MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Time to recover Falklands/Malvinas dialogue”
Discussions between the UK and Argentina in 1980 referred to the Falkland Islands dispute have been reconstructed by an Argentine researcher bringing together recent documents from Britain's National Archives and the memoirs of two prominent members of the military government of the time in Buenos Aires, Finance minister Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz and the ambassador in the UK, Carlos Ortiz de Rozas. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThey MUST investigate the International Court of Justice route if they are so sure of their case.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only Argentina is in dispute. Time to admit the truth and move on from that mythical usurpation and all those UN resolutions:
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.academia.edu/21721198/Falklands_1833_Usurpation_and_UN_Resolutions
What they seem to always choose to ignore is that the UK government will not talk about sovereignty unless and until the Islanders decide otherwise. Discussions can take place about a whole host of other items, but that doesn't mean sovereignty talks.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0They just don't seem to understand or fail to accept the language of diplomacy and politics.
The quicker they accept certain items are not up for discussion, the quicker they can move on.
The idea of some kind of 'leaseback' actually fell through because of the Falkland Islanders' veto.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ the fact that Argentina has returned to the civilized world ”is the main thing wrong with the article as Christina is up for election again.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0As long as the Argentines keep up this pretence of sovereignty over the islands ; There is absolutely nothing to discuss.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The big question to this day is , why are the Foreign office quite happy to discuss the Falkland's , but not entertain any claim to the other islands ? This just allows Argentina to keep piling the pressure on the Falklands, hoping that eventually there will be some progress in their favour and the other islands claims are less and less mentioned and will be quietly dropped as they know the UK will not discuss the big issue at all.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some might consider the FO to be the most treacherous of all ! !
Dreaming of the past does not help the future. The Argentine invasion of 1982 negated all previous discussions, and that cannot be undone by historians. politicians or dreamers. The future is about self determination, and maybe even one day a bit of mutual respect.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“......and the fact that Argentina has returned to the civilized world,....”
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Returned” ? There is precious little evidence that Argentina might ever have been considered by any objective observer to be civilised.
It seems there are a certain number of perhaps previously 'influential' people who cannot accept that things have moved way beyond their little area of expertise.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If any British government moved against the interests of the Falkland Islanders in favour of the argies it would be the start of their removal from office.
“The Argentine researcher recalls that this was not the first UK proposal for a return of the Falklands/Malvinas.”
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The correct term is “handover”, not “return”, as Argentina has no factual claim to the British Falklands.
This is part of the problem. For decades, Argentina has fed its populace the Malvinas Lie - a fabricated account of British forces expelling their colonists from their homes and implanting their own, which is one hell of a misinterpretation of events.
This is most prevalent in their language:
-Repeating this lie to anyone who would hear.
-referring to their military occupation in 1982 as a “recovery”
-claiming British violations of UN Resolutions while ignoring the binding Resolution which required Argentina to remove their occupation from the Falklands.
-Referring to the Falkland Islanders as “squatters” “thieves” and “pirates”.
-Claiming to consider the interests of the Islanders, but refusing to allow them to represent their interests in dialogue, to the point of running from open and fair dialogue when the Islanders are present.
-Insisting that any dialogue end with a handover of the Islands, as a prerequisite to negotiations.
-Refusing the arbitration of the ICJ, who would certainly rule in their favor if their claims are valid.
All of Argentina's misbehaviours towards the Falkland Islands and the legitimate inhabitants thereof stem can be reasonably deemed to stem from the Malvinas Lie.
If there is to be any progress on this issue, Argentina should start by agreeing to tell the truth to their people for a change. Only when the Lie is admitted and corrected, can we move forward in civil discourse.
“ Argentina should start by agreeing to tell the truth to their people for a change.”
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here in Argentina, that is not possible. Argentina is at its maggoted populist core an unflinching lie inside a bald fiction wrapped within unassailable misrepresentation and permanently surrounded by an impermeable falsehood.
Come on hepathetic... Where are you when we need your ridiculous and repetitive “England will return...” monologue?
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#11: Misinterpretation of events?. why dont you enlight us about what events were misinterpreted?.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What lie are you talking about?.
Beside the fact the dictatorship decided to use the military force, it was after all a recovery of our territory that was invaded and occupied by britain in 1833. Lets not forget, there was two others british invasions to this territory, few years earlier so they did not came here pacificly..
-Res 502 ( the binding resolution), does not resolve sovereignty. It calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to
refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)...
http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/502
If by “falklands islanders” you refers to the british population living there. we dont call them “squatters” “thieves” and “pirates”. In any case we call ALL the british subjects “squatters” “thieves” and “pirates”. Not only to the british who lives there. But i guess, you love to feel like the insult goes to the poor islanders and that britain as a big “brother” defend them from the bully.
Let me remind you, that it is not Argentina who invented and uses names like kelpers, bennies, etc. To us, you are all british people, regardless if born in the Malvinas or London.
-One thing, is to respect the interest of the islanders, and another thing is to respect a sovereignty of the islanders, which they dont have even now under the Status quo. But more importantly, Argentina do not refuse to allow islanders to represent (as a british side) their interests. What they cant do is to present themselves as a third party. There is not a third party.
http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/502
--“Insisting that any dialogue end with a handover of the Islands”? . Argentina never said that.
-Argentina never refused to the ICJ regarding Malvinas. Quite the contrary.
Try to read more and stop reading british crap.
The UN have designated the Falkland Islands a non-self-governing territory (NSGT)
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
The UN has also determined that all NSGTs have the right to self-determination
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
This has been re-affirmed by the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ). The UNICJ General Report 1971 (page 31) states the following:- ”the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”.
I repeat - both the UN and the UNICJ proclaim that the principle of self-determination, under the UN Charter, applies to ALL non-self-governing territories.
@14
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Enlighten us as to when Argentina went to the UCJ for a ruling ?
Argentina will never cease claiming the Malvinas. No government, including the current one, would risk political death by even suggesting such an idea.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a result, the best outcome is a negotiated one, which will no doubt come up to fruition sooner or later.
Cuba will be returned to Spain within 25 years.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Within 20 years - when the oil has started to flow and the population is +5000 - the Falkland Islands will declare independence. Once they have been recognised by the UN that will be the end of the matter. I really hope they do it in 2033.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 “....Argentina will never cease claiming the Malvinas....”
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[whimper whimper]
-----
Argentina will never grow up. No Argentine government, including the current one, would risk political death by even suggesting such an idea.
As a result, the solution understandable to Argentines will no doubt come when much of Buenos Aires province has been converted into a single large glowing parking lot.
#14
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think that the expression “get stuffed ” is a relevant reply to your calumny of a post.
Once again they dig up the past,
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0keep this up and it will be=Bring out the dead , we will investigate any wrong doing,
for Christ's sake, Soddy of or back it up,
Still, the future has yet to be written.
18. lol.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Within 25 years the FCSC will have carved up Cuba amongst its American creditors and claimants.
@14 Yet another reminder why Argentina jealously maintains its sinking-backwater Third-World status among the Republiquetas Bananeras which have lost their bananas.
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ our territory that was invaded and occupied by britain in 1833”
The Islands were first claimed by Britain in 1690 and occupied in 1765.
So claiming that Britain turned up out of the blue in 1833 is a myth.
You omit that the British informed B.A. that they had a claim on the islands in 1828 and 1832, which the Buenos Aires government ignored. It surely cannot have been surprised when the Royal Navy turned up to reassert Britain's claim which was never dropped and which the Buenos Aires government were aware of.
Why did Pinedo man the Sarandi with British sailors? How does that advance your claim? It was not the legitimate settlers, mostly from South America that were removed in 1833, (they, as you are well aware, were allowed to stay), but the majority of the UP forces to be sent packing were the BRITISH nationals that manned the Sarandi
The British could not have invaded the islands in 1833, as they already had a claim on the Islands and Vernet's settlers were on the Islands after Vernet had asked permission from the British Consulate in B.A.
