has nationalised most of the land FIC owned, making sure Islanders and not foreigners own it.

    This is one of the moves that the FIG made away from the colonisation that Argentina insists is still in place, when clearly changes in constitution and increasing transfer of powers to FIG from HMG point to more (not less) self-autonomy.

    “You live as an english town that receive people from London as brothers and chileans as cattle.”

    This statement clearly shows your ignorance of the Islanders.

    If an Englishman arrives in the Islands and makes himself unpopular and does not abide by Falkland Islander laws and customs, then he is unlikely to be welcome in the Islands.

    A Chilean who comes to work hard in the islands and is accepted by the local community, i.e accepts their way of life can look forward to a long life in the Falklands.

    I can assure you from personal experience there is ABSOLUTELY NO red carpet laid out for anyone Welsh, English, Northern Irish or Scottish, and if they do not fit in they are unlikely to stay.

    If you move from UK you are made aware very soon that the islanders are Islanders and you fit in or leave like any other place in the world.

    There is no racial discrimination against Chileans. You seem to forget that any Chilean like any other immigrant that works hard, even if initially in a lower paid job is not excluded from getting a better job later.

    “Your legislative visited our neighbours offering jobs,”

    And this is bad? It's quite simple, if your neighbours thought job offers were an insult to them they are free to turn down the jobs.

    “ Ergo, one chilean or one uruguayan or one argentine should have more value to you than 10 europeans born in London. ”

    No, that is a racist slur. If the Chilean is a better worker than the person from London and fits in with Falkland society, he will be favoured.

    May 26th, 2014 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ricagp

    Pete, Liberato's is projecting. He just described the way argentines act towards inmigrants from neighbouring countries and towards Europeans, including Brits. Pure psychological projection.

    This is the only way he knows how to treat foreigners. He doesn't know any other.

    May 26th, 2014 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    I remember TTT (pre-Nostril days) a couple of years ago, posting “racial violence in America videos, his standard fare.

    Someone retaliated by posting a video of a woman on a BA commuter train cursing and angrily telling people off, on the train.

    This went on for some time, until she was removed by Security or Police personnel.
    A news reporter was on-scene and asked the cop, what caused the woman's obscene ranting?

    His short reply was a sneer and a dismissive, ”oh, she's Bolivian” as though that sufficed.

    The Reporter and our own Trolls on MP seemed to find that acceptable.

    May 26th, 2014 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    You guys did not understood a word of what i said. When i was talking about value of chileans, uruguayans or argentineans, i was meant that islanders should feel more empathy with south america than with europe. Not that they should discriminate nor something near. But i doubt you could ever understand the meaning of the word.

    May 26th, 2014 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    You were perfectly clear. You don't believe that people who think differently from you have any right to be in the same neighbourhood.

    May 26th, 2014 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Hans, No, i dont believe that. Everyone in this world has self determination rights, even the islanders, but not on argentine land. And regardless if islanders thinks differently. They are a colony, a non self-governing territory. One of 10 territories under a colonial situation that continue to be, shamefully, under the administration of the uk and that status is not made according to what argentina believes or what i believe.
    Islanders are in the run to convince the UN and the world that they are self determined, and that Argentina should respect what they said for that regard. Reality is that they continue to be under the process of decolonization and far from being delisted. Why dont they first, convince the UN they are not a colony and then accuse me of not respecting neighbours rights.

    May 26th, 2014 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    You're just confirming the point.

    May 26th, 2014 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    No, i dont believe islanders do not have self determination rights on Malvinas becouse they think different than me.
    Islanders can think they own the moon. But is not that i dont believe they own the moon becouse they think different than me, but becouse it is a reality that they do not own the moon. As simple as that.
    It is the UN, that mantains the Malvinas islands and other 16 territories under a decolonization process.
    It is the UN that consider the islands are a non self governing territory.
    It is the UN that claims sovereignty negotiations between the uk and Argentina and not between the “falklanders” and Argentina as you would like.
    It is the UN that uses the name Malvinas and Falklands in all official documents.
    It is the UN that request all information regarding the islands to its administering power (the UK) and not to the islanders as you would like.

    So is not that i dont believe islanders have no right of self determination only becouse they think different than me but becouse reality is that they are a colony, not a self determined people and the sovereignty over the land they claim self determination rights is under dispute.
    So for you to tell me that islanders have rights of self determination. first you have to resolve the sovereignty dispute. Tell the uk to sit to the negotiation table and end this dispute once and for all.
    So, your intolerant card will not work for me. You can accuse me of intolerant all you want. Accuse us of rascist, whatever comes to your mind. But fact is the islands remains one of the 16 territories under a colonial situation in this century. Shame on you.

    May 26th, 2014 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    If the islands are a colony, then it's perfectly simple: they have the right of self-determination. No exceptions. This is why the Chinese (much smarter than Argentina) had Hong Kong removed from the list back in the 1960s.

    Or in short, it's your very reliance on the colonial card which ensures the islands will never be yours. This is doubly ironic, in that the so-called “colonial” situation you complain about isn't colonial in any conventional sense of the term, since the people concerned have freely chosen their own status. And thus you find yourself arguing on front of a decolonization committee that some principle of colonial inheritance allows you to seize territory regardless of the inhabitants.

    And to swallow this logical nonsense, we're also supposed to believe that the UN has abandoned its fundamental founding principle, on the grounds that it hasn't said it hasn't, and that the origins of the people concerned are such that they are not entitled to the same rights you claim for yourselves. Of course this is racist.

    Only Malvinistas are fooled by this. The C24 isn't the UN. It is a hijacked committee that is acting in clear violation of its own remit. It doesn't dare bring to the GA anything more substantive than the usual calls for dialogue and peaceful settlement, both of which have been rejected by Argentina, not the UK.

    Neither the UK not the falklands has to do anything to solve the sovereignity dispute. It is Argentina which wishes to overturn the status quo. You have failed to do this legally (you daren't even try), you have failed to do this militarily, you have failed to do this by telling lies to the UN, and you continue to reject any application of law, human rights, or democracy in pursuit of your territorial ambitions. One probably shouldn't expect anything different from a barely post-fascist society, but shame on you anyway.

    May 26th, 2014 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs


    I don't understand why you think I should have more empathy with a South American than a European. To clarify my position-and I haven't actually thought about it before now- I don't think I have any more empathy with Europeans in general than with South Americans in general. I would always consider all of my relationships on a case by case basis.

    I know Argentines who, like me, have a wife and kids, a few cars, a couple of modest investment properties, love going out to Camp with friends and family and enjoy eating and drinking with them when they get there. Some of them, unlike me, also believe that their country has a valid claim on the islands.

    I also know lots of English people who live in tough conditions without a lot of disposable income and without the luxury of having a holiday place to get away to on the weekends. Like me though, they believe the Falklands are British.

    Depending on the issue at hand, I often feel I have more in common with (empathy is not the right word because I truly empathise with my less well off English friends) the couple of Argentines I know as described above.

    Please explain why you feel I SHOULD empathise with the South Americans more though. I know people from all over the world including 6 countries where I have relationships with people close enough that I can comfortably turn up unannounced and be welcome enough to go into their kitchen and make everyone a cup of tea without having to ask for permission or ask where to find everything. I've visited every continent and know people in over 30 countries. I empathise with some in each country and not with others in each country.

    One thing I know for sure though is that every time I visit Chile or Uruguay lots of people tell me they empathise with me when we discuss our nearest geographical neighbours. I've lost count of how many times people in those countries ask me to tell them a word you can make out by using all of the same letters as the word ignorante.

    May 26th, 2014 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ricagp

    It's 100% understandable that F.Islanders feel more conection with Europe than with their South American neighbours - and I say it as a south american. They don't share anything with them, or us. They are a different people, with a different history, different laws, different worldview.

    For the very same reasons, argentines generally don't like (and, in some cases, deeply hate) and don't feel connected at all with any neighbouring country, except, perhaps, Uruguay.

    When I say argentines, I'm talking about the average argentine, not some politically correct leftist loons bordering white-guilt who like to talk about “unidad latinoamericana” and other stupidities.

