MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islanders must be recognized, says UK ambassador in Argentina
UK is interested in strengthening bilateral relations with Argentina, building confidence, dialogue, leaving aside sanctions and conflicts, and when it comes to the Falklands/Malvinas and sovereignty, “we must recognize Islanders, their wishes, their lives”, indicated British ambassador in Buenos Aires Mark Kent in an interview with Martin Dinatale, political and diplomatic analyst from La Nacion. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWatch your backs FALKLANDERS, the politicians are a devious group of individualsas a whole, no matter which country you look at. As long as they can get their names in the history books.Egomaniacs the lot of them.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse +5“Dinatale wanted to know if the trip and exchange meant a door had opened for a more in depth discussion on the Malvinas”
Feb 13th, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Yes...well we all know what Argentina means by that....
......and the short answer is NO.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Don't worry Golfcronie- we are well used to both Buenos Aires and those in the Foreign Office! - and GAllamosa hit the nail on the head!
Feb 13th, 2017 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Very interesting Mr Ambassador: “Islanders' interests”; “before addressing the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty”...
Feb 13th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -12Well isn't that what your beloved UN 2065 says Mr Kohen, it certainly doesn't say they should discuss sovereignty first. But then you are not known for your 'knowledge' and 'use' of the true facts are you? You like to use your 'Alternative Facts'.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Marcelo, if you put words in quotes, it means someone actually said them. Did the ambassador actually say the second phrase you quote? All of the words in the same order? You don't want to make a mistake, do you?
Feb 13th, 2017 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Quotation marks are used to quote a particular passage or part of a passage in an article, it doesn't necessarily mean a person has said it...
Feb 13th, 2017 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -5If there are two sets of quotation marks it is likely these are two separate quotes...
Why would Marcelo say 'very interesting Mr Ambassador' if he didn't think the guy actually said those words?
Feb 13th, 2017 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1But anyway, I looked up the interview in La Nación, and the relevant quote appears to be this one:
“Podemos trabajar en muchos temas bilaterales antes de hablar del tema de la soberanía de las islas.”
Make of that what you will...
I would say islanders are pretty safe with the Macri government, which is mostly interested in making operations such as erasing a multi-million debt of the Macri empire with the state over the bankruptcy of the Correo Argentino years ago after being privatized and given to the Macris. The Macri government benefiting the Macri group is a serious disappointment to those who voted based on “the Kirchners stole everything” and now see the replacement as much worse than the original.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -7@Marcelo Kohen.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +5”Islanders' interests”;
Yes, Marcello, the ISLANDERS' interests.
i.e.Not the interests of Argentina.
i.e.Not the interests of the UK.
Only the Falkland Islanders can tell you what their interests are, because by definition' Islander's interests' are the possession of the Islanders, because they can't possibly be anyone else's interests.
Argentina cannot decide what the Islander's interests are, but Argentina can outline what Argentina's interests are.
So thank you, Marcelo, for your support for the Falkland Islanders.
Britain must not be tempted so sell any arms whatsoever to Argentina. Argentina is at the very earliest stage of returning to a normal society. The left wing nutters and fascists are waiting in the wings and could return at any moment. Our guard must be kept up.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What exactly has Argentina got to offer the FALKLANDERS, Answers on a postage stamp please.
Feb 13th, 2017 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Ambassador Kent was cautious, “there are many bilateral issues to address before talking about sovereignty. There's much work pending”.
Feb 14th, 2017 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1Before talking about sovereignty ? That's an unfortunate phrase. If I were an Argentine I might be led to think that there is still, at the end of the road, a possibility that discussions on sovereignty might take place. I do not believe that such discussion form any part of British or Falkland Island plans, in the short, medium or long term, but on hearing this Argentines might think differently. Shape up Your Excellency.
Marcelo Kohen
Feb 14th, 2017 - 07:13 am - Link - Report abuse +1You are a pompous nobody who has no place on this forum - your opinions here are totally without merit.
