MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' “full agreement and involvement”, for any Argentine cemetery remains identification
“If any identification is to take place of combatants buried in the Falkland Islands, it would have to be done with the full agreement and involvement of the Falkland Islands Government”, said the local government in a Monday release from Stanley. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNothing could be clearer! Argentina - speak to the islanders!
Oct 27th, 2015 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think this will be the last we hear of this issue for some time.......
Oct 27th, 2015 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0That all seems fairly clear.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Far too much posturing and politicking, on BOTH sides, about something that is common humanitarian decency and should just happen as a matter of course.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Missing in all of this, and perhaps for the next, less sensitive stage, is the full and unconditional repatriation of those unfortunate souls back to their own country.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn´t expect less from them. An example that some people down here should take notes about.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0-ID the remaining KIA buried there.
-Bring relieve to their relatives.
-Let them rest in peace.
-STOP USING THEM >:(
I remember reading an article on MP which stated that many of the grieving relatives do not want these graves disturbed.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0It seems they have accepted a grave as defacto their loved one and fear that the identification of the remains would bring all the trauma they faced many years ago to the front of their minds.
That of course was the association of the bereaved and not the bunch of wankers known as the 'Malvinas' veterans, the present incumbents of which probably were never there or even old enough to be in the army in 1982.
#4 “and should just happen as a matter of course.”
Oct 27th, 2015 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0The FIGs decision to proactively engage with the IRC on this issue shows a willingness, on its part, to cooperate - provided Argentina does the right and decent thing by the relatives AND the Falkland Islanders. Argentina must acknowledge that the bodies of the Argentine soldiers are at rest in their country and no amount secret, back door dealing with the Red Cross or any other body is going to change that.
Argentina is shamelessly trying to use the good offices of the IRC to further its territorial ambitions in the South Atlantic.
It is Argentina and only Argentina that is committing the 'posturing'.
Guess I got that one right then. Brits should reinforce this by announcing that the Argies came to the wrong address and should get into their little boats and paddle across, unless of course they have in fact paid their international telephone bills in which case they may be able to get Port Stanley on the blower. The Brits could even give them the telephone number. Of course it puts the IRC between a rock and a hard place, but the IRC should have made it clear to the Argies up front as to what they had to do. I do think FIG should contact the media from time to time drawing attention to the fact that having raised the issue the Argies then did nothing about it.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought that Argentina was playing games over the dead Argentine teenagers it bet in order to save its dictator, it is despicable what they do.. they used the kids in life, threw them in to their early graves, and continue to use them in death.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 4 Skåre Anti-K.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The two sides being? Argentina, as ever, continues to posture but the Falkland Islands Government has made its position quite clear. The UK has no reason to prevaricate as it is not a party to the dilemma.
and the moral to this tale is that if Argentina wants this identification process to happen then they should ask the Falklands Islands Government to their face... and ask them nicely.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do trust that the Falkland Islands Government will take the line that ALL the remains should be dug up, transported to Darwin Harbour and loaded aboard a suitable vessel for transport to argieland. There should be NO opportunity for more shenanigans at any time in the future. I remember Kirchner saying that a part of the Islands would always belong to argieland because of the corpses. So let there be no corpses.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then there need only be about a dozen grave diggers allowed on to the Islands. Dig 'em all and ship 'em out. Very few reasons to allow argies on to the Island. Great reduction in argie attempts at political point scoring.
In the UK, we've seen that there is no respect abroad for the war dead. We bring our casualties home.
Hope it's what the Islanders demand. Do you really want to be reminded of the invaders?
At 2:
Oct 27th, 2015 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right, now the FIG are making a proactive move on this, the Malvinas squad of eejits wont be able to point at the British Government.
I'd have just told Argentina to direct all requests to the FIG.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However the UK and FIG are playing a smarter game.
The FIG has shown it is willing to talk.
Going Directly to the ICRC gives the FIG the moral high-ground.
Now Argentina if serious has to talk to the ICRC and the FIG.
You mean “poor unfortunate corpses”, actually, Falklandlad @5
Oct 27th, 2015 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror @ 12: 'I remember Kirchner saying that a part of the Islands would always belong to argieland because of the corpses.' It depends on how it would belong to Argentina: if it's the same way that
“IF I should die, think only this of me;
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England...”
there's no objection. No-one wants to use Rupert Brooke's grave for political reasons. The problem is that there are Argentine politicians and Argentine citizens without the intelligence or decency to see that their antics degrade themselves and their claims. The best thing to do there is to leave them to it until they notice the embarassed and embarassing silence around them.
It will be interesting to see if anything is said by either party after this Geneva meeting.
Oct 27th, 2015 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Other than “satisfactory discussions to be ongoing, questions answered, complete agreement, nothing further at the moment”.
The ICRC, who have made no requests to anyone about this, are clearly still consulting with the relatives about whether to proceed with this in the first place.
The ICRC need unanimous agreement from relatives for them to proceed and start requesting permissions. They are very experienced in negotiating in the most difficult circumstances, I’m sure organising this will be no problem for them, once they decide to do it.
All things which the GoA are fully aware of.
Can the GoA give assurances that all the relatives support their “demands” to do this?
Have they even checked, before putting them through this in public (as in world public), particularly if they don’t agree?
I suspect not, they are beneath contempt.
@16 Pugol-H
Oct 27th, 2015 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The meeting in Geneva will run somewhere along the lines of the ICRC stating that they haven't received any request from the Argentine government.
If the Argentine government has spoken to any red cross about this it will be their 'local' red cross. And I'll be they were told that they would have to speak to the FIG, hence why nothing happened.
But it is another made up 'grievance' to try and stir up nationalistic feelings and make the brain dead masses forget that they're hungry, poor and have no future.
Fact: the United Nations consider the islands as a territory in dispute with a colonial situation.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact: the United Nations do not consider the islands self determined, nor self-governed.
Fact: Even the USA do not consider the islands to be a british territory.
So, if the world community disagree with what these islanders thinks about “their contitutional agreement” with the UK, what they are doing is in fact, playing their colonial ambition over the dead bodies of argentine soldiers to gain points in their colonial ambitions wanting to be recognised as something they are not.
I think its the most shameless of the british inhumanities.
Fact 1: Of course they consider it in dispute, Argentina claim our lands but that doesn't automatically make it a valid claim.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact 2: That would probably only change if we declared independence and we aren't completely self governed as we rely on Britain for defense and foreign affairs.
Fact 3: Do you have some kind of official statement to back this up?
How are the UK playing colonial ambitions saying “speak to the Islanders it's up to them”, if anything this shows the UK is happy with our government getting on with things without interference. To be honest I can't see how the term “ambitions” could be used here at all. Maybe they are somehow going to use to claim Ushuaia.
How this would go if Argentina would get off their high horse:
GOA: Hi FIG, do you mind if we get the Red Cross to test the bodies?
FIG: Are the families all in agreement with this?
GOA: Yes.
FIG: Crack on.
Unfortunately, only 80 of the 123 families involved have agreed to DNA testing and exhumation.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Considering that ALL the corpses are only 'known unto God', any further procedure would be not only illegal, but possibly sacrilege?
Just a thought...
#19: Fact1: regardless of what you consider about the validity of the argentine claim, for the UN the sovereignty of the territory is in dispute. Which means that they dont care what “constitutional Agreement”, in other words, what papers had invented the uk, to validate their prescence in the islands.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 05:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact2: If the islands are not self determined and not self governed, what the hell is the validity of mr Mike Summers to talk as representant of a non government.
Fact3: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/01/182294.htm
“The US recognize a DE FACTO United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty”
Well, you see, for the UN, ergo the world community, there is a colony, a non self governed territory in Malvinas, which sovereignty is under dispute. So the fact the british says its up to the islanders government, they are denying the sovereignty dispute and denying their colonial situation. So they want the world to recognise a self determined people the UN does not recognise as such.
I underestand and is logical that the UK play the self determination card, becouse it is their position on the dispute. But to use dead bodies, as a coin to convince the red Cross of british sovereignty rights over the islands, its terrible, very shamefull with not the least of excuses. We may agree or disagree regardless the sovereignty dispute, but to use the fallen of the conflict of 1982 as coins....
From the british side, it would be good for the british cause to get Argentina recognising a “falklands government”, becouse it would set precedent, that the argentine government recognize a new government sovereign in the islands. Not juridically for the umbrella agreement, but definitely it will means that Argentina agree with Britain that there is not a colony on the islands but a self determined people. While the UN considers quite the contrary.
#20:May be you are right im not a family of any of those fallen so i cant imagine what they may feel.
@21 Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is not a 'colony'. The situation has changed. Just like Argentina is not a colony of Spain.
You lost a War. A war you began. The UK did not ask for war. Argentina did.
When will you accept responsibility?
The victors decide the history, such as it always ha s been.
Question: Is Germany entitled to Austria or Poland?
Accept that you did wrong.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not to lie.
===============================
80 families, against 43 who maybe, do not want disturbance.
What peace for them?
Argentina has not asked the Falkland Islands Government for permission.
Argentina lost a war that they started, so has no place to 'demand' anything.
Accept that you lost, forever. And move on.
Fact 1: I how they regard it, just like they would with any other territory where another country was making a claim. The UK doesn't need to validate it's reason, protecting people that have lived there for nine generations is enough validation.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact2: Because, no matter what you think, Britain leaves as much governance as possible to the local government, really our governmental situation isn't that different to the Isle of Mann.
Fact 3: Fair enough.
Why would the British government need to convince the Red Cross, they are an aid organisation. As for setting a precedent , it was set in 1999. I don't really see how you can say that this is political point scoring from the UK when all they have said is talk to the Falkland Islanders it is up to them, if Argentina cared only about the families then I'm pretty sure the Red Cross could approach us in such a way that it wouldn't upset their sensibilities.
