MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' Governor Phillips: “You decide how you wish to be governed, now and in the future”
The new Governor of the Falkland Islands emphasized that he was in the Islands to work with, “the democratically elected representatives of the people”, and it was, “entirely proper that you (Falkland Islanders) decide how you wish to be governed, now and in the future.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCorrect. Only the Falkland Islanders can determine how and by whom they are governed by 'not Argentina'.
Sep 15th, 2017 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse +2The Islanders have the right to self-determination -
Falklands – Self-Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
@ Brit Bob
Sep 15th, 2017 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3Sacred words, you have double fortune, not to be under a demented government and be ruled by serious people !!! Chapeau !!!
For most Argentines Falklands is not a priority.
Sep 15th, 2017 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3We are currently more concerned that CFK will disappear from political life and become a normal country economically and politically speaking.
Personally I regret to continue this crack between Flaklands and Argentina, as I have mentioned habitually many businesses are lost between Argentina UK -Falklands due to not having to take the bull by thier horns and close this conflict. The only way is the court of the Hague through untreated boundaries and the UN recognizing the self-determination of peoples in any part of the world
What sensible words from “diefra”!
Sep 15th, 2017 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Comment removed by the editor.
Sep 17th, 2017 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1SkippyVonBraun
Sep 17th, 2017 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you read what your compatriot, diefra, has posted? He makes sense - you don't!
Welcome to Argentina Viceroy Phillips!!
Sep 18th, 2017 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse -2@Malvinense 1833. We must remember that argentina is a spanish colony. Despite having signed the UN Charter, neither argentina nor spain recognise an essential part of the Charter, the “right” to self-determination. From its very earliest days, “argentina”, under its various multifarious names depending on which murdering tyrants were in power wherever, has been told innumerable times that it does not “own” the Falkland Islands. Nor has it ever done. But then “argentina” is very similar to spain. It's autocratic, it's selectively deaf, it wouldn't know “the truth” if it got up and chewed its balls off, its signature means nothing, it cheats and lies at every available opportunity, is effectively broke because no-one trusts it and it is, in essence, totally worthless..
Sep 18th, 2017 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +3It's funny how they apply the right of self-determination.
Sep 18th, 2017 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -4@ Conqueror: Suppose that Russia tomorrow invades the British Isles and that part of its territory is occupied. Then a group of invading Russians, occupying the British territory proclaim: self-determination !! self-determination !! We wish to remain Russian citizens !!!
“It will then be England that is shown to us as the cradle of freedom and European civilization, which will give the New World the spectacle of such a sudden violation of the territory of the Argentine Republic.”
Diario El Lucero, Buenos Aires January 31, 1833, days after the British usurpation, page 2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Archivo_Hist%C3%B3rico_Provincia_Buenos_Aires_-_Extractos_de_El_Lucero.pdf
Malvi, Argentina to this day refuses to take the case to the ICJ and incidently when they do they not abide by the decision, do they? Beagle Channel springs to mind.
Sep 19th, 2017 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse +2Hello Golfie: If there is no dialogue between the two countries, it is impossible to resolve the problem in the Court or through arbitration. Eventually I agree with Demon Tree opinion that the two countries maintain the status quo for fear of losing. In the meantime we all lose, even future generations.
Sep 19th, 2017 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse -4The circumstances during the Beagle Channel controversy were different, both countries, Argentina and Chile were under the irrational power of dictatorships.
Today the world is different, Argentina is a democratic country, the Iron Curtain has fallen.
The Malvinas case is easy to resolve, if both countries have the will.
Regards.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 19th, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“If there is no dialogue between the two countries, it is impossible to resolve the problem in the Court or through arbitration”
A pointless exercise since Argentina has broken every agreement, ruling, or international law when it suited her.
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/13/falklands-prado-stand-argentina-puts-pressure-on-uruguay-and-uk-embassy/comments#comment473845
“Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/13/falklands-prado-stand-argentina-puts-pressure-on-uruguay-and-uk-embassy/comments#comment473845
@Malvinese
Sep 19th, 2017 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Suppose that Russia tomorrow invades the British Isles and that part of its territory is occupied. Then a group of invading Russians, occupying the British territory proclaim: self-determination !! self-determination !! We wish to remain Russian citizens !!!”