You can peddle the myth about 1833 forever, but you cannot dismiss the British claim from 1690 or 1765. If you prefer a claim after occupation, therefore the British could have not invaded islands they already claimed. If the British claim is null and void, with occupation 1765-1774, with Royal Navy ships constantly surveying the islands and in Falkland waters from that time, not forgetting that British sealers were constantly present on the Islands, then at best an occupation from 1828-1833, approved by the British government , is not adequate for Argentina to make a claim. If the United Provinces could be remotely considered Argentina, if Britain's claim was null from 1774 to 1833,then similarly as no Argentine occupation has taken place except for a quarter of a year (THAT''S IT!)since 1833 , then you have no claim whatsoever.
Otherwise you would have gone to the ICJ.
Rg @ICJ = massive failure
Aug 23rd, 2016 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#15: You are right that the islands are a NSGT . Which, in other words, means territories under a colonial situation in the process of decolonization.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UN has determined that all PEOPLES of the NSGT have the right to self determination. All peoples, not all populations. Obviously Argentina support this in all UN initiatives regarding decolonization and self determination. One of these is resolution 1514 on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The UK on the contrary, have abstained or voted against on most of these initiatives. It abstained in important resolutions like 1514, 2065, or voted against in resolutions arguing even that those resolutions made them waste their money.
You should see the resolutions voting results to get the picture. Argentina votes for self determination of peoples and Britain, when it suits them. They remain being a colonial power with territories under a decolonization process.
#25: Nope Britain did not claimed the islands in 1690, it did in 1765 claiming them for king George III basing its claim in “prior discovery”. And it did not occupied it until a year later, 1766. And only in the Now “Saunder Islands” who were previusly known as the Falkland Island according to british.
What you did not mentioned is that:
-Spain claimed hegemony over the whole are with the Tordesillas treaty.
-The french actually landed and claimed the islands before the british.
-The news of the french colonial act reached europe way before the british even excused of being ignorant of the french prescence.
-Byron's orders were secrets and given in Brasil becouse a prior navigation to the islands were protested by Spain and then desisted by Britain.
Britain did not discovered the islands did not settled the islands first and did not claimed them first either. And for more than half a century until 1833 did not existed nor protested the several spanish and arg govts there that indeed controlled the whole area.
The UN has not define what constitutes a “people”.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0So someone with an Argentinean education can hardly try to limit it.
Perhaps Libretto can explain why Argentina has colonised the British Antarctic Territory.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0#28: it is quite simple actually. Can the argentine citizens that work and live in the antartic claim self determination rights?
Aug 24th, 2016 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@30 They are an implanted population so they must go.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0#30 I've never said that. Did China expelled the inhabitants of Hong Kong? . Jesus you guys are so extreme!!!
Aug 24th, 2016 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0@32 et all Liberato
Aug 24th, 2016 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0El reclamo argentino por la soberanía de las Islas Falklands es nada más que cuentos de hadas, mentiras, mitos e interpretaciones erróneas de eventos históricos. ¡Que vaya Argentina con su reclamo a la Corte Internacional de Justicia!
@17 Enrique
Aug 24th, 2016 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina will never cease claiming the Malvinas. No government, including the current one, would risk political death by even suggesting such an idea.
As a result, the best outcome is a negotiated one, which will no doubt come up to fruition sooner or later.”
Best outcome for whom? For the islanders the best outcome is the status quo and so no settlement is required. If your former country is so dysfunctional that even a sensible government cannot explain geopolitical reality to the people without “risking political death” then why should anyone have to help you with that problem? The Falkland Islanders have absolutely no obligation to sacrifice their liberty to help an Argentine government placate its own people. In the postwar years, successive UK governments wound up the British Empire without invoking rioting or civil collapse - it was just sold as necessary, inevitable, the right thing to do, world has moved on etc. The current Argentine government is perfectly free to do the same today.
Good old Argentinians- Liberato and others- its 2016 but still you show your national fantasy with living in the past!
Aug 24th, 2016 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Guess it will never change! - pity as you guys live in a great country, and some lovely people - just that so many of you spend all your lives crusading to continually F**** it up - and you are good at it!
Your military invasion - and deliberate and blatant rejection of binding UN Security Council 502 - changed ALL - 100%.
Take your claim to the IJC - or forever - shut up. Simple.
When are you Argentine trolls going to realise you have all been brain washed since infancy with propaganda from your successive government, of all hues, to believe all the nonsense about the Falkland Islands which you know as Malvinas?
Aug 24th, 2016 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, Liberato, you still don't get it.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no rights in the Falklands.
You have never had any rights here.
And you never will.
Just stop wasting everyone's time & take your “case” to the ICJ.
Of course we know that you won't.
Because then Argentina's lies would be exposed to the world.
Please stop whining.
You are becoming irritating.
#35: I disagree. We dont live in the past, but in the present. And in the present, the islands remains being one of the last territories under colonialism in the world.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is not Argentina that thinks so, but most of the world. Even the USA (your ally) believes there is a de facto situation.
Its a pity indeed, we could be living so much better cooperating, but instead your exploitation of the land makes the decolonization process impossible.
@38...by co-operationg you mean 'have everything your way' I take it. Nothing is stopping Argentina co-operating with the UK or the Islands if they so chose to. It is only the Argentine psyche that will not allow themselves to move forward, to accept you have no 'claim' in a modern world and accept the Islanders do indeed have the ONLY say in their future.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0What decolonization process are you talking about? The islands would have to want to choose independence, free association etc, if they were to be 'decolonised' in the eyes of the UN as they are listed as a NSGT.
They have chosen to remain a BOT (of their own free will), so there is little the UN or you can do at this point unless and until they change their minds.
The real pity is that Argentina live a lie regarding the Falklands and until they realize that, they will never move on.
“Time to recover Falklands/Malvinas dialogue”
Aug 24th, 2016 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where do you start with this article? A tale of a bunch of old has-beens, stuck in the past, reliving their fantastic dreams of rubbing shoulders with real people, conquest and colonisation.
But it seems that they have finally abandon their aim and now seek to merely ‘recover’ their version of a lost dialogue.
The Argentine ‘researcher’ claims that: “Argentina has returned to the civilized world”, well the jury is still out on that one Manfroni.
'A People'
Aug 24th, 2016 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A PeopleArgentine politicians attempt to circumnavigate UN resolutions by declaring that the Falkland Islanders are not ‘a people.’ The UNESCO international meeting of experts for the elucidation of the concepts of rights of people met in 1989 and discussed titleholders of the right to self-determination.
They referred to Webster’s definition of ‘people’ as described as, ‘
the entire body of persons who constitute a community or other group by virtue of common culture, religion or thelike.’ They continued, ‘
A more detailed description was developed in 1989 specifically for the purpose of identifying the holders of the right to self-determination by UNESCO’ and referred to the Kirby definition.’
The Kirby definition identifies ‘a people’ as: a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following features:
a)common historical tradition Racial or ethnic identity
b)Cultural homogeneity
c)Linguistic units
d)Religious or ideological affinity
e)Territorial connection
f)Common economic life.
The UNESCO expert also said, ‘
the group must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people. They must be a certain number which need not be large.
International Meeting of Experts, UNESCO, Paris 27-30 Nov 1989, para 22.
Another definition of what constitutes ‘a people’ was provided by Gudelevicûitê. After interpreting the principle of self-determination, Gudelevicûitê identified that the only way to prevent discrimination between different groups of people is to define ‘a people’ as the whole population of a particular territorial unit and came up with the following definition, that under the present international law ‘a people’ means: a ) entire population of an independent state, governed in a way representing the whole population; b) entire population of a non-self-governing territory; c) entire population of a particular occupied territorial unit living under foreign military occupation
#39: You are wrong. It is the british that wants everything their way. Cooperation existed for many years, even after the war. Fuel, food, infrastructure, etc. Making the cost of the british colonization to be reduced considerable. But if we cooperate and the other side do not cooperate, at some point you have to cut the tie.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We want cooperation, but with everything on the table, and the brits do not.