“it will means that Argentina agree with Britain that there is not a colony on the islands but a self determined people. While the UN considers quite the contrary.” I don't see that, the UN aren't saying “The Falklands have to have all their decisions Westminster, they are not allowed their own internal government”. This isn't exactly a great example but say for instance the roles were reversed, the UK went to the Casa Rosada and they said fine with us talk to the provincial government about getting it set up would the UK be justified saying no we will only talk to the federal government?
Ilsen, At some point, regardless what you think, you have to accept that the UN still consider the islands a colony, and still consider the island's sovereignty under dispute.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The victors decide the history? really?. So the people in Iraq had no sovereign rights becouse they were defeated militarilly by the uk?. You dont really need to be a lawer to underestand that winning a war does not give you any sovereign right over the enemy. You can only gain territory after a war if the nation that losed sign a peace treaty giving you the territory under dispute.
About the Families, i dont know what would be fair to those 80 families that have the right to know where their son is buried and if its there. And the 43 who do not want to disturb their son's peace. For me both choices are important. It is very delicate and should be agreed by all of them together.
From my point of view, i think it is very irrespectfull what the british are doing. Very very shamefull. Not to the argentine government, but to families that losed love ones fighting for their nation. Most of them were not volunteers, were conscripts. Some argentine publishers did something similar with a ww2 monument in the islands, which i think, regardless our differences must all agree it is wrong.
We can think different, but some things should not be taken as coins in the dispute if you know what i mean.
Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact 1. The UN does indeed recognise that their is a dispute over the Falkland Islands. It does, however, recognise de facto (Latin for in fact) British sovereignty over them.
Fact 2. The UN Secretary General stated that ALL the people of NSGTs have the RIGHT to self determination. Thus the UN recognises that the people of the Falkland Islands (which is listed by the UN as a NSGT) have the right to self determination.
Fact 3. Your Fact 3 is YOUR opinion NOT a FACT. In case you've forgotten the US supported the UK in the Falklands War, not Argentina. At best the USA is neutral on the Falkland Islands. That means that they haven't taken anyone's side.
@24 The reason that the UN still have the Falklands as a Non Self Governing Territory is because the C24, which was set up to PROTECT the people of Non Self Governing Territories and assist them to full independence, hasn't done it's job since in the last 50 years.
The UK hasn't acted shamefully regarding the Argentine dead. In fact the UK and the people of the Falkland Islands have shown nothing but respect to the Argentine dead.
It is Argentina that should hang it's head in shame. It was those Argentine veterans who wouldn't identify the bodies of these soldiers in 1982. It is the Argentine government who is trying to score very cheap political points out of your dead.
It is the Argentine government who hasn't even approached the ICRC regarding this matter. You see, Liberato, saying you are going to do something and actually doing something are NOT the same thing. The Argentine government approached the Red Cross local chapter in Argentina, and were told that they would have to speak to the Falkland Islands Government. So nothing has been done.
The UK and the FIG won't do anything unless the ICRC are involved, and all the correct protocols, regulations, and laws of the Falkland Islands must be followed.
It is Argentina that should hang its head in shame at the disgraceful behaviour of your government.
@24 Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“From my point of view, i think it is very irrespectfull what the british are doing.” Kindly explain what it is exactly that the British are doing that is “irrespectful”(note correct spelling!) and shameful.
24 liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine soldiers went to war by invading the Falkland Islands and fighting there as occupiers until they were killed or surrendered and captured.
The dead were buried there, and not brought home to Argentina.
If they went there and not turned up in 33 years, where do think they are ????
@24 Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0While your ignorance of international law is forgivable, your accusation that the British are acting shamefully is pretty despicable. The British together with the FIs buried the Argentine soldiers, made a cemetery for them, attempted to identify as many of them as possible (but with little help from their Argentine officers) and today permit the families to visit the cemetery asking only that they behave respectfully on the islands. What would be shameful would be for the FIs to disturb the bodies of the fallen without the unanimous agreement of the families so it is only correct that the correct procedures are followed. That this means the Argentinine government will have to deal with the FIG at some point is tough luck. Previous Argentine administrations talked with both the UK and FIG over fishing and hydrocarbons so it is hardly an inviolable point of principle for Argentina. The problem here is simply that the current Argentine government needs to distract voters and get them to be angry at someone else other than their failing government. In your case, this oft-repeated trick has clearly worked.
18 Liberato (#)
Oct 28th, 2015 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Question: When is a ‘fact’ not, in fact, a ‘fact’?
Answer: When it is being put forward by the GoA or one of its apologists.
When Argentina tries to misrepresent the status of the Falkland Islands by using weasel words like ‘colonial situation’ (whatever that means), Argentina is lying.
When Argentina tries to deny the rights of the Islanders to exist as Falkland Islanders and to self-determination, just so it has an excuse to colonise the Islands it is a thief.
When Argentina makes false claims as to the amount of international support it has for its sovereignty claim, it misrepresents the facts and betrays a blatant lack of respect for the nations or the world and the truth. Once again it is lying.
The humiliating outcome of Argentina’s illegal invasion of the Falklands in 1982 and its continual bullying and, harassment towards the Falkland Islanders before and since reveal a nation that is a cowardly bully.
Argentina’s inability to accept reality over the Falklands reveals a weak minded nation that is incapable of behaving in a sensible civilised manner and prosecuting a mature foreign policy. Because of this it has damaged its reputation abroad and deprived the people of Argentina of valuable cultural, diplomatic and trading opportunities.
The Red Cross and the UN have quite a few things on their plate at the moment: this though should take absolute priority, ASAP. The Pope, Dala Lama and Yoko Ono could also help facilite; it's just a shame Gandhi is still not with us, he'd make fine intermediary between FIG And BaAs.
Oct 28th, 2015 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21 Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If the islands are not self determined and not self governed, what the hell is the validity of mr Mike Summers to talk as representant of a non government.”
Mike Summers was democratically elected by voters resident in the Islands to the FIG. (Non-resident (of the Falklands)British citizens cannot vote in the Falklands).
“ But to use dead bodies, as a coin to convince the red Cross of british sovereignty rights over the islands, its terrible, very shamefull ”
But this is exactly what Argentina are doing-to use those dead soldiers as pawns in their political game. You seem to forget that it was initially Argentines who refused to identify their dead causing the problem, the British in 1982 wished to identify the Argentine soldiers, whilst Argentina did not-until 30 years later.
“So the people in Iraq had no sovereign rights becouse they were defeated militarilly by the uk”
So according to you, nothing to do with the USA then? The majority of forces used in Iraq were not British but USA forces.
Your attempt to airbrush the USA out of the Iraq war has failed.
“The US recognize a DE FACTO United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty”
So they don't support Argentina's claim either. If they did not recognise British authority over the Islands, they would not recognise a de facto administration either.
”So the fact the british says its up to the islanders government, they are denying the sovereignty dispute and denying their colonial situation”
In fact the opposite. If this was a colonial situation, the British would tell the Islanders what to do and impose their will. The very fact that the Governor can no longer vote on Falkland Island laws is another indicator that the Islands are not a colony.
If the Falklands were a colony, the Islanders would not be allowed to make their own laws.
If the British wanted to impose a colonial status they would send over people irrespective of FIG's wishes.
@Pete Bog
Oct 28th, 2015 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arg also forgets it played a non combatant supporting role in GW1
@Liberato
Oct 28th, 2015 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN consider the Falklands as a “Non-Self-Governing Territory”. Offensive when you consider that they are modern self-governing democracies, far more democratic than many of the countries on the C24 committee.
All of which have the right to self-determination, according to Ban Ki-Moon and the UN.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
Which applies irrespective of any alleged sovereignty dispute.
Attempts by Argentina and Spain to limit the right to self-determination where there was a sovereignty dispute, were rejected by a majority vote in the UNGA in 1965 and again in 2008.
The British claim is not based on conquest but on previous discovery in 1592, landing on in 1690, issued paperwork claiming (copies to every embassy in London) in1748, taking possession of and founding a settlement on in 1765.
All events long before Argentina ever existed in any shape or form. You see now why the British regard Argentina’s alleged sovereignty claim as frivolous at best.
The British Gov has said nothing whatsoever about exhumations neither has the FIG, which is only now seeking clarification from the ICRC following inexplicable statements from the GoA.
The GoA however has been loudly complaining to the world, that it has not yet received any responses to the demands it has not yet made.
I repeat:
“Can the GoA give assurances that all the relatives support their “demands” to do this?”
“Have they even checked, before putting them through this in public (as in world public), particularly if they don’t agree?”
Tell us again who is using your war dead as political coins?
24 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know how things work in your country, but in mine, there are laws governing who may dig up corpses and under what circumstances.
If you want to dig up a body in the Falkland Islands, I'm assuming you need to apply to the court in Stanley for the local coroner to grant an exhumation order. That applies to everyone, including the Red Cross. The people to advise on this are the Attorney General's Chambers, also in Stanley. This matter is governed by Falkland Islands Law, which is an independent legal system to UK law. It has been for over 100 years. You may not like this, and it may not fit with the narrative you have fabricated to give your claim some kind of sense, but your version does not become true just because you keep saying it.
I can't see how you can accuse anyone (except the Government of Argentina) of using the dead as 'coins'. All the UK Government and FIG has said is that there are appropriate channels for this. Use them.
You seem to think the the UK should tell the FIG what to do. How can this be true? Have you even read the UN Charter that sets out guidelines for the proper treatment of NSGTs? It says that Territories should have the maximum possible control over their own affairs. Well we do, and we have a constitution that describes our rights and responsibilities in accordance with the UN Charter.
Sadly for you, this has nothing to do with Argentina. It's not your responsibility or concern.
#25: Fact1: The UN call the islands Falklands Islands(Malvinas) in english or Islas Malvinas(Falklands) in spanish .And recognise the colonial situation and the sovereignty dispute.
Oct 29th, 2015 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact2: The UN recognise all people have the right to self determination. You think the population in the islands constitute a people. An entity different to those living in the uk. For Argentina, they are not an entity different to those in the UK. For the UN, they are a colonial british administration, administered by the UK.
