MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
PM May supports Falklands' self determination; calls on Argentina to meet September joint communiqué
Prime Minister Theresa May reiterated the UK Government’s strong and wholehearted support for the Falkland Islands right to self-determination and underlined UK is seeking a more productive relation with Argentina but cautioned that the full potential of the relationship depends on Buenos Aires meeting the public commitments of the September 2016 joint communiqué. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Argentinians say that self-determination is not applicable to the Falkland Islanders. What planet are they on?
Aug 14th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands – Self-Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
Comment removed by the editor.
Aug 15th, 2017 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse -6I see that HEPATITIS has got married to a fish!
Aug 15th, 2017 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse +3Regrettably this is the usual hypocrisy of the UK metro elite - when did they EVER protect the self-determination of the people of Diego Garcia. Instead the UK kicked them off their island to make way for a secret US air base. Sickening, isn't it? And ever since, the highest court of the land has rejected their efforts to return to their homes. Maybe if they had been white, the response would have been different? What do you Daily mail and Daily Express readers think? And be honest before replying.
Aug 15th, 2017 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse -6@ Pytangua
Aug 15th, 2017 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“when did they EVER protect the self-determination of the people of Diego Garcia. Instead the UK kicked them off their island to make way for a secret US air base. Sickening, isn't it”
Yes it is sickening.
The Islanders I have talked to want to be a BOT, are happy to take up the 1,500 jobs on the airbase currently done by implanted labour, establish other incomes,and do not intend to be a burden on the British taxpayer, as has been falsely implied. The forecasts of £60 million to resettle the islanders are grossly overestimated as they are based on London living costs, not costs on the Chagos Islands. In fact the UK government will spend £40 million on them here anyway, enough to resettle them. There is also a fallacy about lack of water with some of the islands getting higher rainfall than the UK. Also 4th to 6th generation islanders used to dig for water.
Their culture was to share everything, another reason why establishment costs are over exaggerated.
They do not wish to fall under Mauritian sovereignty, as they were treated appallingly in Mauritius, corruptly trousering most of the compensation money meant for the Islanders. Britain should grow a pair and demand the return of this money from Mauritius, not give into their dubious sovereignty demands. Fears that if the Chaggosians were returned, that they would spy against the USA, (when doing so would see them expelled again.) or seek independence are fanciful with no more than 3-4000 people. The airbase guarantees their security. The UK and USA have become paranoid about a return for these people when they simply want to live in their birthplace and make it pay, if they are given the autonomous freedom that the Falkland Islanders rightly enjoyed after 1982.
I hope you recognise the fact that all the other BOTs enjoy self determination and are well represented by the UK.
See you at the Chagos Support Group.
Highest Court in the Land? And the European Court of Human Rights too, which viewed the Mauritians from Chagos as having been adequately compensated.
Aug 15th, 2017 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The Permanent Court of Arbitration has held that the Mauritians can rely upon the promises made in the 1960's and 70's that the islands be returned when the British Government are finished with them, although there is some doubt that Mauritius will then allow a group of British citizens with ideas of self-determination back onto the archipelago.
Now we can look forward to an ICJ decision.
Will any of it make one ounce of difference? Unlikely. Most countries in the world have a system within their laws of 'eminent domain' which allows the Government to remove people from land when that Government feels it necessary. In the UK we tend to call it 'compulsory purchase', not that anyone in England actually owns land anyway. That has not been an option since the Norman Conquest.
The removal of the Mauritians from Chagos was not handled well; but they were never listed at the UN as an NSGT and - IMHO - the Human Rights Court was correct. They were well compensated.
What's the point in meeting up with Argentina in September ?? the UK government's firm position is the self-determination of the FI, while the Argies will agree to nothing but sovereign rights over the Islands.... Maybe the islanders could hold another referendum and vote to become an overseas ‘county’ of England...Argentina would then be claiming part of the UK...
Aug 15th, 2017 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@gordo 1
good one....I've seen fish that have just been caught and then released, bite the same hook minutes later...in other words, they either have a short memory – if any at all - or a low attention span...just like fruit flies and the Kipatia.
Pytangua
Aug 15th, 2017 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Welcome! You really must get your arguments and comments right here on Mercopress. The slightest mistake and you will be “eaten alive” viz Pete Bog and Roger Lorton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 15th, 2017 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -7We are at the disposal of any person or entity willing to organise a serious and respectful debate on the Argentine-British dispute over the islands, and offer to organise a similar event in Buenos Aires.