Pete Bog, I agree that the Islanders must determine what their interests are. The territorial sovereignty dispute is another thing. I strongly defend this. At the same footing of Argentine sovereignty.
Feb 14th, 2017 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse -8The matter of sovereignty was settled 30 years ago Marcelo Kohen. Hadn't you noticed? I have been telling you.
Feb 14th, 2017 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse +2Maybe 28 years ago at least - or do you still think that there was a 'Gentleman's agreement'?
Haven't you ever looked at the last paragraph in the Secretariat's report on the Falklands each year since 2003 and wondered .... “Why?”
For those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about ....... you need to know more :-)
So Mr Kohen, if the Islanders decide it is in the best interests to become an independent nation, I assume you will allow them that right?
Feb 14th, 2017 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3In which case, how does your 'sovereignty dispute' fit into that scenario.
Or do you mean that the Islanders interests are only pertinent if they do not interfere with Argentinas claim.
You don't seem very good at this Human Rights/Self Determination type stuff, what is your profession again?
I can discuss with my neighbors of the village about what is in our best interests, but certainly we cannot decide the independence of the village. Self-determination, self-government, self-rule, everything play within a given framework, as the Canadian Supreme Court said rejecting the possibility that the Québecois may declare independence unilaterally.
Feb 14th, 2017 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -6First and foremost the Argentina government should drop its false claim to the British Falkland's, Full stop,
Feb 14th, 2017 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Marcelo
Feb 14th, 2017 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +6If the Islanders wish to declare independence they can do so tomorrow. If Argentina had a strong rather than a tenuous claim at best, they would be taking their claim to the ICJ, which is the appropriate forum.
Marcelo
Feb 14th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“as the Canadian Supreme Court said rejecting the possibility that the Québecois may declare independence unilaterally”
Seriously.
What kind of moronic straw man argument is that?
Bill C-20 (Clarity Act) and the associated SCC ruling is utterly irrelevant to this case in point; and even a discredited photo-shop “professor” (and I use that designation very loosely) would know such.
Although if you did bother to actually read the ruling, and somehow were to apply it to the Falklands, you would see that it states that the current governing federal government (which again, in NO way such authority could be compared or transposed onto Agentina's current status on the islands) is actually obligated to negotiate independence with Quebec, if they have a clear mandate from the populace (is 98%+ good enough for you?).
Do I really have to explain Dion's three submitted questions to you; and what exactly was asked of the SCC? I've forgotten more about that ruling than you'll ever even learn.
You are obviously nothing more than a silly shill for an long obsolete and indefensible myth.
Time for you to move on to some other lost cause.
I find it so annoying (and a waste) when people are educated beyond their comprehensive skills. Quit being such a schmuck.
D
Canadian Supreme Court said something else -
Feb 14th, 2017 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“It is clear that a 'people' may include only a portion of the population of an existing state. The right to self-determination has developed largely as a human right..”
Other points to consider regarding self-determination Photoshop Prof -
Art.73 of Chapter XI places obligations on Administering Powers regarding - “ .. territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government..” (NSGT) to; “ .. develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples...”
There are no NSGTs without a people in need of the attainment of a full measure of self-government. A territory without a people cannot be a NSGT. Resolution 567 (VI) (1952) states; “ The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
Self-determination of the people of NSGTs has been recognised as a right since 1952's Resolution 637 (VII).
The Islanders are not in a village Prof - they live in an NSGT with the acknowledged right to determine their own future. Quebec wasn't listed as an NSGT - but you know that. Ignoring that small important fact just makes you look more duplicitous.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/self-determination-points-to-ponder1.pdf
“I can discuss with my neighbors of the village about what is in our best interests, but certainly we cannot decide the independence of the village”
Feb 14th, 2017 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Au contraire mon frère.....if your village was under the sovereignty of a country that stated you are entitled to self determination then you would most certainly be able to chose. Scotland remember them.......ring any bells.....
