MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina to appear before UN Decolonization Committee as one on Falkland/Malvinas Islands case
The entire political spectrum will join forces behind newly-appointed Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie as new appeal for UK to discuss sovereignty is expected to be launched. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr Corbyn said today: 'I think there has to be a discussion about how you can bring about some reasonable accommodation with Argentina.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse -12'It seems to me ridiculous that in the 21st Century we would be getting into some enormous conflict with Argentina about some islands just off it.
They are going to the DC24, the non executive sub committee that has no powers to do anything at all. It is just a biased discredited group that has not been listened to for over 35 years. Argentina only goes there because the DC24 is toothless and if it did go against them it is still meaningless. There is nothing to discuss between the UK and Argentina. The islanders have spoken, they will decide any outcome. Argenstupidtina is simply sending the Foreign Minister on his Induction Training.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse +9Marquitos Alejandrito
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse +9Your juvenile mind is trying to give authority to a totally discredited politician insofar as the Falkland Islands are concerned. Even his own shadow Foreign Minister has stated that the Falkland Islanders will be supported by Parliament.
The British nation is steadfast in its rejection of Argentina's claims!
Today Morecrap? Did Corbyn say that today? Or did he say it some time ago, only to be slapped down by his party on the subject? I think you'll find it was the latter.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse +8As for the UN, the Decolonization Committee (C24) has proven itself irrelevant to the issue of the Falkland Islands - and Gibraltar come to that. On the Falklands the C24 has produced a resolution every year since 1988, that it then does not recommend to the General Assembly for adoption. So what was the point? A sop to Argentina so that it's government can fool the Argentine people for another year? Nobody seems to know.
It's just a pantomime.
Will this year bring any surprises. Unlikely, but we'll now soon enough.
The matter is settled.
Nothing the C24 committee says can alter the fact that the people who live on the islands have the right to self-determination under the UN Charter and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights. If the Republic of Argentina wish to continue with their bullshit “claim” the only place they can do it is the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in den Haag. I wonder why they refuse to do so? *
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6* Don't worry. I know why ;-D
The Decolonization Committee - Many of the countries of the committee have questionable track records on human rights and 21 of the 29 countries in the committee have been ranked as being ‘not free’ or ‘partly free’ by the 2014 ‘Freedom in the World’ Survey. (Freedom House, Public Annual Records Since 1973 on 195 Countries, Freedom in the World List 2014).
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse +5Falklands - UN C24 Decolonization Committee:
https://www.academia.edu/11274445/Falklands_-_UN_C24_Committee
Who gives a toss what they do ! Totally irrelevant .
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse +4Given Argentina's shabby record of failing to comply with UN determinations, its whinging on the matter to the UN is a special sort of hypocrisy, and will understandably serve as nothing more than to whip up their frothing nationalist riffraff.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +7De-Colonization Committee?? Is that the same as the “UN Special Committee on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +8If it is then it has no remit as far as the Falkland Islands are concerned as the people have not expressed any desire for independence nor are the Falkland Islands a colony they are at their own wishes a British Overseas Territory.
Marcos
Not telling lies again are you???
Clyde15
Quite
The United Kingdom from the usurpation of 1833, always refused to discuss sovereignty with Argentina. His historical and legal arguments are very loose.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -10You know that Marcos, Think/Voice, and Nostrils always tell porkers and Reeky is totally out of touch up in Calgary. What's new?
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +5When the United Kingdom solves the problem of sovereignty with Argentina and determines that the territory belongs to them, I will be very happy to support the self-determination of the islanders.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Is that possible! -1!!
OAS - However, the speech generated a rift : on the close of this morning's session, Canada called on the floor to argue that the governments involved in the dispute “should work for respect for the rights of islanders,” A clear signal of support for the principle of self-determination to affirm its decision to continue as a British overseas territory.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +6We have discussed sovereignty Malvinense 1833.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +6We discussed it in 1834.
Nothing else has needed to be said.
Argentina's case was spurious in 1834. It still is.
The matter was settled then.
Argentina will return Chubut within 25 years.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Hello Roger, Can you show me the document that ended the conflict?
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Yes Malvinense 1833 - but how do I post Argentina's surrender in 1982 on here?
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Ok, Roger Simple: Argentina renounced sovereignty in 1982?
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -4This was announced by the UK?
Argentina did not 'renounce' sovereignty in 1982. Argentina dropped negotiations in 1981 and started a war in 1982. Trial by combat. Argentina lost and that was an end to the matter. The final recognition appears to have been in 1989 when Argentina agreed to drop the matter at the UN General Assembly. It has not appeared there since.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +7If there were documents signed, they have never been published, but 28 years of GA silence speaks loudly for itself.