Fact23: IT is not my opinion, The USA (your closest ally) Do not believe the islands are british. As simple as that.
#26: English is not my language, so unless we talk in spanish...
#29: you said: //”When Argentina tries to misrepresent the status of the Falkland Islands by using weasel words like ‘colonial situation’ (whatever that means), Argentina is lying. ”//
Nope, It is not Argentina who claim that there is a colonial situation in the islands, it is the UN. And for them that situation continues today. You should read at least one resolution regarding the islands, at least, show some interest.
#31, I dont really care who Mike Summer is. Becouse again, there is not a legitimate government in the islands. There is a non self governing territory, a colony, which sovereignty, is in dispute between the UK and Argentina. Dont wanna sound agresive but the fact the british says they are not a colony, doesnt change the fact they are. Regardless of how much we believe in all what the UK government says.
All people have rights to self determination. That is what the UN aproved in article 2 of resolution 1514 of The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The UN supported and support this initiative along with Argentina. The problem is Britain that abstained in this resolution and vote against all res about decolonization.
#34 Monty69 There is no country called Falklands. There is a colony instead.
“You think the population in the islands constitute a people. An entity different to those living in the uk. For Argentina, they are not an entity different to those in the UK. For the UN, they are a colonial british administration, administered by the UK.”
Oct 29th, 2015 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The important thing about the people - or non-people, if you prefer - of the Falkland Islands is that they are an entity very different to those in Argentina and they have no desire to be annexed ruled by Argentina. If they were ruled by Argentina they would be every bit as much of a colony and - like the Argentines themselves - would be a colonial Argentine administration, administered by Argentina.
It is an interesting example of the cultural differences between Argentina and the Falkland Islands that the Argentine government and many Argentines are so completely unaware that their methods of trying to persuade the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands of the virtues of Argentine rule are not merely ineffective but make the Falklanders loathe Argentina and distrust Argentines more and more.
@36 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Most of your posting is misinformed and as you say that Spanish is your first language perhaps you would care to peruse this link.
http://www.falklandshistory.com/historia-falsa.pdf
@35 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact 1 is true, the UN refers to it as the Falkland Island(Malvinas). But it still recognises de facto (once again Latin for 'in fact') British sovereignty of the Islands. That will NEVER change unless one the following happens:
1. Argentina takes its sovereignty case to the ONLY body in the WHOLE world that can ORDER a change of sovereignty, namely the International Courts of Justice, and then they would have to rule in Argentina's favour. Argentina's problem is that you would have to provide PROOF as to why a 6 week occupation by military forces in late 1832 overrides prior British sovereignty of the Islands, ignores that a civilian population was on the Islands prior to military occupation AND can overrule the principle of Self Determination as laid out by the UN Charter, supported by various resolutions, and reaffirmed by the UN Secretary General.
2. The FI's declare independence.
Fact 2. Yes the UN states that ALL people have the right to Self Determination. The UN states that ALL Non-Self Governing Territories (which the Falkland Islands are listed as by the UN) have the right to Self Determination.
It is the UN that states this. You can dehumanise the people of the Falkland Islands as much as you want, but various UN documents, resolutions and the Charter itself all state that ALL people (not people's) have the right to Self Determination. These documents often interchange the words 'people' and 'population' and the UN itself has NEVER given a definition of what constitutes a 'people'.
No matter how you try to twist it, the UN states that the people/population (as these are interchangeable by the UN) of the Falkland Islands have the right to Self Determination.
Argentina saying they 'aren't' people doesn't negate the FACTS that the UN say they ARE a people, and that they have rights.
Fact 3. No the USA are currently NEUTRAL - that means they haven't taken sides, because they don't need to. But when push came to shove they backed the UK.
35#“Nope, It is not Argentina who claim that there is a colonial situation in the islands, it is the UN. And for them that situation continues today. .”
Oct 29th, 2015 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands used to be a British Colony, but after the unsuccessful Argentine invasion in 1982, the UK in accordance with the UN Charter has moved the Falklands to a self- governing status and the Islanders have an elected government. This is the same road to independence that many former British colonies followed including Australia. The existence of the FIG is evidenced by amoung other things, the consultations that it is holding with the IRC over the DNA testing on the remains of the Argentine soldiers and its representation at International forums like the UN C24 committee. Thus the Falkland’ status is not the “colonial situation” that Argentina would have us believe but a self-governing territory on its way to full independence.
For a person who professes to be so well researched, I would have thought that you would have been across these developments; but alas, like the GoA, you are stuck in the past with your head up your arse refusing to accept reality.
Even by Argentine standards of rhetoric, your claim that the people of the Falkland Islands are not a ‘people’ is as self-serving as it is immoral. But in spite of the fact that your attempt to get this inhumane idea past the UN was roundly defeated (as it should) you continue to propagate this reasoning in support of your fraudulent Malvinas myth.
It is a sad reflection on the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Argentine foreign policy and diplomacy over the last decades that last year’s referendum in in the Falklands could, in theory, have been very different and the people may have elected to form a closer association with Argentina. But instead, because of your odious, self-centered approach, the Islands are further away from Argentina than they have ever been.
Closed parachute, closed mind, killed.
FACT: if only 83 of 120 families want the bodies exhumed for DNA testing, then it is the 40 odd families that don't want anybody exhumed that will now, and always, stop any exhumation and DNA testing taking place.
Oct 29th, 2015 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ALL of those families are Argentine.
FACT
#36: quote: “The important thing about the people - or non-people, if you prefer -” Nonono, they are people, they are the british people, nobody is denying that. But what im saying is that there is not A people distinct to those in the uk.
Oct 29th, 2015 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah yes, we the argentines are the axis of evil, we are the colonialists, you got me.
#37: Gordo1, you should print it, make pamphlets with it and start visit door to door. May be you will fool more people that way.
#38: fact1:We should both agree there are british people living in the islands right?. Now their presence there is by de facto or by de iure. For the US, the UN, Argentina, there is a de facto british administration of the territory. Now until the sovereignty dispute is solved, we cant define if their presence there is by de iure or not.
Fact2: i do not dehumanise islanders. Again, im not the axis of evil, you guys should try to find another enemy in other place. The UN considers that the islands are in a colonial situation, but it doesnt mean they dehumanise islanders by putting them in the colony list.
No, the UN have not stated that a population in Malvinas have rights to self determination. In Fact, the uk tried to add in a resolution regarding Malvinas a self determination right and were refused by the members of the UN.
Again, Argentina is not saying they arent people. Its obvious you do that on purpose. You know what i mean, but i know its confortable for you to say we dehumanise, we ignore people existance, .... It reminds me of the previous of the invasion of Iraq when your government said Hussein is a dictator, have weapons of mass destruction, torture and kill people without a trial, etc. And then you invaded them, tortured them and hanged him without a fair trial. bombing civilians, etc.
#39: quote:“...the UK in accordance with the UN Charter ” Ahh ok the UN charter, not the UN body.
Not self serving nor immoral. The islands remains being considered a colony. Never had other status.
http://www.un.org.
@41 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Me sorprende que haya leído la totalidad del link para poder opinar tan rápidamente. So I am assuming you have not read it! Please read it in its entirety especially the part that refers to the Arana Southern Treaty of 1850.
2) I am not the author of the paper. The authors are eminent and well known British academics who, you may be surprised to learn, were given access to official files in Buenos Aires - government files! The paper has been well distributed and Argentina has NEVER directly refuted its contents.
Please do not dismiss it with such alacrity as it is a TRUE representation of the facts NOT a series of lies, cuentos de hadas, and myths with which Argentina presents its nonsensical claims and assertions.
@41 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Ahh ok the UN charter, not the UN body.
Not self serving nor immoral. The islands remains being considered a colony. Never had other status”
Sorry, it's not up to you or Argentina, to decide the status of the Islands or the Islanders.
They are NOT YOURS, and never had any other status.
@41:
Oct 29th, 2015 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“May be you will fool more people that way.”
You can't “fool” people with the truth.
“Now until the sovereignty dispute is solved, we cant define if their presence there is by de iure or not.”
Unfortunately, that will take some time, as Argentina refuses ICJ arbitration, which is the fairest and quickest way to solve the dispute (besides Argentina 'fessing up and dropping their claim of course).
“...the uk tried to add in a resolution regarding Malvinas a self determination right and were refused by the members of the UN.”
Not entirely accurate. Argentina tried to amend a resolution acknowledging the rights of people to self-determination - to exempt sovereignty disputed areas. This amendment was rejected.
“Again, Argentina is not saying they arent people.”
Not in so many words, but your politicians have made undeniably false labels for the Islanders before. “Squatters”. “Pirates”. A few charming people here prefer “Okupas”.
What are those names if not lies to dehumanise the Falkland Islanders?
“The islands remains being considered a colony. Never had other status.”
The Islands are a Self-Governing Territory, that may not be disputed. The C24 refuses reclassification and recognition of self-determination, in no small part due to Argentina lying to them over the Falklands for so long. To deny that is “self serving...immoral”.
Liberato is clearly just another malvinista troll!
Oct 29th, 2015 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the study of the Concepts of Right of peoples, in 1989, provided a detailed and standard description of “people”. According to the description which is some times referred to as the “Justice Kirby definition”, a ‘people’ is:
Oct 29th, 2015 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the
following common features:
(a) a common historical tradition;
(b) a racial or ethnic identity;
(c) cultural homogeneity;
(d) linguistic unity;
(e) religious or ideological affinity;
(f) territorial connection;
(g) common economic life.”
In addition to the above description, the UNESCO Experts added that: “the group must be of a certain number which need not be large…but which must be more than a mere association of individuals within a state”; the group as whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people…”; and “the group must have institutions or other means of
expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.
@ Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn’t read the links, did you?
“UN Decoded: Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs)”
“The UN monitors progress towards self-determination in the Territories, of which there are currently 17: American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands and Western Sahara.”
No mention anywhere there or in any other UN document of any kind anywhere, ever, of needing to constitute “a people” nor any definition of what constitutes “a people”.