I always used to think it unfair to use the phrase... 'those that can do , those that can't teach', but in your case Mr Kohen, the cap seems to fit.
Marcelo - Think-puppet,
Feb 15th, 2017 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse +4What a waste of space you are. What you say might work in Argentina however...
Not to worry. Apparently, the ambassador didn't say those contentious things. The journalist mis-remembered them, despite having a recording. The embassy sent him another copy of the taped conversation and asked him to correct the article. He apologised.
Feb 15th, 2017 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse +4British Embassy Circular
Feb 15th, 2017 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse +5The interview published by La Nación on Sunday contained some quotes attributed to the Ambassador that were not accurate, including the one used as a title.
The title read: “We can work on a lot of bilateral issues before we speak of the islands’ sovereignty” (“Podemos trabajar en muchos temas bilaterales antes de hablar de la soberanía de las islas”).
The Ambassador’s actual words were: “we we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side”. (Pero tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto, aparte del tema de la soberanía).
The other phrase was: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognise the islanders, their interests, their life”. (“Cuando hablamos del futuro de las islas hay que reconocer al isleño, sus intereses, su vida”).
The Ambassador’s words were: “When we talk about the future of the islands we have to recognise the islanders, recognise their rights, their hopes, their fears”. (“Cuando hablamos del futuro de las islas hay que reconocer a los isleños, hay que reconocer sus derechos, sus esperanzas, sus miedos”).
We sent Dinatale the correct quotes (taken from our own recording of the interview) and asked him to amend -at least- the online version of the interview, which he has done: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1983943-mark-kent-podemos-trabaj….
He expressed his apologies and said it was what he had heard on his own recording, and it had not been done deliberately or in bad faith.
Even more interesting if the Ambassador had to “clarify” his terms...
Feb 15th, 2017 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse -7For the sake of “clarity”: Scotland's referendum was not legally done on the basis of international law, but on the decision of the British Government. Furthermore: think about what the Supreme Court decided about the Brexit: the referendum was not the last word: the decision is in Parliament.
With regard to the ICJ: as explained thousand of times, an agreement between the parties given consent to the ICJ to settle the dispute is needed. Unfortunately, the UK does not accept to negotiate. Let's go to the negotiations table and if no direct settlement is reached, then let's go to the ICJ!
And just to finish, something interesting written by the former British Judge and President of the ICJ: “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination” (“International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes. General Course on Public International Law”, R.C.A.D.I., 1991, vol. 230, p. 174)
The point being Mr Kohen, both were undertaken as an internal UK affair, nothing to do with Argentina or the rest of the world. Argentina does not have a say in the future of the Islands, only the Islanders do. The UK upholds their right to self determination as a BOT and the UN does as a NSGT. Argentina does not control, have sovereignty or jurisdiction over the Islands, therefore you do not get to say what they can and cannot do or decide.
Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse +5Argentina are welcome to take their issue to the UK Courts, as that is the only legal recourse available to you other than the ICJ, go for it, knock yourself out!.
'Even more interesting if the Ambassador had to “clarify” his terms'....not really, if someone lies about what they 'think' they heard, it is only right to correct or clarify it. What is interesting is the need to lie in the first place, is that the Argentine psyche?
If you need to twist everything and lie to align with your argument, then you don't really have a case to start with do you. But this was for internal consumption to keep up the indoctrination of the masses....look shiny things, nice shiny things.....
Marcelo. As has been asked many ,many times on this forum, what exactly has Argentina got to offer the FALKLANDERS if they wish to £ negociate “ a settlement of your spurios claim. Com'on now is your chance to answer, as we have no idea what ” benefits“ could the FALKLANDERS have under the ”cosh” of Argentine administration.
Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse +5Mr. Lorton...
Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse -6For the sake of clarity as my learned and esteemed compatriot Mr. Marcelo Kohen writes above...:
1) Mr. Mark Kent..., UK ambassador to Argentina, who..., besides Engrish..., speaks Spanish..., Portuguese..., French..., Dutch..., Vietnamese and Thai..., gave this specific interview in SPANISH to an Argentinean newspaper...
2) All evidence shows (and the parts agree) that what Mr. Kent said, in SPANISH was...:
- “Pero tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto, APARTE DEL tema de la soberanía.”
3) Some correct Engrish translations of the above phrase would be...:
- a) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, OTHER THAN the sovereignty issue.
- b) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, ASIDE FROM the sovereignty issue.
- c) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING the sovereignty issue.
- d) ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, IN ADDITION FROM the sovereignty issue.
http://www.linguee.cl/espanol-ingles/traduccion/aparte+del+tema.html
4) The “British Embassy Revised” version of Mr. Kent's words reads now...:
- ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side”.
In Spanish that would read..:
- Pero tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto, DEJANDO DE LADO el tema de la soberanía.
Those were NOT Ambassador Kent's actual words..., laddie...
Not close...
British Brainwash anybody...?
First the Photoshop Prof:
Feb 15th, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +31) Scotland was annexed in 1707 according to 'International Law' - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf. That we choose to recognise their opinions with regard to self-determination is entirely a matter for the UK.
2) The UK “does not accept to negotiate” because we've been there and done that. We negotiated for 17 years. Argentina wants to talk but Argentina never wants to listen. As for the ICJ - attempts to invite Argentina to go failed. As the duplicitous Prof knows full well. If Argentina wants to go to the ICJ, then Argentina should invite the UK. But Argentina won't, will it? Why? Because this issue was put to rest 28 years ago. Argentina's whole claim comes down to a fantasy inheritance.
3) 1991? Self-determination has continued to develop since then Prof. The NSGTs have the right - recognised by the UN - to full external self-determination. The right to decide. None of your squirming can avoid that simple fact.
Now to the Randy Scandy (for those that watch QI). Otherwise known as a 1st generation Argie who has a need to make his allegiances clear - regardless of common sense.
Half the wars in this world may be put down to translation problems Think; I merely quoted the Embassy clarification. Do you have the original transcription Think? Mr. Kent appears to disagree with the words assigned to him. Hardly my problem. As for a brainwash, who in the UK even noticed? Nobody I suspect. Indoctrination is, after all, the problem in Argentina. Didn't Escude deal with that already?
The Ambassador's words are, in any case, unimportant. The Islanders will decide their future, and there is not a damn thing that either the duplicitous Photoshop Prof, or you Think, can do about it.
Argentina is impotent. Why? Because every year the C24 do not recommend their own Falklands resolution for adoption and 58/316 passes without notification.
The matter is settled - 28 years ago
@Think
Feb 15th, 2017 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse +4And what are also not the ambassador's actual words? What La Nación said before the correction:
“Podemos trabajar en muchos temas bilaterales antes de hablar del tema de la soberanía de las islas.”
Had a problem translating from Spanish to Spanish did they? Or was it wishful thinking on the part of the reporter?
Small world..., Mr. Lorton...
Feb 15th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -5I had to Google that “Randy Scandy thing” of yours...
What a surprise seeing little Sandy doing well in England...!
Absolutely clear that she has inherited all of Claus Bertil's wit and charm...
Mr Think,
Feb 16th, 2017 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +4Let us just put 'Aside' or 'to one side' what your learned and esteemed compatriot Mr. Marcelo Kohen has said in order to clarify your statements....
1) Notice the use of those two phrases/words 'aside' and 'to one side', they have the same meaning do they not?
2) Thank you for providing 'some' of the translations for the phrase in question, it provides us with clear evidence that there are many ways to translate a phrase in certain instances without having to use a different word/words.