Let me explain you that for the UN, the islands are a territorie under a colonial situation and under a sovereignty dispute. To be considered different than a colony, they have to pass through a decolonization process. The c24 watch that progress and claimed britain and Argentina to negotiate sovereignty in order to end the decolonization process.
#41: Britbob, general definitions could fit for the islands community as for the argentine community in the antartic. Why dont you better explain why the british community in the islands can claim self determination in Malvinas and the argentine community in the antartic can not do the same there?.
And for the record, i used the antartic as an example for comparison.
@42 Liberato WRONG AND WRONG AND WRONG.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 committee is a totally discredited forum of the UN manipulated annually by Argentina. Its various chairmen have continuously refused to visit the Falkland Islands to meet with the elected representatives of the islanders and it is curious that the current Chairman is from the failing state of Venezuela and the previous chairman was from Ecuador, not exactly the most democratic country in the world. The majority of the members of the 24 Committee are not worthy of the responsibilities with which they have been charged. Please see this following link:
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/members.shtml
China? Cuba? Ethiopia? Iran? Iraq? Mali?
Your arguments are total nonsense!
#42
Aug 24th, 2016 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Antarctic Treaty...signed by Argentina in 1959
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
“We want cooperation, but with everything on the table, and the brits do not.”
You have it in your constitution that the Falklands belong to Argentina so for you, discussions mean when will you hand over the Falklands.
Hardly a good basis for negotiations.
#41
You are wasting your time trying to explain. They don't want to know the facts. All they want is for the UK to hand over the islands. Any negotiations must deliver this.
@42
Aug 24th, 2016 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination only applies exclusively to 'ALL' non-self-governing territories.
https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
38-42
Aug 24th, 2016 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0totally wrong and only your opinion [we all have one]
and your interpretation only,
the Falkland's have been under British control for over 200 years,
Not Argentina,
Britain has maintained and administered the islands,
Not Argentina,
The British flag flies over Stanley,
not the Argentinian flag,
The Falkland's people freely voted to remain British,
Not Argentinian,
Argentina has no claim but what's in their indoctrination,
you want to steal/take, what is NOT yours, never was, and never will be,
you say you live in the present, then act like it,
and allow the islanders to choose who they want associate themselves with, and respect their rights or existence,
that would be living in the present,
rather than your pathetic ambitions to turn them into an Argentina colony.
British Falklands,.
It is time for the UK to be firm with Argentina. It seems to me that in view of all the provocation from that benighted nation then the UK should encourage Argentina to take their case to the ICJ - it is the only one to shut them up.
Aug 24th, 2016 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#43: quote: “The C24 committee is a totally discredited forum of the UN manipulated annually by Argentina...”
Aug 24th, 2016 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Discredited by whom? The USA? the UK and France?. Yeah the colonial powers.
The UN have no obligation to go to the NSGT. it is not stipulated anywhere. It would be very important that they visit territories where the colonial form of government is based on the subjugation or explotaition of its people. But no, the british that inhabit Malvinas are not a different people from those in the uk and ergo they are not subjugated either.
About the origins of the members of the C24, i dont see the problem here. Venezuela, Ecuador, Iraq, They all have universities and educated people you know?. For me it sound logic that for the purpose of decolonization, the members have to be chosen by their experience in their own independence and not choosing members by their experience in colonizing.
Perhaps you would be more confortable having the UK , France, or Spain, or the USA as head of the body in charge of decolonizing themselves right?.
#44: So, the antartic treaty signed by Argentina is more important than a self determination right of a new people in the antartic continent right?. So then, the self determination right have the limit about in which territory is claimed right?.
#42: Self determination is a universal right. We all have self determination right. The matter is that you cant claim self determination right on somebody elses territorie.
@48 As I have said (and proved) above, the right to self-determination is applicable to ALL NSGTs. The Falkland Islands are not Argentinean territory. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think they are supposed to be Argentinean?
Aug 24th, 2016 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#44
Aug 24th, 2016 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You signed a treaty along with other nations and expect to ignore it? So typically Argentinian. Your people on the Antarctic continent are squatters if they are trying to legitimise a so-called research station into a colony.
Any more discussion with you is a total waste of time and electrons.
@48 Liberato
Aug 24th, 2016 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How is the UN supposed to know whether the people are being subjugated or exploited if they won't visit? Because *you* consider them the same people doesn't mean the UK government treats them any differently to the other NSGTs, so why should one get visits and another not?
Also I didn't know Argentina had a colony in Antarctica. That's... really very hypocritical. And yeah I think the treaty will probably prevent the recognition of a colony created *after* it had been signed. If the same group of people had been living there for 100 years beforehand we might think differently.
#49: The self determination right is applicable to all PEOPLES of the NSGT. At the contrary of the UK, Argentina has always supported the self determination rights to all peoples.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0We all have a self determination right. But as long as the argentine community living in the antartic can not claim the whole continent based on a self determination right due to the fact the sovereignty of Antartic is disputed and freezed, the same goes for the community of british citizens living in the islands.
You have to underestand that there is a colonial situation and a sovereignty dispute that have to be taken seriously.
#50: like i said in the comment nº 42: “And for the record, i used the antartic as an example for comparison”.
So im not sugesting nor claiming anything about the antartic.
#51: Do you know how many forms of colonialism exist?. If there is a sovereignty dispute, dont you think the c24 need to wait for that to be solved first before going to visit the territory?. Or you think it is better for them to ignore that fact and go to the strait to the islands giving as a fact it is “british territory” and see if there is a subjugated people or not.
You should first hear what the UN says before comment. The UN ask sovereignty negotiations to end the sovereignty dispute and continue the decolonization process.
Again there is no argentine colony in Antartica and no desire to claim self determination. But as there are bases with scientific, workers and families of the scientists living in argentine bases, it turns a good comparison with the community of british citizens living in Malvinas.
Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Experience tells me, that I shall never receive a thruthful answer, but I will ask anyway:
How did Argentina acquire Patagonia from the indigenous Amerindians?
When will Argentina return it to its rightful owners?
How did Argentina acquire the provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones from Paraguay?
When will Argentina return it to its rightful owners?
How did Argentina acquire its part of Virreinato del Río de la Plata from whom?
When will Argentina return it to its rightful owners?
How did Spain acquire Spanish America?
When will Spain return it to its rightful owners?
Who (names and nationalities) were expelled by the British in 1833?
Were any settlers expelled by the British in 1833?
How many of the settlers (and which proportion of) preferred to stay under British rule?
Were any of the settlers, who left, Argentine citizens?
Names and documentation is recquired from the documents in “Archivo General de la Nación” in Buenos Aires, where you can find it all.
45
Aug 25th, 2016 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Bob...do you mind if I call you Bob...Bob
What do you mean...“Self-determination only applies exclusively to 'ALL' non-self-governing territories. ”
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
It's not exclusive to NSGT's...
So why not answer @42's question...
Why can one group of people have a right to self determination...and another group of people can't...
Is it based on numbers...what is the criteria...
@ 54 “All peoples have the right to self-determination.”
Aug 25th, 2016 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0That “right” may not be observed or acknowledged in many jurisdictions.
@52 Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you are quite happy for the future of the Falkland Islanders to be determined by countries such as CHINA, CONGO, COTE D'IVOIRE, CUBA, ETHIOPIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, MALI, SIERRA LEONE, TIMOR-LESTE, TUNISIA and VENEZUELA. They are, as I am sure you will agree, all countries which currently demonstrate absolutely no indications that democracy is part of their political understanding. Therefore, they do not qualify as being capable of determining the future destiny of any country which THEY allege to be “colonies”.