    May 27th, 2014 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato- How can we show you and the UN that we are Independent or on the road to it when your Govt - our large neighbour has it written into its constitution that we are their territory and have to be regained at some time?
    Further to this your Govt- a Defence Minister - is on record as saying that the current British military prescence is the only thing that prevents Argentina for RETAKING the Islands?
    Yes- we could if we voted for it - as UK for Independence any day - and they would arrange it. But with Independence comes the liability to look after yourself as an Independent Nation. - the UK forces and their defence guarantee would naturally depart.
    Hear we have no doubt at all that if that were to happen - within 3-6 months your armed forces would be storming up the beaches here again!

    How can we sit and talk Sovereignty with you(well we know you will refuse to sit with us anyway!) - when its in your Constitution and thus from the Arg side there can only be ONE result of those talks!
    And meanwhile all the economic and communications threats continue from Argentina.
    Sorry but all the above is the Reality - that is where both have to start from. Oh and it is us whom you have to talk to as the UK recognises our right to determine our future - as laid down in numerous UN documents.
    There is one simple way forward - Arg and FI - with the UK as chair of the talks perhaps- sitting and talking(with Sovereignty aside for now) to try and gradually move on past this decade of hatred poured our way by your Govts - and the corresponding dislike from Islanders in return - about initial improvements between us like fisheries conservation-tourism etc for a start. It will take a long time to get back just to where we were in 2002! But it is the only way.

    May 27th, 2014 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    59 Liberato

    “ It is a problem now. You live in south america but refuse to be one. ”

    Once again,
    What is your definition of “being South American”?

    As to “De-colonisation” of the Falklands, surely that is between the people of the Falklands and the UK, nobody else - it is not your business.
    The people of the Falklsnds tell us they “the status quo” despite whatever you define it as. They did that in an internationally observed and reported Referendum.

    If the Islanders wish to join Argentina, that is between them and Argentina - their choice.

    Please explain why it is not acceptable for the Islands to be nominally administered by the UK and Freely Associate with the UK,
    while at the same time you feel total subjugation and assimilation by a foreign culture and state, against their will, is a legitimate interpretation of de-colonisation according to the UN, or regular common sense?

    The Falkland Islands and the Islanders by dint of 200 years of distinct and different development, are a distinct people.
    The inhabitants of the UK cannot call themselves “Islanders”, and neither can you.

    You cannot dictate that the people do not belong, because of geography.
    Sorry, they are as South American as you - 200 years living there, just 300 miles away. They're just not the kind YOU like.

    The UN has decidedly NOT stated the Islands 'must' be shared or handed over to Argentina.
    The status quo is very much peaceful, until there is Argentine aggression.

    Is there anything besides a racial objection ?

    May 27th, 2014 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Quote: “As to “De-colonisation” of the Falklands, surely that is between the people of the Falklands and the UK, nobody else - it is not your business. ”

    Who said that?. Thats your ignorance talking. There are many kinds of colonialism. You only think that the only form of colonialism is the subjugation of a people. And what is worst, is that you think the islanders are decolonized to protect islanders from the subjugation from the uk?????.

    Quote:“The people of the Falklsnds tell us they “the status quo” despite whatever you define it as. They did that in an internationally observed and reported Referendum.”

    Yes, how conveniently. The colonizers wants to remains being the colonizers. Why dont you ask Neil Amstrong if he wants the moon for himself?.
    The referendum was a charade. The same to what you say that the people “tell you” the status quo. You british stolen the place, introduced british there. Controled its inmigration development and then took more british there to later ask them if they want to remain being british.
    Thats without mention the total britishness of their population. A complete british educational system implemented with almost all the junior and secondary schools teacher and headteachers imported from London. With all the medics and specialist imported from London too. With the power reserved to the uk to remove the legislative, remove or change the constitution, etc. To be brief, a typical colonial territory but with the exception that there is not a colonized people. Pretty much like the military base of Mount Pleasant but with a different purpose.

    Quote: “Please explain why it is not acceptable for the Islands to be nominally administered by the UK and Freely Associate with the UK”
    It is not acceptable first, becouse the world dont know for sure if the islands are british. If through negotiations or arbitration it is known and verified that the islands are british, then it is up for the UN to verified there is no more colony.

    May 27th, 2014 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    So it's British cultural links that aren't acceptable now?

    And so you do everything possible to abuse, isolate, harass and intimidate the islanders, including an invasion resulting in 1000 deaths, and then complain they look back to the UK?

    And you decry in particular the origin of teachers, while operating in your own education system an indoctrination process which startions early as pre-school infants?

    Further evidence that the principal problem in the South Atlantic is Argentine irrationality. That and the atavistic racism displayed by yourself, Stevie, Think, Toby, and the rest of the Latino-supremacists (although only the latter has the intellectual honesty to recognize himself for what he is).

    Quite simply, there is no giving in to this. And so the great irony remains, that it's your own misplaced sense of entitlement which ensures you will never get what you want.

    And the question you should be asking is, who benefits?

    May 27th, 2014 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    So Liberato is saying that there are two standards in South America.

    Colonisation and then self-determination by European founded societies is only permissible if they are Spanish and be one republics?

    But not permissible if they are British and wish to retain their constitutional links!

    “You british stolen the place, introduced british there. Controled its inmigration development and then took more british there to later ask them if they want to remain being british.
    Thats without mention the total britishness of their population. A complete british educational system implemented with almost all the junior and secondary schools teacher and headteachers imported from London. With all the medics and specialist imported from London too. With the power reserved to the uk to remove the legislative, remove or change the constitution, etc. To be brief, a typical colonial territory but with the exception that there is not a colonized people.”

    Just replace British with Spanish and London with Madrid and you have almost every South American country before they decided to exercise their own version if self-determination.

    Hypocrisy at its best.

    May 27th, 2014 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    “ If through negotiations or arbitration it is known and verified that the islands are british, then it is up for the UN to verified there is no more colony.”

    Would Argentina accept the fact that they were 'British' if the UN's judicial body, the ICJ, said they were?

    May 27th, 2014 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato- Let us clarify “many kinds of Colonialism” - There is one kind - the good old fashioned one whereby a stronger country enforces its Govt and Rule
    over the people of another country wether they like it or want it or not.
    That - is 100% exactly what Argentina would like to do with the islands.
    Oh I forget- yes of course Arg has said we could leave and become refugees in another country that was not our home of course if we wished to avoid Argentine rule forced on us!
    I have never heard such utter tripe as what you say about the referendum accusing UK of sending brtish people to the islands to then ask them if they wanted to be British! Grow up man please.
    Look at the facts from the register of voters - there were a a number of pro-British votes from people whose origen was NOT UK! Some of them even Argentine origen.

    May 27th, 2014 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alejomartinez

    @64 and 65



    May 27th, 2014 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    It doesn't need to as the un charter and res 1514 already states that self determination is a right to all peoples.

    No where in any un text will you find that the falklands are specifically barred (or any other territory which is on the c24 list)

    You are trying to put your projection of what the un charter, res 1514 2065 et al would like to mean to you. But as I have said before, stop being in the pantomime and look at the hard facts.

    Again 43/105 confirms this universal right without precondition so again it applies to the falklands, Gibraltar, Scotland and Martians.

    Can you please show me where the un has concluded that self determination doesn't apply in this case, even though this is the founding pillars of the un charter?

    My colleague at #65 has already given you the link where the c24 tried to hijack this principle and quite frankly overstep the remit of its own body. I especially like the bit in the link where Argentina denies that it ever wanted the additional text put in.

    In all honesty the posts of #81 and #82 have never rung louder...... I suppose some people can't hear it because they are stuck in the rear end of the horse.

    May 27th, 2014 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #81 Argentina and Chile has strong british cultural links, But what you have in the islands is a colony, not a nation with cultural links.

    #82, Nop, sorry but i dont see spaniards running my government or my nation, in any way. But its interesting to know that for you brits, administering and controlling a territory's government, its education, its health cares, its judiciary system along with defense and foreign relations does not means you govern the place but that the place mantains their cultural links!!!!. And then you call me hipocrite.

    What Argentina is asking for, is not a transfer of sovereignty, but a sovereignty negotiation, that leads to an end of the dispute. An arbitration could be one of the options. It would be insteresting to know how this would be resolved. I guess that it depends on the british to comply UN resolutions.

    #84 Islander, i think that you, among every human being on this planet should know there is more than one kind of colonialism. You certainly did not readeded resolution 1514 and 2065 that says: ”....considering that its resolution 1514 of 14 december 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas)....”

    May 27th, 2014 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    Alejomartinez & Liberato

    Please demonstrate where the UN has issued a BINDING Resolution where it states that The Falkland Islanders do not have the right to self-determination.