UN C24 should re-examine itself. There would be no need for Argentine diplomats and hangers on to trip off to the Big Apple annually to “ensure there is clarity” in its message. Mr Lorton confirms - the matter is long ago settled.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Lol. Argentina with another attempt to steal land that they have no right to.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“If there were documents signed, they have never been published” No more questions.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Malvin can you show me the declaration of the cease of hostilities with Britain in 1982? Has Argentina ever apologised to the FALKLANDERS for trying to colonise the FALKLANDS in 1982?
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Argentina gave up the right of negociating the sovereigny of the FALKLANDS in 1982. Time has moved on and the right to determine their own future now lies with the FALKLANDERS in the shape of SELF-DETERMINATION as decreed by the UNGA.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Argentina renounced its claim to sovereignty in the Aruna-Southern Treaty of 1850. It then didn't raise the matter until 1890, only to do so one single time before forgetting about it for a further 60 years.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse +5Despite its previous renunciation of a sovereignty claim, Argentina was offered discussions by the UK in the 50s and 60s - with the offer to go to the ICJ, the only court with jurisdiction. Argentina refused.
Argentina has no case and never did. Their whining is irrelevant. If they had a case - like Spain over Gibraltar - then they would grow a pair and go to the ICJ. Instead, the pair of them wheedle around the world, whinging and crying like a pair of spoilt little babies, making up nonsensical stories and lying to their people.
Sad, really, that states resort to this sort of pathetic neo-colonialism in this day and age.
There are actually two “United Nations.”
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse +3There is one where the serious countries attempt to deal with matters of consequence. UK, China, USA, Russia, France.
Then there is the other United Nations, which nobody pays any attention to, but which gives third-world yappy-dogs like Argentistan a place to growl and howl at one another and pretend that some day, many dozens of decades in the future, they might be able to play with the Big Dogs.
@Hepatia
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse -4Yeah, 25 years seem reasonable.
In 25 years Argentina will be sold for scrap value, to pay its creditors
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse +4Why need there be published documents Malvinense 1833? Or did you run out of argument?
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse +1@ Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +2“The United Kingdom from the usurpation of 1833, always refused to discuss sovereignty with Argentina. His historical and legal arguments are very loose.”
Why did the United Provinces not reoccupy the Islands between 1833-1834?
Ships from the River Plate to the Falklands did not take over a year to sail to the Falklands even in the 1830s.
The historical arguments from the British side are much more solid than the Argentine claims.
The UK, and of course since 1945 post-UN, the Falkland Islanders have a huge ocean liner's worth of historical evidence to back them up, while the few threads of arguments Argentina deploys, are in comparison, akin to them clinging onto a raft, without a sail, with the tips of their fingernails.
Since you want documents, try as sceptic64 alludes, reading the Aruna-Southern Treaty of 1850 which does not cite the Falkland Islands as an issue between the two countries.
@EnriqueMassot
“@Hepatia
Yeah, 25 years seem reasonable.”
Hepatia has served up this Nazi-esque mantra for 6 years, therefore surely now, the prediction should read 'within 19 years'?
Why the slippage?
Why are the UK not going to hand over the Falklands to colonialist Argentina before 2036 rather than 2042?
Your country's sheer desperation is signalled by using an organisation that is meant to promote the Independence of colonial peoples, rather than promote colonialism from another country, isn't going to make any headway in 25,000 years, let alone 25.
Try the ICJ.
@ golfcronie, hello, look, as an Argentine citizen, I apologize for an absurd war, which should never have occurred.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I have the greatness to recognize it, unlike the United Kingdom that took a portion of its territory to a young nation.
Perhaps malvado1833 can now apologise to Chile, on behalf of Argentina, for its 19th-century theft of Patagonia.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@ Marti Llazo hahaha chilean liar
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -2@ sceptic64
@Pete Bog
D. The Arana-Southern Convention of November 24th, 1849
The attempt to consider the treaty dated November 24th, 1849 between Argentina and Great Britain as the abandonment of Argentina’s claim over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands is unfounded for a number of historical and legal reasons. It is a “Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the settlement of existing differences and the re-establishment of friendship”, signed on November 24th, 1849, also called the Arana- Southern Convention after the representatives of the signatory countries, by virtue of which the conflict relating to the English blockade to the Rio de la Plata came to an end, and the issue of the navigation of international rivers was settled17. The treaty is similar to the one signed with France having the same object: “Convention between France and the Argentine Confederation, for the settlement of existing differences and the re-establishment of friendship”, dated August 31st 1850, known as the Arana – Le Predour Convention18. Pascoe and Pepper manipulated the terms of the Treaty’s preamble and its Article 719. They ignore the first article, which is of fundamental importance, as well as the object and purpose of the treaty, which has nothing to do with the Falklands/Malvinas. They also ignore Article 6, which includes the condition of Uruguay’s acceptance of the treaty. No primary source has been or can be put forward to support the novel British thesis.
more information: http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/avada_portfolio/chapter-v/
Malvi, magically your post is grammatically better English than most of your posts, well done which personna are you now?
