MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: Argentine human rights/political delegation to the Islands with a message of peace and dialogue
At least fourteen human rights, social, religious and political leaders from Argentina are planning to travel to the Falkland Islands in mid March hoping to meet Islanders with a message of peace and dialogue. The delegation includes Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, 1980 Peace Nobel Prize, Nora Cortiñas, founder of one of the several branches in which the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo are split, and members of the Memory Commission, according to reports from Buenos Aires. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“is something strange, a shudder down my back since I never imagined I would be stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours” !!!!
Mar 01st, 2017 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Erm… . Good luck with that one mate. Sounds like you are on a non starter with your false claim and colonial ambitions.
Odd that they feel they need to visit the Falklands to expose Argentine wrongdoing.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“ I never imagined I would be stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours”
Mar 01st, 2017 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +8That is such an appalling attitude that they may as well visit Outer Mongolia.
The message from the Falklands is definitely going to be ”Don't bother” !
During the weeklong stay, the delegation members “will develop activities signaled by the sovereignty claim and a peaceful resolution of the Malvinas conflict”.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Claim? That'll be that mythical Malvinas chestnut.
How can Argentina claim the Falklands when she has never legally owned them?
Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Malvinas like Atlantis, nobody knows where they are. HaHa Argentina human rights you are kidding me.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Brits talking of colonial ambitions. Its like french talking about baguettes.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -10Whats truly sad is that there are so many ignorant and naive people in Argentina who still believe in peaceful resolution... When we had a deal in the 90s they never fulfilled the signed terms, repeteadly. That, and the permanent despise of the brits, is the only truth they should know instead of wasting time in delusions of friendship with pirates.
Let's see, messages of peace, dialogue and human rights I would imagine would be warmly welcomed.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +11Messages like “stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours” will be treated politely, and with about as much warmth as an Antarctic winter night.
Oh and @LukeDig, I make that one “colonial”, one “pirates”, I think you're only short of an “implanted population” and a “a population, not a people” for the full buzzword bingo.
The Republic of Argentina signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945. Under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights the Falklanders have the right to choose for themselves who governs them and to whom they freely give their allegiance. No amount of “dialogue” can change that simple fact.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +8The Republic of Argentina cannot cherry pick which bits of international law they will comply with and which they will ignore. They cannot point to islands they wish to annexe, against the will of the people who live there, and say “the UN Charter does not apply there”. If they wish to repudiate the UN Charter they will first have to resign from the United Nations (as that paragon of human rights the President of the Philippines is threatening to do).
will develop activities signaled by the sovereignty claim and a peaceful resolution of the Malvinas conflict”
Mar 01st, 2017 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Did they not get the message in 1982. You lost all claim to the Islands,,,Goodbye,
TWIMC
Mar 01st, 2017 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -6A rare chance to meet some very interesting people and get some fresh air into that haughty Engrish Islander siege mentality..., me dear Kelpers...
Ya know..., that “Fog in South Atlantic - Continent Cut Off” stuff...
I 'think' that the Falkland Islands Government should arrange an official reception (band playing, lots of flags, long boring speeches) for these true representatives of the Argentine people and government.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +9And present them with the Islanders demands for peace.
“Odd that they feel they need to visit the Falklands to expose Argentine wrongdoing.”
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5They hope to find someone who hasn't heard about it already.
Think- Sorry disagree- they sound like same whinging group who turned up here in April 1982 to tray and persuade us to accept the invasion result and that all would be a bed of roses and to ask the British to leave us alone- that lot went back with a flea in their ear.
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +7These will get similar by the sounds of their arrogant attitude!
Do explain- How can someone come on a mission of peace and human rights - and at the same time announce that they will of course be visiting Argentine Territory - which thus 100% implies that we the people who have lived here peacefully for 184 years and have built the Islands up from nothing- have no rights anyway!?
I look forward to meeting them and pointing out some Historical Facts:
1 When the small Spanish settlement at Port Louis was withdrawn by Madrid in early 1800s - it was withdrawn to Montevideo. Uruguay remained a Spanish Territory for some 2--30 years after today,s Argentina got their Indepencence, So the simple fact is that if anyone wished to argue a claim based on some form of “Spanish Inheritance” - that would be from Uruguay - not Argentina.
2. As all Arg Governments know - the names of all those civilian settlers-Argentines included among them - who agreed to stay on after the British arrived in Jan 1833 and accept British Rule- are listed in the Argentine Naval Archives of the day, as well as the Royal Navy Archives.
3. Both the French and the British landed on the Islands and raised their Flags before any Spaniard did! Do tell me what right did an old fart in Rome in the 1490s or whenever have to carve up and allocate territory he and all others did not even know existed!
4 And regardless of who argues what above - todays world is based on amore modern set of standards- Democracy and the Rights of a People to choose their future - long gone are the bad old days when he who had the biggest sword or blunderbuss grabbed the land.
OH- and we are not cut off from our friendly countries in South America.
Mr. Lorton
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“And present them with the Islanders demands for peace”
LOL, brilliant!
Islander1
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -5The Spanish Territory was administered from B.A. not Montevideo and the British never raised any flag on East Falkland until after 1833...
If you are going to point out some historical facts...make sure you have them right...
Mr. Islander1
Mar 01st, 2017 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You start saying...:
-“I disagree...”
But later you say...:
“I look forward to meeting them...”
I then say...:
We agree... ;-)
Indeed Voice - let us try to get history “right”. Firstly we are talking about a period from 1776 (moot as the Viceroyalty was not declared at BA until rather later) to 1811.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse +5Governments then were not so very different to Governments now - every new broom has a new idea. As a result, over time, East Falkland was variously administered by Buenos Aires and the Royal Spanish Navy in Montevideo. By 1806, East Falkland was listed as a “ship sailing” in the account books of the Spanish Navy which was the culmination of the Gil y Lemos plan proposed in 1774 which saw Soledad's commander always being a naval officer from one of the two frigates at Montevideo. There is a Uruguayan website that disputes your conclusion. I'll see if I can find it again.
As for East Falkland, Capt. Macbride waved the Union Jack in December, 1766 when he told the French to get out. There was indeed a gap after that. The accord of 1771 left the British in the western islands and Spain in the east. That this became the status quo is evidenced by the plate nailed to the blockhouse door by the British in 1774, and the paper nailed to the church door by the Spanish in 1811.
The real point of course - is that Argentina was never in the game.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/4-1775-to-1822.pdf
Voice- 1765 the British raised the flag and claimed the Falklands Islands. Unaware of course that Bouganville had got to Port Louis a year earlier!
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse +5The Spanish withdrew to Montevideo- therefore the “administration” such as it was - went up there with them.
Think - Yes I will go to a public meeting if they call one - and give them some historical and real facts - as apart form the fantasy ones so many Argentines have had rammed down their throats since old Peron rewrote all the school books after 1945.
According to Stoker´s fine logic, if we evict the implanted population on the Malvinas, and we squat on them long enough, the guys we implant there also have self determination, wich must be respected by the UK.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse -9Same amazing logic is used on Palestine, they just install some colonists with guns, on the hopes of bitching about self determination when someone tries to form a country in palestine.
You know, if occupying foreign land and having children on it entitles you to it, it is a disrespect to human intelligence to believe that entitles you to something. We should send some villeros to breed out the brits in London, so we can claim it has “self determination” and is now part of the Argentine Republic; it won´t be hard, USA is already being taken over by latinos.
LukeDig - You indeed portray exactly what those who settled in Argentina did to the indigenous population - or most of them- your ancestors evicted them off their ancestral lands and murdered many.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse +9The Falklands was indeed VERY different. There was no indigenous population for anyone to evict. The few of the new civilian population were not evicted. They were invited to satay - and apart from 2 couples- they all agreed and volunteered to stay. The only folks evicted in 1833 were the militia garrison and their wives - not the resident population - Arg records prove this as well.
LOL
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse +6The indignant LukeDig is a great example of another loathsome incarnation of the lying anti-Brit bitter Malvinistas that visit MP
As the intent of this deluded group of Argentine citizens is to politicise their visit to the Falkland Islands they should, POLITELY, be denied landing upon their arrival.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse +5Their statements just demonstrate how ignorant of history and fact the Argentine nation is in regards to the Falklands archipelago.
LukeDig
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1As already pointed out - the Republic of Argentina voluntarily signed up to the UN Charter on 26 June 1945. If they did not intend to be bound by the provisions in the Charter they should not have signed it. Similarly if they wish to repudiate it now, by annexing the islands against the will of the people who live there, they will need to resign from the United Nations.
The UN have designated the Falkland Islands a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) http://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.
There is a lot of Malvinas noise emanating from BsAs at the moment. No doubt all a precursor to this years 35 Anniversary Celebration of the Great & Glorious Invasion of 2 April 1982 when the great and mighty Argentine force of 2500 marines took on 68 Royal Marines.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse +6The UN Charter sets out the basis of fundamental human rights for all people.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3It includes the right to self determination.
I would be happy to meet with these people and explain to them if they don't understand.
I would also explain they are not on Argentine soil, but in a land built by our forefathers for the benefit of future generations.
Human rights means just that; it does not include theft, political expansionism or aspiring colonialism.
Mr.Islander1 & Mr. GALlamosa...
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse -6If I was in your shoes..., I would prepare and inform myself a little better before meeting some of those Argentinean visitors...
By your comments..., one can infer that you consider them ill informed and uneducated...
I wish I could be a fly on the wall at that meeting and watch you lads trying to teach Nobel Peace Prize Winner..., Adolfo Pérez Esquivel anything about human rights...
Good luck with that... ;-)
By the way...