    I quote the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon on Wednesday May 19th 2010 when speaking at a forum on de-colonization in Noumea, New Caledonia -

    “The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status”

    He didn’t say “with the exception of the people of the Falkland Islands’ . (accessed 13/12/13)

    May 27th, 2014 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @87 You have failed to answer the question posed. A common malvinista tactic!
    “ I guess that it depends on the british to comply UN resolutions.” What resolutions would they be? Please do not forget that in 2012 the Secretary General said, in effect, that he did not believe that the UK were violating any relevant UN resolutions.
    Also i believe you should be reminded:
    1. The last UNGA resolution specific to the Falklands was in 1988, 25 years ago and that made no mention of ANY UN resolutions, only that any agreement reached had to be by peaceful means and comply with the UN Charter.
    2. The UNGA resolutions specific to the Falklands dropped all references to UN resolutions after 1984, as per item 1. above.
    3. In October 1989 the UK and Argentina issued a 'Joint Statement', available here:
    I respectfully suggest that you read it and pay particular attention to item 2 (ii) which reads:
    “No act or activity carried out by the United Kingdom, the Argentine
    Republic or third parties as a consequence and in implementation of
    anything agreed to in the present meeting or in any similar subsequent
    meetings shall constitute a basis for affirming, supporting, or denying
    the position of the United Kingdom or the Argentine Republic regarding
    the sovereignty or territorial and maritime jurisdiction over the
    Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the
    surrounding maritime areas”

    May 27th, 2014 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    “What Argentina is asking for, is not a transfer of sovereignty, but a sovereignty negotiation, that leads to an end of the dispute”

    Typically disingenuous, because as your Constitution states, the only end to the dispute you will accept is a transfer of sovereignity.

    Otherwise, there have been numerous sovereignity negotiations since 1945, right up until the point in 1982 where the junta preferred to invade because it wasn't getting its own way. Thus killing UNGA 2065, with the UK having respected it all along.

    Even now, the UK has not refused to negotiate, it has simply refused that Falkland Islanders be excluded from negotiations about the Falkland Islands. Wicked colonialists that we are.

    But all is not lost, Argentina can still have negotiations any time it likes, by the simple expedient of accepting that the islanders like anybody else have a right to a say in their own future. And yet you continue to reject any application of law, democracy or human rights in pursuit of your territorial ambitions. Indeed the only attempt you have made to actually resolve the dispute has been through aggressive warfare, at which you failed.

    As anjd as well all know, you don't dare take the ICJ route, hardly surprising since you case depends on an inheritance that was never left to you by a country that was never in undisputed ownership, questionable interpretations of treaties you were never a party to, repudiation of a treaty you were a party to, and a myth of settlement and expulsion that even your present Peronists have abandoned.

    All that leaves is your UN campaign, which is clearly doomed. After 50 years you haven't been able to get support for anything more substantive than “dialogue” and “peaceful resolution” (both of which you have yourselves rejected) and even if you did, the most positive outcome possible would be no more than a non-binding resolution.

    This is a strategy not for resolving the dispute, but for inflaming and perpetuating it.

    May 27th, 2014 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    @90 HansNiesund

    Well said!! Particularly the last sentence.

    May 27th, 2014 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs


    You still haven't managed to answer why it is that you think a Falkland Islander SHOULD feel more empathy towards a South American than a European.

    May 27th, 2014 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #88, #89
    The fact the resolutions regarding the islands are not binding, does not means the uk is complying with those non binding resolutions. And your quote of the Head of the UN, represent just an opinion of the head of the UN.
    Ban Ki Moon is not in charge of decolonization, nor he decide who should be on the list or not. You have Cameron as Prime Minister that can have its own opinion. But to aprove a law i assume he need the parlament.
    The importand thing is that there are like 40 non binding resolutions that urge the uk and Argentina to resume sovereignty negotiations to end the dispute congratulating (in some of those res) Argentina for its diplomatic efforts. The uk did not complied, becouse if they did, we would not be having this conversation.
    The last UN GA resolution was in 1988 becouse The UK and Argentina agreed on not to present the case in the GA for what was called policy of seduction, freezing the sovereignty under an umbrella so our government could meet the population in the islands. That policy continue to represent the current status in the papers.

    About our constitution. it says that the recover of the territories constitute a permanent aim of the argentine people.
    It means that no matter the ideology of our governments, the aim will not change. Unless of course it is decided to change that clause.
    The british have amended like 5 times the “constitution” in malvinas. Does it means they could never negotiate sovereignty and become part of Argentina only becouse that constitution says that the queen is their head of state?.
    Constitutions can be changed. And our president was absolutelly clear, that Argentina is not waiting for the uk to transfer automatically the sovereignty, that all we want is to dialogue, find a way to get to a solution to the dispute.
    If you think that Arg. killed UN res 2065 by going to war, you are wrong and ignorant of the text of the next resolutions that ask for the same and congratulate Arg. for its effots.

    May 27th, 2014 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    You reject any avenue that could lead to a solution. You won't go to court, you don't have the capability for a rerun of 1982 (as long as MPA remains), you won't meet with islanders in the room, you can't carry a vote on anything substantive
    at the UN, it wouldn't matter if you could, and you have a pre-determined outcome written into your constitution.

    Under these conditions, no solution that would satisfy you is possible.

    The only question is whether this situation is a consequence of intent or ineptitude.

    Certainly some of your politicians appear clueless enough to believe you will get somewhere like this, but I am a charitable soul of generous disposition, and I believe that some of them are not nearly that stupid. You are being played.

    May 27th, 2014 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Please read the following UNGA resolution from 2009.

    Please can I draw your attention to Paragraph 5. Please read it again.

    It is unambiguous.

    The UNGA, the UN Security council and other organs of the UN recognise the right to self-determination of the people's of NSGTs.

    It doesn't mention special cases, sovereignty disputes, not those on Argentine soil, or any other cobblers you made up...all the exceptions.

    This is from 2009, and has been restated annually, I am amazed you were is not some rehash of something that was never stated in the 1960s.

    So, by not recognising the Falkland islanders right to self determination (as shown by 99.8%) it is ARGENTINA who is in direct and deliberate contravention of UN resolutions.

    So, as far as who is “in charge” of is not the C24 either. They are a tiny arm of the UN who put forward proposals to the UNGA, which may or may not be turned into resolutions.

    All recent resolutions express perfectly clearly ALL NSGTS have the right to self determination as per the UN charter.

    So please, no more gibbering, lying and fantasies.

    May 27th, 2014 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Liberato- We have changed our Constitution over the years to reflect the modern structure of Government in the Islands - away from that of the traditional old fashioned British Colonial system from the 1950-1960s - because we are no longer a Colony in that terminology - we now have a fully elected Govt and make all our own Laws internally.
    To change our Sovereign Status from Br Overseas territory to Independent or even Argentine - would NOT need any amendment to the Constitution - it would be done by passing a simple Motion in the Elected Assembly - that would get it all going - then yes as the legal side gets sorted out there would indeed be some changes.
    Interesting that you cast aside as irrelevant the words of the Un Sec General - when they do not suit you!

    Come on - you are an Argentine - be macho - grow a set of balls and announce you will sit at the table with Islanders and talk.

    May 27th, 2014 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    The C24 pretended a resolution existed for more than 50 pretended that a sovereignty dispute outweighed self-determination within the NSGTs.

    No such resolution existed. Liberato has even repeated that error.

    When, in 2008, after 50 years of pretending it existed, the C24 actually put it to the UNGA, (hidden in a snide ambiguous fashion), the British had it removed.

    I will post the link if you wish.

    Britain could indeed discuss sovereignty of the Falkland islands with Argentina...within the context of self determination of the islanders, with their elected representatives present.

    We could also talk about repatriation of your war dead, the cost of clearing your illegal land-mines, and the real truth about the sinking of the Belgrano. Further topics could be the teaching of how to spot propaganda to your schoolchildren, rather than just peddling more at them.

    May 27th, 2014 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Nop, The UN resolutions congrats Argentina for the diplomatics efforts to negotiate sovereignty and urge the uk to sit down to the negotiation table in more than 40 resolutions.
    Going to court is an option that should be made on negotiations that are not taken place. The only one to sugest an arbitration to end the dispute was Argentina, not the uk. And the uk established that it would not recognize sovereignty of the ICJ to cases older than 1977.