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@ golfie: we are not monsters visit argentina
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1http://www.elbolson.com/
Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“As well as the object and purpose of the treaty, which has nothing to do with the Falklands/Malvinas.” Wrong! again as your interpretation is refuted by many neutral legal experts.
HANSARD 1803–2005 Commons Sitting
BUENOS AYRES.
HC Deb 04 August 1851 vol 118 cc1857-8 1857
§MR. URQUHART ...the relations between Buenos Ayres and France and England?
§VISCOUNT PALMERSTON “..a treaty of peace and reconciliation was concluded and ratified between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation more than twelve months ago.”
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1851/aug/04/buenos-ayres
“But the Credential whic the Queen of Great Britain has granted to her Minister Plenipotentiary, the Honourable Henry Southern Esquire is absolute and unlimited. I.. had informed herself of the literal terms of the draft of the Convention of Peace. Besides the adjustment and conclusion of treaties of peace,”
December 27th 1849 JUAN M. DE ROSA.
This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
Ҥ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Supported by the following international legal scholars:
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, LL.D, JAMES MADISON CUTT, T. J. LAWRENCE, M.A., LL.D, GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D., LL.D, L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D, Hans Kelsen
@ Terence.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -4G. The implications of a “Peace Treaty”
In their attempt to find an Argentine renunciation in the Arana-Southern Treaty, the authors of the pamphlet insist on its nature as a “peace treaty” and claim that it is because of this nature that the renunciation existed. Pascoe and Pepper use a quote by the North American jurist Henry Wheaton to justify their mistaken interpretation. The British writers refer to the consequences emerging from the signing of a peace treaty in relation to conquered territories. But here they seriously contradict themselves: if the islands were British, as they claim, then there was nothing for the United Kingdom to conquer. As we saw in the previous chapter, none of the prerequisites in the international law of the time are met for an acquisition of British sovereignty by conquest in 1833. The 1849 treaty also does not relate to conquest. The fact that commentaries have referred to it as a “peace treaty” does not change this fact. There was no declaration of war made by Great Britain against Argentina (and Uruguay) or vice versa. Military actions were unrelated to the Falklands/Malvinas. The treaty of November 23rd, 1849 makes no mention of an Argentine renunciation, as is done in peace treaties where the parties dispose of sovereignty over their territories. It was simply not a treaty of a territorial nature. Furthermore, the treaty was a triumph for Argentina and Uruguay: Great Britain recognised the Argentine-Uruguayan thesis of the internal character of their rivers, and its own obligation to request authorisation to sail them, a formal end to the blockade, the return of its ships, British retreat from Martin Garcia Island in the Rio de la Plata (which at the time was the object of claims both by Argentina and Uruguay, and occupied by the British during the blockade) and a salute to the flag as satisfaction. The same pamphlet says Rosas was able to impose his will “on two humiliated opponents, Britain and France”.
Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Quick question:-
If Argentina had won the war in 1982 would Argentina still want to discuss sovereignty with the UK in 2017?
Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can claim whatever you wish but why should we give any cognizance to a load of fairy tales. The Islands will never be under Argentine sovereignty unless the Islanders wish it so.
End of story. Your huffing and puffing is to no avail.
Malvinense 1983
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +21) Britain took nothing from Argentina as a young nation or otherwise, as Argentina was trespassing in the Falklands in 1833. There was a tussle between Spain and England. Argentina was never in the game.
2) The 1850 treaty was a full blown Peace Treaty which was the way that Rosas wanted it. And there are recognised norms attached to the conclusion of peace treaties including that occupied territory remains in the hands of its occupiers if not dealt with in the Treaty. Rosas was fully aware of this. How do I know? Because Southern told him at an all-night meeting -
just before the treaty was ratified - when Rosas tried to bring the matter up.
Now I am no great exponent of the 1850 treaty as I figure that the dropping of a spurious claim doesn't make it less spurious and is of no great consequence, but there is no doubt that is what Rosas did. We have the documents and the legal opinions to support it.
Relying on Kohen & Rodriguez'z comic, is just going to make you look daft lad.
@ darragh Short answer: a fact of strength does not grant rights.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If Argentina had won the 1982 war, the problem would remain the same. The only way to put an end to everything is to dialogue, if the differences persist is best go a arbitration or the ICJ.