Hereby a well written and documented response to all that Anglo Wishful Thinking about the Self-Determination rights of squatters...:
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/COMMENTS/MK171014.HTM
The right to self-determination, under the UN Charter, is “universal and inalienable” - meaning it applies to everyone and everywhere.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +5http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/153
TWIMC
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse -7“UN Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination”...
“the right of peoples”...
“peoples”...
Please note that the BRITISH citizens squatting in Malvinas are BRITISH people...
As such, they enjoy the UN consacrated right to self-determination of peoples, in Britain...
Not in some militarily occupied South Atlantic islands some 10.000 km from British shores...
Lord Ton
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse -6Thanks for confirmimg that...
A) The Falklands were administered from B.A....
...and
B) The British did not plant a flag on East Falkland until after 1833...
How easy was that...?...;-)
:-)))
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse -6That's going to be a non starter unless the mighty argentine airforce or the tugs of doom turn up I cant see it going anywhere frankly.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Think - Prof. Willetts agrees that the Falkland islanders have the right of self-determination. I can ask him again if you wish me to confirm it.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Voice - reading comprehension a problem for you?
You do know that Spain confirmed their claim to East Falkland in October, 1833? Perhaps not :-)
Or as think would put it :-)))
Lord Ton
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I'm sure that Spain also confirmed their claim to B.A. in 1833, but we all know Argentina succeeded that Spanish territory and the territory that was also administered from B.A...
Probably it would also have been a good idea, just to make certain, to perhaps send someone over there to claim the former Spanish territory, then maybe form a Settlement there and perhaps even appoint a Governor...
Wait a minute...;-))))
I'm Thinking you have selective reading comprehension skills...
We all know? I do not know. International law does not know. Indeed, at the UN in November of 1982, the suggestion of Argentine “succession” was described as one of Argentina's 4 great “myths.” Revolutionaries emancipate themselves Voice - they do not inherit.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The UP did claim - in 1829. Too late, but that's Argies for you. Two owners already. Spain's claim to East Falkland was by far the best of the claims; too good for the UP. Too good for the Brits, truth be known. Still, Spain did not complain to the British in 1833. Not entirely happy for sure, but then better us than BA.
You don't think Voice - not nearly enough.
Argentina was never in the game.
:- ..... how many child? ))))
...and you Think Britain was the natural successor to former Spanish territory...
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Yeah good one, I'm sure that would take some explaining...;-)
Successor? We were there before the Spanish Voice. Which bit of “Britain in the west ...” did you fail to understand?
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +5More think, less voice perhaps?
Britain were never “there” pertaining to East Falkland...until after 1833...
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -4This is the historical order of claim and occupation for East Falkland...
France...claimed and occupied...
Spain...claimed and occupied...
Argentina...claimed and occupied...
Britain...claimed and occupied...
What part of occupation are you failing to understand...?
Should be more Roger and less Dodger...I think...
Oh dear, Voice - your ignorance is showing.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Remember the Caribbean? One island does not get you the whole archipelago.
England claimed 1593
France claimed & occupied East Falkland in 1764
Britain occupied West Falkland 1765 on the basis of 1593
Spain paid France off & agreed to meet the French conditions in 1766
Spain occupied East Falkland in 1767
Britain v. Spain 1770 (match of the decade - all of Europe was watching)
The agreement of 1771 left Britain in the west; Spain in the east
The status quo confirmed in 1774 & 1811.
Argentina (as the UP) claimed in 1829 (tad late) - warned to stay away.
Britain annexed East Falkland in January, 1833 after reaffirming West Falkland in 1832 (Argentina should have listened to the 2 warnings - 2nd in 1832)
Spain told the USA her claims remained but did not protest to Britain.
Spain saluted the Union Jack in 1863.
There is very little I fail to understand on this subject Voice.
You don't ...think, as I've already said
Voice- you carefully omit that Britain arrived in 1765 and raised their flag claiming the Islands - do show me what bit of paper you have that says they only claimed say Saunders Island off the West Falklands?
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The French of course were the first to arrive and claim the Islands in 1764.
That is why the British told the French to leave when they found them in 1766. Yes by then the French were in the process of leaving anyway- having received orders from Paris to do so - but the British did not know that.
The Spanish never had a flag in the Islands until after they forced the British to leave a year or so after the French left.
Then a couple of years later the Spanish were out having agreed by Treaty with Britain to withdraw.
Then yes a few years later the British withdrew (for financial reasons)- but left the flag flying
and the plaque declaring the Islands British Territory.
Then a bit later- unknown to the British - the Spanish returned,- only to leave again early 1800s.
Do indeed get your nation time line correct. Britain was way way ahead of Argentina!
Self determination is a benefit for populace with their own identity, not for some british inmigrants who mostly lived 10 years on the islands.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -10Islander1
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -5“Then a couple of years later the Spanish were out having agreed by Treaty with Britain to withdraw.”
“Then a bit later- unknown to the British - the Spanish returned,- only to leave again early 1800s.”
Please clarify with links to this nonsense...
Are you making this up yourself...?
Nora Cortiñas the old bat should be denied entry
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Self-determination (external) is the right of every people of every Non-self Governing Territory - according to the UN. The UN makes no exceptions. The UN does not set any limit on numbers or on time present or even on location.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +5It's simple enough even for a malvinista to understand - well, it should be
The Falklanders right to self-determination under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights is sacrosanct. The only Court with jurisdiction to determine sovereignty disputes is the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in den Haag. The UK has been requesting Argentina take it's “claim” before the UNICJ for over seventy years. There is only one reason Argentina refuse to do so. They know the Falklanders have the right to self-determination and they would lose.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4With phrases like this, if accurately reported of course:
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours”
“will be stepping Malvinas soil”
““will develop activities signaled by the sovereignty claim and a peaceful resolution of the Malvinas conflict”
The message is absolutely not one of peace and dialogue, it speaks only of political propaganda and continued conflict.
May I suggest you Islanders think carefully, before allowing these people to set foot on Falkland’s soil?
@LukeDig
Ban Ki-Moon says the UN position is all the NSGT have the right to self-determination, including the Falklands. It’s in the UN charter and decolonisation declaration UNGA Res 1514.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
Now, who shall we believe you or Ban Ki-Moon?????????????
Once again Voice sounds like an out of date gramophone with a stuck needle. ;-))) Failing to realise he and his assertions are irelavent…
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Lukedig sounds like Nostrils on steroids?
“....with a message of peace and dialogue ???”.........Don't get it - peace already exists, and “what ”dialogue“ could Nora Cortinãs possibly be referring to , after saying ”I never imagined I would be stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours”.. ? the purpose of this visit by these idiots is already a foregone conclusion.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Don't let them in...
Voice- not making anything up - just read a factual(non Argentinised”) history of the Islands.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +4By the way - we know the week 11th-18th will NOT be peaceful - we are aware of those with links to the Quebrachos and other fascist groups are coming over aiming to cause trouble as much as possible - but hiding behind all theses alleged “peacefull human rights” farts.
Links please to these facts...you will pardon me if I don't take your word for it...
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -5According to Roger the Dodger...Britain merely annexed Spanish Territory...
Therefore the only question, is whether Argentina succeeded its parent state’s possession of Falklands by controlling the islands successfully with the published claim, subsequent settlement and governance....
No objection from Britain for 9 years...
Let's face it, you have no historical rights for the Island where 95% of the population reside...
Thanks for your advice Think. Don't imagine I will feel inferior to a bunch of aspiring colonialists, however they pretend to dress it up.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I am afraid the good Nora will get a big surprise, when she steps onto “Argentine territory” and gets her foreign passport stamped.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Voice- In those days communications and responses were a wee bit slow- especially if not a top priority subject at the time.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3But The Islands always means what it says - the Islands -plural - and without doubt every reference and claim made by the 3 powers over the time each would have been meaning the plural - not just the bit they were on themselves.
But anyway as I and others have made clear - today the civilised world lives to a different set of rules.
Voice - there is no doubt that Spain's title to East Falkland island was a strong one. Stronger than any other in what stood for international law. But Spain did not protest in 1833 and over time (30 years is the oft quoted period for acquiescence), Britain's title became the strongest.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Still is.
The point of course, is that Argentina is not Spain.
Lord Ton
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You seem to be forgetting that Argentina (recognised by Britain and the US) occupied the islands and where was the Spanish objection to that...?
Argentina would still be occupying the islands if it was not for the British expulsion and annexation...
So the 30 years is irrelevant as it would have also applied to Argentina...
I can understand the British claim to West Falkland, but see no claim to the East Falkland undisputed Spanish territory...
Even Wellington voiced that concern...
Your ignorance is showing yet again Voice.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +5The United Provinces proved amazingly ineffective at occupying East Falkland. declared their pretensions in 1829 (warned), thrown off by the Yanks in 1831, Went back in 1832 (warned), thrown off by the British in 1833.
They didn't manage 30 years. We did.
Wellington did voice that concern, but then ordered BA to be warned off anyway. BA should have listened. Our claim to East Falkland Island was imperfect before 1833, it's only foundation being on 1593 and Macbrides warning to the French in 1766. Our claim to East Falkland is founded solidly on the annexation of 1833 and Spain's subsequent acquiescence. Could it really have been a coincidence that Pinzon turned up exactly 30 years later and saluted the Union Jack?
Argentina was never in the game.
An interesting aside (?) perhaps. The 1790 treaty had a secret clause allowing either side to step in should a 3rd party attempt to impose itself in any dispute between Spain & England. The 1825 de facto recognition of the UP left them as a 3rd party.
However you cut it, Argentina has no claim unless she can show an 'inheritance' - which is a fantasy in International Law. Both then and now.
You still don't know enough detail Voice. Broad strokes don't cut it..... you need a fine nib for the detail.