We are also confident that those seriously interested in the matter will read both publications and will then be in a position to judge for themselves.
Professor Marcelo Kohen and Facundo Rodríguez, Advocate.
Penguin News, 22 July 2016.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“eaten alive”? Roger Lorton? The time passed, spent more than a year, Professor Kohen continues to wait ....
Your repetitiveness is boring Malvinense 1833, as I've told you before - I expose frauds, I don't debate with them.
Aug 15th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +4And Kohen won't go near me - I aint “respectful” :-)
@Roger Lorton
Aug 16th, 2017 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's stopping the government doing the same in the Falklands, using compulsory purchase to remove the people from their land and then handing the empty islands over to Argentina?
(To be clear I do NOT support this, and I think the Chagos islanders should be allowed back too.)
Also why do you refuse to debate Kohen and Rodriguez? If they are really frauds wouldn't that be the best way to expose them?
@JB
“What's the point in meeting up with Argentina in September”
To discuss things other than sovereignty. Both countries want to increase trade and investment, and in September Macri agreed to remove some of the restrictions CFK had placed on the Falklands and also look at sharing info on eg fisheries again. His Congress objected and so far nothing from the agreement has happened except for the Red Cross identification of Argentine soldiers.
Now the answer to that is easy Demon Tree and it's one of the reasons that the islanders would not support the notion of incorporation into the UK.
Aug 16th, 2017 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse +5The Falklands are listed by the UN as a NSGT. It's people are recognised as a people who should be brought to a full measure of self-government and who, under UN Resolutions, have the right to become independent. As a result they are protected by international law (I do have my fingers crossed behind my back).
If the islands were considered part of the UK, then the gov could uproot them all as easily as it will do to those living near Heathrow should it ever get around to putting in that extra runway.
As I said, the Chagos were never separately listed and the colonial government of Mauritius approved of the separation ( a few gongs were issued, at least one knighthood and possibly some glass beads). It's the nature of that separation (and approval) which appears to be the subject of the upcoming ICJ opinion.
As for Kohen. a) I asked him for 3 years and he would not respond. b) he & Rodrigues want a debate in the islands/BA - they are financed by the Argie Gov, I am not financed by any gov., and there is no incentive for the islanders to host what would just be a propaganda show. And who wants to go to BA anyway? c) Kohen's idea of a debate is that both sides give a speech and answer a couple of questions. Mine is more akin to trial by combat, but then I'm used to criminal courts. I also fail on the 'respectful' condition - which is why Kohen added it I suspect.
On top of all that, I'm back in Thailand for the winter :-)
@ Roger Lorton:
Aug 16th, 2017 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse -5Excuses Roger, excuses. You are very brave behind a keyboard and do not dare to face-to-face debate.
You seem to have all the answers or know what the islanders think.
Questions for 3 years? where? On social networks?
If you are right, accept the challenge and show the world the lies of Kohen.
You are equal to the British government, always say that you have no doubts of sovereignty, but never explains why you have no doubts.
Regards.
Tell you what, Malvinense 1833, the day I receive a formal invitation from Kohen, I'll give it serious consideration. Feel free to pass that on.
Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +4By the way, I do have (nearly) all the answers; and there are no doubts.
Read & learn - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/
By the by, new update due at the end of the month. Lots of new finds from the archives - I've even added quotes from Kohen & Rodrigues ....... in the suitable spots. :-)
A little taster -
1740 – agreement between Spain and the tribes as to southern limit of Spanish expansion
1789 – Puerto Deseado (Port Desire) ejection of British sealers. Notification to Madrid. Complaints by whaling merchants to British Government. Deliberations of Board of Trade re. Spanish pretensions regarding Sth. America and Falklands. Clear statement that GB had not recognised Spanish claims since 1771.
1792 – another Puerto Deseado confrontation. Spain ignored. Demonstration of Spain's inability to exercise effective control over the eastern seaboard of South America.
1802 – reason for the refusal of French demands for a base on the Malouines with regards to Falkland’s Isle
1833 to 1837 – some more regarding Rivero, two statements from witnesses including the King’s Evidence and a reappraisal of the Law Officer’s decision not to prosecute in light of the available evidence. Also a little more on George Grey’s 10 week survey of the islands & the limitations placed on any visit by Vernet to Port Louis.