In simple terms, the people/population of the territory have the right to decide if they want to remain British, or change to something else.
There is no other interpretation of the UN documents, in any sensible discussion using English.
You are trying to argue the meaning of something is not what it actually says, but is something it doesn’t say anything about.
Maybe you can do this in Spanish but you can’t in English, and still appear grown up.
Even if you ever do get the UN to agree to re-classify the “population”, so you can strip them of their rights and make them wear little yellow badges, it doesn’t change the basic facts of the situation that Argentina has no legitimate claim to the territory in the first place.
I repeat:
The British claim is not based on conquest but on previous discovery in 1592, landing on in 1690, issued paperwork claiming (copies to every embassy in London) in 1748, taking possession of and founding a settlement on in 1765.
All events long before Argentina ever existed in any shape or form.
The fact is the Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina.
Just a bit of levity! What juvenile behaviour!
Oct 29th, 2015 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11962681/Jeremy-Clarkson-faces-three-years-in-jail-as-Argentina-reopens-Falklands-row-probe.html
41 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're still doing it. You're like a stuck record. You keep saying we're British; of course we have British citizenship. We're a British Overseas Territory. This has no bearing at all on our right to self-determination.
The point is, firstly that we have our own distinct history and culture, developed over nearly 200 years. Secondly, we are utterly distinct from Argentina, historically, culturally, linguistically, ethnically. Our rights to develop our own social, political and legal structures according to our wishes and interests are enshrined in the UN Charter, Chapter 11 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml.
We are on the UN's list of NSGTs. We are not excluded from these rights.
You might not like our 'colonial status', but you can't end it by making us a colony of Argentina against our will. How do you plan to do that? Martial law? Internment? We would never agree to it, so some kind of force would be necessary, as it was in 1982. Let's hear your plan.
Why don't you also tell us how you view the other OTs. Do they all have no right to self-determination as well? How about Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands? Do they have no say in their future, or are we special? Are you suggesting ripping up the UN Charter altogether? Or just making a special case for the Falklands, just because Argentina wants our home?
@49 Monty69
Oct 29th, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The plan is for you to go the same way the original inhabitants of Patagonia and TDF did, when they were colonised by murdering Creole Planter bastards.
#49
Oct 29th, 2015 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I am sure he is worried. Have the clowns in Ushuaia decided that Top Gear co-hosts Richard Hammond and James May be summoned to sourt.
I can guess what their reply would be along these lines...remove yourself forthwith in a sexual manner.
@ 51 Clyde15
Oct 29th, 2015 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OR: “Urinate on your way out of the building”. :o)
Re my 48
Oct 29th, 2015 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently there is an Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the UK. I wonder if this will be invoked in the case of Jeremy Clarkson?
@53 gordo1
Oct 29th, 2015 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First they'd have to actually prove that he committed a crime, which he didn't.
Even if the whole number plate thing was actually deliberate (which it wasn't) it isn't actually a crime to take the p!ss out of people. There is such a thing as freedom of expression, which Argentina would have to prove that they no longer have (which we all know - but they pretend that they do), and then the UK would still tell them to bugger off and do one.
Anyone would think that all this sudden fuss over Jeremy Clarkson and the Argentine war dead was to try and divert people's attention away from some embarrassing event...like...perhaps finding out that the yacht that you spent a lot of tax payers money on, and that you planned to sail to the Falkland Islands to make a 'political' statement and subsequently abandoned in a bit of bad weather, was found and salvaged by the very people you say don't exist!
#49: quote: “You're still doing it. You're like a stuck record. You keep saying we're British; of course we have British citizenship. We're a British Overseas Territory. This has no bearing at all on our right to self-determination.”
Oct 29th, 2015 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, i think you did your own answear. I keep saying you are british becouse you are, you have british citizenship. And you classified yourself as a BRITISH Overseas Territory. So yes im like a stuck record, im still thinking you are british. But the islands are not. They are a territory under a colonial situation, administered by the UK and claimed by Argentina.
It is good that you recognise you have a colonial status. More in line with what the UN claims than the falacy of democracy you try to convince.
This sovereignty will be solved only through peacefull negotiations, respecting of course, islanders interests as determined by the UN resolutions.
The other NSGT in british hands, with exemption of gibraltar, have no sovereignty disputes and remains in the list of colonies. Why? becouse they continue to be under a colonial situation. Look at the case of Turks and Caicos, where a guy born in london working as judge accused the government of corruption without presenting any proof, without any trial, the uk eliminated their “constitution” their government, etc in the name of good governance?. BS
So here i am, talking with citizens of the nation with the most amount of colonies in this 21 century that is even voting against any resolution regarding decolonization. Do you know one resolution regarding decolonization that the UK voted in Favour? one?.
What about the self determination rights of the inhabitants of Hong Kong? or what about the chagossian Islanders? or what about the inhabitants of the Banabans Island?.
55 Liberato
Oct 29th, 2015 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody is disputing that we are a British Overseas Territory.
We had a referendum and decided that we wanted to carry on being one. It was our choice, and we'll carry on being one until we decide not to be one any more.
If we'd decided to become independent or to become part of Argentina, the the UK government would have respected our choice.
One of the consequences of that choice is that if our government embezzle public funds, then the UK Government will step in. Personally, I'm totally happy with that. I have every faith in the elected representatives I voted for, but I have no issue with the UK Government having the power to step in to maintain good governance if it ever came to it.
The point you seem to be missing is that we have chosen this form of governance, because it is in our best interests at the present time. No-one can decide what is in our interests except us. There isn't an Argentine alive who has a better idea about what is best for Falkland Islanders than we do.
I'm quite surprised you find the case of the Chagossians relevant to your case. The UK is presently conducting a public consultation with a view to righting past wrongs. And yet you seem to think that we should be treated in the same manner, or worse. And Hong Kong was returned under the terms of a treaty, as you well know. Sadly for you, there was no such treaty with Argentina. How could there be when Argentina didn't exist?
Liberato- May I point out a little UN Fact for you.
Oct 30th, 2015 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Under UN rules etc the British Govt is required to annually or bi annualy (not sure which) report to the UN that it has kept an eye on and can ensure that there is and has been Good Democratic Governance in the Falkland Islands - and the other Br territories.
This is done by all our laws - made locally by our elected representatives - requiring the signature of the UK Govt and the Queen before they become law here - thus ensuring our Govt is not doing anything wrong or to swindle its people. In the UK itself they have the House of Lords who keep a check on new laws and decide to pass them or not.
How is this form of check done in Argentina?
#56 Monty: You said: “...I have no issue with the UK Government having the power to step in to maintain good governance if it ever came to it.”
Oct 30th, 2015 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0And who decide what is a good governance? Who is in charge of that?.
I have no doubt you are totally happy having the uk controlling what is good and what is wrong if we consider the status of the islands. Personally, i cant underestand why if Turks and Caicos had a governor accused of corruption by a judge who lives in britain was not judged in Turks and Caicos, and what is worse, what has to do their constitution with a polititian accused of corruption to be erased?. Is that fragil the legal system? the constitution? The institutions in general for “good governance” purposes?. And you are happy with that?.
Wow, the UK will fix the past wrongs....
About How Kong, let me see if i understand correctly. We are tired of hearing the uk governing whining about the important of the self determination right, that there is nothing more important. That they cant do anything without consulting the peoples of the territories they colonised, etc. Now where was the referendum in Hong Kong?. Do you think that a treaty is more important than a self determination right?.
So to be brief, do you think that a treaty like the one made with China over Hong Kong eliminate a self determination right of a people living there?.
#57: Really? Eliminating the constitution? Was the constitution (made in London) accused of corruption too?. You always compare yourself with Australia. Is Australia's constitution erased by the uk when a polititian there is accused of corruption?.
The administering power must ensure good governance in your own territory, to develop that territory.
Your laws? you means the english laws applied by english imported lawers and judges.
58 Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have an independent judiciary, free from political interference. I realise this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp. We also have laws that govern the ways in which our government conducts its business. The conduct of government, and government finances in particular are independently audited. This is all in the constitution. It doesn't override the constitution.
I know this because I took part in the consultation process that decided what was going to be in the constitution.
As for 'English Laws and English lawyers'. Well no. Falkland Islands law is separate from UK law and has been for many years. Our elected legislative council can make any laws they like. I went to a meeting just last week as part of a process to overhaul family law in the Falklands. Our Senior Crown Counsel is a Falkland Islander.
You still don't get it do you. We know what our legal system is, and our constitution. We chose them, and we helped write them. We know much more about them than you do. We want them, and we don't want Argentina. You can parade your ignorant assumptions on here if you want to, but it only makes it clearer to us, that we made the right choice.
You might be tired of the UK government talking about self-determination, in fact I'm sure you are. Personally, I'll never get tired of hearing about it. Happily, your opinion is not required. Neither do we need your expert opinion on international law. I can quite believe that you don't understand anything about honouring treaty obligations.
@58 Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0You clearly need to return to Wikipedia and get deeper information about Hong Kong(99 year lease of the New Territories, for example) and the Turks and Caicos.
Your brainwashed thinking is appalling!
Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0When it comes to the Falkland’s, what does Argentina really want?
On the one hand you complain about what Argentina perceives as a ‘colonial situation’. On the other hand, when Britain addresses this complaint by acting in accordance with the aims of the UN Charter and progresses the Island’s towards independence, you don’t want that either!
So what does Argentina really want? It’s hard to know because spokesman like yourself wont articulate honestly and clearly Argentina’s intentions. Is this because you all realize that Argentina’s intentions are so odious, so unacceptable to the civilised world at large that you dare not speak them? Honesty is not one of Argentina’s strong points.
Many posters on this thread have written logical, well-reasoned and factual rebuffs to the tired old arguments that you have put forward. There is one thing about you trolls, you all sing from the same song sheet! But because you are unable to refute there work, like a dog going back to its vomit, you just repeat your failed arguments or try and divert attention by attacking the UK. Talk about people in glass houses!