I need to remind the “self determination” bashers of this resumé from a body of investigated arguments, nothing like your usual elementary brit bob.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse -7Self determination is for independent nations, cultures or aboriginals. Not for colonists.
LukeDig - you obviously know nothing about self-determination LOL
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse +6”I never imagined I would be stepping on Argentine territory, still distant, so that we can help to make it truly ours”
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3The old girl has shattered any illusions that the delegation comes with peace in its heart and proper dialogue in mind.
When it comes to the Falklands, Argentines are like dogs going back to their vomit expecting a different result the second time. A lost cause is a lost cause and no amount of wishfull thinking is going to change that.
They are just so pathetic!
LukeDig
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse +2Incorrect. No such qualification to the right of self-determination exists. The UN have made it quite clear that the right to self-determination under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights is “universal and inalienable” - which means everyone (including the Falklanders) are entitled to it and that it applies everywhere (including the Falkland Islands).
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/153
TWIMC
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse -7I'll repeat my earlier post for the Anglo Turnip just above...:
“UN Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination”...
“the right of peoples”...
“peoples”...
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/153
Please note that the BRITISH citizens squatting in Malvinas are BRITISH people...
As such, they enjoy the UN consacrated right to self-determination of peoples, in Britain...
Not in some militarily occupied South Atlantic islands some 12.000 km from British shores...
From a Norwegian Colonialist troll squatting in the lands of the genocided Mapuche that's rich Think!
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Your homeland is even further away!
Your post is utter horsemeat. ;-)))
Now Think's not thinking.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The Falklands are listed as a NSGT. All the peoples of ALL the NSGTs have the right of external self-determination. The right to independence. So says the UN.
There are no exceptions, and the UN recognised the Islanders as a people of a NSGT way back in 1952.
Why are Argies so thick? It's easy enough even for an old man to understand.
Argie interpretations of UN resolutions are, at best, amusing. They achieve nothing.
No UN GA resolution in 28 years. The UN C24 does not recommend its own Falklands resolution for adoption by the UN ...... every year since 1988.
Now here's something else - every year the UN Secretariat produces a working paper on the Falklands. Every year, since 2004, the last paragraph has stated something along the lines of -
“Under resolution 58/316, the General Assembly decided that the item entitled “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” would remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. As at the date of the issuance of the present working paper, no such notification by a Member State to the General Assembly had been received.”
12 years (2016). For 12 years no member of the UN has asked for the Question of the Falkland Islands to go before the General Assembly. Not even Argentina.
Why not?
You want to stop believing your own propaganda Think ...... and start thinking
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Slight but ESSENTIAL difference between the words “people” and ”population..., laddie...
You still don't know enough detail Roger..., broad strokes don't cut it..., you need a fine nib for the detail...;-)
Sorry Think. The UN have designated the islands are a non self governing territory (NSGT) and have confirmed that all NSGTs have the right to self-determination under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Stoker, here it is the resume http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/COMMENTS/MK171014.HTM
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Read it carefully, self determination cannot be used as an excuse for occupying foreign territory and stablishing colonial outposts.
By the way, nice importance to self determination the UK gave to the chagossians and to Hong Kong, they never asked the populace if they wanted to go back to China.
Luke, send the link to the UN and ask them if you are right, they will laugh so much they will piss themselves. Has the UN designated the FALKLANDS as a NSGT a YES or NO would suffice, but I know you will not answer, silly me.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +5LukeDig
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Unfortunately the thoughts of an Argentine Professor cannot overturn the UN Charter.
Tell me - what part of “universal and inalienable” is it you do not understand?
Mr. Stoker
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Fortunately the thoughts of an Anglo MercoPress Poster cannot overturn the UN Charter...
Tell me - what part of “people” vs “population” is it you do not understand...?
2065 (XX)...:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20.htm
The UN have designated the Falkland Islands a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The 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.
Mr. Stoker
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Relax...
Just one link per post allowed...
Still wrong though... Please familiarize yourself with the “Special and particular colonial situation” of the Falkland Island (Malvinas) as the pertinent UN Body sees it...:
https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gacol3283.doc.htm
This is going to go well. “Hi. We're here to talk to you about human rights and how we don't think you should have one of the big ones.”
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@Think
So how does the UN decide who are a 'people' and who are merely a population? It doesn't seem to be based on numbers, or whether they are native to the area, or longevity. So what?
“Who are a People”...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -4A quite difficult question Mr. DemonTree...
Many a book have been written about the subject...
Much easier though to determine who's not...: “A People”...
And the 2,400 British citizens currently squatting the South Atlantic Islands of Malvinas certainly aren't...
Think grasping at straws now ;-))))
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Pertinent UN Body”!!!!! Bahahahaha
Bunch of scrounging miscreants and dictators, many South Americans. No one listens to them, never been to our islands, never met the people and listened to their stories. Totally biased, Ill informed bunch of budding colonialists!
Regardless of whether you label them “people” or “inhabitants” it is clear all non self governing territories have the right to self-determination
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4http://www.un-documents.net/ch-11.htm
Voice just like your lady queen fish Face Sturgeon a winger
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Not me labeling nobody..., Mr. Stoker...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -4As per my two previous links above...:
The pertinent UN body specifically labeling the Malvinas Islands inhabitants as a population in 1965...
The pertinent UN body specifically labeling the Malvinas Islands Issue as a “Special and particular colonial situation” in 2015...
Please educate yourself...
Who counts as a people seems to be mostly based on politics and convenience at the UN. What I don't understand is why there is a committee to worry about the last few tiny non-self-governing territories, but the UN doesn't care at all if people are oppressed by home-grown dictators, or about peoples who don't have their own countries like the Kurds.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Got to laugh. What on earth can the Argies bring to the negociating table eh Think, No one but no one on the Argie side has EVER, EVER said what that could be. So just jog on as the FALKLANDERS want to remain a BOT and who could blame them.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Mr. DemonTree...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Everything is politics at the UN... That's the way the cookie crumbles..., lad...
Excuse me for breaking it to you but... the list of “Home-grown Dictators” not directly planted, placed or positioned by one or more of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is cospicuously short...
Well if it is all politics, why should we care about the UN's opinion?
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4And surely you mean indirectly planted etc? Though I'm not sure even that is true. But the great majority of those non-self-governing territories are administered by three of those same five members, so why the difference?
Mr. DemonTree...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Societal life is “All Politics”..., lad...
That's why..., if not completely diogenic indifferent..., one should care...
There speaks the Think plant... a cabbage!
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, but why care about some particular opinion if it has no moral authority and they can't enforce it either?
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Who said anything about “no moral authority”... lad...?
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Not me...!
People/Population? There is no difference Think as the terms have been interchangeable across different resolutions.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +5You too appear to be having a problem with reading comprehension. I said that the Islanders had been recognised as the people of a NSGT in 1952 - remember?
The Territory was also recognised as having a people in 1982 - by the C24.
Detail Think - detail.
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“People/Population”...
A WOR(L)D of difference between those two concepts in any UN context...
Anyhow...
Would you care to provide the corresponding UN links to your above aseverations...?
Thanks in advance...
El Think...
No difference at all Think, but let me help you out.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +51952 = UN Resolution 567 (VI) adopts the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether; “... any territory is, or is not, a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
The Annex to the Resolution lists these factors and 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.”
A link - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
Easy enough Think. To be listed as a NSGT in 1952, there had to be a 'people'. Which was why places such as South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, etc, were not listed.
As for 1982, you'll have to get into the papers from the Decolonization Committee.
August 19th - two members of the Falkland Islands' Legislative Assembly, John Cheek and Anthony Blake, arrive at the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization meeting in New York to represent the Falkland Islands' people.
Chairman Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago decides; “I am not going to ask members of the Secretariat to read General Assembly resolution 1466 (XIV), although I shall refer to it. I would point out that these two gentlemen are not here as petitioners; they are here as representatives of the people of the Territory which we are about to consider. Therefore, the question of referring any requests to the Sub-Committee on Petitions, Information and Assistance does not arise. That is the practice, has been the practice, and, I hope, will continue to be the practice in this Committee.”
The reference is A/AC.109/PV.1223 23-24.
Your link starts here - http://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html
Enjoy :-)
Wrong in both cases..., Mr.Lorton...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Just your eternal monolingual problem..., confusing and betraying you once again..., lad...
In Engrish you would use......................: “People”.. or... “People”... indifferently...
Whilst in Spanish one would say..........: “Gente”.... or... “Pueblo”...
Whilst in German one would say..........: “Leute”..... or... “Folk”...
Whilst in Italian one would say.............: “Gente”..... or... “Popolo”...
Whilst in French one would say............: “Gens”...... or... “Peuple”...
Whilst in Portuguese one would say....: “Gente”..... or... “Povo”...
Whilst in Danish one would say............: “Mennesker” or “Folk”...
Whilst in Swedish one would say..........: “Människor” or “Folk”...
Whilst in Russian one would say...........: “Lyudi”......... or “Narodnyy”...
Do I need to continue... or do you catch me drift...?
Drift? Adrift appears more likely.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The situation is clear enough. No people = not listed as an NSGT. Are the FI listed as a NSGT? Oh yes. Some of Argentina's friends have suggested that they should be delisted using that same argument, but BA does not favour that. Why? Where else could they rant and rave? And know that their ranting isn't going anywhere.
Res 567 is clear. The Islanders are a people. You can squirm Think, but that cannot be avoided.
I note that you did avoid, however, the other issues I raised. The - no UN GA resolution for 28 years. The - failure of Argentina to ask that the matter come up before the GA under Res. 58/316.
Many questions there Think that the Arg people should be seriously considering. Without an answer, it looks like there's a big con job going on - and it's being played on all of you.