    Islander1: Like with most constitutions, you can change them completely, or part of it. The reference of the argentine rights over Malvinas are located in the transitional provisions. It can be replaced, modified or even removed.
    or in its english version:

    Regardless of what i think about your government or constitution, for me, the stupidity of british saying we argentines are not alowed to negotiate becouse the constitution remove that option its the same like if i said to you that all the life you will have to have the queen as head of state becouse your constitution says so. See my point?.

    The words of the Secretary General are important of course. He was choosed to be in its position. But do not change the fact nor the proceedings of voting of the GA, or voting like in most divisions of the UN. It is like if i quote the words of the chairman of the c24 that are irrelevant to the work of the committe that is composed by several representatives of nations.

    Monkey 95: You mean the fifth paragraph that says “Conscious of the need to facilitate the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,”?
    Have you read the declaration?
    6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

    May 27th, 2014 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    What exactly is it you wish to negotiate anyway? Have you a concrete proposal to put on the table?

    Most of these resolutions you refer to predate the 1982 invasion. The UK was in fact in full compliance with them and busy negotiating with Argentina right up until the junta decided it preferred to invade instead.

    Following the war, a supposedly democratic Argentina repudiated the confidence building agreements it had entered into and abandoned the various meetings between the parties that had been taking place.

    Since then, and as recently as March 2013, your Foreign Minister was boasting that Hague was desperately trying to arrange meetings in London, which he then refused to attend when he discovered he might end up face to face with representatives of the people whose home he wished to seize.

    This is not the behaviour of a government seeking either negotiation, or a solution. It's the behaviour of a government indulging in histrionic posturing for its own satisfaction and the manipulation of the domestic audience.

    As for the ICJ, any two countries can jointly decide to take any matter to the ICJ. There are no cut-off dates. Even Thatcher said not long after the war that if Argentina addressed a request to go the Court, the UK would respond seriously.

    So why don't you just ask? Surely you can only win? If you ask and the UK refuses, you have a major propaganda victory. On the other hand, if you ask and the UK accepts, you're bound to win.

    Aren't you?

    What exactly is it you'd like to negotiate anyway?

    May 27th, 2014 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh


    But section 2 says:-

    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.

    or are you saying that para 6 supercedes para 2. not that Argentina has any claim under para 6 anyway as it's territorial integrity never extended to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands or Mars or Narnia.

    You say that the SG's statement is only his opinion - true but what the C24 says is only their opinion.

    The fact remains that the only BINDING UN Resolution ever passed about the Falkland Islands was Resolution 502 which Argentina totally ignored.

    It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse the UK of ignoring non-binding resolutions from a sub-committee of a sub-committee whilst having ignored the only BINDING Resolution yourselves.

    and so to bed.........

    May 27th, 2014 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Quote:“What exactly is it you wish to negotiate anyway? Have you a concrete proposal to put on the table?”.
    Are you ok? i think your blood pressure cant reach your brain. This is a sovereignty dispute, so we want to negotiate sovereignty as requested by all GA resolutions regarding the islands situation.
    The “confidence buildings” (as you call that) only served to the british to exploit commercially the natural resources of the islands with no UN pressure.
    And Hage attitude was a charade. Being Timmerman in London, Hage refused to talk to Timmerman unless the islanders were there and called the islanders that flew in a bit time to be presented in the news as diplomatics open for negotiations. Of course not open for sovereignty negotiations.
    The fact is, a foreign minister can not recognize two citizens as representants of a self determined people which country do not exist. Repeat after me, the Malvinas islands are a territory under a colonial situation, whose sovereignty is claimed by Argentina. And is not me, nor Argentina the only ones that thinks so.

    About the ICJ, through negotiations, both sides can agree to submit the dispute not only to the ICJ, but to any kind of arbitration they see fit. I dont see the point of Argentina (that is asking negotiations of sovereignty that could perfectly include an agreement of arbitration) To propose the uk an arbitration to a court, the UK already denied jurisdiction.
    Please dont mention Thatcher. She had a race along with galtieri on who had more scotch on its veins by that time.
    Nevertheless, I repeat what my president said. We do not expect to be given the right, we want to dialogue as requested by the UN between the Uk and Argentina. Islanders are british and are perfectly entitled to be present in negotiations by the uk side but not as a third party.

    #100, i invite you to read all resolutions of the UN of any kind regarding the islands and see how the uk voted on each.

    May 28th, 2014 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    Liberato the British Goverment belives in self determination for the islanders persuade them life would be better under argentine rule and you get the islands.
    As you cant do that jog on.

    May 28th, 2014 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    Liberator, ,

    But you said back in @93 “ our president was absolutelly clear, that Argentina is not waiting for the uk to transfer automatically the sovereignty, that all we want is to dialogue, find a way to get to a solution to the dispute.”

    And now you say “Are you ok? i think your blood pressure cant reach your brain. This is a sovereignty dispute, so we want to negotiate sovereignty as requested by all GA resolutions regarding the islands situation.”

    I admit it. I am having difficulty. I always have difficulty when I am being invited to believe both a thing and its opposite at the same time.

    And then I get to your completely bizarre explanation of why Hague wouldn't meet Timerman. There could be no question of islanders being treated as diplomats, because diplomats are accredited by their host country, not their country of origin. But it should be really quite simple to clear this up. Why doesn't Argentina send us a letter saying they'd be quite happy to meet islanders as part of a British delegation?

    Otherwise a reasonable person might be tempted to conclude that Argentina is deliberately adopting an impossibilist position because it doesn't want negotiations at all. What it wants is to inflame the national sense of victimhood by maintaining the lie that the UK is in violation of UN resolutions.

    In this respect, it should be clear to anybody who can read that the UN has NEVER voted for he transfer of sovereignity to Argentina, has NEVER voted for the islanders to be excluded from negotiations, and has NEVER voted for the islanders to be denied self-determination. Indeed, in the latter case when given the opportunity to do exactly hat in 2008, it did precisely the opposite. All it has ever voted for is “dialogue” and “peaceful settlement”, which is just another way of saying “go away, stop bothering us, and sort this out yourselves like adults”.

    Which would be all very well, except Argentina rejects any adult approach to the question.

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CKurze30k

    “6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”

    Acknowledging the rights of the legitimate inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to self-determination would *not* disrupt territorial integrity. They are 300 miles away from Argentina, and have been inhabited since before Argentina's territory even came close to them. To claim they are part of Argentinian territory is a lie, one of many Argentina has perpetuated since losing fair and square in 1982.

    “that all we want is to dialogue, find a way to get to a solution to the dispute.””
    The only fair and equitable solution would be Argentina dropping it's fake claim. I don't see that happening any time soon.

    “Repeat after me, the Malvinas islands are a territory under self determination, whose sovereignty is falsely claimed by Argentina. ”

    Fixed that for you.

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Liberato...the paragraph numbered 5)

    5. Also reaffirms that the recognition by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other United Nations organs of the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination entails, as a corollary, the extension of all appropriate assistance to those peoples;

    Sorry, it doesn't have exceptions, caveats, or some dodgy made up fairy stories about 1833.

    the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination

    the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination

    the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination


    the legitimacy of the aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination

    May 28th, 2014 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    “6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
    Is from UNGA resolution 1514.

    Now please go to UNGA resolution 2625 and read the bit:
    'Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:
    (a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law.'
    In 1833 acquisition of territory by force was acceptable at that time, how was Argentina formed?
    Therefore even should the UK have just sailed in and booted the UP out it was a valid/accepted procedure at the time.

    May 28th, 2014 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CKurze30k

    “Therefore even should the UK have just sailed in and booted the UP out it was a valid/accepted procedure at the time.”

    Indeed. However as Argentina knows, the UP civilians were permitted to stay, developed their own towns, culture and economy, and are today recognised by most civilised nations as the legitimate inhabitants of the Falkland Islands.

    Contrast that with the revelation (on this site, IIRC) that the junta's intent after their illegal invasion (which Argentina celebrated) was to ethnically cleanse the islands, a more politically correct and fluffy way of saying they intended to murder the legitimate inhabitants.

    May 28th, 2014 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    This is a question directed at all the Malvinistas on this forum :
    Why are you so intent on trying to capture /recuperate / con people out of the Falkland Islands when Bolivia are busy illicitly acquiring 600 sq km of the province of Salta and throwing people off their land ?
    Surely you should be blogging away trying to protect what you already have rather than blogging away about something that you wish you had ? Just curious ....