Do you consider the Falkland Islander’s to be ‘people’ or not? Or are they people in some circumstances but squatters and usurpers and non-people when it comes to the ownership of their country? Once again, there are mixed messages on this issue.
If Argentina is incapable of honestly telling the world what it wants, what hope does it have of ever achieving what it wants?
@55:
Oct 30th, 2015 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This sovereignty will be solved only through peacefull negotiations...”
But could be be solved much more quickly in two ways that are fair to all three involved parties:
1: Argentina takes the sovereignty claim to the ICJ, and agrees to abide by their ruling.
2: Argentina drops their claim.
“...respecting of course, islanders interests as determined by the UN resolutions.”
Of course, the fairest way to respect the Islanders interests is to have them represent those interests in negotiations - something Argentina has refused to the point of walking out of negotiations.
@35 Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“English is not my language, so unless we talk in spanish...”
Kindly note instructions from Moderator above “Comments must be in English. Thank you.”
#59: independent judiciary???. wow you Senior Crown Councel have a “falklands” status. But what about your Chief Justice? ,the Senior Magistrate?, the lawers?.
Oct 30th, 2015 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/news/judicial-opportunity-chief-justice-falkland-islands
https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/news/judicial-opportunity-chief-justice-falkland-islands
You took part in the consultation process that decided what was going to be in the constitution that was written in London, by english lawers and im sure that “constitution” was in line with the “constitution” made for the rest of the NSGT in british hands.
Now i wonder did they consulted you in London or Stanley?.
quote:“You might be tired of the UK government talking about self-determination, in fact I'm sure you are. Personally, I'll never get tired of hearing about it”
Nope in fact Argentina voted in favour of resolution 1514. It was the uk who abstained. And it is the colonial power that has always abstained or voted against in all decolonization resolutions.
#60 The lease was not about Hong Kong or KowLoon island. And even if it was. Wasnt the self determination right of peoples more important for you than anything else?. Hong Kong depended a lot for supplies from Mong Kok thats why they decided to return them. You should prove me wrong before telling me i know nothing about it.
#61: You are confused. The uk is acting as if the islanders were a subjugated people. They are not becouse they are british and not a different people from those living in Britain. Its like if one of Argentina's antartic base claimed self determination rights to the whole antartic.
We are all people. We all belong to a people. There is the argentine people, and the british people. The islanders form part of the british people. There is no nation called Falklands. Check the UN if you want.
It is very easy to put a link and tell me to refute it. Im instead refutting all the crap you are tell me while you did not responded mine.
#64
Oct 30th, 2015 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's cut to the chase instead of trying to score debating points.
I am assuming that you think that the sovereignty of the Falklands, South Georgia and the other sub - Antarctic islands, including the seas around, belongs to Argentina.
WHY ?
64 Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You aren't refuting anything. You're making up stuff and posting it as fact. You're forgetting that those of us who actually know the facts can see right away that you're an idiot.
Rather than being 'sure' that our constitution is the same as all the other OTs, based on your own prejudice, why don't you actually read it? I can pretty much guarantee that it isn't the same. And the meetings I went to weren't in either London or Stanley.
Our Senior Crown Counsel is a lawyer. And a Falkland Islander born in the Falklands. There is a very good reason why the Senior Magistrate to a community of 3000 isn't from here, and can't stay for more than 4 years. You seem to be too stupid to work it out. As for the Chief Justice, there are so few cases that need one, that there is no need at all to have one here permanently. Most cases are dealt with by the Magistrates.
I'm touched by your concern, really I am, but our legal system and all the checks and balances in place to make sure it's fair are totally fine from my point of view. And I know it better than you do, and I'm directly interested in it, which you are not. But thanks anyway.
As for our not being a 'subjugated people', that is not necessary for the right to self determination. We are a different people from the rest of the UK. Falkland Island society has developed over 200 years. The differences are obvious to anyone who's actually been here. The UK thinks so, and that's all that matters. What you think, based on a total lack of experience and reliable information, is simply not relevant.
And anyway, if Argentina ever got its hands on the Falklands, we definitely would be a subjugated people, so there isn't really any point in you trying, is there.
Nobody said there was a 'nation called Falklands'..There isn't a nation called Turks and Caicos, or Anguilla, or St Helena either. I'm still waiting for you to tell me about how they all form part of the British people.
Liberato is showing all the traits which are typical of all the other brainwashed trolls who appear here from time to time. He has been so convinced since infancy that “las Malvinas son nuestras” that he really doesn't realise that all his arguments are totally lacking in veracity and are just parrot-like versions of the nonsense quoted by all the trolls.
Oct 30th, 2015 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is just a more verbose version of paulcedron - but much less vulgar!
@ Liberato
Oct 30th, 2015 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“im still thinking you are british. But the islands are not”.
This the fundamental flaw in your thinking, like many Argys you believe that if you can only argue away the “inhabitants” rights, then Argentina has a case.
You don’t, the Islands have still been British territory since long before Argentina ever existed in any shape or form.
Oh, and:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/UNdecoded/UNdecoded.asp?NewsID=1320&sID=48
“The UN Charter binds administering Powers to recognize that the interests of dependent Territories are paramount; to agree to promote social, economic, political and educational progress in the Territories; to assist in developing appropriate forms of self-government; and to take into account the political aspirations and stages of development and advancement of each Territory. Administering Powers are also obliged under the Charter to convey to the UN information on conditions in the Territories.”
And:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/UNdecoded/UNdecoded.asp?NewsID=1320&sID=48
“Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.”
The point about all this is that the Islanders have the right to decide to become a nation, if and when they so choose.
Don’t forget those Antarctic bases, are on British territory (long established British Territory) and at some point are going to have to go, you know that, don’t you.
Just so you know, like.
Malvinas is argentina and the remains of the soldiers should be recognized https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/booklet-argentinas-actions-at-the-united-nations/
Oct 30th, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@69 PepperJohn
Oct 30th, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More lies, myths and fairy tales from the RUDAS family.
@69Pepperjohn
Oct 30th, 2015 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ushuaia was founded by the British.
Time for you squatters to leave and hand it back to a country that can get the sewers to work.
@69 PepperJohn
Oct 30th, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What do you mean “recognised”, do you think they are in disguise or something, fool!
If you mean “identified” then go ask the relatives what they think about that.
No one gives a sh*t what you think.
Muppet.
#68: quote1: “This the fundamental flaw in your thinking, like many Argys you believe that if you can only argue away the “inhabitants” rights, then Argentina has a case.”
Oct 30th, 2015 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Inhabitants rights are guaranteed in the argentine constitution. If you refer to self determination rights, they dont have one over Malvinas becouse it is not their land. This is simply, there is a sovereignty dispute, Argentina says the islands are argentinians and the british says they are british. The UN do not know who is the owner of the place. What they know is that there is a colonial situation and have to decolonize them. To decolonize them, they need to know who is the owner of the place, so they invite the UK and Argentina to negotiate in order to procede with the decolonization process. Does anyone asked the islanders what they want? nope becouse they are a colony.
Definition of Colony:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
An area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
a group of people who settle in a distant land but remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land
So here we are waiting for the UK to listen to the UN and negotiate sovereignty with Argentina. Islanders are invited of course but never as a third party becouse they are not a third party. They have interests, not self determination rights.
quote2: “You don’t, the Islands have still been British territory since long before Argentina ever existed in any shape or form.”
You mean by the brief settlement the british made hidden from the french and spanish?.
About the links you gave, colonial powers are obliged to work to develop the colony for the interests of the inhabitants. To do their most to grant them self government.
bye
Liberato
Oct 31st, 2015 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You are confused” Yes, unfortunately you are! Allow me to try and explain it to you again, it’s quite simple really:
1.The Falkland Islanders are people who live in what the UN terms a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).
2. The UN Charter binds administering Powers to, inter alia; assist in developing appropriate forms of self-government in each territory.
The UK is doing exactly what the Charter requires; it has granted the Falklands an appropriate form of self-government - the FIG.
That’s it in a nutshell!
As much as you would like to think otherwise, the UN is NOT Argentina’s friend when it comes to the Falklands; the UN Charter is quite specific about how the people of former colonies should be advanced to full independence. There is no comfort in that for Argentina.
Pugol H #68 and others has already explained this to you (several times) and provided you with the appropriate links.
It may be difficult for a Latino to understand this, but many of the world’s former colonies have achieved a peaceful transition to full independence via self-government, Australia being a fine example. Violence and war was not required because the administering power (the UK) followed a progressive enlightened approach when it came to the self-determination of its former subjects.
There is no point in me ‘putting links in’ to refute your arguments when clearly you don’t read the links that you have been given or you read but are so bigoted in your thinking that you can’t comprehend what has been written
Try reading with an open mind, read the lines not between the lines, read in context and don’t just assume that because it is a UN document it must support Argentina’s fraudulent Malvina myth.
To all trying to educate the willingly blind Liberato, I point you towards the UN's own library of international law with regards the UN's declaration on granting independence to colonial countries and people.
Oct 31st, 2015 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/dicc/dicc_e.pdf
”In the immediate political context of the drafting and the diplomatic lobbying
leading on to its adoption, the Declaration was generally understood as being directed to “salt-water” Colonialism – occupation of the lands and territories of indigenous, native or aboriginal peoples, in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, who were physically separated by the oceans from their colonial Powers. There is nothing in the language or the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV) inhibiting its legal extension to situations involving relations between European colonial Powers and other European or European-derived peoples overseas.”
Any but the most stupid of people can see this means that the UN recognizes the right of Falkland Islanders to terminate their political relationship with Westminster at any time, and this right would also extend to Argentina if it were a governing 'salt water' colonial power of the Falklands.
75 screenname (#)
Oct 31st, 2015 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you.
@73
Oct 31st, 2015 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Irrelevent nonsense! And totally inaccurate!