Do I need to continue? :-)
The situation is clear enough indeed..., laddie.... No population = not listed as an NSGT...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It is quite clear that the Falkland Islands are listed as a NSGT
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse +3http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
Think - squirming helps you not. The resolution is clear - “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.”
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse +5And you forgot about the fine comments from the 1982 Chair. Said in English.
Believe what you will Think. Argentina has nowhere to go with it.
Dream on old man ......
Nice to see Think shutted your mouth about self determination. However i must point that what he said was in the first link I passed. These brits just dont read.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse -6Even if you dont read, you dont need to be a genius to understand that implanted migrant population from a colonial power is not a new nation or a different people from the british.
If falklanders believe themselves not todo ve english but falklanders then they should recognize what we always said in Argentina about you: you are second class citizens
Only brits with their imperial pride can try to sustain such contradictory and illogical arguments.
What are you then? British imperial colonists in a colonial outpost or second class citizens, falklanders, and not british citizens?
How, exactly, did Think “shutted” my mouth. Here I am still.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse +5The UN recognises that ALL peoples have the right of self-determination (internal or external) and makes no distinction. Even “implanted” people have the right on that basis.
As for “illogical arguments” Argentina is the crowned king of those.
Reality is that the UN hasn't listened to Argentina since 1988. Nothing has actually changed at the UN since that time. Why? Because the matter was settled. No UN GA Res in 1989. Just a very few words from the GA President who referred to “consultation” and a “proposal” to defer the issue. Repeated in 1990, after which it became a paperwork exercise. No information about these “consultation” although I know that the Sec-Gen held a number of meetings with both sides. No information about who the proposer was either.
A short statement in 1989 & 1990. Since then - nothing.
Why doesn't the Decolonization Committee include its Falklands resolution in the list of 'recommendation' it sends to the GA every year? Why hasn't any Member of the UN taken up its option (since 2004) of having the GA consider the issue?
I do read Lukedog ..... voraciously. Argentines just accept the nonsense propaganda that spouts from the likes of Telam. One day Argentines will wake up. On that day, they'll be screaming that they have been conned.
If Argentina truly wishes to challenge the Islanders' right to self-determination, there is only one place available. The ICJ. All Argentina has to do is petition the GA to ask its court to define the word 'people' or to consider whether there are any limits to NSGTs self-determination.
Should be easy. Even for Argentina.
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse -5And General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX) is absolutely, completely and utterly clear..., by correctly using and perfectly diferentiating..., on the very same paragraph..., the terms “People” and “Population” ...:
- ” UN Resolution 2065 (UN, 1965)
The General Assembly invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and 《《《《 Peoples 》》》》》with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the 《《《《《《 population 》》》》》》 of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/20/ares20.htm
ICJ rulings will not always back self determination...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse -5In the case of the Bakassi peninsula the people's interests and not their wishes were taken into consideration...
The area was awarded to Cameroon even though the population were Nigerian and the population wished to stay part of Nigeria...
So much for self determination for the Peoples of the Bakassi Peninsular...they have attempted to declare Independence twice...
With the ICJ be careful what you wish for...
Wishes mean nothing only interests...and politics...
To all decent, hardworking squatting British Kelpers reading this...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse -6I Think you all would greatly benefit by meeting the Argie delegation arriving to Malvinas soon...
Ahí nos vidrios...
El Think...
Think - I know all about 2065. Long dead. Last heard of in 1984 (after which Argentina's bribe money ran out). The 1985 GA resolution made no mention of sovereignty at all. Made no mention of 2065 either. Nor did the resolutions of 1986, 1987 and 1988. The last had its conditions met to the satisfaction of the GA apparently. Since then there has only been a deafening silence from the GA.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse +6Of course elsewhere the UN GA stated very clearly that “.. in declonization cases, there is no alternative to self-determination.” Last I heard Think, the Falklands was still listed as a decolonization case.
Interesting history of that phrase Think. First appeared in the omnibus resolution in 2003. Argentina tried once to qualify it, and (2008) once to amend it, without success. Argentina was more successful in 2016 by disposing of the omnibus resolution all together. far too inconvenient it seems. Unfortunately for Argentina, you think that resolutions never die. They do - killed off by changing circumstances. 2065 has seen some of those.
Voice - you are correct in that the decisions of the ICJ cannot be clearly foretold. Not bound by precedent unfortunately. Which actually makes it the more interesting as to why Argentina has never sought to have the terms 'people' and 'self-determination' defined by that exclusive body.
Wishes and interests are intertwined - inseparable. Argentina does not accept that position obviously, but then the wishes of the people of the Falklands have been winning out since 1968.
I'd take our chances at the ICJ.
It´s easy Roger, ICJ is not an impartial court for starters. Moreover, even if Argentina did win an argument at said court, the pirates would never leave.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse -8If they can bomb the hell out of innocents in the middle east, situation far more savage and inhumane, and get away with it, there´s not a chance on earth that any court´s decision would make the brits leave their colonial ambitions in the southern hemisphere: Only military strenght could convince them otherwise.
It's easy Lukedog, ICJ is an impartial court that is the UN's court. Of course, if Argentina lost, it would not accept the argument, and would continue to try and steal what it has never had any right to.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse +4When you think that you have that military strength Lukedog, you just come on right ahead.
We'll kick you out again - as we did in 1832 and 1982.
The islanders decide their future. Nobody else has the right.
It is perfectly clear. Even a Chimp could understand it.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3All non self governing territories have the right to self-determination under the UN Charter.
The Falkland Islands have been designated a non self governing territory by the UN.
Therefore the Falklanders have the right to self-determination.
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse -5Please allow me to set you fundamentalist Anglican beliefs straight...
General Assembly Resolutions don't ever “die” nor can they be somehow “killed”...
They remain operative until they fulfill their objective... [1761 (XVII) being a good example]...
When their mission on Earth is accomplished, they retire In-Æternum to the Great Archive in the Cloud...
You should try and learn some Buddhism from the Missus...;-)
“that any court´s decision would make the brits leave their colonial ambitions in the southern hemisphere”
Mar 04th, 2017 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse +3You got that wrong, even though it is about 300 years too late, it is Argentina that harbours belated ‘colonial ambitions’, not the UK. These days’ colonial ambitions have well and truly been overtaken by events and are unachievable especially for countries like Argentine who do not possess the wherewithal to force the issue.
The UK, on the other hand, has given independence to nearly all its former colonys only retaining limited control of the few that can’t stand independently on their own feet. Like, for example, the Falklands whose very existence is threatened by a predatory Argentina who believes that its ok to behave like a latter-day coloniser but is unable to achieve its ambitions.
Argentina can’t, whereas the UK has.
I would have thought that the well trained legal mind that you claim to possess would be able to grasp that distinction. Are all Argentine lawyers as sharp as you?
Didn't that GA Resolution also say something about only “peaceful means” could be used?
Mar 04th, 2017 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3(Cough....cough......2nd April 1982....)
Of course taking the “claim” before the UNICJ (as the UK has been requesting for over seventy years) would be a “peaceful means” of settling the dispute. After all the UNICJ is the only Court with jurisdiction over determining sovereignty disputes. The Republic of Argentina has taken several other disputes before the UNICJ before. Who can forget the Argentina v Uruguay “Paper Mill” case which Argentina lost 1 - 14.
Anyone care to guess where the one judge out of fifteen who found in favour of Argentina came from?
Anyone?
Mr. Stoker...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse -5I have told you before... I'll tell you again... Please educate yourself...
The UK has NEVER requested Argentina nor tried itself to present the Malvinas Islands Sovereignity Issue before the ICJ...
N - E - V - E - R...
But..., you don't have to take me word for it... Google it... Or, if you prefer, ask Engrish Mr. Lorton... I clarified this point to him quite a few years ago...
Yes we have......but strangely the invitation by the “claimants” have N - E - V - E - R been taken up. I wonder why? *
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse +3* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Mr. Stoker...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse -4Would you please link us to any source of information that confirms that wishful Thinking of yours...?
Chuckle..., chuckle...
??????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3The Republic of Argentina would be the Plaintiff in the case therefore the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring the case before the Court.
I wonder why they won't? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Hmmm..... not so easy Think. I believe you are correct, BUT, there's a paper from 1969 that says something else. I am unable to post photo's here sadly. It suggests that the idea of an approach to the ICJ over the Falklands was put to Argentina during those 1968 talks of which there is very little record. Argentina refused. As I said, I have doubts ... but the record is there. For what it's worth.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +4There's an amazing amount of evidence for our invitations during the 1940's and 50's obviously, albeit directed at the Dependencies. Argentina did make it plain then, that they would never go to the ICJ over a sovereignty issue.
There was some consideration of the question again in 1982, but the feeling was that Argentina would refuse. Private conversations, nothing on paper, etc.
What is clear, however, is that Argentina has had the option of approaching the ICJ since 1946, and has not done so. Nor has Argentina asked the GA for an advisory opinion on 'peoples' or 'self-determination.'
That says a lot :-)
Mr. Lorton
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You say (for the benefit of Mr. Stoker..., I assume;-)...:
- “There's an amazing amount of evidence for our invitations during the 1940's and 50's obviously, albeit directed at the Dependencies...”
I say..:
Please..., don't confound Mr. Stoker more than he already is...
Break it to him plain and simple in Engrish...:
- The UK has NEVER requested Argentina nor tried itself to present the Malvinas Islands Sovereignity Issue before the ICJ...
N - E - V - E - R...
??????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Republic of Argentina would be the Plaintiff in the case therefore the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring the case before the Court.
I wonder why they won't? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
As I said Think (you still having reading comprehension problems?) - I have evidence to the contrary.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Short memory problems....? ...Mr Stoker...?