    May 28th, 2014 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Please can you answer my post at 105.

    This is a UNGA resolution from 2009.

    Please......alejomartinez...feel free to chip in...LOL

    May 28th, 2014 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #102, it doesnt matter what the uk believes. If the uk believe they own Argentina, will we have to given it to them?.

    #103: One thing does not contradict the other. The whole point is sovereignty. Negotiations are based on sovereignty. What my president said is that we dont be be given the right on the sovereignty, just to dialogue in negotiations.

    #104:The islands formed part of the viceroyalty. It was not a land that was occupied after the Patagonian campaign. And about your sentence the UN does not consider the islands self determined, so keep repeating.

    #105: Monkey you are generalizing while the decolonization is taken through a case by case basis. If you say a phrase like all people have right to self determination or says that islanders have rights to self determination. I will always agree with the sentence. Becouse every human being have that right. What they dont have is a right to self determination ON argentine land.

    #106: Really????? acquisition of territory by force was acceptable at that time??????. Wow, so many wars back then for purelly legal invasions!!!!. You should stop waiting my time, at least take the time to google it.

    #107: “ethnically cleanse the islands”?. Really?.
    #108: Illicitly acquiring?. Really?. How do you know it is illicitly?. Becouse the article you mention does not present proof of that illicitly you mention. As the government said there were no modifications to the frontier, it is up for the judiciary system, in any case, to take that case to investigate.

    May 28th, 2014 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    I am not is quite clear.

    The people of the NSGTs have the right to self determination. It is as clear as day.

    The “argentine soil” bit is bullshit, and you know it.

    There is no qualification, no exceptions. The people of the NSGTs have the right to self determination.

    All of the NSGTs, all of the people's.

    The idea that the right is dismissed if there is a sovereignty dispute was dismissed in 2008 in another UNGA resolution.

    I am sorry of this is all too complex for you, and is at odds with your brainwashing.

    The people's of NSGTS have the full support of the UNGA and the UNSC in exercising their right to self determination in said territories...and a sovereignty dispute DOES NOT dismiss this right. lose

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko

    Liberato, first of all apologies for interjecting in this argument between yourselves, nies and monkey.

    You say that your president doesn't want sovereignty discussions but your constitution dictates this. How would this feel towards the falkland islanders ?

    Previously you have said that prior agreements were for the benefit of unilateral hydrocarbon and fisheries exploitation on behalf of the uk, so why is it when menem was in power treaties where put in to share those resources, willingly by the falklanders by themselves how is this explotation?

    Who tore them up??

    In all honesty this was a very shrewd move, irrespective of a territorial debate, the resources would have finally gone to the people it mattered to... The falklanders themselves, ergo Argentinas move is purely a selfish one.

    The vice royalty or any other monarch my or may not be recognised by any other government... Just as the papal bull trying to dictate to queen Elizabeth 1 , or Amazonian, Quechuan, Azteca natives.....oh I'm sorry they must submit to Latin rule. Apologies but no one listens to something which is genuinely disengiunous...

    As have been mentioned before you are quite frankly a person born of a dislike for people carving there own future without your need or want... I say good luck to them and god bless...

    You stink of hypocrisy.....

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    it's genuinely amusing to watch Liberato swing and miss so often.

    The 60-odd people of Pitcairn island, theoretical descendants of the crew of HMS Bounty are apparently due for Decolonization.

    However, they wish to remain a BOT.

    So they stay on the UN list.

    Nobody else has a sovereignty claim for this most remote of places, no one else has ever lived there.

    However, because the fact that remaining a BOT does not satisfy the three “solutions” the C24 assign for Decolonization, Pitcairn remains on the list.

    It is the same for all BOTs, nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty disputes, just a reluctance or inability in the C24 to accept that being an overseas territory, without formally becoming a part of the state (as the French territories did) is unacceptable.

    Sovereignty disputes have nothing to do with the C24, the body in the UN for those is the ICJ.


    May 28th, 2014 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #111: Quote: “There is no qualification, no exceptions. The people of the NSGTs have the right to self determination.”

    And i agree. And argentina also agree. You give your nick name a good favour. There are many forms of colonizations. So each case is followed under a case by case basis on the UN.
    If Argentina invade Uruguay for example, and expell the Uruguayans from the taken territory. IT would still be called a colony. It would not have a colonized people becouse we expelled them, but it would still be a colony.
    The same happens with the NSGT. They all have the right to self determination like the rest of us. But they do not have the same kind of colonial situation and to decolonize, it is taken on a case by case basis.
    For you to underestand. It would be good that you read the res 1514 of the GA and find out how the uk voted on that res and how Argentina voted on that occasion instead so stupid to thing that favours you and complicate us. take it like a homework.

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    Doesn't matter on who voted on what. It matters on the outcome.

    Stop projecting on what you wish, love, desire or demand.

    All that matters is what was put into black and white... Not shades of argentine grey.


    May 28th, 2014 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    I have read 1514 thanks.

    Your point on the invasion of Uruguay is useless and ridiculous. By invading a sovereign nation, you would be in direct violation of the UN Charter and the UNSC would issue a binding resolution instructing you to leave. There was no UN charter in the 1500s when you invaded South America, or in 1880 when you invaded Patagoina or in 1832 when you invaded the Falklands...or in 1833 when we recovered them.

    Has there ever been a binding UNSC resolution instructing the UK to leave the Falklands(No)? has there ever been one instructing an Argentine invasion force to leave?(yes)

    So..the UN recognises the Falkland Islands as a non-self governing territory on a list to be de-colonised

    The UN says that the people of the non-self governing territories have the right to self determination.

    I am sorry you think the Argentine government believe this, as on numerous occasions they have denied it.

    You mistakenly believe that the Falklands are designated a NSGT due to Argentinas claim, this is not the case. The Falklands are designated a NSGT for the same reason as the other BOTS, I.e they are neither fully independent, nor do they vote in the UK parliament, nor have they become part of another state...which are the only three ways you can come of the list.

    Sadly, if the inhabitants don't want any of those three ways....they stay on the list.

    There is no coincidence that all the former British territories with sufficient population to become independent have, and 90%+ remain as members of the Commonwealth. The remainder are too small.

    Argentinas claim on the Falklands, or Spain's on Gibraltar are irrelevant in the decolonisation debate.

    Sadly, you seem too stupid to debate this, and continually try and misrepresent an ambiguous 60 year old UN resolution, rather than accepting two very clear resolutions from the past 6 years.

    May 28th, 2014 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @110, @111, @112

    I have to admit, I don't get it either. Argentina doesn't insist on negotiations about sovereignity, but will only attend negotiations on sovereignity. Argentina is happy for falklanders to be present, but won't attend if falklanders are present.

    This isn't the first time I've had difficulty getting to grips with Malvinista logic, of course, but that's not my main concern at the moment. What I'm hoping Liberato can clarify, is exactly what Argentina hopes to achieve with its UN campaign.

    I start from the observation that there have been negotiations of all sorts down the years, on sovereignity, fisheries, hydrocarbons, etc, and Argentina has walked away from every single one of them.

    And as regards sovereignity, of all the post-war UK governments, Argentina's best bet surely had to be the Thatcher government. Here was a government with no qualms about dealing with nasty dictatorships, desperate to save money, and entirely happy for sovereignity to be transferred to Argentina, that was in negotiation with the junta until just a couple of weeks before the invasion. And yet the junta chose war.

    We all know what happened next, of course.

    So Argentina already failed once to negotiate to settlement under the most favourable conditions imaginable, when a British government actively wanted to renounce sovereignity. But nowadays, Argentina seems to believe it can succeed, when its own actions have made it politically impossible for any British government to give it what it wants, namely the forcible incorporation of the Falklands into Argentina.

    Can Argentina really believe this is possible? Do they really believe that an annual hissy fit with their chums in the C24 is enough to force the UK into anything of the sort? The best possible outcome they could have is another ambiguous, non-binding UNGA resolution, and yet all they do is complain the UK doesn't respect UN resolutions.

    Are they really so dumb? Or is there something else going on?