Perhaps I should qualify my previous description of C24 - it is discredited because of the undemocratic nature of most of its members. Any defence you might attempt of the machinations by its membership, and the influence from Argentina, only serve to emphasise the truth.
@52
Aug 25th, 2016 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0A colonial setter state pursuing an alleged colonial inheritance of 2 centuries ago isn't decolonization.
The analogy with Antarctica is false because Antarctica, by treaty, belongs to nobody. The only apposite comparison is with Argentine nationalist attitudes, as recently seen in the recent continental shelf debacle, and considering that Argentina remains the only country ever to have opened fire there, while its track record in respecting its undertakings is not exactly stellar, including as it does violation of every agreement, treaty and UN resolution concerning the Falkland Islands.
@42...The C24 cannot order, ask for or determine the settlement of sovereignty disputes, it is not in their remit, so again you are wrong to suggest that the C24 can do this. You are also wrong to suggest that the decolonization process will be complete at the handover of sovereignty without the inhabitants approval and against their wishes and interests. That is just not an option for the decolonization of a NSGT.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is only the C24 that has ever stated in their documents that the Falklands situation is a 'special' situation, how many of those resolutions got past the 4th Com.
'We want cooperation, but with everything on the table, and the brits do not.' ....that's because the Brits have sovereignty and hold all the cards, as I said, you want everything your way. You want everything or nothing....so you get nothing. Who was it that tore up the previous agreements...Argentina or the UK....answers on a postcard.
@52 & 54
Aug 25th, 2016 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The International Court of Justice has confirmed in a judgment and four advisory opinions that 'the right to self-determination is applicable to all the non-self -governing territories.”(Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia 1971, P31-32; Western Sahara Advisory Opinion 1975, p68, para 162; East Timor Judgment 1995, P102, para 29; Legal Consequences of Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory 2004, p171-172 para 88 and the Kosovo Advisory Opinion of 2010, p37, para 79). There are no exceptions. In regard to this, on 20 October 2008 the United Nations General Assembly rejected a motion from Spain and Argentina to place restrictions on the right to self-determination determining that it was a fundamental right. In the light of the ICJ 1995 East Timor Judgment, the United Nations International Law Commission and the UN Human Rights Commission regard the right to self-determination as ‘jus cogens’ (compelling law).
Ask Ban-Ki Moon as to the application of self-determination:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/catalonia-cannot-claim-self-determination-un-chief-000527970.html?ref=gs
Got your answers now, Liberato?
Aug 25th, 2016 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't matter what you think or want, the Falklands are NOT yours & you can whine, scream, cry & complain but they will NEVER be yours.
So just go away stop crying.
And stop lying, for God's sake.
59
Aug 25th, 2016 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bob...still not answering the question I see...
It's no use repeating your selective mantra when it suits...why not include the cases where territorial integrity has trumped self determination... what was that case in Africa where...the “People” where denied self determination to remain part of one country...?
The UK has not satisfied an International court that it does hold sovereignty over all the islands...there is a good case that shows that that the UK had never had a claim for East Falkland until after it was occupied by Argentina...
Which then makes a case for territorial integrity breached...
Each case is judged on it's merits by an International court and each case is individual...there is no forgone conclusion as to the result...
Opinions of other cases...are just opinions...
Self Determination does not and has not applied to all cases...
@61 Voice
Aug 25th, 2016 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK has not satisfied an International court that it does hold sovereignty over all the islands.” And Argentina? Which International court has determined that Argentina holds sovereignty over the Falklands archipelago?
It should also be remembered that Rozas, the mid 19th century dictator, tacitly recognised British sovereignty of the Falklands - the Arana- Southern Treaty. See Article 7. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
#53: So resuming you suggest that all territories were stolen and by that you recognize the Malvinas were stolen from Argentina?.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#56: The Future of Malvinas Islands are not determined by CHINA, CONGO, COTE D'IVOIRE, CUBA, ETHIOPIA, etc. Your way of thinking is very inmature. The problem is that you assume that rich and developed nations with huge worldwide interest to dominate markets and a very sad record on colonialism might make an excelent job controlling the decolonization of themselves.
Again discredited by whom? show me which nations discredit the committe? Argentina has not influenced the committe in any way. Let me remind you that the UK has ten territories under a colonial situation, not only Malvinas.
#57: quote: “A colonial setter state pursuing an alleged colonial inheritance of 2 centuries ago isn't decolonization. ”
Argentina is not in the job of decolonization. That is for the UN to decolonize. Argentina's job is to pursue negotiations to end the sovereignty dispute, which is, at the same time, what the UN is asking for to end to continue their job of decolonizing.
So what you are saying about Antarctica is that becouse it belongs to nobody a community of argentine resident can not claim self determination rights there?.
Well it is preciselly my point. For the UN, Malvinas islands are a territorie in dispute, which in other words means that the owner of the land could be Britain or Argentina, one of the two claimant.
anyway, Antarctica's sovereignty claims, by treaty, remain freezed which is not the same to saying it belongs to nobody.
#58: quote: “The C24 cannot order, ask for or determine the settlement of sovereignty disputes”
I agree. They ask both nation Arg and the UK to negotiate sovereignty, to end the sovereignty dispute so they can continue with their job. Negotiate sovereignty does not mean a transfer of sovereignty or a distribution of the land. It means a negotiation to find a way to end the sovereignty dispute. Arbitration, etc.
@63 Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Future of Malvinas Islands are not determined by CHINA, CONGO, COTE D'IVOIRE, CUBA, ETHIOPIA etc” If your statement is true then what is the purpose of the presence of their representatives on the committee of 24?
Please see this link http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
It would be interesting to know if the Overseas British territories of Anguila, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Saint Helena, and Turks and Cacos Islands are clamouring for independence from Britain.
I am aware there are rumblings in the Turks and Cacos Islands but what they seek is to become a protectorate of Canada! And there is minority support in Bermuda for a change of status but all the other dependencies seem happy to be British Overseas Territories NOT colonies.
#64: The purpose of the c24 is to whatch the process of decolonization of the NSGT. The decolonization depends largelly on the administrative powers, not on the committe. If condisions arises that a territorie has no more a colonial situation, the committe recommend the delist of the territory from the decolonization list.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If one of those territories with a colonial situation is under a sovereinty dispute, the committe can not work on a disputed land. It have to ask for an end of the dispute to work. Its like if france decide to invade the Isle of Man, expell its original inhabitants puts its citizens there and then expect the c24 to visit the place to see if the french they found there are subjugated or not by France without taking care about who are the owners of the land.
In the case of Malvinas Islands, there is a well recognized sovereignty dispute that is not going to be resolved by you or me.
Nothing is as good or as bad as it looks, i hope the best for the Turks and Caicos and all the rest of the NSGT. We just want a fair negotiation to end the sovereignty dispute. Like existed many times between Argentina and the UK.
@61...'Which then makes a case for territorial integrity breached'...under which 1833 law are you referring too? Would that be the same law, that say, the indigenous parties in Patagonia could use as well. Or are you retrospectively using modern law for a case 180 years old?
Aug 25th, 2016 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just asking as I don't know the international laws from 1833, on which, this case would have to be judged on I presume.
@63..The sovereignty case was sealed in 1982, it is settled once and for all. Just because one party to the dispute does not accept the result, is not the other parties problem. You lost, get over it, no second chances, no double or quits. Just because Argentina carries on moaning doesn't mean you have a case. The UK is not in breach of any current UN resolutions. So the coast is clear, what is stopping the C24 from taking the Falklands off the list.
@65 Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you for real? “The purpose of the c24 is to whatch the process of decolonization of the NSGT.” They clearly do not serve for purpose, do they?
The rest of your comments are even more risible and absolute nonsense with no clear understanding of the true position. You are delusional!