1878 to 1887 – a good deal more on the request for compensation by Vernet's heirs, and its rejection by the Senate in 1882. Also the implications for that rejection discussed by the Chamber of Deputies in 1887............ and more, much more
The problem with history, is that there is so much of it :-)
Malvinense
Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +6You have the gall to accuse somebody of being ‘brave behind a keyboard’ yet you steadfastly refuse time and time again to answer two simple questions:-
a) When is Argentina going to apologise for 1982?
b) Will Argentina enter into negotiations with the Falkland Islanders directly or as a third party?
By not answering my questions you demonstrate quite clearly that you do not have the courage of your convictions and will not state openly what you obviously believe i.e. that the Falkland Islanders have no rights other than to be included in the Argentine South Atlantic Empire.
Why not be honest and admit it?
Continual reference to centuries old events that may or may not have happened is totally irrelevant.
What is relevant is the Falkland Islanders right, here in the 21st Century, to self-determination and their right to freely associate with whom they wish.
It is nothing to do with Argentina.
My apologies to other readers of MP for continuing with this line but as you can see Malvinense is unable or unwilling to be honest
Malvinense 1833
Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“accept the challenge and show the world the lies of Kohen.” Why don’t you accept that this same nonsense has been met and refuted previously at http://en.mercopress.com/2017/06/04/falklands-goose-green-commemorates-35th-liberation-day/comments#comment467704
Kohen is a sophist of the worst kind as he continually makes assertions without the backing of legal judgements, simply his own personal opinion, which legally makes such claims worthless.
For example in the publication Página12 dated Tuesday, March 5, 2013 he writes “This is a plebiscite organised by the British government”. Which is a deliberate lie as many independent publications and witnesses have attested, it was organised by the F.I. government. Then he attempts to discredit the referendum by implying that there is a prerequisite for the UN to be involved, where no such requirement in The Charter et al. Then he carries on stating there are categories of people under international law who are entitled to self-determination, citing the UNGA as his source. With very few exceptions the GA resolutions are not international law, merely advisements.
It would seem that Sr. Kohen's blandishments have more too do with his continued employment by the Argentine government than with the reality of international law.
@DT
Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +3My point is, up to now have seen nothing which would indicate Argentina’s intentions have changed – Macri and a few other level-headed people in government/politics may be the exception, but seems the majority are obsessed with gaining sovereignty over the FI, period. I seriously doubt that Argentina is capable of sitting down to negotiate ‘trade & investment’, without at some point, bringing up the FI issue. The Argy motivation behind any trade agreements with the UK – and the FI - in my opinion, is to get closer to their objective, not just for the sake of trade. It is clear that Argentina believes they have the right over all natural resources in the FI region, and the fact they refuse to go the ICJ to settle the dispute once and for all, is because they know history and the truth are not on their side. AFAIC, the only reason the Red Cross identification / repatriation of Argentine soldiers has gone ahead, is because it’s a purely humanitarian issue.
@ Roger Lorton: I hope to see your work very soon with your new discoveries. ;-))
Aug 16th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -6@ darragh: I do not have the answer to your first question, it is like asking when the UK is going to apologize for the usurpation of 1833?
To his second question: the islanders are not a third party, they arrived at the islands after the usurpation, they are British therefore Buenos Aires must negotiate with London is the country that originated the problem.
And of course they have rights, they are people, there is a sovereignty controversy that must be resolved, for this we must dialogue to reach an agreement, and if not resort to arbitration or the International Court of Justice.
Argentina does not seek to be right, but to have the opportunity to settle the dispute peacefully and definitively.
@ Roger Lorton
Aug 16th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“The removal of the Mauritians from Chagos was not handled well.”
Is this not similar to Argentine comments saying the Falkland Islanders are Argentine, in other words, imposed from outside?
The Chagos Islanders lived under UK rule on the Chagos Islands so they consider themselves British, not Mauritian.
A good number of the Islanders were from families that had several generations born on the Chagos Islands, not on Mauritius. (As shown in the graveyards).
As they were under British rule, how exactly are they Mauritians?
If there were plantation workers from Mauritius removed in 1968-1973, fair comment Roger, but those families who were not 'implanted', how can they be Mauritian?
Is this an Argentine style conspiracy to label a people born on British soil, implants?