73 Liberato
Oct 31st, 2015 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0''Does anyone asked the islanders what they want? nope becouse they are a colony. ''
This is complete bollox. Really, there is no precedent for proceeding with decolonisation without asking the inhabitants of a territory what they want. Every single place that has been decolonised has done so either at the instigation of its people, or with their full involvement. I might remind you that all the founding fathers of Argentina as a modern state were either born in Spain or were of recent Spanish ancestry. You can blither on about Hong Kong and Chagos all you like; the Chagossians will in all likelihood return home, and Hong Kong's path was decided 100 years ago.
The UN does not invite anyone to negotiate over the Falklands sovereignty. It suggested that the UN and Argentina might settle their dispute peacefully. Argentina chose to ignore that resolution. Don't whine on about the UK ignoring the UN, when the people who flouted that resolution are you.
There will never be a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina without asking us. The reason for that is that our wishes and our interests are the same thing. You can't know what is in our interests without asking us. And we will never agree, because being part of Argentina is not in our interest.
Your attitude towards Falkland Islanders is much more colonialist than the UK's. You want to subjugate a people who hate you, by force. How does that make you feel?
Monty69
Oct 31st, 2015 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ You want to subjugate a people who hate you, by force. How does that make you feel?”
Actually, I suspect it's much more sinister than that.
If their actions and their comments during the invasion are anything to go by, they want the land by 'removing' or murdering the inhabitants. A people who have been there longer than Argentina was a country, and before neighbouring Patagonia was “annexed” by murdering it's original inhabitants.
They deported the UK Governor Rex Hunt, and the UK Marines, as they saw them as British, but miscalculated when they thought the British couldn't be bothered about the fate of the Islanders.
I doubt their feelings towards the Islanders have changed much, but now they know they will have answer for any overt violence towards them.
It's chilling.
“Definition of Colony:
Oct 31st, 2015 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
An area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it.”
...which would be just as true of the Falkland Islands and their dependencies if Argentina administered them, with the further complication that the inhabitants have very different linguistic, cultural and political traditions to their rulers.
Getting back to the original subject of this post:
Any exhumation of unidentified Argentine soldiers to try to identify them is going to require the consent of the next-of-kin of all the missing soldiers. Until that has been given there is no point in going further.
When and if that consent is given, the Falkland Island Government has control of and responsibility for the cemetery in the eyes of the British government and the British government can and will do nothing more than forward messages to the FIG.
Relatives of dead Argentine soldiers and the Argentine government have dealt directly with the FIG to identify those soldiers and repatriate them or bury them in the Falklands. If the Argentine government do not do so now it looks as if they are not sincere in their proclaimed ambitions.
@73 Liberato,
Oct 31st, 2015 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An observation:
“Liberato” - it's disturbingly ironic that ones advocating taking over someone else's land and homes against their will, are the ones that have names composed of elements of democracy or liberty.
@73
“f you refer to self determination rights, they dont have one over Malvinas becouse it is not their land. This is simply, there is a sovereignty dispute, Argentina says the islands are argentinians and the british says they are british. The UN do not know who is the owner of the place. What they know is that there is a colonial situation and have to decolonize them. To decolonize them, they need to know who is the owner of the place”
Liberato,
The UK, and inclusively, the Falkland Islanders have sovereignty over the Islands.
The UN knows this.
Argentina does NOT have sovereignty.
Argentina is disputing the UK sovereignty and challenging ownership.
The UK with their FIG partners, are conscientiously administering the Islands according to UN rules of sovereign overseas territories.
The Falkland Islands have not been living for 200 years, in a vacuum devoid of sovereignty.
Your last attempt to gain sovereignty militarily 33 years ago, against the wishes of the inhabitants, failed dramatically.
The UK has made it clear that if you want to achieve sovereignty over the Islands, you need only speak to the true owners, the FIG.
If that is not acceptable, you have been invited to the International Court of Justice, for a fair hearing of your case, and a FINAL judgement of Falklands sovereignty.
You REFUSE to do either - a good indication that your case does not hold up to historical or legal scrutiny.
Meanwhile, your K government can invent an enemy and act as the People's champion for the Nationalist and Socialist ardour they whipped up.
A brilliant distraction from the real enemy within, your own Peronist, wealthy, administrators and politicians.
#74: In response to your point 1: ”Islanders are people who live in what the UN terms a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).“ I agree while you british deny such condition. So, a NSGT, which means they do not govern themselves right?. Now if they do not govern themselves, why do you want Argentina to recognize a ”government“ that do not govern that territory?. See my point?.
Nov 01st, 2015 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 02: The UN Charter binds administering Powers to, inter alia; assist in developing appropriate forms of self-government in each territory. I agree. In the decolonization process the colonial power must do their most to help improve the people who lives on the NSGT.
#75: UN's declaration on granting independence to colonial countries and people. Do you realize that Argentina voted in favour of this resolution and the UK and a few more colonial powers abstained like they still do in all decolonization related resolutions?.
#78: Did the british asked Hong Kong inhabitants what they want? Were they less humans than Malvinas inhabitants?. Is a treaty more important for you than the self determination right you want to apply to Malvinas?.
#79: I see a ”Blair against Hussein“ doctrine in your words. Sinister, removing, murdering. You forgot to tell me i have weapons of mass destruction.
#81: Quote:” it's disturbingly ironic that ones advocating taking over someone else's land and homes against their will,“
Who is gonna do that?. Ive never said that, nor did Argentina's government. Is that what happened in Hong Kong when ceded to China without the referendum like britain made in Malvinas?.
The UN only knows there is a sovereignty dispute. Thats why all documents register the british and the argentine name of the islands together. So you are lying.
quote: ”The UK with their FIG partners” Their FIG partners?????. You mean their colony!!!.
We have been invited to the International Court of Justice????? When?? by whom??? The only nation to suggest arbitration was Argentina in 1884.
Please stop lying.
@82 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“please stop lying”
Britain was prepared to go to the ICJ in 1947 and 1955, but Argentina would have nothing to do with it if they had to abide by the ICJ decision.
Now, Argentina will not take it to the ICJ themselves, because they know they have no case, but can keep the issue alive by calling for “negotiations”.
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Argentina-take-its-claim-to-sovereignty-over-the-Falkland-Islands-to-the-ICJ
Ban Ki Monn has stated that the UK is in compliance with all resolutions.
He has also confirmed that the Islanders are entitled to Self - Deteremination.
The Islanders exercised that right in 2013, deciding overwhelmingly by referendum to remain a BOT, and announcing that to the world.
Any ceding of sovereignty to Argentina, would therefore, be against their will.
STOP LYING.
The UK therefore, no longer has the power or legal right, to cede sovereignty to Argentina, without the Islanders approval.
Argentina is actively trying to sabotage the Falklands economy and economically blockade them. They are trying to persuade other countries to close their ports to Falkland shipping and aircraft, tried to destroy the fisheries by encouraging foreign jiggers to overfish the squid, and intimidate the foreign oil investors, to name but a few initiatives to make the Islands untenable to the Islanders.
PLEASE STOP LYING.
Arturo Puricelli, Argentina's defence minister, previously declared that British vessels were “contaminating” the south Atlantic and pledged to fight for the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the “Islas Malvinas”, and “We have no doubt at all that we are going to recover our Malvinas islands. The international community will support us.”
The rhetoric of Timerman and CFK has quite explicitly described the Islanders to be “like squatters”, ... they do not belong there, do not own the land, and should be replaced by 'rightful owners'.
STOP LYING
The Argentine officers openly talked of eliminating the Islanders.
#83: quote1:“Britain was prepared to go to the ICJ in 1947 and 1955”
Nov 01st, 2015 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope. That is not the truth. Britain submitted the case to the ICJ over only the dependencies of Malvinas. They were afraid of submitting the Malvinas Islands becouse they knew they could easilly lose. And if they did win the case over the dependencies they coulded get more ground to legitimate their colony on the main Islands.
http://www.icj-cij.org/ Look for it.
Ban Ki Monn Is not in Charge of Decolonization nor in charge of deciding over decolonization. What he said about decolonization in general by britain is that people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future.
What you should be interested in is what the General Assembly, The Fourth Committe and the c24 says about Malvinas case, which is, unfortunately for Britain very serious.
Quote2:“The UK therefore, no longer has the power or legal right, to cede sovereignty to Argentina, without the Islanders approval.”
All resolutions regarding Malvinas islands, be it by the GA, the Fourth Committe of the C24 request the UK and Argentina to negotiate sovereignty, taking care only about the interest of the population but not about its wishes. It cant be more clear than that.
There is no nation called Falklands, ergo, there is no flag of the Falklands, ergo you cant wave a flag of a nation that do not exist. So when british shipping go to port they have to wave a legal flag.
Quote3: “ ....they do not belong there, do not own the land, and should be replaced by 'rightful owners'”
Can you please put the source with the statemen of Timmerman and CFK?.
Cheers.
@84 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Todos bostezamos! We all yawn!
@84 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0But please explain why Argentina WON'T go to the ONLY body in the WHOLE world that can grant them sovereignty?
I mean IF your sovereignty case is so strong, like you infer, then what's to lose?
Your government bleating at the UNGA, the C24 decolonisation committee, or even the UNSC is meaningless hot air.
Even if the majority of countries on the UNGA suddenly decided to vote in Argentina's favour over the Falklands (which they have never done in the past...they've done the opposite in fact), it wouldn't change anything because UNGA resolutions AREN'T binding so there is no legal recourse to follow them. Besides the UNGA cannot order a change of sovereignty, it's out of its remit.
Even if the UNSC decided to back Argentina (the UK for some reason not using its Veto) there still wouldn't be a change of sovereignty. Why? Because the UNSC cannot order a change of sovereignty, it's out of its remit.
So the ONLY part of the UN that can rule on sovereignty is the ONLY part of the UN that Argentina avoids like the plague...namely the International Courts of Justice.
So everything that your government has done...EVER...regarding the Falklands has been a waste of the Argentine taxpayers time and money. Argentina is no closer to gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands today than they were in 1965. Half a century of wasted time, money and effort.