    May 28th, 2014 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Just because it's my favourite question to a Malvinista, please answer the following:

    how many people were evicted in 1833?
    What is the longest that any of those evicted had spent on the Falklands?

    see if (for your homework) can answer...LOL

    May 28th, 2014 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #112: Ekeko, about the argentine constitution:
    A transfer of sovereignty from britain to Argentina, a dropp of the sovereignty claims of Argentina, or a shared sovereignty, or whatever the outcome of the dispute, imply great changes, not only in the constitution.
    I have already responded this. The equivalent of what our constitution says is what for you is, what islanders “constitution” says. Regardless specifically what it says. The Malvinas clause, is a transitional provision included in our constitution that can be modified, or eliminated.
    Lets says that the islanders deside one day that they want to be governed by Uruguay. But its constitution says that their head of state is the queen. Will they keep that part of the constitution?. Will they keep their current constitution?. Will they keep A constitution?.
    So constitutions are important but do not define the outcome of negotiations at all. Far from it. Our president said in the UN that we do not want an autocatically transfer of sovereignty. That we only want dialogue, negotiations to end this dispute. Negotiations could mean arbitration, a committe of specialist, an agreement, etc.
    Was she acting against our constitution that, according to you, can only limitate negotiations to a direct transfer of sovereignty?.

    About the policy of seduction, nobody forced us. The government of the time considered to change the way we approached the dispute freezing the sovereignty claim within an umbrella term. The approach is perfectly valid, but it is not resolving the dispute, which is the main problem. I think that resolving the sovereignty dispute, no matter the outcome, will leave us all (them and us) to leave in peace and in fraternity.

    The argentine people that over the 200 years of the colony, even now are deprived to have a life there in their OWN territory. They matters too.
    #116 Monkey Argentina voted on favour of the declaration of granting independence to colonial countries and peoples. The uk refrained.

    May 28th, 2014 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    And here lies the fallacy....

    If you was so willing to drop this part of the constitution to further the ends of diplomatic negotiation, you would have done it...bit been what 30 years?

    What don't you listen to what the falklanders have to say. If you suppose they are your citizens then surely you should respect their rights, interests, dreams and wishes.

    The beauty of being part of the c24 is that they can decide their own future, not one you have decided for them nor the uk's for that matter.

    And this is where you charade falls down .

    You had the opportunity to share whatever come out of that area... You turned it down

    You bad the opportunity to have a half chance on sharing sovereignty....bayou turned it down

    You had an opportunity to seek lawful arbitration pre 1977 as you turned it down...

    At every step the falklanders and the uk have been more than helpful to the nutter next door.... And every time they have tried to call the police and every time the police have's a nutter........

    May 28th, 2014 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    Come on Lberato

    This “Argentine soil”

    How many Argentines were evicted from the Falklands in 1833...How long had they been there?

    how many Patagonians were massacred in the 1880s..How long had they been there?

    May 28th, 2014 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #120, I never said my government is willing or was to drop the malvinas part of the constitution. Our position is strong. But as negotiations did not started yet, You cant say what Argentina would do. If an agreement is reached to end the sovereignty dispute, it will include changes in one side or the other or both.
    Islanders are not our citizens. They are entitled to be. If i have to explain you this you are not very iluminated.

    Quote: “The beauty of being part of the c24 is that they can decide their own future”
    But the c24 is asking that both the uk and Argentina, to decide over the islanders future taken account of its interests and not its wishes?.

    Quote 1:“You had the opportunity to share whatever come out of that area... You turned it down”
    Economics has nothing to do with our claim. You will keep the islands being a colony at the expense of sharing resources?. I dont think so.

    Quote 2:“You bad the opportunity to have a half chance on sharing sovereignty....bayou turned it down ”
    Half chance of a half sovereignty?. Dont know what you mean.

    Quote 3: “You had an opportunity to seek lawful arbitration pre 1977 as you turned it down...”

    The only request for arbitration was made by Argentina in 1888 while the british refused arrogantly.

    Wow, how nice the british are, so helpfull with no second intentions.

    May 28th, 2014 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Your whole case rests on the premise that the islands were lawfully Argentine in 1833. Since the 1920s there has existed an international court which could pronounce upon the veracity of that claim. You have done everything imaginable,
    including starting a war, except go to that court. The only explanation you have for this is considerably less convincing than the more obvious one that your claim does not have sufficient legal basis to stand examination by a court.

    Now it transpires that we're expected to believe that the UN hasn't said what it has said, but it has said what it hasn't, and that you only want negotiation when you can't state what it is what you want to negotiate, you have no proposal to put on the table, you have walked away from every negotiation there has ever been, you have two blindingly impossible pre-conditions, and you have refused every invitation whether from the FIG or the UK government.

    Meanwhile, you reject any application of democracy or human rights in pursuit of your territorial ambitions, but you also expect us to believe you're a peace-loving democratic state bathed in enlightenment.

    It's quite an astonishing farrago of irrationality, you can see why it requires a solid bedrock of racism to keep it alive.

    May 28th, 2014 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    The part of the constitution is always a barrier to anything meaningful certainly after 1982.... Can't you see that?

    There was negotiations prior to your little jolly into warfare but now the is so much hostility towards even the thought of argentine citizenship being introduced.... I'm sorry you are a busted flush.... You position is weak.

    In regards to my economic claim you stated the original claim of the uk post 1982 was to exploit whatever was out there... The falklanders were prepared to surrender whatever for peace of's you who drive this idiocy....especially with....the half eyed loon and his wife.....

    Read the constitution of the falklanders .... They alone can decide their own future?.. better yet why don't you listen to what they say, after all.... According to your constitution they are argentine citizens.... Or are they?

    What I mean by half sharing sovereignty was by this... If you'd shut your mouth.... Bided your time..... Appeased the falkanders and have been nice to them yes maybe ..... Maybe you would gave a shot at it.... But by your statement you just proved my point.

    Actually look at wiki for a while and you will find 3 times the uk were prepared to go to the ICJ in 47 48 and 55 if my memory serves and 3 times Argentina refused.... Why is that?

    May 28th, 2014 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    #123: Quote:“Your whole case rests on the premise that the islands were lawfully Argentine in 1833”

    Well your whole case rests on the premise that the islands are not a colony, that are self governed and that there is no doubt about british sovereignty rights over the islands.
    But guess what?. The UN still consider the Islands a colony. The british self government of the islands do not exist, due to the fact all related information about the islands are requested to the administering power (London). And about the british sovereignty rights, they have no doubst but the international community does have doubts about the ownership of the islands, due to the fact they recognize there is a sovereignty dispute and uses both names on all official documents.
    The consitution part was clarified to you, so dont expect me to respond with the same reply. And about the ICJ in 1947, 48 and 55?. Are you that indoctrinated?. The Malvinas islands were not included by britain.
    All the day you passed with the same british propaganda. Is it gonna end?. Well islanders are teached by mostly only britain born teachers and headteachers to later go to england and continue to be indoctrinated by the british, so i dont expect a new idea falls from the islanders.

    May 28th, 2014 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    The whole case does not rest on the premise that the islands are not a colony. The whole case rests on the premise that it's up to the islanders to decide how and by whom they wish to be governed. This is exactly what is required by the UN decolonization process, as the UN has stated on numerous occasions.

    If you're not happy with this arrangement, as I pointed out to you earlier, you should take a leaf from the Chinese book and do everything possible to have the Falklands removed from the NSGT list and taken to the ICJ as a territorial dispute. By continuing to treat it as a colonial matter, you ensure that the islands will never be yours.

    But perhaps that's what you want? After all, Argentina's behaviour is not consistent with a desire for a solution, in that you have rejected and continue to reject any avenue that could possibly lead to one. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, perhaps this is just stupidity, or perhaps it's exactly what your government wants, and the sense of grievance is much more precious to your political classes than the object of the grievance is.

    Which do you think it is? What do you think the aim is, and how do you think the present strategy will help you achieve it?

    May 28th, 2014 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    Nice for you to skip my response....

    The constitution still remains. How does it feel for the falkanders to have this sword of Damocles upon them? Respond to this please apart from “it could be changed” this doesn't help present negotiations...

    Yes the un do respect the falklands as a c24 case.... And you know the 3 outcomes they can achieve... So as Argentina in the 43/105 resolution you know it's buggered.

    Like I said it's not the uk to decide a territory destiny under the auspice of the c24, but surely after almost 50 years you should know that ifs down to them surely?

    So they can play the territorial integrity case with the Icj ...Then the c24 issue.... Or remove the falklands from the c24 and then sort out the territorial integrity case later with the ICJ....... But what would happen then?