They were treated as foreigners , outsiders and scum when they were dumped in slums not fit for animal habitation in Port Louis.
So branding them Mauritian is akin to branding the Falkland Islanders as Argentine.
Born on British soil, under British rule=British.
The UK purchased the islands fair and square.
The Chagos Islanders I have spoken with have no liking for Mauritius or the Seychelles whatsoever.
To illustrate further, I worked with a guy in Oxford a few years back, who was born in what is now Pakistan, prior to 1947, from an Indian (i.e. a non white Indian). He moved to Keyna and then to Britain. He served with the RAF and regards himself as British as he moved from India prior to 1947.
Would you class him as Indian? Also Cliff Richard and Joanna Lumley?
“ there is some doubt that Mauritius will then allow a group of British citizens with ideas of self-determination back onto the archipelago”
Of course they won't . If the Chagos islanders are returned to the Islands they want a Legislative Council under UK rule.(Like every other BOT). They don't want Mauritian rule. Their presence would scupper any Mauritian claim.
The HMG is shooting it's own feet
Malvinense 1833
Aug 16th, 2017 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Just because Argentina considers there was an act of “usurpation” does not mean that there WAS such an act VIZ. Usurpation means taking someone's power or property by force. Locking the teacher outside of the classroom and taking charge of math class is a form of usurpation, for example.
Where is your proof that this occurred in 1833?
Malvinense 1833
Aug 16th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina …to have the opportunity to settle the dispute peacefully and definitively.” The clock has run out on that piece of insincerity. With the ignoring of two diplomatic protests of 1829,30. Then there was the the breach of international law by Argentina following the attempt by them and the UK to take end runs around the Islanders UN Charter protected rights.
“there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
@gordo 1
Aug 16th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Where is your proof that this occurred in 1833?”............he has none, other than the brainwashing he was submitted to...
@Roger Lorton
Aug 16th, 2017 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2That all seems very arbitrary, (which unfortunately appears to be normal for the UN). In the unlikely event that Argentina and the UK went to the ICJ about the Falklands and the UK lost, does that mean Argentina can legally do the same thing? Herd the Islanders onto a ship and dump them in the UK, with or without compensation?
@Malvinense
Out of interest, what gives you the authority to offer debates on behalf of Kohen and Rodriguez?
Also Britain doesn't agree that what happened in 1833 was a usurpation, so it's not the same thing. I don't know how common it is to apologise for wars though, even though Argentina does seem to regret this one.
@JB
It's possible we did just see a change in Argentina: Macri's party did better than expected in the elections, this may be a sign that people want to open the country up and take trade and investment more seriously. If Macri can increase his support in October it's possible we could see some movement on the September agreement.
I do think they'd have a 'hidden' motive in negotiating with the UK, but it's not necessarily a problem. For Argentina, refusing to trade with the UK would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I don't expect them to abandon the dispute but they could certainly take less of a hard line. And for the UK, we would need Argentina's agreement for any deal with Mercosur, so no harm in talking to them.
@DT
Aug 16th, 2017 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3About Macri, I hope you are right, and I'm prepared to give him some credit, as he has been a welcome change to CFK and her nationalist / populist policies.
Ok, I don't think that the UK would be 'fooled' by any possible hidden agenda in the talks, and as far as negotiating with the Mercosul, don't think the other 3 membbers would tolerate any attempt by Argentina to hamper negotiations, based solely on their absurd claim.
Pete Bog. Not really my area, but I seem to recall that the UN questioned the transfer of the Chagos at the time. There was a short period where both the Mauritians and the Seychellians on Chagos lived under British rule which is why, as part of one of the compensation packages the Mauritians were given British sovereignty. They were not, for whatever reason, considered Chagosians and again, as I understand it, there had been no right of abode on that archipelago - similar to the position on Ascension. As for the rights and wrongs of the land transfer, there is no getting away from the fact that it was probably against a UN resolution or two. No doubt we'll find out when the ICJ report. The PCA - which uses the same judges - certainly said that the Chagos must go back to Mauritius at some time in the future.
Aug 16th, 2017 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1If it's justice you are looking for - you probably need a god of some description.
Demon Tree - the UK losing at the ICJ would not necessarily mean any change as their opinions are regularly ignored. If there was a handover, which I think is less likely than hell freezing over, then Argentina could do pretty much as it liked. That's the way of governments.