3) Just to clarify, the British Embassy provided the actual wording of the original interview in Spanish, it was not revised. A revision would suggest that it was changed by the British Embassy and as we all agree it was changed by the Argentine reporter transcribing Spanish to Spanish.
4) The fact that the British Embassy used the phrase 'to one side' in their translation as opposed to what you would deem an acceptable translation of 'Aside' is pedantic, puerile and frankly just clutching at straws. It is clearly an attempt to divert from the fact that a far greater and deliberate mistake had been made in changing the original Spanish to Spanish version.
You pick up on the smallest of details in a translation, while ignoring the far greater inaccuracy that was a calculated, deliberate and underhand misrepresentation of the original Spanish version by your fellow ‘Malvanistic’ country man, yet we are the “Brainwashed”.
Our British exile in Uruguay, who I identify as Andy Capp, and who constantly refers to the Spanish language as “Jibber Jabber” will take delight from THINK, above, and, for once, I must say I agree with Andy Capp. Think has confirmed that HIS Spanish is jibber jabber!
Feb 16th, 2017 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Marcelo
Feb 16th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“For the sake of “clarity”: Scotland's referendum was not legally done on the basis of international law”
What exactly is your point here?
The UK government did not prevent Scotland from having a referendum.
Are you suggesting that the UK did not allow the Scottish a referendum on whether they wished to remain in the UK, in another case of “Argentine denial syndrome?”
“Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination”
So why in 2008 did the United Nations reject Spain and Argentina's motion that self determination did not apply to areas under dispute?
James Marshall and Pete Bog,
Feb 16th, 2017 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Hear, hear!!
Mr Kohen, are you trying to apply modern international law to an event that happened almost 200 years ago?
Feb 16th, 2017 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3By actually doing more trade with Argentina, it undermines the British Falkland's and rewards the argies,
Feb 16th, 2017 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2the trade is nothing more that a diversion and excuse to get rich , by some, to ignore the real issue,
many would disagree , mainly those who agree with the argies,
but until the argies drop their claim, then NO trade should be entered into,
this may well force them to decide one way or another,
but to bypass sovereignty with the excuse to trade, merely rewards them for their illegal egression against the islanders.
just my opinion.
Briton
Feb 16th, 2017 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Agreed.
Hang 'EM out to dry until
they recant
Is it possible today to request permission for any inhabitant of Argentina to request from the current authorities of the islands the permission required to reside and work legally?
Feb 17th, 2017 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alvarez
Feb 17th, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to have a job offer first - I believe. Not even British citizens are granted residence and work permits without a job offer.
Marcelo Kohen
Feb 18th, 2017 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination”
The same author also answered that question Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways than through Argentinas acquiescence.”
“However intensely Argentina may disagree, Britain has clearly built up good title to the Falkland Islands under International Law over the last 150 years.” Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
I just don't trust the government,
Feb 18th, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it used to be, they have rights , and oppose the sanctions against the islanders,
the will of the people, etc etc,
yet since these meetings will argentine lawyers,
the rhetoric seems to have changed to, lets put sovereignty to one side,-
or we must leave aside sanctions, look for a better relationship,
gone it seems the hard act to be replaced by , it seems , money , investment , deals ,
or perhaps im just reading it all wrong.
@Briton
Feb 18th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It was Argentina who were doing the 'hard act' before. The UK government were always more interested in money, investment and deals, but they were forced to respond to what CFK did. Now Macri is in power we can try and work together as much as possible; there is no point fighting if it's not necessary.
i doubt if anyone want to return to a war footing,
Feb 19th, 2017 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1as long as this Macri respects and accepts the islanders, and respects their right to exist,
working together is fine, unless he has an alternative motive,, do you think Macri
will do the right thing and respect the rights and sovereignty of the islanders.