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -3You posted just over one hour ago the following...:
”Of course taking the “claim” before the UNICJ (as the UK has been requesting for over seventy years)”
Well..., I say... The UK never requested such thing... Did it...?
On the assumption that you would ask Think, I have tried to find a way to post the document concerned. IF it has gone as planned, you should find it about 25% down this page - 1969
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1966-1981/
??????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Republic of Argentina would be the Plaintiff in the case therefore the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring the case before the Court.
I wonder why they won't? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Sorry lad... but I stopped visiting your blog loooong ago...
Your Anglican fundamentalism is quite disturbing... and it has ruined what else could have been an excelent reference tool...
Just some examples of your haughty Anglo bias from this little thread...:
You start by postulating...: “People/Population? There is no difference”
Geeeeee..., lad... you could as well have written...: Man/Woman? There is no difference...
YESSSS... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE..., LAD !!!
Then, you unilaterally declare the death of an (inconvenient for them Engrish) General Assembly Resolution...
2065 (XX) IS ALIVE AND KICKING..., LAD !!!
Sorry, boy.... but you have become as untrustworthy as those Argie Malvinistas that dream of great kills and sank the Invincible a couple of times...
Or those Anglo Falklandists that say that the NP 8901 shot dead a couple of hundreds Argie commandos on the 02/04/82...
A book about that coming out soon in England..., I hear...
I think that resolution says something like only “peaceful means” should be used to settle the dispute......and I think the Republic of Argentina invaded the islands on 2nd April 1982.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Doesn't seem very “peaceful” to me ;-D
Think - trying to help you out old man. Not looking at the evidence is so very Argie.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I said that people & population = no difference for the purposes of self-determination. I am correct Think. The terms have been very interchangeable over the years at the UN. Doesn't take much in the way of research to discover that little fact. Not that you will - there's none so blind .... etc, etc.
As for 2065, long dead. Indeed even Argentina made no mention of it between 1985 and the arrival of the Kirchners, who resurrected it. A type of necrophilia I suspect. Loving the dead. Try as Argentina might, 2065 is dust. No mention by the GA since 1984. Time alone does not kill off a UN GA resolution (so said the ICJ) but changes in circumstances certainly do. 2065 was abandoned (at Argentina's request apparently) in 1985. Only Argentina now mentions it. RIP 2065.
Rorke's Drift? Hmm.... waiting to see that. Freedman is skeptical. me too, truth be told, but we shall see. Interviewing old men is always a problem. I used to teach interviewing witnesses. The next could be too long. :-)
Bottom line? Argentina has no case and no move. The UN is blocked. Yes, Argentina is allowed to shout at the C24 and the Fourth, but then .... nothing. Been that way since the backroom deal of 1989. The evidence is thin, but the reality is certain. No C24 resolution gets to be a UN GA resolution. None have since 1988.
Hard to avoid that reality.
You and me had a conversation a while back. About the new President. No, not this lunatic, the one before. That was at the beginning of his 1st term too. You thought his dislike of the Engrish would aid Argentina. Yet here we are and nothing changed.
It never will old man. Argentina lost this argument a long time ago. As Escude said in Nov, 2014 - “It's not leading anywhere, it's pure rhetoric. It's useful to attract votes of those less educated and that's all … “
TTFN old man :-)
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -6You say...:
“I said that people & population = no difference for the purposes of self-determination. I am correct Think. The terms have been very interchangeable over the years at the UN.”
I say...:
Nothing further from the truth..., laddie...
- It happens to be that I know quite a bit about the process of creation and approvement of the UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)...
One central point of that ~25 years long UN process... was the fact that the difference in meaning and significance between the terms “People” & “Population” was paramount for establishing the self-determination rights of Indigenous Peoples... (NOT populations)
As for the rest of your post....
Just your personal opinions..., lad.
As relevant... (or irrelevant) as mine...
You still don't know enough detail Roger..., broad strokes don't cut it..., you need a fine nib for the detail... (and some Buddhistic humbleness ;-)
It is perfectly clear. Even a Chimp could understand it.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1All non self governing territories have the right to self-determination under the UN Charter.
The Falkland Islands have been designated a non self governing territory by the UN.
Therefore the Falklanders have the right to self-determination.
Posted this before but just so that Think recalls it:-
Mar 04th, 2017 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Statement by the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon on Wednesday May 19th 2010 when speaking at a forum on de-colonization in Noumea, New Caledonia -
“The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status”
http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says
He didn’t say “with the exception of the people of the Falkland Islands”.
Think/Voice are egomaniacs and only want to be contrarians. The FAKLKLANDS will remain a BOT as long as the FALKLANDERS wish. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Think/Voice seriously what could Argentina bring to the negociating table? Answers on the back of a FALKLAND ISLANDS stamp.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Amazing how blinkered you all are...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Self determination does not always apply to peoples as is the case of the Bakassi...
The territory was proved to historically belong to Cameroon the Nigerian people did not wish to be part of Cameroon....
Territorial integrity trumped self determination of peoples...
Substitute Falklands for Bakassi and British for Nigerian...
Britain will never allow the case to go before the ICJ because of results like this...
...and their zero claim to East Falkland...
Especially with the damning words of the great Duke of Wellington on July 25th 1929...
” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.
The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago. ”
Mr. Darragh...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -6- Also in the statement by the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon on Wednesday May 19th 2010 when speaking at a forum on de-colonization in Noumea, New Caledonia -...:
”I urge all involved to undertake fresh and creative efforts toward this end. In particular, I encourage the Administering Powers to 《《《 work with the [UN”s] Special Committee [on decolonization] 》》》and the people in the Territories under their administration towards a genuine and action-oriented dialogue...“
-The very same [UN”s] Special Committee [on decolonization] that every year reiterates that...:
- ”The way to put an end to the “special and particular colonial situation” of the Falkland Island (Malvinas) was the “peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty” between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gacol3283.doc.htm
Darragh Golf Stoker,
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Odd that “Voice's” (Think/voice's) “almost photographic” memory does not recall Darragh's post about Ban Ki Moon's statement.
Then again, every time Think/voice is defeated in a thread on this subject, he slinks off and repeats the identical argument a few months later, as though it had never happened.
A truly needy Troll.
While your here Think. What could Argentina bring to the negoiating table?
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Think/Voice
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The only Court with jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes is the UNICJ in den Haag. All the Republic of Argentina need to do is convince a majority of the fifteen judges who sit there that they have a valid claim to the islands.
Why doesn't Argentina take their claim before the UNICJ? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
July 25 1832, ( not 1829)
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Duke of Wellington continues in his statements...
“
That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King's acknowledged right of sovereignty”
Why doesn't Britian take their claim before the UNICJ? *
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -7* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
??????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The Republic of Argentina would be the Plaintiff in the case therefore the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring the case before the Court.
I wonder why they won't? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Anyone can take a case to the ICJ if both agree...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -7If the UK is so sure they would win...why not...?
I wonder why they won't? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Idiot above it was July 25th 1829...not 1832...
Incorrect. At the UNICJ the State making a claim (the Plaintiff) brings their case before the Court and the State against whom the claim is made (the Defendant) is required to respond.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +6I wonder why the Republic of Argentina refuse to bring their “claim” before the Court? *
* Don't worry......I know why ;-D
Really...then please explain why Britain (the Defendant) offered to take the Sovereignty claim for South Georgia to the ICJ....?
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -6I wonder why Britain refuses to bring their “claim” before the Court? *
* Don't worry......I know why ;-D
Incorrect (again).
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The UK invited the Republic of Argentina to take their “claim” before the UNICJ (since the Republic of Argentina would be the Plaintiff in the case).....but the Republic of Argentina refused to do so. I wonder why? *
* Don't worry......I know why ;-D
Anglo Turnip just above...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Educate yourself...:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=uka&case=26&k=cc&p3=0
Think/voice
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +21832...
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wellington-jenner.pdf
Very interesting. Why didn't the Republic of Argentina defend the case? *
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3* Don't worry......I know why ;-D
Voice
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Why should we ? WE have them.
El Think here...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Seems to be an ample agrement on 1829...
Yet another inaccuracy to be corrected on Roger Lorton's Aglican Fundamentalist biased blog...:
https://www.google.com.ar/search?ei=Lv26WNThBcimsgGn5ZK4Bg&q=“+the+enclosed+papers+respecting+the+Falkland+Islands.+It+is+not+clear+to+me+that+we+have+ever+possessed+the+sovereignty+of+all+those+islands”&oq=“+the+enclosed+papers+respecting+the+Falkland+Islands.+It+is+not+clear+to+me+that+we+have+ever+possessed+the+sovereignty+of+all+those+islands”&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12...33728.40521.0.41581.16.12.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..16.0.0.aCZreZ9SBC4
Clyde
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Just destroying his argument that it is always the Plaintiff that brings the case to court...;-)
1829...
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
“Whereas, in these circumstances, the Court finds that it has not before it any acceptance by the Government of Argentina of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the dispute which is the subject of the Application submitted to it by the United Kingdom Government and that therefore it can take no further steps upon this Application;
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Court
orders that the case shall be removed from the list.”
http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica1.htm
Like I said.......
Don't worry......I know why ;-D
...poor recovery
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -4So certain about South Georgia...
...not so certain about the Falklands...
That's why...;-)
???????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5On 2 December 1980 the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, stated in the House of Commons: “We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands... we have a perfectly valid title”.
Like I said.....the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring the case before the Court.
I wonder why they refuse to do so? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Mr. Voice...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Poor recovery from Mr. Stoker indeed...
But at least..., he is learning some truths... ;-)
Stick to the Horror stories...it's at least something you excel at...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -6The UK has the islands.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The Republic of Argentina want the islands.