I'm a cynic, if you haven't noticed. If either of you tell me it's “not fair” I'll spend the rest of the day laughing. Life isn't.
@ gordo1: That is the point. It happened or not the British usurpation. Do the islands belong to the United Kingdom? Do the islands belong to Argentina?
Aug 17th, 2017 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the UK is right, why do not the islanders ask London to negotiate with Argentina to bring the case to justice and end with the “Argie imperialism”?
@ Mr. Demon Tree: I do not offer debates on behalf of Kohen and Rodriguez, in another post it was mentioned that Lorton and Pete Bog are eaten raw to anyone. I simply reminded them that Kohen and Rodriguez made a public invitation, in a public medium to debate. Then they have the opportunity to eat 2 raw fish, but the fishing rod still does not appear.
Malvinense 1833.
Aug 17th, 2017 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1We talked already. We talked in 1833/4. We talked in the 1880's. We jaw jawed for 17 years before Argentina chose war war instead. Everything has been said. there's nothing left to talk about.
The matter is settled.
And a public invitation isn't good enough for me lad. I asked Kohen for 3 years and got ignored. I want my invitation in gold print - with associated expenses :-)
Malvinense 1833
Aug 17th, 2017 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Niño - are you totally unable to understand what is posted here? The Falkland Islands are a self-governing territory and do not need Britain( NOT repeat NOT London} to negotiate on their behalf - they are educated people(even more erudite than their Argentine counterparts, I suggest) so what is the big deal about Britain's intervention? International law has already established that Argentina has NO right to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
Malvinense
Aug 17th, 2017 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I accept that you are unable to answer for Argentina per se but that does not let you off the hook. You can answer for yourself and apologise to the Falkland Islanders and the UK. The fact that you fail to do so just reinforces what I have said elsewhere i.e. that you do not believe that Argentina has anything to apologise for. What did or didn’t happen in 1833 or 5,000 BCE is totally irrelevant. The consequences of Argentina’s imperial ambitions in 1982 are still visible and real to people who are alive today not lying in some 200 year old tomb.
Your answer to the second question beggars belief. According to your theory that anybody whose antecedents might have arrived on or after Jan 4th 1833 are British and therefore have no rights flies in the face of common sense in as much as according to that reasoning nobody but nobody who cannot prove that they are 100% indigenous in any part of the world, including Argentina, has any rights at all. Clearly plain nonsense.
Once again you say that “of course they have rights” but elsewhere you have stated that the “rights” they have are those specified in the Argentine constitution that states that Argentina would ‘protect their way of life’. So what. That is not self-determination nor anywhere near it in fact it is just meaningless gobbledegook.
You believe that the UK originated this problem. Most people disagree but again, so what. It was Argentina that started the 1982 war which is what we are talking about
There is no sovereignty controversy except in the minds of Argentine imperialists like yourself.
You state that “Argentina does not seek to be right” – really!! Then why does the Argentine constitution say “The Argentine nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas”
Either admit that you believe that Argentina has nothing to apologise for and that the Falkland Islanders have no rights or forever be labelled as someone who is a moral coward.
@ Roger Lorton
Aug 17th, 2017 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“If it's justice you are looking for - you probably need a god of some description”
My research is influenced ironically by the way you have busted the Malvinas Myth.
In the same way I seek to bust the Chagossian myth which would benefit the UK.
(i.e. implanted population/correlation between people owned by overseas firm and how FIC (previously run from overseas) owned Falkland Islanders/ myth of inhabitability).
“ If either of you tell me it's “not fair”
You can laugh all day. If the UK resettled Chagossians who wish association with the UK this is an argument for the UK to retain the islands, (fairness aside) through self determination.
Chagos Islands have been owned by the UK from 1810 onwards.
Several generations of plantation workers were born on the Islands.
Their definition may be Mauritian but as many were too poor to move anywhere else and stayed on the Chagos Islands it is reasonable in the 21st century to term them Chagossians.
And as Britain owned the islands they must therefore be British.
Regardless of Mauritian claims, if the Chagossians want a say in their birthplace and wish allegiance to the crown because their numbers cannot sustain independence, this is a gilt edged opportunity for the UK to retain the Islands legitimately.
If the UN do not accept the Chaggosians as people, what's new?