    Doesn't matter whether Britain included the falklands wherever it agreed to have it up to arbitration.... Not's you have been sucking on the trumberta of argentine properganda. Not the uk.....

    The problem is you love pantomime not facts bad the facts is this...

    You never truely owned the falklands
    You never had any citizens there to warrant a population
    You surrendered all claims in 1850
    You acquised all claims up to 1944
    You refused arbitration full stop
    You went to war in 1982
    You refused to accept the population even though argentines say they are they are they are there own citizens even though you try to starve them and deprive them of basic rights.
    You are a fool.

    May 28th, 2014 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Quote: “The whole case rests on the premise that it's up to the islanders to decide how and by whom they wish to be governed. This is exactly what is required by the UN decolonization process, as the UN has stated on numerous occasions.”

    Hahahaha. You are so hilarious. Now you defend the decolonization process. While the uk vote negative on each resolution of all bodies of the UN regarding the islands situation in the whole decolonization process.
    While the UN recognize a colonial situation in the islands and a sovereignty dispute. While the c24 says that the only way to end the special and particular colonial situation is through negotiations between Arg and the UK. Dont you guys have at least a little interest as to see how the uk vote?.
    “So the c24 is biased”, why? i dont know, becouse Malvinas is not the only case they have of british colonialism.
    “So the UN GA resolutions are not valid becouse they happened before the war. ” Which is not true becouse resolutions continued until a decision of Argentina not to continue to bring that up in the GA. But nevertheless winning a war do not grant sovereignty rights. You guys should know that.
    You have absolutelly nothing.
    -The islands remains being a colony, recognized as such, by ALL UN bodies. Regarding of what you say or think.
    -The sovereignty dispute remains being recognized by ALL UN bodies. Regarding what the uk says that they have no doubts of british sovereignty.
    -The islands are Part, of the American Continent. Regarding the indoctrination they receive in schools.
    And i could go on, and on, and on....
    Simple facts. Dont wanna trust Argentina?. Trust the United NAtions. Grow some balls and sit in the negotiation table and decolonize the 10 british colonies that remains in a colonial situation in this 21 century.

    May 29th, 2014 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    And here we go with your projection of how the c24 and the un should behave.

    The c24 have never said the decolonisation process should start with Argentina and the uk to start negotiations but merely recognise their is a dispute between them and that they should proceed as and when. They tried to put a pretext into the whole procedure but it got blown out.... But you know that idiot......

    Yes the un recognise they are a colony... But that confers them certain guarantees such as self determination...... Idiot...........

    Irrespective of the American continent they can choose what affiliation thay have being Anglo, Hispanic, African or whatever..... Racist..........

    Grow some balls. Trust the UN........ Better yet.... Trust the ICJ or better yet trust yourself

    I could go on and on on........ Idiotic racist ......?.

    May 29th, 2014 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    So you admit the UN recognise the islands as a colony!!!!. Good, becouse you, the other idiot in here, the uk and the islanders are telling differently.
    So if you recognise that fact of the UN, you have to recognize that most of the world must think the same as the UN. Even uk's closest friend the US, that recognise a “falklands” DE FACTO government but remains neutral about the sovereignty.
    Having said that, we can discuss at a UN level on resolutions or whatever, but you could not convince me that the islands are self determined ok?. Becouse if you fail even to convince the UN, it will be harder to convince me.
    So if the UN, recognise the islands as a colony. It means they recognise too they are not self governed right?. IF they are not self governed, it means somebody else is governing them. IF somebody else is governing them, it could be the administering power. IF the administering power is governing them, then it means that the islands do not need to be represented in the sovereignty negotiations as a third party becouse they are already represented by their government the uk.

    May 29th, 2014 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    So now you are talking about the need for Britain and the UN to ”decolono=ise2 its 10 territories?

    Please explain:
    How do you decolonise Pitcairn Island with total population about 60 people who are happy as they are politicaly - come on HOW?

    How do you decolonise say Tristan da Cunha in a remote part of the South Atlantic with a population of just 250 who also are happy as they are - come on HOW?

    How do you decolonise say Gibraltar then - yes about 60,000 people I think so maybe they have the numbers to go independent - but how can they when they are aggressively claimed by their neighbour - come on HOW?

    Come on HOW do you decolonise peoples and territories that are to small and weak to stand on their own feet as an independent nations - and have also freely expressed their populations,s wish to stay as they are?

    in 130 you can say whatever tripe you like - but we are NOT governed on a daily weekly monthly or even annually basis by London - we have internal self-government and you know it. Yes we seek the advice of legal experts in London on wording of our laws etc - simply because we are 3000 only and do not have much legal expertise of our own. We even employ a UK Judge at times to come and here cases in Court that are under Islands Law (not UK Law) - he has to learn up on the Islands Law before he hears the case. We have our own currency which is OUTSIDE the UK Sterling area. For convenience because that is where so much of our trade is - we follow UK Bank Int rates - but legally we could do our own if we wished.
    You started off this discussion with some reason - it is now sounding as if you are just clutching at straws in the wind, like your Foreign Minister and President do

    May 29th, 2014 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest


    “ You live in south america but refuse to be one. ”

    130 posts here, and you still avoid the question, how do you define “being South American”?

    Really really interested to hear what you say.

    Wouldn't, “you live in South America” mean you are South American?

    Please explain.

    May 29th, 2014 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ekeko


    Not idiotic really, just using the terminology of the un...... Idiot......

    However the key point is this which you as a racist have forgotten...

    How do the falklanders want to live?

    Without idiots like you to be honest.....

    The us chooses this route because of the implications of Palestine and ergo Israel...... But only a idiot could not see this......

    All NSGT have achieved the right of self determination no matter what you think or projection you want....

    And the wheels on the nutter bus go round and round.....

    May 29th, 2014 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Of course the UN still regards the Falkland Islands as a colony, and this is because the UK put it on the list of colonies to begin with. This is why we're talking about a decolonization process now.

    In this respect, the UN has stated time and time again that the only route to decolonization is through the exercise of self-determination, and the existence of a sovereignity dispute is not relevant. You claim otherwise, but won't test the issue in court or even the UNGA. You lose.

    Recognising the existence of a dispute is not the same as recognising the validity of a dispute. The UN has never once recognised the validity of Argentina's arguments. It has limited itself to passing resolutions recommending dialogue and peaceful resolution.

    The UK has never once been in breach of these resolutions. Argentina has been and remains so.

    Argentina's UN strategy is as contradictory as everything else that comes out of there. Your whole effort is concentrated on a body which you also claim the UK ignores. What is the point of this? What exactly is going to drive any UK government into committing political suicide to suit your Peronists?

    You really should wise up. It's perfectly obvious that Argentina neither expects nor wants negotiations. Negotiations are where each side gives up something to gain something. What are you offering to give up? What is your proposal? Have you ever actually invited the UK to a negotiation, pre-negotiation, or discussion? Why do you keep on insisting on a pre-condition which no UK government will ever accept? Do you really believe that systematically antagonising your putative negotiating partner is an effective means of starting negotiations?

    There are really only two explanations for this behaviour. Either your government is composed exclusively of cretins, or it's all just histrionic posturing for the domestic audience. There is evidence for both, but I'm betting mostly the latter. Nobody is this stupid.

    May 29th, 2014 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CKurze30k


    So I was mistaken about the intent to kill. Nonetheless, there was a plan to attempt a form of ethnic cleansing on the Islands. Most of the first and most honest comments on that article describe it as such.

    May 29th, 2014 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    135- not quite wrong- June 1982 a list of over 100 Islanders was found in the clearing up - who were all scheduled for deportation to Argentina - how many would have joined the “disaparacedos” out of the back of aircraft over the sea or mass graves - who knows.

    May 29th, 2014 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    But we're supposed to believe that the rights of the islanders would be protected by the Argentine constitution, although this wasn't much of a help to their own citizens at the time of the junta, and according to our friend Liberato it can be modified at any time anyway.

    May 29th, 2014 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • malen

    have also freely expressed their populations,s wish to stay as they are?
    not so freely..................

    May 29th, 2014 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    138 Mal-ignant-Nancy

    I guess we 'll never know, as your source is Spanish propaganda in... Spanish!!