#66: Under the law in 1833 the aboriginals did not form a people and were not recognized as such. Argentina was recognized by the UK and invaded. Beside the many injustice made to the aboriginals they were fully integrated by law to the argentine nation. There are many many scientific investigation that trace the origin of Argentina so you just have to look for it. I recommend you to start by Pablo Areguati, the last military commander of Argentina in Malvinas.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Winning a war does not grant sovereignty rights, unless the defeated sign you a peace deal ceding the lost territories. By logic if a war sealed a sovereignty dispute by winning a war, then powerfull nations like the uk would be the owner of half the world declaring and winning territories by the power of their weapons.
The uk is not in breach of any BINDING resolution, which means they are not forced to do anything. But they are in breach of at least 40 UN non-binding resolutions regarding the Malvinas Islands. So what is stopping the c24 from taken the islands off the list is the refusal of the UK to comply the non- binding resolution of negotiation of sovereignty with Argentina.
#67: Why do you think so? the uk is in refusal of comply with their resolutions. It is not the job of the UN to decolonize Malvinas. It is the job for the UK to end their colonization.
It's time for Argentina to decolonise Tierra del Fuego, and return it to the aboriginals.
Aug 25th, 2016 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Or you think it is better for them to ignore that fact and go to the strait to the islands giving as a fact it is “british territory” and see if there is a subjugated people or not.”
I don't see why they have to agree it is British territory in order to visit. You seem to be saying that Britain could subjugate or exploit people in any colony as long as some other country also claims it, and the C24 appears to agree with you. I guess this makes sense though, since many members of the C24 subjugate or exploit their own citizens.
“Again there is no argentine colony in Antartica ...”
So in 1977, when Argentina airlifted a 7 months pregnant woman to thir Antarctic base so the baby could be born there, that was for scientific research was it?
In any case, if there is no colony but just scientific bases where people go to live and work for a time, of course they do not have self-determination. That's totally different to the Falklands where families have lived for generations.
“Winning a war does not grant sovereignty rights”
It certainly did in the past; that's how powerful nations in Europe were able to colonise half the world. However, you are right that it does not now, this changed when the UN was formed. The people saying the war in 1982 settled the dispute are wrong.
“Negotiate sovereignty does not mean a transfer of sovereignty or a distribution of the land. It means a negotiation to find a way to end the sovereignty dispute. Arbitration, etc.”
I don't think I've seen anyone from Argentina suggest arbitration before. Isolde or Islander1, or anyone else from the Falklands, would you agree to that?
Liberato, if the people living on the Falklands came from somewhere other than Britain, would you change your mind and think they should have self determination, or does it not matter?
@59
Aug 25th, 2016 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again.
Territorial Integrity. The ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion explained in para 80 that, ‘the Helsinki Conference on Security and cooperation in Europe of 1 Aug 1975 stipulated that, ‘‘participating states will respect the territorial integrity of the participating states.’’ ‘Thus the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states.’ Therefore, acknowledging that the principle of territorial integrity does not impinge on the international law of self-determination. Also, para 6 of UNGA 1514, of 1960 regarding territorial integrity cannot be applied retroactively.
It couldn't be anything else as only individual states have signed the UN Charter.
Still waiting for you to explain what the Argentina has to take to an international tribunal regarding her so-called sovereignty claim
PS Argentinean politicians often make great mileage out of the UK being in breach of numerous UN resolutions by stating such as, 'the UK and Argentina have a historic opportunity to set an example to the world by resolving this dispute by peaceful and diplomatic means, as called for by as many as 40 UN resolutions since 1965.' (Alicia Castro, the Guardian 11 March 2013). This statement seems impressive but the fact is the vast number of these resolutions have come from the UN Decolonisation Committee. The Decolonisation Committee is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly, it has NO decision-making powers. Any resolutions that it passes have no legal significance and are irrelevant unless they are endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.
The last UNGA resolution that was specific to the Falkland Islands was UN Resolution 43/25 from 17th November 1988. That resolution, 'Reiterated its request to the governments of Argentina and the UK to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the pending problems between both countries, including all as
Argentina unlawfully made a claim in 1943 to the British Antarctic territory and has on at least one occasion used military force to attempt to maintain that claim. Argentine government officials periodically and very publicly pronounce “unrenounceable sovereignty rights over Argentine Antarctica” and Argentina's government maps present an Antarctic claim as part of Argentina, even though that claim is supposed to be in suspense as a condition of Argentina's Antarctic Treaty signing. Nevertheless, Argentina's military formally presents their claim and administration as follows: “Administrativamente, para Argentina el área forma parte de la provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur. ”
Aug 25th, 2016 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For Libretto to claim “Again there is no argentine colony in Antartica ” is just more silly contrived word games. Perhaps he would understand that the Argentine colony in Antarctica has the nature of a military outpost.
When the Antarctic Treat expires, the Argentines will be removed from Antarctica and sent back to Venado Tuerto.
Liberato writes:
Aug 25th, 2016 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Under the law in 1833 the aboriginals did not form a people and were not recognized as such.”
Which international law, valid in 1833, and which paragraph(s) in it, are you referring to?
...
“Winning a war does not grant sovereignty rights, unless the defeated sign you a peace deal ceding the lost territories.”
Valid since 1945, never before. Besides, the Argentine congress ratified in May 1850 a peacce treaty, which - according to temporary (1850) international law - ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain:
“VII. Under this convention perfect friendship between her Britannic Majesty’s government and the government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
This fact was later confirmed by two Argentine presidents and a vice president in their ‘State of the nation’ speeches:
2. Presidente de La Republica Argentina Bartolomé Mitre al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1865:
“there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments.”
3. Vicepresidente de la Republica Argentina Marcos Paz al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1866:
“The British Government ...for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”
4. Presidente de La Republica Domingo Faustino Sarmiento al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1869:
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”
Do you homework before you discuss any Argentine pretention to sovereignity over the Falkland Islands.
One cannot keep on quoting old and out of date laws,
Aug 25th, 2016 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you either take it to the ICJ or leave it be,
Many other nations have been created since 1833,
let it be,
or take it to the ICJ.
@65 Liberato
Aug 25th, 2016 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be happy that the Turks and Caicos Islands should succeed in its purported plan to join Canada so why do you object to the FALKLAND ISLANDS(NOTE NOT REPEAT NOT MALVINAS) remaining as a British Overseas Territory although you claim, mistakenly, that it is a British Colony.
“Time to recover Falklands dialogue”
Aug 25th, 2016 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a dialogue they want.
It's the same old monologue.
71
Aug 25th, 2016 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not wrong Bob...
“Therefore, acknowledging that the principle of territorial integrity does not impinge on the international law of self-determination.”
Apparently it didn't apply to these people...
“How can you decide the fate and life of another man without seeking for his opinion and history? The people of Bakassi have the right to self-determination. We believe the worst thing you can do to any man in this civilized world of today is to deny him his fundamental human rights. The people of Bakassi have been denied the rights to “Self-determination”. They were not put into consideration or even given the chance to indicate where they wish to belong even the United Nations, of which the ICJ is an organ, would place sufficient importance on the people of Bakassi; they would have ordered a plebiscite to, at least, give credence to the rights of self-determination, which is one of the principle upon which the United Nations is built.”
Self Determination does not always apply...especially when it concerns territorial disputes.....
All international bodies will always be influenced by International politics....
Little England is on it's own now, there won't be any European backing and if Trump wins...no NATO backing...
These little Colonial anachronisms will eventually become an embarrassment in International politics and a friendless England will need to think twice...
#69: TDF is not a colony. Ask the UN.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0#70: What im saying is that if the islands are argentinean the form of colonialism changes, making Argentina the victim of british colonialim. And if the islands are british then they have to whatch for the people who lives there. Who knows how they determine what form of colonialism exist?. But it is in resolution 1514 the end all forms of colonialism.
SOME have lived for generations, others for a couple of year. Nevertheless for generations including the present day they remain being considered a colony. So those you mention that lived for generations did it even now under a colonial system.