Malvi. where did I mention Argentinians are “ monsters ”, I have lived and worked in Argentina many years ago for your edification. In fact I worked to enhance your infrastructure but alas to no avail judging by it now.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Nothing to “dialogue” Malvinense 1833. Nothing to talk about. It was all said in the 17 years before the war. Argentina chose trial by combat. Argentina lost. The matter is settled.
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The implications of a “Peace Treaty …There was no declaration of war made by Great Britain against Argentina (and Uruguay) or vice versa”
Neither was there in 1833, but it still became legally ‘conquered’ according to the precepts of international law.
Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes: “if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
So you stick with your viveza criolla sophisms, while the rest of the world relies on the experts. As former ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins 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 through Argentinas acquiescence.80“ .
80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
Malvinense 1833
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Sir, I feel you are being somewhat economical with the truth.
You know full well that had Argentina won the war then you and all Argentines would consider the matter closed. To say anything else is purely a matter of you whiffling through the tulgey wood.
I always assumed the Burbling was the noise and the Whiffling was the motion...
Jun 23rd, 2017 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice
Jun 24th, 2017 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1hmm. yes I see your point but whatever you do don't forget to shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
News item: It's 2017 and the Falklands are British.
Jun 24th, 2017 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Film at 11.
Malvinense 1833
Jun 24th, 2017 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Pascoe and Pepper use a quote by the North American jurist Henry Wheaton to justify their mistaken interpretation.”
Is completely untrue as they have never mentioned him. I quote him as a result of my own original research. So all you have confirmed is your claims are as reliable as your government’s
Didn't Chile and Argentina go to the ICJ to sort out the Beagle channel, and who won( Chile ) and who would not accept the result ( Argentina), so why would Argentina take the risk of taking the the matter to the ICJ and be humiliated again as land grabbers or rather colonists? As if Argentina would accept the result anyway.
Jun 24th, 2017 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Marcos Alejandro diverts us with a nonsensical Corbyn quote “conflict with Argentina about some islands just off it”.
Jun 27th, 2017 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just off Argentina?
I challenge you, Marcos Alejandro, to swim from Argentine mainland to the isles.
Golfcronie ”Didn't Chile and Argentina go to the ICJ to sort out the Beagle channel, and who won( Chile ) and who would not accept the result ( Argentina),...”
Jun 28th, 2017 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse +1Actually no, the ICJ was not involved directly. In December 1978 the Argentine fleet that was sent to attack Chile got into a little ocean-wave action and evidently became sufficiently sea-sick as to allow time for a papal representative to remind the argies that Chile would beat the bejezzus out of them if given half a chance. The pope's rep, Cardinal Samore (not to be confused with an Italian pasta dish of the same name) had some pictures of the argie junta heavies performing lewd acts with bantam chickens, and this resulted in Argentina's pretending to back off for a few years. Until the Falklands war, wherein always-clever Argentina planned to go ahead and attack Chile anyway after its anticipated setting up choripan kioskos in the islands, a scheme that was code-named “¡Estamos Ganando!” But of course the little fleet under the command of Sir Walter Raleigh defeated the argie armada in 1982 AD and reduced Argilandia's fighting effectiveness to the equivalent of that of the Oxford University Boat Club. Trembling with fear that a full platoon of Girl Guides armed with .177-calibre air-rifles would be sent over the Andes from Chile, Argentina realised that the game was over and signed a peace treaty with Chile in 1984, which obligated the argies to placing a certain number of Ford Falcons in storage for an undisclosed number of years.
There are some errors in this but take a look at the wikipedia article “Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict.”
It is amazing that the Argentines who argue for Argentine possession of the british Falkland Islands know so little about the subject.
Jun 28th, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Not only the treaty of 1849, ratified by the Argentine parliament in may 1850 confirms the British possession of the islands, but two of Argentina's most revered president and a vice president has confirmed that Argentina had no problem with the British possession of the Falkland Islands.
Bartolomé Mitre's message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865, 'state of the nation': “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.” = “there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments [France and Britain].” [1]
Vice-president Marcos Paz's opening speach to the Argentine Congress, 1 May 1866, 'state of the nation': “... perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” = “... damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, which has not yet been settled.” . [2]
President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's “Message to the Argentine Congress”, 1 May 1869, 'state of the nation': “... Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía ...” = “Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies ...” [3]
[1] http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.htm
[2] same site as [1] this page: mensaje-del-vicepresidente-de-la_06.html
[3] scribd.com/doc/134449362/Mensaje-del-Presidente-de-La-Republica-Argentina-Domingo-Sarmiento-al-Abrir-las-Sesiones-del-Congreso-Nacional-en-1-de-Mayo-de-1869
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!