The british need to recognize the largest genocide and torture on history on their slave trade and opium trade. They need to recognize that the british empire was sustained on cotton, and textile trade, which dependend exclusively in slavery of innocent human beings on an umprecedented scale, both in America and India.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse -4They need to recognize the invasion of many sovereign countries and the outright intervention, with assasinations, economic or military reprisals, threats, to many countries, and ask forgiveness to all these countries, specially China and the Africans.
Regarding Argentina, they need to ask forgiveness for forcing the division of south america in pieces, for forcing the creation of Uruguay, for forcing the war and the following genocide of the people of Paraguay, for the Vuelta de Obligado, and many, many other aggresions...
They need to recognize the chagosian´s right to SELF DETERMINATION, and pay, not only in money, but in apologies, for all the crimes against humanity they commited in the past centuries.
After all that has been accomplished, we can discuss about the rights of some grandsons of colonists installed in these islands only to steal oil, fish and whatever we will find in Antarctica.
Sure, the poor Spanish SA colonists and revolutionaries were misguided and naive children exploited by the British.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse +2Sorry SA Trolls, you are victims of your own Self-Determination.
LOL
@Briton
Feb 19th, 2017 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +2Macri doesn't give a fig about the rights and sovereignty of the islanders. But he does care about getting investment from Britain and making money for Argentina, so we can deal with him.
@LukeDig
Should all countries recognise and apologise for the terrible things they did in the past, which were perfectly legal and seen as normal at the time? How far back do you want to go?
And should Britain also apologise for later forcing other countries to sign treaties banning the slave trade, and for illegally boarding their ships while trying to stop it?
Regarding Argentina, Britain had nothing to do with the division of South America, nothing to do with the Paraguayan war, and I don't see too many Uruguayans who desperately want to be part of Argentina or Brazil, so why should we apologise?
And why do you support self-determination for the Chagossians, but not for the Falklanders? Neither are native to their islands, and the Chagos Islands are claimed by Mauritius, very similar to how the Falklands are claimed by Argentina.
Either 'grandsons of colonists' have rights, or they don't. I think they should, and it should be the same everywhere. Every country in America was claimed by some European power in the past, and plenty of children and grandchildren of colonists have declared their independence.
DT
Feb 19th, 2017 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Thorough, well thought out answer.
@DemonTree
Feb 19th, 2017 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -2All normal and civilized countries do so. Many compensations have been paid, sometimes centuries later, but they have been paid. Investigate around, there have been more cases than I care to count.
And to show you I´m right, your government has been doing so in a timid basis https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/06/uk-more-colonial-era-compensation-claims
Britain was the main slaver by far, so whatever they did after to stop it does not justify anything.- Moreover considering that NATO has been bombing civilians, maiming children with their bombs, for 50 years with few pauses, in the middle east: Being part of an alliance does not magically dissolve responsibility.
Regarding Argentina, Britain had everything to do with the division of south america. The people who organized the revolution were funded and given orders by the british, who gave express order to divide SA. If these brigands did not obey, the british navy would let the spanish disembark again and lay waste to the new governments, during over a century, britain had the monopoly on SA colonies.
The Paraguayan war was forced under threats by the british, because Paraguay instated protectionist measures, the brits saw that as defiance and ordered an invasion by the other countries, under threath of economic reprisal, it´s all documented by your Foreign Office.
Uruguay was part of the United Provinces, by order of the british, the uruguayan delegates were rejected when argentina was formed. When less submissive governments went on with reunification, the brits sent their bitches, the brazilians, to make war on us. The Foreign Office said that Uruguay should exist so that Argentina does not have both shores of the River Plate and that it should be “A cotton between two cristals” regarding Argentina and Brazil, again, quoting the Foreign Office.
So the chagossian´s islands where uninhabited? can you tell a better joke?
Your colonists did not claim, they conquered.
Read 'Fake History' and 'Fake News' courtesy of LukeDig!
Feb 19th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2LukeDig
Feb 19th, 2017 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Fake fake fake...
You Argentines and SA people's must have been very weak and stupid if little England with its wooden sailing ships could control all of the huge land mass of SA from 8,000+ miles away.