According to some members of the UN the Falkland islanders are not a people, but they must be as they were born on the islands.
Allen Vincatassin's faction in the UK do not want Mauritian sovereignty, they want self determination with association with Britain.
Malvinese
“Kohen and Rodriguez made a public invitation, in a public medium to debate”
Where?
”If the UK is right, why do not the islanders ask London to negotiate with Argentina to bring the case to justice and end with the “Argie imperialism”?
Why don't Argentina debate with the Islanders? They are the people that live on the islands, not someone from London.
@JB
Aug 17th, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Yeah, I guess the other Mercosur members all support Argentina, but that doesn't mean they would be willing to make any big sacrifices or that Argentina would ask it of them.
@Roger Lorton
“If it's justice you are looking for - you probably need a god of some description.”
Not the British courts, not the ICJ, not the UN? It goes without saying that life is unfair, but it's worth pointing out when these institutions fall short of their purpose. They were all made by people and can be improved.
ICJ decisions are regularly ignored, but not by the UK. If Britain agreed to go to the ICJ in the first place then if I think our government would be likely to comply, you appear to disagree. Posters on here regularly ask why Argentina does not go to the ICJ, why don't you tell them that it's pointless as Britain would not respect the decision anyway?
I think you are not cynical enough if you cannot envisage any circumstances that would lead to a handover. Nevertheless, isn't Argentina supposed to look after the interests of the islanders according to the C24? And didn't Britain have a similar duty to the Chagossians, even if the UN considered them part of the colony of Mauritius?
@Malvinense
Eat two raw fish? Is that a proverb in Spanish or something? But I see, it's just a general invitation and not for Roger Lorton specifically.
The Islanders are happy with the status quo as far as sovereignty is concerned, and if they are not willing to make any concessions there is no point negotiating. The only thing they want from Argentina is to be left alone.
@darragh
I don't think it makes sense to ask him to apologise for the war. He didn't start it, we don't know if he supported it, and he's not a government representative. For all we know he may not even have been born when it happened.
Pete Bog / DemonTree
Aug 17th, 2017 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I wonder what happened to the Seychellians who were removed from the Chagos? They have received neither compensation nor recognition. The Mauritians have, simply because they were Mauritians. Their first compensation was paid to Mauritius - which is why they never saw it of course.
The PCA have ruled that Mauritius can rely upon British promises to return the islands, and I rather suspect that the ICJ will conclude that the detachment of those islands from the Mauritius Colony breached - at the least - UN resolutions. Then IMHO the ICJ will also indicate that the islands should be returned to Mauritius.
Will the UK then go on to ignore the ICJ? Probably, although we may seek a fudge of some description, which will at least have a better appearance than China ignoring the ICJ over the south China Sea, or - with so many others - Argentina ignoring the ICJ over Kosovo.
It's a mess, but then aren't so many situations. The Falkland islanders have the protection of 'external' self-determination, but that is their right - not one which allows the UK to retain the Falklands. Which is why the UN only recognises 3 options - not including the status quo.
The best you can do is fight to have the Chagos listed at the UN as an NSGT on the basis of the original population. The UN took French Polynesia onto its list recently, so it is possible.
My personal opinion is that, at some time in the future, the Chagos will be returned to Mauritius.
In the case of the Falklands, there is no one with a better claim of ownership than Britain so so there can be no 'return'. The exception being, of course, if the Islanders decide on something else.
@DT
Aug 18th, 2017 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse +1The fact that labour is cheaper but the goods cost more is explained by low productivity, high taxes and what is generally referred to here as the “cost of Brazil”, which is the price paid for the inefficiency of the whole system. Excluding politicians, less than 1% of the population gets US$ 10,000 or more….
In absolute terms, the cost of living is quite a bit higher in the UK, than Brazil, but even then, the standard of living in the UK is better. Obviously, this does not apply to that 1% in Brazil, and those immediately below .
Brazil’s industry some 20-15 years ago, was good / competitive enough for the US to be its main trading partner …Mexico only really took off after the NAFTA, benefited by its unique position/situation in relation to the US.
The presence of US, or other multinational companies producing here, was not to export back to their countries of origin, but to attend the domestic market…a big difference to Mexico. The US agricultural subsidies have long been seen an obstacle by countries wanting to export their produce, but productivity in small scale farming cannot to compete with modern, large scale, mechanized agriculture. Nothing against families producing crops for their own subsistence, but that’s all it is good for…it can’t compete in the market.