Therefore the onus is on the Republic of Argentina to bring their “claim” before the Court (you know.....that Court they refused to accept has jurisdiction in 1956).
I wonder why they refuse to go before the Court now? *
* Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
Good Strategy Mr. Think...when proved to be wrong...keep repeating yourself...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3not... ;-))))
Good strategy by the Republic of Argentina.......when taken to Court just refuse to accept the Court has jurisdiction and don't bother to turn up ;-D
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Lowlander Clyde15..., some posts above...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -7You say (to Mr. Voice)...:
“Why should we ? WE have them.”
I say (to you)...:
You Scots ain't got nothin' other than a backstabbing Engrish Massa with a forked tongue that constantly orders you to bend over...
DT, Clyde, et al
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As I said,
Thinkvoice (Think=wee man voice) is doing his best to cause division between the UK Brits.
Thanks for demonstrating that, “Think”
Not division...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Independence...
FREEEEEEEEEDOM...
Scots of the World... THINK...!!!
You five million Scots coud be double as rich as theM five million Norwegians are today...
And them Norwegians had not just ONE Colonial Massa... They had TWO...!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Union_with_Denmark
Geeeeeee..... Them Norwegians are sooooooo loaded that they are financially covered some 10 generations in the future...
They don't need no oil no more...
They are sooooooo loaded that hey take cheap International debt at ~ 3% yearly interest and invest the m monies in their own advanced industries that yield a yearly return of ~10% ...!!!
All whilst they drive their expensivo Teslas proudly wearing their national costumes...:-)))
It does not look as though Argentina are sending us their brightest and best but at least they have to be a an improvement on Alicia Castro.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +7........meanwhile.....back in the real world.....if Scotland were independent they would have the worst debt-to-GDP ratio in Europe (even worse than Greece)
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +4http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/720541/SNP-Scotland-economy-debt-Sturgeon-Greece-EU-public-spending-deficit
TWIMC
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Norway and Scotland are two similar, easily comparable Countries that I luuuuuuv...
Both of them are inhabitated by some great people... that speak with the funniest of accents...
Norway archieved independence from its haughty colonial southern neighbours some 100 years ago...
Scotland not...
Results are more than evident...
.......hmmmmm......sending them £9billion/annum.....very haughty ;-D
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +5http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/12189037/Scotland-runs-up-15bn-deficit-twice-size-of-UKs.html
Juppppppp....
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Bloody, haughty Sassenachs...
https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/20/
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1
Mar 04th, 2017 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3;-D
Some of the quick Kelpers in here will be making the right associations by now...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -5If them Engrish so Royally fkuck them 5 million Jocks...
What can we 2,4K Kelpers expect...
Same Shiat..., I Think...
“Royally fkuck them 5 million Jocks”??????
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-price-of-independence.html
;-D
There even was a Sassenach in here the other day that said that Haggis was a sausage...!
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Animals...!!!
;-)))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Territorial integrity trumped self determination of peoples..”
Well that chestnut was answered by no less a luminary than the jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ who stated “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.“
Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/impact-of-uk-austerity-on-scotlands.html
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Busy night I see.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Think - which bit of my work on 1829 has you confused? You suggest that in some way I've been inaccurate. Perhaps you can offer some evidence for that?
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/5-1823-to-1832.pdf
Thank you in anticipation :-)
Voice - would seem that the UK offered to take the Falklands case to the ICJ in 1968 but Argentina refused. As we have everything - and knowing where a unilateral approach to the ICJ in 1955 had got us - why would we try to go there alone now?
As for Scotland - apparently they were annexed over 300 years ago (gotta love para.37)
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/5-1823-to-1832.pdf
:-)))
Think/Voice hasn't twigged that MI5 has kidnapped Sturgeon and substituted Tracy Ullman.
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Ah good. Been waiting for someone to pop up. My 1st link appears to have repeated itself on my last thread. Very annoying. The Scottish paper is here -
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +7https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf
I also note looking back up the thread that Think remains confused. Believes that the Islanders are an indigenous people ... or not. The rights of the NSGTs to self-determination are separate to those of indigenous peoples. I see that I shall have to find the time to list all the resolutions that combine the phrases 'population' and 'self-determination' in order to ease the old man's confusion.
As for 1829, the link provided by Think is limited. Those sites repeat less than a paragraph of Wellington's letter. I, on the other hand, have published all of it.
All the evidence suggests that Think hasn't actually looked at my work at all. Usual Argie bullshit in fact.
Think/voice
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“... I would recommend... the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres,”
Duke of Wellington 1832
Hmmm, you skipped over this. It seems very much that the British were aware the UP were up to something desperate and underhanded - to attempt to challenge the existing British sovereignty over the islands.
This was before the invasion of late 1832.
1832...again...?
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -3According to Roger Lorton the date of the letter is 1829 July 25th, are you saying he is wrong...?
What have I skipped...the bit where Wellington admits they would only be entitled to Port Egmont or the bit where he decides to threaten Buenos [Ayres] anyway..how does the threat change the admission...?
Wellington admits that? Love to see which part of his letter that occurs in. All he actually did was express a doubt in the word “all” - but then he knew about the 1771 accord and the status quo that followed it.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1There was a second protest in 1832 - delivered by Minister Fox on Sept 28th
”... it becomes his duty now again officially to declare to the Government of Buenos Ayres, that the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, which compose a part of the Command granted in the Decree above alluded to, is vested in the Crown of Great Britain; and that no act of government or authority can be exercised over those Islands by any other power, without infringing upon the Just Rights of His Britannick Majesty.”
“July 25th, Wellington responds, ” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. THE CONVENTION CERTAINLY GOES NO FARTHER THAN TO RESTORE TO US PORT EGMONT, WHICH WE ABANDONED NEARLY SIXTY YEARS AGO. ”
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse -2Quite correct Voice - but abandonment did not mean the loss of title, only the withdrawal of the garrison.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse +1“It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these
islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago. If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and
jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port [Egmont] is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desirable to avoid such acts... ”
Note the word “disputed”
and note the word ..doubtful...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -3It's time to retire Roger...not only can you not remember the contents of the letter...but also when it was supposed to be written..
July 25th 1829...
Yup, you are confused. When did I forget either the contents of the letter? (in front of me) or the Date? You wouldn't be confusing me with that Lightning now would you?
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4You will, of course, be fully aware of the legal advice that followed 3 days later?
”... the right which this country acquired by the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the Falkland Islands cannot be considered as in any manner affected by the transactions, which occurred previously to the year 1774. So far from those rights having been abandoned they have always been strenuously asserted and maintained, particularly in the memorable discussions with Spain referred to in your Lordship's letter, which terminated in the restoration of the English Settlement and Fort which had been taken by the Spanish Forces. The claim, therefore, to these Islands, now advanced by Buenos Aires, cannot be admitted upon any supposed acknowledgement or recognition of the right of Spain by this Country; if it is capable of being maintained on any ground, it must be
upon the supposition, that the withdrawing of the British Troops in 1774, and the non-occupation of these islands since that time, amounted to a virtual abandonment of the right originally acquired, and that, being unoccupied, the Islands in question reverted to their original state, and liable to become the property of the person who might take possession of them. But I apprehend that no such effect is to be attributed to either or both of these circumstances. The symbols of property and possession which were left upon the Islands
sufficiently denote the Intention of the British Government to retain these rights which they had previously acquired over them, and to reassume the occupation of them when a convenient opportunity should occur.”
I have that in front of me too.
“Wellington admits that? Love to see which part of his letter that occurs in. All he actually did was express a doubt in the word “all” ”
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse -3Now you are even forgetting your own posts..
The letter is Damning....
It shows Wellington himself showing the British claim to Port Egmont and it shows the only reason the threat was made...was to deter the Americans or French from settling the islands....
“ am at the same time very sensible of the inconvenience which may be felt by this country and of the injury which will be done to us if either the French or Americans should settle upon these islands, the former in virtue of any claim from former occupancy, the latter or both from any claim derived by purchase or cession from the government of Buenos Ayres.
”
Damning? Ridiculous. Wellington expressed doubts - nothing more. No admission that the British lacked rights, only that the British claim to East Falkland was “disputed” and “at least doubtful.”
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly not damning.
As for the Americans & the French - quite what he was referring to isn't clear. There had been rumours of an American interest coming from Rio but nothing substantial.
If this letter was so damning, the Argies would be honest in its repetition - instead of dropping the word 'all'.
What I would like to know is...Why does Wellington think the French or the Americans would be able to purchase or have ceded the Islands from the government of Buenos Ayres...?
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse -1I would certainly not like to have a letter from the Duke of Wellington stating the limits of the British claim to the Falklands and the reason why it would be in their interests to annex them, presented before me in support of a historical entitlement....;-)
Damn good reason not to ever take the matter to the ICJ...
You see what you want to see Voice.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse +2“It is NOT CLEAR to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of ALL these
islands. ...”
An expression of doubt. NOT an admission of a lack of rights. And then qualified by the legal advice.
This would be laughed out of the ICJ.
“The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2A statement of fact...
You know and I know Britain has no legitimate claim to anymore than Port Egmont West Falkland..
I don't know why you torture yourself in trying to deny this...
Anyway for the books...I would like you to tell everyone else, how wrong they are about the date of the letter...
...and how right I was...July 25th 1929....;-))
Abandoned as in - we left. Don't forget the statement of rights nailed to the Blockhouse door.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know that we annexed East Falkland Island from Spain in 1833.
I still do not understand what you are going on about with the dates. Wellington's letter was written on July 25, 1829. What other date do you think I have used?
Do you not read previous posts there was an argument about when it was written I said 1829...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse +1and Kanye provided a link to what I think is your work saying 1832...