But lets get back on topic. Liberato, why don't you ask your government WHY they haven't approached the ICRC over the identification of the bodies? Why don't you ask your Falklands veterans WHY they didn't assist in the identification of these bodies back in 1982?
Then you can ask yourself why your approve of your government using your war dead as a political tool.
And finally you, your government and your country can continue to cry, crawl, beg, lie and allow other countries to butt-feck you from now to the end of time, but Argentina will never get sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
@86 LEPRecon
Nov 01st, 2015 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great post! Liberato either cannot (or will not) answer your posts WITHOUT prevaricating!
#82 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So, a NSGT, which means they do not govern themselves right?. Now if they do not govern themselves, why do you want Argentina to recognize a ”government“ that do not govern that territory?. See my point?.”
I am not sure if you are serious or taking the piss; but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
You need to read the Charter holistically, that is point two follows logically from point one. For example, if Argentina was the governing colonial power of the Falklands instead of the UK, the same rules would apply, under the Charter Argentina would be obliged to develop an appropriate form of self-government for its NSGT.
The FIG has been established in compliance with the UN Charter, if Argentina chooses not to recognise that government, that is its concern. However, Argentina is a member of the UN and has been strident in its criticisms of the UK for not complying with various UN resolutions AND the charter so it is hypocritical for Argentina not to recognise a government that has been established in accordance with the UN Charter. Argentina’s actions are a matter for Argentina but it has to live with its national conscience and it will be judged by the rest of the civilised world. At the end of the day, this is about the lives and the security of a small, unique population – one of Argentina’s neighbours.
Liberato,
Nov 01st, 2015 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands flag does not exist you say? So when the CommonWealth parliamentary Association meets - be it in India - South Africa-or wherever - How come the Falklands Flag is there flying in another country alongside all the other Commonwealth flags?
You are entitled to you views - but not to quote lies and make false statements - and then refuse to verify them when challenged is even worse - is Marcos your brother?
You can think what you like about the graves of your unknown soldiers - but the simple FACT is:
For anything at all to happen - Argentina will have to talk to the Falkland Islands Govt about it.
I meet a number of your veterans who visit here - I have never had one of them saying that exhumation and identification must be done,
nor from any of the group of next of kin widows and sisters and mothers who were here just a few eeeks ago.
84 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our wishes and our interests are the same thing. Going against our wishes can never be in our best interests. But just in case there is a distinction, becoming part of Argentina is not in our interest. Nobody could possibly argue that it was. You are getting excited about a minor quibble of semantics. You need to stop.
Nobody gives a stuff about what the C24 says. It isn't 'serious' for the UK. The only reason the Falklands is still on their agenda is that our politicians seem to think there is a benefit to us in turning up at the UN and saying our piece. You might remember that the UN does recognise the government of the Falklands. Our elected representatives speak at the UN C24 every year, on the same basis as the Argentine government.
Your refusal to recognise and respect the inhabitants of the Falklands and our elected government, our flag and our rights under the UN Charter, don't make you seem strong. They just make you look like nasty, racist, colonialists. The more contempt you show for us, the more you show the world that you aren't fit to be trusted with our future. In fact, you are not in our interests. Sorry, but there it is.
Your comparison of the Falklands with Hong Kong is ludicrous. The Falklands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina. It's small population is spread over a very large area. And we really really hate Argentina and everything it stands for (as eloquently articulated by yourself). How are you going to govern us if we don't want to be governed by you? In 1982, you had to station soldiers all over the place, and keep people under house arrest. You'd have to do that again. Is that what you want?
You can call our government a 'lie' all you want. Until you people start dealing with reality and not your fantasy version, there is no hope of any progress.
“All resolutions regarding Malvinas islands, be it by the GA, the Fourth Committe of the C24 request the UK and Argentina to negotiate sovereignty, taking care only about the interest of the population but not about its wishes.”
Nov 01st, 2015 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given Argentine history it is very much in the interests of the Falkland Isladers not to be ruled by Argentina, whatever their wishes.
In fact, given Argentine history it is very much in the interests of the Argentinians not to be ruled by Argentina, but their wishes are allowed to surmount their interests.
Does Liberato seem to adhere to the same position Timerman stated at one time - if the Args took over, they would govern in accordance with the UN Charter, taking into account the interests of the Islanders, but not necessarily their wishes?
Nov 01st, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's laughable that anyone, especially a self-interested foreign power, should patronisingly declare themselves more qualified and trusted to understand what the interests of the Falklanders are, than the people themselves.
Surely the Islanders are entitled to have wishes, and to act upon them.
The arrogance, of Argentina ( just to be very clear), is beyond belief!!
For Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Falkland_Islands
@84
Nov 01st, 2015 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“there is no flag of the Falklands”
It flies in the Falklands, at the Commonwealth games and at the Island games.
It flies from the back of my tractor on Liberation Day.
If it exists, then it exists, you cannot airbrush the Falklands their people, or their flag from reality.
“ taking care only about the interest of the population”
I've asked several Malvanistas this question so let's see if you can be the first to answer it?
What according to Argentina are the interests of the Falkland Islanders?
#86: You havent read not one single resolution regarding Malvinas.
Nov 01st, 2015 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The uk do not recognise jurisdiction of the ICJ for a case as old as the Malvinas dispute. The Security Council have the british veto power and the General Assembly is not an option for now due to the umbrella agreement.
I would not describe resolutions of the UN as hot air, even if they are not binding.
quote: //”Even if the majority of countries on the UNGA suddenly decided to vote in Argentina's favour over the Falklands (which they have never done in the past...they've done the opposite in fact),“//
Why dont you show me what resolutions regarding the ”falklands” the countries of the UNGA voted against Argentina. There are like 40 resolutions regarding the islands decolonization.
You think that it is a waste of money for Argentina becouse you have no idea, you cant see colonialism through money. Justice has no price. Even if we disagree on the sovereignty dispute, you cant see it as an economic problem. Do you think that only rich countries can fight for their rights?.
The islands are not self determined and according to the UN, they are not self governing either. So the british statement that a sovereignty nation like Argentina has to ask permission to a non self governing territory over the ICRC is ridiculous and a political abuse of the fallen of 82 by a colonial power.
#87: Asslicker
#88: You are only imagine what would happend if Argentina recover the islands. And you are still seeing it as if the islanders were a subjugated people under a british colonial power.
#89: The CommonWealth is a probritish community, They do not represent the international community. They are like Mercosur.
#90: No we dont look like nasty, racist, colonialists. But from the point of view of a colonial power that has 10 territories under colonialism in this century i underestand that for you we are.
#91: ?
#92: The arrogance of Argentina???
#93: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Narnia.PNG
@95 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. An “ass” is a donkey(burro) - I don't care to lick a “donkey”. Lameculos es Usted!
2. You, of course, mean the Commonwealth, don't you? Definition of commonwealth “Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically it has sometimes been synonymous with ”republicanism“. The English noun ”commonwealth“ in the sense meaning ”public welfare; general good or advantage“ dates from the 15th century.” Read and learn!!!
@95 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read all resolutions regarding the Falkland Islands, by ALL of your posts it's obvious that you haven't.
NOWHERE in ANY UNGA resolution does it state that the UK has to negotiate away its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. NOWHERE. Nothing the C24 ever states gets past the 4th committee, therefore it's bias racist bile isn't worth reading.
You say the UK doesn't recognise the ICJ jurisdiction regarding the Falklands. Where is your PROOF of this? The UK hasn't made any decision regarding the ICJ and the Falklands, because it is up to Argentina to take any grievance it has to court. The UK and indeed the Falkland Islanders are happy with the current arrangement.
So Liberato put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and take your case to court. Who knows you might win, assuming you can prove why a 6 week occupation by mutinying military forces of the United Provinces of the River Plate, can overturn previous sovereignty claims going back over 100yrs previous, a civilian colony already on the Islands before the UP turned up, and continues inhabitation by the descendants of those colonists for the last 180 years, and of course the UN Charter, which it is very apparent that you have NEVER read.
You should also look up the time when Argentina and Spain tried to remove the right to self determination of people who lived in territories under 'dispute', at the UNGA and were soundly trounced. In other words the UNGA reaffirmed that ALL people have the right to self determination.
And yes, you still will have to deal with the FIG if you want to disinter bodies, just like you would have to deal with local government in ANY country if you wanted to dig up bodies under their jurisdiction.
It's amusing to watch you defend your governments stance on this issue when we all know that they only 'invented' this dispute to distract the great unwashed masses from the fact that each government steals your money and your future.
And the Falklands are still British!
95 Liberato
Nov 01st, 2015 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that Argentina doesn't recognise the government of the Falklands is solely a matter for them. The reality of our government isn't going to disappear because you don't like it.
You do realise that if the UK government wanted to dig up dead bodies on our territory, they would still need to go through the same process? They would talk to FIG,apply for an exhumation order and liaise with local government departments and people to make it happen. You have your answer. Either get on with it, or don't. Don't expect us to change our governance and laws to suit you.
Of course your government know this all along. The only people using the '82 dead for political reasons are you. I think it's disgusting.
Anyway, I was telling you how you look to me. I'm not a 'colonial power'. Why don't you tell us how you would decolonise the rest of the OTs? Given that they want to remain as they are, how would you set about forcing them, as you would force us? Unbelievable arrogance, to think you would have any idea what was best for us, without even asking us.
Liberato - what is your personal objection to taking the Falklands/Malvinas dilemma to the International Court of Justice?
Nov 01st, 2015 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A decision from the ICJ will carry much more weight than the resolutions from the various levels of the UN which, as you acknowledge, carry NO weight at all.
Does anyone know why Argentina wants the FALKLAND ISLANDS?
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) Is it because why not
b) Is it political
c) Is it financial
d) to create a new colony
Come'n Argies tell us the truth WHY DO YOU WANT THE FALKLANDS?
@95 Liberato
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“of a colonial power that has 10 territories under colonialism in this century i underestand that for you we are.”
So do these territories want Independence from the UK?
If not, how can that be colonialism?