Did they direct you to enslave and slaughter the Indians?
Strange that Britain outlawed slavery in 1833 and you had black slaves until at least 1853.
Did England direct that Argentina kill all of her black population whilst leaving them alone in Brazil and the rest of SA?
Since when did England threaten Spanish colonies with reinstating Spanish Rule?
The British haven't been in SA for the past 80 years.
You have only yourselves to blame for your racism, fascism, genocide, and corruption.
Funny post though. Haha ha
@LukeDig
Feb 19th, 2017 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“All normal and civilized countries do so.”
Really? Which countries have voluntarily paid compensation even centuries later? Has Spain paid compensation to any South American countries? Has France given compensation to Haiti? Has Russia compensated Ukraine for the Holodomor? The only example you gave was Britain! And that was very different as they were compensating living people for what they had personally suffered.
Abolishing slavery does not justify the previous involvement in it, but it should count for something. Other countries kept it going a lot longer, and how many have compensated the descendants of the slaves?
Also Britain did not have to do anything to divide SA. It was already divided between different Vice-royalties because it was too big and diverse to be run from one place, and had a lot of groups who wanted to run their own country. Even Gran Colombia wasn't able to stay united and it had nothing to do with Britain. Besides, you don't need the British navy or anyone to protect you from Spain now, so why not get on with it and unite?
And there is nothing like that about Paraguay in the UK Foreign Office, it's revisionist history with no evidence at all.
“the brits sent their bitches, the brazilians, to make war on us”
Wow, nice to know you respect your neighbours! You do realise it would be pretty useful to Brazil to have that shore of the River Plate right? No country needs to be forced to do things that are in their own interest. And if Brazil was acting for the UK, we could have just helped them keep Uruguay as a province rather than making it a buffer state.
Yes, the Chagos Islands were uninhabited until France colonised them and brought slaves to farm coconuts. Britain took them from France after the Napoleonic wars and administered them from Mauritius, which also claims them now. So are the Chagossians a people with self-determination, or are they British or Mauritian?
LukeDig
Feb 19th, 2017 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Do you ever, ever, ever try checking some of your claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
The African continent was bled of all its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)…Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million across the trans-Saharan caravan route…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
Number of slaves transported by European Countries
Portugal(Including Brazil) 4,650,000
Britain 2,600,000
Spain (Including Cuba) 1,600,000
France (Including West Indies) 1,250,000
Holland 500,000
British North America US 300,000
Denmark 50,000
Others 50,000
Total 11,000,000
Number of Slaves Delivered to Each Country
Brazil 4,000,000 35.3%
Spanish Empire (Including Cuba) 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies (Including Cayenne) 1,600,000 14.1%
British North America & US 500,000 4.4%
Durth West Indies (Including Surinam) 500,000 4.4%
Europe (Including Portugal, Canary Islands
Madeira, Azores Etc. 200,000 1.8%
Danish West Indies 28,000 0.2%
Total 11,328,000
Will you also be demanding reparations from the countries listed above and from the various Muslim countries who themselves took 17,000,000 slaves!!!!! nearly 50% more than the Atlantic slave trade????
Darragh
Feb 19th, 2017 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Nicely done.
I don't imagine “LukeDig” will let a little thing like the truth deflect him from his ingrained convenient blame-shifting onto the British, however.
It must be sad to have bitterness instilled into one and have to live with it all your life.
I suppose blaming the British is a great coping mechanism for his own cultural and national failings as well as a great tool for the Argentine politicians.
Anyone know what has become of Maximo and La Campora since the Kirchnerists were ousted?
Fat Max? Now a meat pie taster for Fray Bentos?
Feb 19th, 2017 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ask Think, he's into Horsemeat ;-)
I find amusing that Wikipedia quotes a false reality. Specially in regards of muslim countries, as most of their records were lost.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Vuelta de Obligado suffices as example because Paraguay was invaded for the same reasons that battle happened, it was a permanent intervention in the freedom of all SA, and all the facts i invoked are depicted by the worlds most respected historian, Eric Hobswann.