You are right many UN resolutions comes from the c24 for two reasons:
1) We are talking about a colonial territorie.
2) For a political agreement in the 90's. Both govmnt Arg and the UK told the UNGA they will try a sovereignty umbrella formulla. For that reason there was no more General Assembly resolutions.
The Malvinas situation is back in the UNGA's agenda, but as sovereignty umbrella remains effective it is not mentioned.
About your last paragraph, I have no problem with having a new nation here. But not through the british draw board. Those inhabitants are whats rest of the not wanted that couldnt get in. They controll inmigration, most of the jobs are still dependending on the feudal old FIC directly or indirectly. In anyway you look at them, they are still a colony no matter from where the people are brought.
#72: Britain recently named a huge portion of the antarctic Queen Elizabeth, and they still claims a huge portion of the land. So?.
#73: If you dont see the different between invading a sovereign nation, and the aboriginals two centuries ago, dont talk.
I was talking about the war in 1982, But if you consider valid that convention as a ceding of Malvinas to Britain, You are wrong and the british recognized us in 1825 without claiming Malvinas that were in argentine hands.
#75: I dont know Turks and Caicos.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Little England is on it's own now,...
Aug 26th, 2016 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor fellow. He probably meant the UK.
World's fifth largest economy.
Liberato
Aug 26th, 2016 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0All you are confirming is that Argentina's claim to the Falkands archipelago is based on aspirations supported by fairy stories, myths, lies and erroneous interpretations of historical events. Meanwhile, British sovereignty is proved by facts which will be supported in law.
Answer this, please - WHY DOES ARGENTINA NOT TAKE ITS CASE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE? Instead of making foolish unsubstantiated claims which mean nothing!
#78
Aug 26th, 2016 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is an old adage in poker....put up or shut up. This applies in spades to Argentina's spurious claim.
@71 You are wrong.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Territorial Integrity. The ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion explained in para 80 that, ‘the Helsinki Conference on Security and cooperation in Europe of 1 Aug 1975 stipulated that, ‘‘participating states will respect the territorial integrity of the participating states.’’ ‘Thus the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between states.’ Therefore, acknowledging that the principle of territorial integrity does not impinge on the international law of self-determination. Also, para 6 of UNGA 1514, of 1960 regarding territorial integrity cannot be applied retroactively.
It couldn't be anything else as only individual states have signed the UN Charter.
Reference the Bakassi judgment: It is interesting that the two major inferences for the Court rejecting Nigeria’s claim of historic consolidation referred to (i) an already established treaty title and (ii) too short a period of occupation (20 years). Neither of which would apply to the Falkland Islands.
It wouldn't apply to the Falklands in any case because Argentina has never legally owned the islands.
RGs just trying to baffle us with bullsh!t.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And still looking for a miracle.
No miracles for you, bozo.
@77… and even littler Scotland is increasingly isolated. £60m North Sea revenues. Wonder Woman needs to up her game with the loaves and fishes. Trump sees Brexit as something he wants to be associated with. Its the poison dwarf that he will abandon.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'85
Aug 26th, 2016 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, it would be quite nice to be isolated. Quietly watching the rest of the EU posturing and squabbling while we sit in a hidden mist a la Brigadoon.
We are so small we would be ignored by the rest of the world.
South of the border they will be up to their usual political back stabbing and nursing their egos. We could make some money from English tourists determined to throw themselves of our hills by charging for access.
As to Trump abandoning Scotland, that would be the best news for decades. Let England have him and good luck
Anyway, it is time to go to Lidls to stock up on goodies from their Greek week -retsina and ouzo excepted. I have already bought a bottle of Mavrodaphne from Sainsbury's.
@70...Legally you are right, but my comment refers to the UK psyche and the UK governments insistence that they are 100%certain of their sovereignty rights. The fate of the sovereignty negotiations were sealed when Argentina illegally invaded a sovereign territory of another country.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no turning back the clock, wiping the slate clean.
If, hypothetically the Argentinian forces had kept hold of the islands, do you think for 1 minute that the countries in the C24 plus china, Russia etc would be disputing that Argentina do not hold sovereignty even though it would have been illegally gained. In the eyes of the UK the dispute was settled by the unilateral actions of Argentina in '82.
Argentina obviously refuses to take the matter to the ICJ, so one can only assume they accept the present situation, ownership and sovereignty rights, but can't bring themselves to acknowledge it. Instead they moan to all and sundry, except the people that can actually determine the case.
I suspect that Argentina declines to present its case to the International Court of Justice because it believes the ICJ to be as corrupt as their own legal system. They must mistakenly believe that the UK is prepared to pay for a favourable decision and Argentina would be unable to outbid the UK.
Aug 26th, 2016 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whether this is true or not is moot - they would not be successful either way.
Argentina seems to have a fetish for invading the islands belonging to the neighbours, under the imperialist banner they amusingly refer to as “sovereignty.”
Aug 26th, 2016 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From a wikipedia article summarising Argentina's military aggression in 1978 and 1982 and their plans to invade Chile and seize several Chilean islands:
” On 25 January 1978 Argentina.... began to prepare for war and the three islands [Picton, Lennox, and Nueva], and the Hermite and Wollastone islands became the main objective of the Argentine threat. On 22 December 1978, Argentina commenced (and a few hours later aborted) Operation Soberanía to invade both those islands and continental Chile. Although it had called off the operation, the Argentine government never gave up on the use of military force to pressure Chile. After the invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982, the Argentine junta planned the military occupation of the three islands, as stated by Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo, chief of the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands war, in an interview with the Argentine magazine Perfil:
L.F. Galtieri: “[Chile] have to know that what we are doing now, because they will be the next in turn.”
Argentines: always on the lookout for something they might steal.
It is odd that as soon as the International Court of Justice is mentioned the Argentine Malvinista trolls go silent!
Aug 27th, 2016 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0#88: Gordo, Argentina do not declines to present its case to the International Court of Justice, to any arbitration or to any political agreement with the UK. IT is the UK that do not grant jurisdiction to the ICJ over cases like Malvinas. It is the UK who refuse to end the sovereignty dispute by not sitting in the negotiation table that would enable a solution to the dispute. And by the way, I dont know what a troll is buy im sure you are a very trolo man more than anyone in here.
Aug 27th, 2016 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#89: quote: “Argentina seems to have a fetish for invading the islands belonging to the neighbours, under the imperialist banner they amusingly refer to as “sovereignty.” ”
Well i dont know if you are chilean or british, but neither of you cant talk about fetish for invading. It would be hilarious.
@91 Liberato
Aug 27th, 2016 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's true that Argentina could not force the UK to take the case to the ICJ, but you could offer to go to mediation there and ask the UK to accept. The fact that no government of Argentina has ever done this suggests they are not too confident of winning.
If Argentina made the offer then even if the UK refused it would be good PR for Argentina, so there is no real reason not to offer, except the fear of losing the case.
And of course the British can talk about a fetish for invading, we're experts ;-)
Libretto:
Aug 27th, 2016 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Well i dont know if you are chilean or british, but neither of you cant talk....”
I guess those are the only choices in the Libretto mind.
Ni uno ni el otro. Ni chilote ni británico. Limonada, tampoco.
Non-Self-Governing Territories
Aug 27th, 2016 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0united Nations on decolonisation.
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
you will find the Falkland's on here,
79 Hepatia
you should find your very own site.
@91....“It is the UK who refuse to end the sovereignty dispute by not sitting in the negotiation table that would enable a solution to the dispute.” It takes 'two to tango' as they say. So I see you are blaming the UK for not ending the sovereignty dispute and painting Argentina as the victim, typical.
Aug 27th, 2016 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So tell us what would be a suitable end to the sovereignty dispute in Argentinas eyes? Would it be independence for the Falklands so not under British Rule, would that be acceptable.