That's no more colonialism than the UK including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when it is these countries wishes to be part of the UK.
Colonialism is where a power wishes to annex a country regardless of the wishes of the people born there, i.e. Argentina wants to be a colonial power and subjugate the Falkland Islanders without regard to their interests.
Argentina colonised the Falklands in 1982 for three months.
By the way, what is Argentina's definition of the Interests of the Falkland Islanders?
I have looked without success for anything resembling a request from Argentina to exhume and identify their war “ heroes ” on the Red Cross website. A non starter I am afraid. Not possible without asking the FIG for permission. Personally I think that provided 100% families agree, the fallen should be exhumed and their remains repatriated.
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@100 golfcronie
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Does anyone know why Argentina wants the FALKLAND ISLANDS?”
Because mistakenly they believe it is theirs! Simple - as we all know, they are wrong!
@100:
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Does anyone know why Argentina wants the FALKLAND ISLANDS?”
At this point, it's “sunk costs”.
In 1832, they tried to usurp British sovereignty, and their military garrison was removed shortly after. The civilian settlers were invited to stay, and eventually became the community we know today.
One of their historians decided to invent the myth of civilians being “expelled” by the British “usurpers”. This myth eventually picked up momentum until the nation was convinced the British “stole” the Falklands, instead of them failing vice versa.
Then in 1982, the Malvinas Lie took a violent turn as the junta decieved their soldiers into thinking they would be liberating civilians from colonial rule, when they were actually invading another nation's territory and subjugating the legitimate inhabitants. Again, they were removed, but this time at a bloody cost.
The Malvinas Lie is just that, fiction. You know it, I know it, and I'm pretty sure the Argentine Politicians know it.
The problem is, they've spent decades, a lot of money and yes, hundreds of lives to keep the Lie alive. They still teach it to their children, but without the fun and games of other myths like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Can you imagine what would happen if (for example) their government came clean and confessed tomorrow? If the people found out one of their most passionate disputes was based on false claims? There'd likely be riots.
The same would likely happen if they went to the ICJ and their fake claims were exposed once and for all - hence why they refuse to go down that proper path.
In their eyes, it would be far better to keep the myth alive, to continue the lies to the next generation, and to other countries, and see if they can decieve enough people to get the Falklands through international pressure.
The problem is, the truth will come out eventually. Surely it's better sooner than later?
104
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you're quite right that there would be big trouble should the an Arg government try to dismantle the Malvinas Myth.
Better to just be quiet about it and let a later admin. deal with it.
However, the current government is certainly not letting the cause either on the vine, nor are they moving along with 'business as usual' - in contrast, they are aggressively manipulating the public with an ugly National sentiment, fomenting hatred and discontent.
Their actions are certainly not dictated by a fear of backing down on the message.
@104 ”Can you imagine what would happen if (for example) their government came clean and confessed tomorrow? If the people found out one of their most passionate disputes was based on false claims? There'd likely be riots.”
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Argentina to say that the Malvinas are British would be like saying the earth was flat or two plus two equals five... if the government said the dispute was based on false claims there would be more than just riots.
They can't be all dumb can they?
Nov 02nd, 2015 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Argentines are taught from kindergarten up that the Falklands belong to Argentina. At that age they are too young to question it. Later on it becomes part of their belief system - not unlike Englishmen who believe Alfred burned the cakes/Knut tried to rule the waves/John was a weak king etc. Tie this into an official program of jingoism rampant in the Americas but less fashionable in most of Europe after the first war, and you get a set of closed minds mentally incapable of questioning basic assumptions
Nov 03rd, 2015 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 02) The Argentine case is plausible if you don't overpopulate your mind with inconvenient facts. Why should not the continental shelf that lies off their shore not be their continental shelf with all that it contains. Arguments that on that score the UK would belong to various European nations, that New Zealand would belong to Australia (or vice versa), that Japan would belong to China/Korea etc. will carry no weight because an Argentine is incapable of perceiving the absurdity of such contentions.
3) Any argument that the Falkland Islands should not become Argentine is a waste of time since the Argentines have been filled with the notion that they are Argentine already. Negotiations are simply a question of how soon the existing inhabitants will leave.
Most Argentines probably aren't very worked-up about the Falklands, actually. The veterans - the genuine veterans - are, of course, but they don't actually seem that bothered about “Malvinas nostras” so much as their betrayal by their leaders. The Peronists are, as are the other believers in Argentina's role as the leader of South america and the Spanish-speaking world - and there are still quite a few around - but for most people it's an excuse for licensed disorder, an escape from Actual Existing Argentina and a vague aspiration for the future.
Nov 03rd, 2015 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0re my 99
Nov 03rd, 2015 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Has Liberato given up the ghost? Am I likely to get a reply?
Liberato has fired everything he's got in his arsenal - effectively shot down every time.
Nov 03rd, 2015 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It probably plays better to the converted - Malvinista's and rabid K's
@109 Falconbridge
Nov 04th, 2015 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0You atate “The Peronists are, as are the other believers in Argentina's role as the leader of South america and the Spanish-speaking world - and there are still quite a few around” - Argentina “leader of South America”? Difficult to concur with that statement¡
Chile and México, Colombia even, are far more advanced culturally and economically than Argentina.
I hope I'm mistaken Alejo, but on my visits to Aregntina there seemed to a vociferous minority who thought Argentina should be accepted as the leader of South America and the Spanish-speaking world. This belief had nothing to do with how things actually were in Argentina.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whether there was any justification for the belief is a completely separate question.
I have a lifetime's connection with Latin America both professionally and family connections and have lived for many years in five LA republics.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My experience is that Argentina and its citizens are the laughing stock mainly because of their arrogance and assumption that they are “the leaders of South America”!
Sadly there are many Argentines who are NOT arrogant but they are outnumbered.
Hi, i sincerelly think that you know absolutelly nothing about us. Its like if i say that england wants to split the UK with a referendum.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the argentine claim that you think it is somehow, a current indoctrination. It is in fact a long succesion of claims that started since the very moment the british invaded in 1833. So in any case, if i base on your theorie, i've being indoctrinated since more than one century before i was even born.
About the opinion of Faulconbridge, i've never heard someone that believe such crazy theory that we should be accepted as the leaders of South America. In any case if there exist a candidate for such a thing it would be Brasil. Which, regardless of their social inequities they are far more powerfull than us and far more populous too.
Gordo1, you are so Anti-Argentine that i have serious doubts about your objectivenes. But i guess that if you were living in the capital you might find more arrogant peoples than in the rest of the nation.
Cheers.
Liberato - so you are there!
Nov 04th, 2015 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“About the argentine claim that you think it is somehow, a current indoctrination. It is in fact a long succesion of claims that started since the very moment the british invaded in 1833. So in any case, if i base on your theorie, i've being indoctrinated since more than one century before i was even born.”
You show, again, that you have failed to read any of the links that we invited you to read. Also, you have failed to investigate the terms of the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850 which, without a shadow of doubt, accepts British sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas. Read the treaty - it makes no mention of the archipelago - and acknowledges the “perfect friendship” between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
Of course, I am anti Argentine! Stop claiming the Falklands/Malvinas and I will reconsider!
@108
Nov 04th, 2015 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Arguments that on that score the UK would belong to various European nations, that New Zealand would belong to Australia (or vice versa), that Japan would belong to China/Korea etc. will carry no weight because an Argentine is incapable of perceiving the absurdity of such contentions.”
As you indicate, Argentines can't work out why their continental shelf theory does not work, because if it was standard international law then no Island in the world, attached to a continental shelf would be safe from claims made by the bigger continental neighbour.
But apparently Utis Possesidis (spelling iffy?) applies to Argentina but not to the UK as in 1982 when the victor claims the land.
Argentina's international law=pick and mix.
The sinking of heads in sand is noticeable with their claim that in 1833, English settlers poured off HMS Clio', (when they didn't). Also Argentina's refusal to acknowledge that one of the South American gauchos, Antonina Roxa, ended up with a ranch near Stanley, despite the fact that Argentina says she was ejected in 1833. It does not make sense that Rivero is an Argentine hero, whereas Antonina Roxa is not?
They cannot even fathom that Pinedo offered no resistance because as he says (Quoted in Pepper and Pascoe) that his crew were mostly British sailors, (the irony of which escapes all Argentines), who refused to fight (what a surprise!).
Argentina also cannot face up to the fact that their so called hero, Rivero, accepted British Silver to stay on the Falklands under British rule, and in the absence of Silver (universal currency back then), murdered Vernet's guys (including the Argentine president's cousin), because he wasn't getting paid!
@115
“in fact a long succesion of claims that started since the very moment the british invaded in 1833”
Britain laid claim to the Islands before 1833. So how could they' invade' in 1833, when Britain had made clear to the United Provinces, prior to 1833, that their claim still stood?
Your analogy is total pants.
Nov 04th, 2015 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forgetting for a moment the idea that the Falklands are anything to do with Argentina (they are not); the UK is going to be split by a referendum. The Scots asked for a referendum to see if they wanted to be independent, and they got one. There will probably be another referendum in the near future, and Scotland will become independent. 'England' won't stop it, because, guess what, they believe in the Scottish people's right to determine their own future.
In fact the 'English' believe that it is morally wrong to govern other than by the democratically expressed consent of the people.
If our referendum had resulted in us choosing independence, or becoming part of Argentina, would England have forced us to remain a UKOT? No.
In fact, if we voted to become part of Argentina, you'd be yelling that the UK should agree and respect our wishes. You are total hypocrites.
Whatever. The idea that the Falklands are 'part of' Argentina is a made- up idea peddled by fantasists. It has never been true.
@115 Liberato
Nov 05th, 2015 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is just something I want to add.
I do not think that “ the argentine claim is somehow, a current indoctrination”. Since 1850, the date of the Arana Southern Treaty, until 1941 the claim was made on very few occasions but legally forgotten until Perón arrived on the scene.
What I do know is that the Argentine claim is totally false based on cuentos de hados, myths and lies!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!