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/03/01/falklands-argentine-human-rights-political-delegation-to-the-islands-with-a-message-of-peace-and-dialogue/comments#comment462699
No, I don't read all posts... some commentators are of no interest to me. I did note that you said this however - “ 1832...again...? According to Roger Lorton the date of the letter is 1829 July 25th, are you saying he is wrong...?”
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse -1Interesting link mind - not sure of the source of that, or its age. Obviously a typo. I'll take a look.
The Timeline has always given the correct date (p.170)
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/5-1823-to-1832.pdf
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse -31) I can see you have deleted that “old link of yours” with that ”obvious 《1832》 typo” that confounded Turnip Kanye so much...:
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wellington-jenner.pdf
- Gooood boy!!
(How's that auld Thai bully dog of yours..., by the way...)
2) Please remember that since MercoPress last site update, there is a LIMITATION OF JUST 1 (ONE) LINK PER COMMENT...
3) It would indeed be a good thing for you to find the time to list all the resolutions that combine the phrases 'population' and 'self-determination' (and what it is ment with it) in order to shed some light into that murky Anglican Fundamentalist mind of yours...
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......, lad...
Reading your above exchange with Mr. Voice about Wellington's letter..., is as frustrating as discussing the good virtues of the noble Quran with a Wahhabist...!
Post tenebras spero lucem...
El Think.
Think, I have to apologise to Kayne, and I should thank you for allowing me the opportunity to do so. I have been waiting many hours for someone to let me in. The main blog site page and the Timeline pdf had the date accurately recorded, that strange extract from 2 years ago (which nobody else spotted) was inaccurate and long forgotten.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse +1If you check again, you'll find rather more drastic action has been taken. If I'm honest, this is the second time recently when the inattention to the blog site has caught me out. The site is now, officially, under 'reconstruction' although the Timeline pdf's remain available.
Only one link? I thought it was me buggering it up. So thanks for that too.
Time is always a problem - insufficient. The Timeline is due an update at the end of the month, and, by coincidence, I've added a fair bit of material from the UN. Much of it revealing the con being played upon the Argentine people. All that shouting at the C24, while the shouters - and the C24 - know full well that their resolution isn't even going to get recommended for adoption by the GA.
A couple of vague references to 'consultations' by the Pres of the GA in 1989 & 1990 - nothing recorded it seems. Proposals to defer ..... no record of who proposed.
Politics is a dirty business Think.....
Illegitimi non carborundum
Under Reconstruction - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
Careful with all those conspiracy theories, young lad...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2They can easily brew your mind...
Carpe a cervisia and unwind...
;-)
Not a natural conspiracy theorist Think ... but the evidence all points that way. With a bit of luck, it'll be covered by the 30 year rule, so I won't have to wait too long.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse +1Fred the Dog's fine by the way. A little white around the muzzle these days and still sorta wants to be boss, but his heart's not in it now. As for unwinding.... live a long way out in the paddy fields. Have done for a couple of years. Grow coconuts, bananas, mangoes, papaya and other stuff I can't pronounce. me, the wife, her mother (!) and a 6 month old. When daughters in Thailand present you with a new grand-daughter ..... they actually 'present' you. 2am feeds have come as a shock to the system.
Keep warm out there in that 'usurped' Patagonia old man ..... life could be worse
:-)
“Amazing how blinkered you all are...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse +4Self determination does not always apply to peoples as is the case of the Bakassi...”
I would agree to a point there Voice, but the dispute concerned non delineated/unclear borders.
Genuine question Voice, was Bakassi listed as a NSGT? I have searched but it doesn't appear to be listed with the UN as an 'Independent' (former NSGT), so this appears to be a long standing historic a border dispute?
It makes a big difference to your argument, as in this case, it appears the Bakassi Peninsula was governed by Nigeria, but documented as belonging to Cameroon and was not listed as a NSGT.
As it has been clearly stated the all NSGT's are entitled to self determination, how does Bakassi change that. It is true that in this case, sovereignty overruled the wishes of the population of Bakassi, but I am not sure how that relates to a listed NSGT, which clearly fall under a completely different and ring fenced set of UN criteria.
Ahhhhh... those small cute human babies creatures...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0A true wonder of nature...
I always wondered how a seven pound human puppy can daily fill their nappies with what it feels like a kilderkin of urine and a bushel of fæces...;-)
Enjoy..., and pet Fred once or twice from me...
Tink/Voice. I have asked several times what can Argentina bring to the negociating table that the FALKLANDS would even listen to? About time you had a Think moment about this.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Sorry chaps, we know you have to counter the useless historical assertions put forward by the RG cabbages, but it's sooo boring! Their assertions will lead nowhere because the status quo will not change. They have the same sort of impact as Mary Beard vs Simon Sharma on whether Romulus and Remus really were hanging on the titty.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Voice I couldn't have put it better.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Voice
Mar 05th, 2017 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Strange coincidence that. I am currently reading Mary Beard's SPQR - far more interesting than Think/Voice's myopic ramblings
Pl. do pardon my ignorance but can't the Falklanders independently decide - on their own - to which country they belong or if they prefer to remain as a neutral/free or an independent country?
Mar 05th, 2017 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Darragh, I am coincidentally reading SPQR too at the moment. Having just finished Robert Harris's Cicero trilogy and Pompeii I am finding it a bit turgid - rather like some of Think/Voice's ramblings only more believable and accurate! ;-)))
Mar 05th, 2017 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JM
Mar 05th, 2017 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -8The Bakassi was merely an example of debunking the myth that self determination is a universal right for all peoples...in their case it clearly wasn't...
It's irrelevant that it is not an NSGT as this supposed right isn't confined to NSGT's....
Out of context..., I know, I know... but...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I MUST retweet (one can't say remercopress..., can one?) to any Argie reading this, the following picture just send to me by one of me young ones in Buenos Aires...
Anglos abstain... You won't get more than 1% of the iconography...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6LCNOTWQAUnItd.jpg
Soooooooooooooooo. right...!!!
@Think. Sausage = an item of food in the form of minced meat and other ingredients such as rusk and herbs or spices, encased in a skin, sometimes intestine. Haggis = a dish consisting of a sheep's or calf's offal (some form of minced meat) mixed with suet, oatmeal, and seasoning and boiled in a bag, traditionally one made from the animal's stomach. Say what you will, it is a sausage - unless you want to see it as some form of cake which is another description for it. Oh... it's not square either... Do try and keep up, Argentinian Jock chappy.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“The Bakassi was merely an example of debunking the myth that self determination is a universal right”
You attempted to foist the idea that peoples Vis-a-vis population myth excluded the Islanders from self-determination.
That the question of territorial ownership hadn’t been decided. Both of which were proved false. Now you’re attempting another end run on the same defeated theme. All you’ve revealed is your penchant for the use of viveza criollo.
@:o))
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Pl. do pardon my ignorance but can't the Falklanders independently decide - on their own - to which country they belong or if they prefer to remain as a neutral/free or an independent country?”
They already have....in a 2013 referendum they voted overwhelmingly - 99,8% - to remain a BOT. The problem is that the Argies are unable to understand that.
For once Voice I agree with you that is irrelevant regarding it not being a NSGT, for the argument that you are making. But are we not discussing the Falklands right to self determination?
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +4However, what is relevant and the main reason for the 'Self Determination' debate, is that the Falklands are a NSGT and as such, the right to self determination is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the argument. I am yet to see either yourself, Think or the Argentine Gov. provide any evidence to suggest that the Islanders, under the UN mandate, are not entitled to the same level of self determination as the other 16 NSGT's.
Unless you can provide the evidence in the form of links to where the UNGA single out the Falklands as not having that right or the other 16 NSGT's as having that right and specifically leaving out the Falklands, then I would like to see it. Otherwise all you have is opinion, speculation and conjecture.
TWIMC...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -4As earlier posted in this thread...:
”Please familiarize yourselves with the 《 “Special and Particular Colonial Situation” 》of the Falkland Island (Malvinas) NSGT..., as the pertinent UN Body sees it...:
https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gacol3283.doc.htm
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Hip Hip Heptiay...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse -2;-)
Tink/Voice, I have on many occasions asked you tell us what can Argentina come to the negociating table with that the FALKLANDERS would be prepared to take any notice of. Your silence is deafening.Self Determination is afforded to ALL NSGT's
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4“But are we not discussing the Falklands right to self determination?”
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse -5No we are not..you might be, but I am stating that it is merely a rhetorical principle that doesn't just apply to NSGT's, but to all people...
...but it is only a Principle and not a legal tool for adjudicating disputes...
If it was a legal right it would have been applied to the Bakassi...
The principle would need clarification and a definition of “Peoples” to be added before it could ever be used as a legal right...
Or as the “pertinent” UN body really sees it - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/c24-report-2016.pdf
Mar 06th, 2017 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse +6Please note that the Falklands resolution adopted by the C24, is NOT included amongst those 'recommended' for adoption by the General Assembly. That has been the case at least since 1999 when the C24 started to use this format for the annual reports.
Now isn't it a strange thing, that a Committee (pertinent or otherwise) year after year adopts a resolution knowing full well that they are not going to recommend that resolution for adoption by the GA and that - therefore - the resolution will just die without ever blooming into a full UN GA resolution. What is even stranger is that, except for one occasion in 2014 when the opposition groups in the Chamber of Deputies asked Christina about it, Argentines do not wonder why. How strange is that? CFK never answered by the way, of it she did it was not made public.
As I cannot post two links I suggest that if you doubt my post and wish to see the original, you go to the UN's document search page and type in the document number - A/71/23
Think, where does it say that the Falklands are not afforded the same level of self determination as the other 16 territories designated as NSGT's. Was this resolution adopted by the 4th Committee or the GA?.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse +5For all intents and purposes, this document is at best and internal memo of the C24 of what they discussed, it has no authority or legal standing. A small group of people all slapping each others back (but not all agree with Argentina on this point), make noises about the Islanders not having a right to self determination as they are implanted, doesn't make it official UN policy. They may wish, like you, that it does, but sadly it doesn't.