Many (very) small farmers have abandoned their land, coming to the cities, thinking they’ll be better off….but the lack of necessary skills, and now the crisis, has just pushed them to extreme poverty.
Contribuição sindical : right, it has been abolished, but the unions (the leaders, well understood), are up in arms because with the reform, hundreds, if not thousands of parasite unions will disappear. Good for the worker, but bad for the few thousand who sponge off the worker. Remains to be seen if Congress buys their crap.
@Roger Lorton
Aug 18th, 2017 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1I'm not sure it's meaningful to say any Seychellians were evicted when both Mauritius and the Seychelles were British colonies at the time. As I understand it, a few of the islands in the Indian Ocean Territory were taken from the colony of Seychelles but have since been returned. I don't know if they are inhabited now but presumably Britain is not preventing anyone from returning or moving there.
I think you're right that the UK is likely to seek a fudge, and either way is unlikely to hand those islands back to Mauritius any earlier than agreed, (being more concerned about the US than the whole rest of the UN). But like China we have not agreed to take the case to the ICJ so they can only give an advisory opinion. IMO if we did agree to its jurisdiction beforehand the result would be different.
I'm not convinced the Falklanders have as much protection as you say. If Argentina had won the war, the UN would most likely have accepted the status quo and delisted the Falklands. If the UK had managed to negotiate some kind of agreement with the Junta after the invasion, the UN would not have insisted on holding a referendum on the islands. The UK's agreement would be enough.
And I don't believe the UN would list the Chagos as long as no one lives there. I think you are right that they will be returned to Mauritius and the people will not be allowed back even when the airbase is gone. :(
@JB
I will reply at this link since I don't have space here:
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/08/15/temer-and-meirelles-discussing-with-congress-leaders-budget-deficit-and-cabinet-positions
Demon Tree - people of Seychellian origin were evicted along with those of Mauritian origin. As far as I can discover, only the latter were compensated.
Aug 18th, 2017 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Falkland islanders are protected to the full extent that the UK wishes to protect them. Argentina would invade in a minute should we withdraw that protection. Argentina shouts about international law when it suits, but wouldn't stand by it - for less than a minute.
@RL
Aug 18th, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wikipedia says “The Chagossian people's ancestry is mostly African, particularly from Madagascar, Mozambique and other African nations including Mauritius. There is also a significant proportion of Indian and Malay ancestry.”
Doesn't mention Seychelles but it does say they were given the choice of moving to Seychelles or Mauritius, and presumably were given citizenship accordingly.
This article https://www.chagossupport.org.uk/single-post/2017/05/20/Seychelles-Chagossians-to-challenge-UK-government-decision says that the people deported to the Seychelles were not compensated, but the UK is now offering a support package to Chagossian's across Mauritius, the UK and Seychelles. They are not happy with it, and the ones in the Seychelles also want to be able to return.
“The Falkland islanders are protected to the full extent that the UK wishes to protect them.”
Exactly my point. The Falklanders don't have external protection, any more than the Chagossians did. They are entirely dependent on the good will and military might of the UK.
.....entirely dependent.... would have sufficed...
Aug 18th, 2017 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Outside of defence, the islanders are ..... entirely self sufficient. That does suffice.
Aug 18th, 2017 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Rubbish...take away that Air Bridge and they would be fcuked...
Aug 19th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Aug 19th, 2017 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Take away that Air Bridge…”
Perhaps Argentina should abide by the treaties that she is signatory to.
Chicago Convention which she signed on 4 June 1946. Also known as:
The International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944
containing what has come to be known as “The Two Freedoms” :-
1) The privilege to fly across the territory of a state without landing;
2) The privilege to land for non-traffic purposes;which she signed on 4 June 1946
Voice- The Airbridge exists primarily for the support and transport for the British Forces based here- not for Islanders. We are indeed able to use it and do so- but are not totally dependent on it. We have another weekly airoute in and out and if the airbridge went - it would be because the Br Forces were going - and there is a snowball in hell.s chance of that happening unless Argentina drops its territorial claim! If civilians were barred from Airbridge seats by MOD (they would then loose a few £millions of tickets a year) then we would probably organise our own direct weekly of fortnightly alternative long haul route avoiding Argentina.
Aug 19th, 2017 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!