Deny all you want the obvious evidence of oppression, it wont make it less true. Im going to take the job of getting these letters from the foreign office to you, so that we can defeat your ignorance and your belief that the british are champions of moralism.
By the way in derecho indiano there is proof that slavery was abolished far before the english, and that indigenous rights were respected far more than the brits or the Namericans.
As a matter of fact our population is mixed, while the british when they colonized they killed instead of mixing. But then accuse other cultures of bigotry
Britain was the main slaver by far
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Prove it.
Slavery has been around since brits were still living in caves,
it was Britain that abolished slavery,
as once again with anti brits,
its all our fault,
Britain is to blame for everything,
but don't worry abt the truth, as long as we get the blame.
Briton,
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Well, I for one will not be holding my breath for LukeDig's links and “proof”.
Obviously, “Wiki lies”, as it does not support his version of statistics and events.
“Paraguay was invaded ...it was a permanent intervention in the freedom of all SA”.
Sure, tell the Paraguayans that. They were inconvenient economic rivals, strategically located. Now they are surrounded and their access to outside markets is controlled by their closest neighbours and supposed “hermanos”.
The indigenous peoples of Argentina are to this day discriminated against by European Argentines, abused by the authorities and institutions that are supposed to serve and protect them.
LukeDig suggests that human rights abuses of 200 years ago give Argentina a free hand to do the same today.
What a hypocrite.
Agreed.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1LukeDig suggests many things,
perhaps he reading the wrong books...lol
A Marxist historian, how unsurprising.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yes, LukeDig, find those letters. If they exist at all, I wager they don't say what you claim.
I don't believe that Britain is a champion of moralism, but neither is it the root of all evil. Other countries have before and will continue to do things just as bad on their own initiative.
LukeDig
Feb 19th, 2017 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“I find amusing that Wikipedia quotes a false reality. Specially in regards of muslim countries, as most of their records were lost”. - prove it!!
LukeDigs main problem is that he hates the British with a passion, probably because they handed Argentina their arses on a plate in 1982.
ha ha, very true.
Feb 20th, 2017 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse +2DT
Feb 20th, 2017 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1“A Marxist historian, how unsurprising.”
Yes, same one Think/voice quotes, no doubt
LukeDig
Feb 20th, 2017 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1Seems his knowledge of history is unique to him and contradicts most other versions. Mostly “jibber jabber”!
@Lukedig
Feb 20th, 2017 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They need to recognize the chagosian´s right to SELF DETERMINATION”
Correct.
However, you aren't going to like this...... amigo.
The Chagossians wish to remain British and operate as a BOT, if allowed back to their homeland.
They want the US base to remain, using them as employees instead of the 1,500 foreigners bought in by the USA.
The continued US presence means Mauritius will never invade, who by the way are claiming the Chagos Islands
And because of having their compensation money stolen by Mauritius and being treated like crap post exile, most Chagos Islanders positively hate Mauritius.
There is also a myth around that the Chagosians are a security risk to the USA.
This is simply laughable. To be caught spying and passing on information would lead to their expulsion from their homeland (again), so these would be the last people to 'spy', especially as they are hoping to be employed at the base, instead of the 1,500 foreigners the US employ.
The bonus is that despite what happened to them, the Chagossians want to stay British, and develop autonomy similar to the other BOTS, as they don't want to be Mauritian and they realise it would be impractical with their numbers to be independent.
However, my suspicions are that Lukedig couldn't give a jacksquit about the Chagossians.
You don't want them back in their homeland, any more than you want the Falkland Islanders to remain in the Falkland Islands.
It'll wipe the smile off your face when the Chagossians finally return home.
However, hope to see you at the Chagossian Support Group Lukedig.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!