    May 30th, 2014 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87

    What a farce. Leaving aside the fact that the FI are stolen territories, there's also this: that FI are part of the UK, that is, they are not, nor are they trying to be, a sovereign nation, and therefore can't claim self-determination. “Self-determination” is nothing but a buzzword, a self-righteous cover for violent settler colonialism by an implanted population, one that is known the world over for decimating native peoples for their colonialist aims in large swaths of the world.

    Britain taints the names of the beautiful ideals for its short-sighted and immoral goals. It sold “democracy” short to justify state terror against the poor people of Iraq, it contaminated “civilization” to justify famines in South Asia and the genocide of Australian aborigines, and now it is corrupting the term “self-determination”, which, uttered by these pasty squatters, sounds like the Lord's name coming out of the mouth by a diseased prostitute.

    May 30th, 2014 - 02:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    ...says the descendant of the CONQUISTADORS...

    May 30th, 2014 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter


    “Leaving aside the fact that the FI are stolen territories, there's also this: that FI are part of the UK, that is, they are not, nor are they trying to be, a sovereign nation, and therefore can't claim self-determination.”

    With minor changes (the name, and desire for sovereignty) I think this is identical.

    “Leaving aside the fact that the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata is stolen territory, there's also this: that Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata is part of the Spanish Empire, that is, they are not a sovereign nation, and therefore can't claim self-determination.”

    So how is it different. If the only difference is the desire of sovereignty then are you saying that if the Falklands desired sovereignty they would then be eligible for self-determination?

    Face it, you're the wannabe colonialists distracted by your government from your real problems.

    May 30th, 2014 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    And there we have it.

    It usually takes more than 140 posts, but it nearly always becomes apparent as we rehearse the mythology that there is no more respectable foundation to Malvinista fundamentalism than rabid ethnic hatred.

    The great irony, of course, is that it's precisely this hatred which ensures you will never get what you want. But I dare say in your endless frustration, you can console yourself with the thought that your masters have got you exactly where they want you.

    May 30th, 2014 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Leiard

    “Argentina and Venezuela call for decolonization of Puerto Rico and the Falklands”

    May 30th, 2014 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Well worth a read.

    ”The Movement for Peace, Sovereignty and Solidarity between Peoples (Mopassol) and the Embassy of Venezuela in Argentina, held a ceremony Wednesday for the decolonization of the Falkland Islands and Puerto Rico, as well as support for self-determination peoples to choose their own forms of government without outside interference.”

    How is it possible to even walk around with such a crippling lack of self-awareness?

    May 30th, 2014 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87


    My God, you're dumb. And you're 200 years late with that dumb rant. The Viceroyalty blabla has already claimed independence, embracing republicanism in the process. By contrast, the FI is neither independent, nor, at least as far as I know, is it struggling for independence from the UK. The “FI” is pretty comfy being what it is, a British outpost. Therefore it can't claim self-determination as it possesses none nor is it trying to achieve it. Self-determination is an empty buzzword, a dishonest tool of rhetoric of which the Islanders themselves think little, otherwise they'd put their money where their ever-so-loquacious mouths are and claim self-determination also from the UK. And your comparison with Argentina is laughably nonsensical; Argentina does possess self-determination, as anyone in the world apart from a certain dumb pest that found its way to these forums can understand. But c'mon, that's not hard to understand, WHY ARE BRITARDS SO DUMB? Is it island inbreeding?

    A White Britard claiming racial victimization is a laughable notion, in the real world of concrete facts as well as in this forum. It's still telling and satisfying to notice, however, that that's the one thing that you could come up with by way of response to my righteous and factual post: teary-eyed self-pity.

    May 30th, 2014 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    I don't know where you get “teary-eyed self-pity” from, the only times I've been teary-eyed on here have been from laughter.

    The problem with your post, incidentally, is that it's another reflection of the idea that history consists of a list of bad things done by Brits and nobody much else was involved. This seems to be a uniquely Argentine view, which is rather curious in that there are plenty of people around we are now friends with, who we have treated much worse than you.

    While it's undeniable that plenty of bad things were indeed done by Brits, it's the complete lack of context that betrays the underlying indoctrination process.

    Cute strings you have though, Pinocchio.

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87

    “I don't know where you get “teary-eyed self-pity” from, the only times I've been teary-eyed on here have been from laughter.”

    That sounds a bit contrived and only adds to my impression that you're at a loss for words.

    You can't say that and then, the next paragraph, delve in irrelevancies that doesn't speak to anything I said - that, in fact, bespeaks your sense of racial victimization. That more people and nations apart from Britain have been involved in wrongdoing is of no importance whatsoever to the argument I made, that the FI can't claim self-determination whilst insisting to be an outpost of a foreign country far away from South America, and that its use of righteous, emotionally charged language, of the term “self-determination” for example, mirrors their mother country's rhetorical use of “beautiful” ideals to promote thuggery, hunger and slaughter in the non-European world.

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    “The FI can't claim self-determination while insisting to be an outpost of a foreign country far away from South America”

    Thank you once again for confirming my observation that Malvinas syndrome depends on ethnic hostility.

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    It is perfectly acceptable to the UN decolonization comittee for the Falklands to be “part of the UK”. if this were the case as you spew...theyd have been off the list years ago.

    Its a very simple process, come the Next UK general add all the BOTs to the electoral role for Falmouth and Camborne...and hey presto...they are no longer a NSGT..they are a fully incorporated part of the UK.

    France did this with all their overseas territories which is why they are off the list.

    So your rabid and indeed racist spewings are clearly wrong.

    Why, you might ask, do the UK not do this...and remove the annual farce at the C24?

    The answer, is that the people of the Falklands, as shown by 99.8% referendum, do not want to be a fully integrated part of the UK, nor do they wish to be Independent...which is why they remain on the these are the two ways to get off it.

    The Falklands are not a “stolen territory” at all. 55 people whod been on the islands 6 weeks were evicted 180 years ago...

    Compare to the rest of South America...!!!

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    I'd also appreciate, incidentally, if you'd kindly explain this mechanism whereby Falkland Islanders are somehow supposed to make restitution to Argentina for wrongs (allegedly) committed by Britain around the world, in this and other centuries?

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87

    Your self-pity is making you impervious to logic.

    Won't read it. You've written 100s of words in vain though I'm sure the reverse isn't true and you'll be awaiting my next post with bated breath.

    May 30th, 2014 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Oh dear, aren't you going to answer me?

    Surely you're not going to let stand my contention that your real problem is the presence of a small community with different cultural values, which rejects your latino-supremacist view of the continent?

    May 30th, 2014 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter


    Firstly, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (itself stolen from original inhabitants) was NEVER sovereign and in fact never itself exercised self-determination. The United Provinces used self-determination to take sovereignty of much of the territory of the Viceroyalty in the aftermath of the May Revolution. Subsequently individual parts of the UP exercised self-determination and took sovereignty.

    The Falkland Islanders despite not being sovereign have been GIVEN the right to self-determination by both the sovereign (HMQEII through the Parliament of the United Kingdom), and the United Nations.

    To claim that self-determination is an empty “buzzword” is frankly just stupid. To quote from Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN charter, the purpose of the UN Charter is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

    It's lucky that the Falkland Islands are guarded against thieving colonialists like yourself you insulting little prick. Can I remind you that the citizens of the UK have contributed more to literature, art, and particularly science than you could ever dream.

    May 30th, 2014 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    of course you wont read will stand around with your fingers in your ears shouting any indoctrination you wont challenge yours.

    May 30th, 2014 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “otherwise they'd put their money where their ever-so-loquacious mouths are and claim self-determination also from the UK.”


    Could you please give us the name of that work of fiction where you found that the sole definition of self-determination is ''independence'

    May 30th, 2014 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Forge- TiT

    Your fellow Argentinian, Liberato,
    After insisting for 130 posts that the Falkland Islanders “love in South America, but are not South American” - still would not or could not define, “being South American”.

    Please, as a South American, are you able to tell us??



    May 30th, 2014 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    I think MLA Rodgers should also compare the transfer of power to the democratic Falkland Island Government Legislative Assembly as 2014 and the autocratic British Crown Colony governor appointed by the British Metropole in 1961; perhaps the various UN Decolonization Committees could assist the British as the Administrating Country and the Falkland Islanders as the Non-Self-Governing Territory in improving this transfer of power unless it already satisfies the requirements of decolonization by the UN? If it does, then the Falkland Islands should be delisted. To be me, this is a technical matter not a political one.

    Jun 01st, 2014 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!