So once again I will ask for you to please provide evidence (officially adopted UNGA Resolutions) that only 16 out of 17 NSGT's have a right to self determine their future, at the exclusion of the Falklands.
It should be easy to find, as we hear if from you all the time. I know there was a Spanish/Arg. sponsored resolution in 2008 that tried to restrict the rights in a sovereignty dispute, how did that go......if they adopted that you could use that as evidence, no......;-)))
Voice - Yes indeed, it is only a principle as a universal right, quite so. Although had Bakassi carried through their threat for independence after the judgement, would self determination have come into play, who knows?
With regard to the NSGT's it is the only option for the way forward, it is not a principle, it is an inalienable right. Therefore for the NSGT's alone, there is no need for a clarification, definition or legal principles to be applied in order to achieve that right.
The United Nations International Court of Justice General Report 1971 (page 31) states the following:-
Mar 06th, 2017 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse +5”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”.
When informing Think/Voice about sausages one must appreciate that their only experience of them is coated in batter and deep fried which is the normal method of cooking in their part of the world. ;-)
Mar 06th, 2017 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Lorton...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse -3Weak response..., lad...
By the way..., two technical advices...:
1) When using the UN's document search page..., remember to type the search query inbetween inverted commas..., like this...: “A/71/23”
... Or else you'll get a zillion hits...'-)
2) You can somehow circumvent Mercopress's one link limitation by deleting the “http://” particle in front of the subsequent links...*
Like this...:
http://www.hardyfishing.co.uk/hardy-reels-fly-reels-hardy-marquis/hardy-marquis-lwt-reel/1405261-0300.html#start=3
www.hardyfishing.co.uk/hardy-rods-fly-rods-hardy-demon/hardy-demon-smuggler-rod/1405251-0300.html#specifications
www.hardyfishing.co.uk/hardy-line-fly-line-hardy-premium/hardy-premium-flyline/1346493-0300.html#start=3
Capisce?
* Credit to poster DemonTree..
“.... Despite this significant progress, 17 Territories remain Non-Self-Governing Territories. …….Achieving that goal requires proactive and sustained engagement by all parties involved — the administering Powers, the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the United Nations and other stakeholders”....
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Sec Gen. António Guterres’.. 22 Feb 2017.
I don't see anything there from the Sec Gen, singling out the Falklands as not being a 'people' of a NSGT. It clearly states 17 NSGT's and clearly states ' the peoples of the NSGT's' seems clear to me. If they were not 'a people', they would say so.
Just as an aside for Peoples v Populations being interchangeable...23 December 2015, the General Assembly, after considering the report of the Special Committee (A/70/23), adopted resolution 70/231...
Page 19, Sec. I, Sub Sec 49
49. The Special Committee will continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories and recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the POPULATIONS of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories.
Page 38....Reaffirming further that the natural resources are the heritage of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the indigenous POPULATIONS,....
Page 47 ...which would safeguard the rights of all sectors of the POPULATION, based on the principle that it is for the POPULATIONS of New Caledonia to choose how to determine their destiny.
Also note that inhabitants are also used interchangeably as well.
Think .... weak? How so? I just proved that the C24 is either a) conning Argentina, or b) Hasn't the courage of its convictions or c) is of absolutely no use.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +412 years of no recommendation and that's only with the current format.
Thanks for the advice though, as I have worked my way - very slowly - through “zillions” in the last few weeks :-)
The Voice
Mar 06th, 2017 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Is it ? News to me and I live in Scotland. More likely English in origin .
Rissoles...practically unknown in Scotland.
Rissoles are sold in chip shops in south Wales, north-east England and Yorkshire. Rissoles and chips is a common choice of meal. These rissoles are meat (typically corned beef), or fish in Yorkshire, mashed up with potato, herbs and sometimes onion. They are coated in breadcrumbs or less frequently battered and deep fried.
I rest my case.
What can Argentina bring to a negociating table that the FALKLANDERS would even think about?
Mar 06th, 2017 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Cont;
Mar 06th, 2017 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +5...Just to reinforce the point...all from the report of the Special Committee (A/70/23), leading to the GA adopted resolution 70/231.
Page 55: Recognizing that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the peoples of the Territories require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources,
Page 67: Aware of the assessment made in 2013 that the population of the Territory needs to be boosted if the Territory is to have a sustainable future and of the approval by the Pitcairn Island Council of an immigration policy and the repopulation plan, covering the period from 2014 to 2019, designed to promote immigration and repopulation and bring people with the necessary skills and commitment to Pitcairn,
Interesting also that this would appear to blow the 'implanted' argument out of the water. They seem to be happy to encourage repopulation to secure a sustainable future.....
Page 75: (c) To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination,
Page 95: 'Today, 17 Territories, with a total population of 1.6 million people, and administered by four administering Powers, remain on the list',
Hold on a minute, according to Think, that should read '16 NSGT's with peoples totalling 1.597 Million and the Falklands with a population of 3000'....
Clyde, you obviously live in the civilised healthy part. Pop over to Lorenzo's in Dunoon and have a go at the deep fried battered Pizza, you'll see what I mean ;-}
Mar 06th, 2017 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1First... you would need to see what You mean...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have never been to Dunoon...the closest you have been is Gourock...
Or have you been lying to us...?
Also HugeJuan...
Describe what is meant by sausage shaped...?
What shape is that...?
The shape of Haggis...?
There are plenty of meats wrapped in skin...yourself for instance...are you a Haggis...?
Mr. Lorton...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4IMHO..., what your UN observations prove..., is just the obvious...
That the Engrish Foreign and Colonial Office is a powerful overrepresented bully at the UN..., with a couple of other overrepresented bullies at the same organization as good friends...
As it is..., it's quite remarkable that little Argentina has archieved so much at that forum...
No need to thank me..., by the way... That's why we old and wise are here for... To help the young and...... ;-)
Mr. Voice...
“Are you a Haggis...?”
That was goooooooood...!!!
So nothing then Think eh?
Mar 06th, 2017 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Have you got the proof to your assertions?
You have been provided with irrefutable proof that your 'pertinent UN body' the C24, use the words 'Population', 'Peoples' and 'Inhabitants' to mean one and the same thing, 100% interchangeable and 100% equal in meaning.
We will as usual, take your silent acquiescence and lack of any evidence to the contrary, To mean you tacitly accept and understand the words 'Population' and 'Peoples' mean the same and that the 'People/Population/Inhabitants of the Falklands have the exact same right according to the C24, as the other 16 NSGT's to determine their own future..
Boa noite!
Think...New product - horsemeat pizza! Battered and deep fried. You could clean up.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What my observations prove, Think, is, as our Defence Secretary said in February of last year - the matter was settled 30 years ago.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What my observations prove, Mr. Lorton, is that the age in which an Engrish Defence Secretary could unilaterally decide when a matter was settled..., ended 100 years ago.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Mr Think,
Mar 06th, 2017 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina never could decide the end of anything. 1833 - 1982, no difference.
Mr voice,
- a meat bag that 'Thinks' like a haggis.
Does that pass as humour in Canada...?
Mar 07th, 2017 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse -2That old grey matter getting squishy Think? Def. Sec. Fallon was describing a state of affairs. A reality. He played no part in it. Not in 1989. Back then it was that devious, conniving, shitehawk Blair. Somebody is getting screwed. Maybe everyone is getting screwed.
Mar 07th, 2017 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse +6Still, its March. Let the Panto commence again -
The Robbin' Hoods
Remember Pantomime? Defined as - “a theatrical entertainment, mainly for children, that involves music, topical jokes, and slapstick comedy and is based on a fairy tale or nursery story, usually produced around Christmas.”
The United Nations has Pantomime too. Slapstick comedy. Only difference is, they perform all year.
March – Secretariat circulates its working paper on the Falklands to the member States. (The joke in the last paragraph is one of my favourites)
June – the Decolonization Committee encourage the throwing of custard pies by Argentina and its cronies culminating in the adoption of a resolution demanding that the UK and Argentina resume sovereignty negotiations (doubles me up, every time).
July – the Decolonization Committee submits its report to the Fourth Committee detailing its 'work' (killer) for that year and listing all its decisions and resolutions for adoption by the General Assembly ….. except one (it's a cracker!).
October – the Fourth Committee review the work of the Decolonization Committee, allowing a few more custard pies to be thrown just for the hell of it before recommending that the General Assembly adopt all the resolutions that the Decolonization Committee has listed, and no more. (With the last bars of the music, the Falklands issue slowly fades out until, with a final wave the curtain drops and ….... it's disappeared).
And that's it till next season, folks.
Gotta love a Pantomime.
Hear that ThinkVoice??
Mar 07th, 2017 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse +2It's Panto Season again - bring out your Panto-Horse!
Don't forget the village Idiot, he will make an appearance at the pantomime too.
Mar 07th, 2017 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3I do so look forward to coming onto this forum to engage in these debates. Take this thread for example, the well thought out responses, reasoned thinking, logical and critical argument.......
Start when ever you like Think!
Is it December already Troy...?
Mar 07th, 2017 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse -5Stupid “Kanuck”....
Gracias pero, no gracias.
Mar 07th, 2017 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The Islanders aren't stupid. They know this is an entirely duplicitous move. Argentina doesn't want peace, it wants the Islanders' home in the same way it took Patagonia from the native South Americans.
@Hepatitus
Mar 07th, 2017 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1'Fora' Hippy ! Inacreditável ...você ainda será estupida em 25 anos....
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!