Hypothetically speaking, if the UK sat at the table with Argentina (and the Islanders), what would be the least you would expect to walk away with that would be acceptable, and what would Argentina bring to the party to negotiate with.
Would Argentina be able to accept not gaining sovereignty after the negotiations or is the handover of sovereignty a prerequisite for attending the said negotiations? Would it then be that Argentina were responsible for not ending the dispute if they do not accept the result, or would it still be the UK fault.
Just wondering....
The cream of Argentinian youth… German kids in swastikas and Hitler mos attack Jewish pupils http://dailym.ai/2bHoddv via @MailOnline
Aug 27th, 2016 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liberato
Aug 27th, 2016 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if a territory is on the united Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories on decolonisation, then it is by definition populated by “a people”.
2. What is a Non-Self-Governing Territory?
In the Charter, a Non-Self-Governing Territory is defined as a Territory “whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”. In 1946, several UN Member States identified a number of Territories under their administration that were not self-governing and placed them on a UN list. Countries administering Non-Self-Governing Territories are called administering Powers. As a result of the decolonization process over the years, most of the Territories were removed from the list.
The official title of the decolonisation committee is:
“The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial COUNTRIES and PEOPLES.”
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/specialcommittee.shtml
BTW: Liberato, you very obviously forgot to answer a number of inconvenient questions, please do so or stand exposed as either an ignorant or a liar.
#92: The UN resolutions asking both the UK and Argentina is actually a mediation. The argentine government has several times asked for dialogue and specified that the dialogue we are asking do not means an automatic transfer of sovereignty but ways to find a solution to the dispute as the UN so many times requested.
Aug 27th, 2016 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#95: So the victim is the british people right?.
A suitable end for Argentina would be a recognition of argentine sovereignty, just like for the british would be the remains of the status quo. But dialogue or negotiations means both nations can reach a way to find a definite solution. Be it arbitration, shared sovereignty, whatever. With Sovereignty negotiations the UN is asking for ways to end the dispute.
quote: “Would it be independence for the Falklands so not under British Rule, would that be acceptable. ”
An independent “falklands” as it is now, would be the same colony , with a new name. Its like the “referendum”, the “constitution”, the no acceptance of argentine residents there. The importation of british judges, medics, teachers, engineers, the feudal FIH ,the british oil companies that are ghosts, all dependent from Britain.
If through sovereignty negotiations it is decided to go to arbitration and Argentina lose, then the dispute is over. The same goes the other way around. Nevertheless after that we will not tolerate having a colony down here like we would not tolerate a dictatorship around here anymore So Argentina would still be involved in the region.
#96: Should i mark how is the cream of british youth?
#97: Except for your last paragraph, i agree with everything the UN said. Islanders obviously are people, and they form part of a people, which is the UK. What they are not, is A people, different to those living in Britain. Thats why there is no “falklands” sit in the negotiation table requested by the UN and thats why there is no self determination right to be applied in Malvinas by them.
Inconvenient questions? like what?.
Libretto: ”A suitable end for Argentina would be a recognition of argentine sovereignty,...
Aug 28th, 2016 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0For Argentina, maybe. But Argentina doesn't have a dog in this fight. It's up to the people who live there, the Falklanders, and not Argentina, to determine their path.
And it seems that the islanders have been very clear in rejecting any affiliation with Argentina. If Argentina had one iota of appreciation for democratic self-determination, it would stop annoying the neighbours.
Let's make it easy for you to understand, Libretto. The Falklands aren't going to affiliate with Argentina or anyone else until they themselves decide so on the matter. ¿Entendés? You can stencil your buses and frontier billboards any colour you like, and you can draw up imaginary maps and invent place-names for the territories of others, you can take your imaginings to every bridge club and ice-cream social, and you can stomp and stammer until your cheeks turn azul celeste, and it won't make the slightest amount of difference, other than offering the good people of the civilised nations something to laugh at. Because that is all that Argentina is accomplishing here: giving the rest of the world yet another reminder that Argentina has been, still is, and will forever be the laughingstock of the hemisphere.
For the Falkland Islands to become fully independent, the Islanders will need a ‘big brother’ to help them look after their security. Unfortunately for Argentina, it doesn’t meet the most essential criteria for this role – membership of the civilised world.
Aug 28th, 2016 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@98
Aug 28th, 2016 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinean politicians often make great mileage out of the UK being in breach of numerous UN resolutions by stating such as, 'the UK and Argentina have a historic opportunity to set an example to the world by resolving this dispute by peaceful and diplomatic means, as called for by as many as 40 UN resolutions since 1965.' (Alicia Castro, the Guardian 11 March 2013). This statement seems impressive but the fact is the vast number of these resolutions have come from the UN Decolonisation Committee. The Decolonisation Committee is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly, it has NO decision-making powers. Any resolutions that it passes have no legal significance and are irrelevant unless they are endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.
The last UNGA resolution that was specific to the Falkland Islands was UN Resolution 43/25 from 17th November 1988. That resolution, 'Reiterated its request to the governments of Argentina and the UK to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the pending problems between both countries, including all aspects of the Falkland Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.' No mention was made to ANY sovereignty negotiations. In this respect, the UK and Argentina restored diplomatic relations and the UK/Falklands made agreements with the Argentine government in respect of hydrocarbons exploration and fisheries control. Both agreements were terminated by Argentina. (Falkland Islands Government, London Office, 'Relations With Argentina').
UN resolution 2625 XXV 24 Oct 1970, also states, …”the free association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.” The 2013 referendum demonstrated the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain freely associated with the UK.
101
Aug 28th, 2016 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0...Bob
UN resolution 2625 XXV 24 Oct 1970, also states, …”the free association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.” The 2013 referendum demonstrated the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain freely associated with the UK.
How is that working for the “people” of the Bakassi ...?
Have they been allowed free association with Nigeria..
Your self determination isn't worth the paper it's not written on....
102 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and immitator extraordinaire
Aug 28th, 2016 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How is that working for the “people” of the Bakassi …?” Moving the 'goal-posts' to an issue that is totally beyond the control of the present parties is a non sequitur. Therefore, isn't worth the paper it's written on..
@ 102 Voice
Aug 28th, 2016 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you feel so strongly about the people of the Bakassi, why don't you go there and help them ? Or could it be that you are simply using them to distract from the fact that Argentina is losing the argument yet again ?
Self determination has never been preserved by a peice of paper, treaty or pact. Self determination has always been underwritten by blood. Are you prepared to fight for it and, if necessary, die for it or not.
A question that we answered in 1982.
@ 102 Voice
Aug 28th, 2016 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nigeria's case was based on 'historical consolidation'
Reference the Bakassi judgment: It is interesting that the two major inferences for the Court rejecting Nigeria’s claim of historic consolidation referred to (i) an already established treaty title and (ii) too short a period of occupation (20 years). Neither of which would apply to the Falkland Islands.
It wouldn't apply to the Falklands in any case because Argentina has never legally owned the islands.
@98 Liberato
Aug 28th, 2016 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN C24 has never tried ordering Argentina and the UK to go to the ICJ, nor has either country ever offered AFAIK. Presumably neither is 100% confident of winning.
“Nevertheless after that we will not tolerate having a colony down here”
That doesn't give much incentive for Britain to agree to arbitration, does it, if Argentina would still not accept the status quo even if Britain 'won'?
Does French Guiana bother you, and if not then what is the difference?
@98...“An independent “falklands” as it is now, would be the same colony , with a new name”, ...Hmmm plainly wrong and a lie, as proven according to the C24, UN1514 and UN1541 Principle VI, but then you know that, it is just your indoctrinated education that makes you read one thing and then understand it to be the exact opposite. Please show us all where your option above is validated by the UN.
Aug 28th, 2016 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You see Liberato, you tell us on the one hand that the UNC24 resolutions are being ignored by the UK, but believe it is fine to make up your own version of the very founding principles that the C24. Are the Falklands an NSGT or not, you can't have your cake and eat it. There are no exceptions, special cases or other designations in the definition of a NSGT. Again, please show the rest of us where the UNGA has stated this to be the case. Otherwise your are just stating your misguided and clearly incorrect opinion.
As for the rest of your post, it sums up why the UK deem it futile to sit and talk, you have clearly stated that the prerequisite for any negotiation is the hand over of sovereignty, that clearly is not 'negotiation'. And why not go directly to the ICJ and miss out the middle man. If you know the UK won't negotiate, why spent the last 30 odd years since '82 moaning about it. Nothing is stopping Argentina going, come on what's stopping you.....
Argentina has a long and sordid history of itself selecting a legal jurisdiction and then, when things didn't work out in favour of Argentina, the country proclaimed that it would not abide by the decision and thus fell into contempt of the very court that it selected.
Aug 28th, 2016 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In this respect, an attempt to deal legalistically with Argentina is not unlike trying to reason with a pouty three-year-old child.
One of the better known and recent, though hardly unique, cases
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-supreme-court-rejects-argentinas-appeal-in-debt-case-about-paying-off-holdouts/2014/06/16/cdfcf58e-f56c-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-supreme-court-rejects-argentinas-appeal-in-debt-case-about-paying-off-holdouts/2014/06/16/cdfcf58e-f56c-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
Liberato,
Aug 29th, 2016 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0whether you agree with the United Nations or not, is of no consequence. As far as I am informed they don't take their advice from you.
As I quoted in #97:
The official title of the decolonisation committee is:
“The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial COUNTRIES and PEOPLES.”
If your claim in #98:
[The Falkland] “Islanders obviously are people, and they form part of a people, which is the UK. What they are not, is A people, different to those living in Britain.” were correct, then the United Kingdom should also be on the C24 list. Thus your logic is faulty. The Falkland Islanders constitute A people.
Besides, the people of the Falkland Islands are different from those living in Britain, although there are many similarities, something you must have noticed on your last visit to the Falkland Islands.
@91 Liberato
Aug 29th, 2016 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is an extract from a review of the Falkland Island sovereignty claim by Argentina.
”Following World War II, the British Empire declined and colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean gained their independence. Argentina saw this as an opportunity to push its case for gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and raised the issue in the United Nations, first stating its claim after joining the UN in 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague (1947,1948 and 1955). On each occasion Argentina declined.”
Your comments, please.
Anglo turnip at (110)
Aug 29th, 2016 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please inform yourself...
The “Falkland Islands Dependencies” did NOT include the Falkland Islands...
Just the usual Foreign and Colonial Office trickery...
@111 The point remains that Argentina declined the offered arbitration, and yet still claims the Dependencies! Rather consistent with Argentina's other refusals to submit the regional issues to recognised arbitration means. Just the usual argie trickery.
Aug 29th, 2016 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@111 Think
Aug 29th, 2016 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marti Llano has understood perfectly the point I was trying to make.
When Britain offered to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ Argentina refused.
Stink lost again - Bahahaha… Turnip!
Aug 29th, 2016 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Frightened of the ICJ, bad breath and flatulence - loser
Only mate is Voice from Dunoon, tsssss…
Thing is Argentina's cowardly attack won't be forgotten or forgiven especially with its appalling treatment of the islanders the war crimes it committed against HM forces
Aug 29th, 2016 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0murdering crashed aircrew false surrenders use of napalm.
your cowards and bullies and when you don't get your own way you whine and that's all you can do.
There are occasions when the malvinista trolls give the impression that Argentina is a nation of deluded half wits!
Aug 30th, 2016 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gordito, I think that crediting them with “half” is extremely charitable.
Aug 30th, 2016 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#106: I've never said the UN requested to go to the ICJ. Read again.
Aug 30th, 2016 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In an eventually end of an arbitration, if Argentina loses, then the sovereignty claim would be over. and its to the UN to end the decolonization process. Nevertheless, Argentina as a neighbour would watch the process without claiming sovereignty. What what you dont underestood?.
#107: let's see. If the UN says that the islands as they are right now are a territory under a colonial situation. Then, it would not change that status by the simple legal adjudment that the british make. If it would do so, they would have declared independence long long time ago. It is just like the referendum made in Malvinas and Gibraltar, where for the british were valid and for the UN were not.
Your second paragraph is a question or what?.
Argentina have not stated that the prerequisite for any negotiation is the hand over of sovereignty, at all. Quite the contrary, the constitution do not says that and the former president Kirchner said it personally herself that we only want dialogue. Its like if we say that the british cant negotiate becouse the “constitution” of the islands says that the queen Elizabeth is their head of state.
Even knowing that you like to put excuses for not doing it.
#109: Quote“... were correct, then the United Kingdom should also be on the C24 list. Thus your logic is faulty. The Falkland Islanders constitute A people....”
I've never saw a logic as stupid as this. The british could go around the world invading and replacing the originals inhabitants by their own without been in the c24 list in any other position than in the place they got, which is under the colonial administrator that they are.
Similarities?.
#110: I dont know where you took that review, but it is not an argentine review.
So right in the moment when Argentina decided to join the UN they saw an oportunity to claim the islands becouse they saw britain was weak?. Argentina claimed the islands since 1833 not 1945.
Libretto, it's time to give it up. Argentina is not going to get the Falklands. Jamás. Jamás de los jamases.
Aug 31st, 2016 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Así de simple. ¿Entendés?
Podés argumentar hasta la saciedad, hasta las calendas griegas, hasta los cerdos vuelen. Las Falklands ni fueron ni son ni serán argentinas. Fin de la historia.
Liberatillo!
Aug 31st, 2016 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tus argumentos son patéticos y, obviamente, son de una persona desesperada y ciega. Tu cerebro ha sido lavado por la propaganda oficial desde la infancia a tal punto que la verdad no la puedes ver.
118 Liberato
Aug 31st, 2016 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If Argentina loses, then the sovereignty claim would be over.” Under the rules of international law she has already lost as her claim would never be recognized. Nothing from UN Charter or resolution can be applied retroactively to an event that occurred in 1833 thus: “...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994. Moreover, ”there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
#121: it has past like almost 200 years since 1833 and the islands remains being in a colonial situation. With a worldwide recognized sovereignty dispute. Where even your biggest ally recognize a de facto situation. So i recommend you not to call yourself the winner.
Sep 01st, 2016 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's sovereignty claims is based on the law in force at the time it was done. Which at the time the british invaded illegally. Becouse it invaded a sovereign nation (and recognized by them) and illegitimate, after like 60 years without british prescence nor protest nor claim at all about their “sovereignty right”.
However, resolutions on the UNGA or the DC are not to judge or take sides on a sovereignty dispute. Thats why they invites the two parts of the dispute to resolve it through sovereignty negotiations.
“there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”. But you dont need to quote nobody to know that. Argentina has the right to claim sovereignty rights and the UK to not listen. But that would not end the dispute nor the colonial problem. If there are 10 territories under british colonialism in this 21 century, may be we should wait for another century. After all, many of you brits feel pretty confortable living in a colonial territory, so...
Colorín, colorado, libretto. Ese cuento se ha acabado.
Sep 01st, 2016 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Decime qué se siente.....dándose cabezazos contra esa pared.
@122 Liberato,
Sep 01st, 2016 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0No good matey.
Argentina can claim what it likes, BUT The Falklands will NEVER be yours.
Sorry to burst your bubble(no, not really sorry at all!).
he he he he he.
122 Liberato
Sep 01st, 2016 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina's sovereignty claims is based on the law in force at the time it was done.” That is completely false as this is the international law that was in effect.
Based on the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
“§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.”
Even if such a peace treaty was not in effect the British occupation was still recognized as valid under international law of the time. Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest
as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: ”Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either
based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the facultyof effectively disposing of the ceded territory. That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territor
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!