If you are applying this to the Falklands context then if Russia went onto, for instance the Isle of Wight because the UK had gained independence from a controlling power and had used a merchant who had asked permission from the Russians to be there, and the Isle of Wight had a claim from Russia based on previous settlement of the Isle of Wight, then Russia would have a basis for a claim.
There was no first invasion of the Falklands in 1833, the British had been on or around the Islands for many years . In fact Vernet and even the United Provinces used British ships and British sailors to crew them. In 1833, no people from Britain landed. There were already British settlers during Vernet's settlement days, in fact you must know that Vernet prefered German and British settlers. There were two British people left in 1833. They were Vernet's settlers. not people implanted by HMS Clio or HMS Tyne. Later Brisbane and Vernet's English secretary landed, not off British ships but sent by Vernet from South America.
Your analogy fails on different levels.
You think the British first arrived in 1833, with no previous history of settlement or commercial involvement around the Islands.
Your country continually lies by saying that 1833 was followed up with a population of entirely British settlers.
Wrong. Most of the settlers left in 1833 were South Americans who wished to live under the British flag.
So your Russia invades analogy is far too simple to apply to the Falkands.
The nearest you could come is by possibly having Britain being invaded after the Roman occupation.
It was. William the Conqueror invaded Britain in 1066.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 19th, 2017 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“It's funny how they apply the right of self-determination.” What’s even funnier is your perpetual fraud in continually raising the same issue even though I have defeated such claim from you on numerous occasions. Self-determination is a matter that the UK is compelled to support as it a UN Charter requirement.
After those Kirchner years, it rather looked as though Argentina was under the “irrational power” of lunatics.
Sep 20th, 2017 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse +3The UK considers the matter settled. We talked. We talked for nigh on 17 years. Everything was said. There was no middle ground. Then Argentina chose trial by combat - and lost.
Talking is finished.
There simply is nothing left to be said.
The matter is settled.
I see that the Decolonization Committee's 2017 report has been published and, for another year, it does not include its own Falklands resolution on the list of 'Recommendations'.
My copy is here (if you don't fancy that, go look for yourself)
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/decolonization-committee-report-to-the-4th-committee-2017.pdf
29 years without a UN GA Resolution. How settled is that?
Thanks Roger for your link.
Sep 20th, 2017 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3Interesting that every resolution for adoption regarding territories has the same sentence....
'...Expressing concern that 57 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, there still remain
17 Non-Self-Governing Territories....'
Yet they claim the Falklands are a special and colonial situation, so what are they, one of the 17 NSGT's or not...
Also included in every draft res for adoption....'Recognizing that all available options for self-determination of the Territory are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of....' Yet as one of the 17 NSGT's the Falklands Islanders do not have this same right according to Argentina or the C24.
Sorry, but you can see right through the games of the C24, how can they ever be taken seriously. I can just imagine them 'High fiving' after the meeting.
...“you were great”
.....“no, YOU were great”...
.....“no, YOU were really great”...
......“yeah, we showed them didn't we”....
.
Roger, why don't they include the Falklands resolution given that the C24 do talk about it every year?
Sep 20th, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Demon Tree: Chapter XII,the matter is not settled.
Sep 20th, 2017 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -3(The matter is settled). Not even the Forein Office has said that. Despite Roger wishes.
Now that is the right question.
Sep 20th, 2017 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I have a photograph of a document dating from 2010. It's an FCO briefing note. Sadly there is no option to post photographs here. In a single sentence in the first paragraph it refers to an agreement dating from 1989/90 that no C24 resolution on the Falklands will go to the General Assembly. No explanation is offered.
I have given much time over the last 5 years attempting to find out more. All the doors are shut. The best I have managed are two vague references to 'consultations' mentioned by the Chair of the General Assembly in 1989 & 1990.
Kohen eventually picked up on my work, but the best he can come up with is that there was a 'Gentleman's agreement' with Menem. That despite the obvious fact that Cristina Kirchner was no 'gentleman' and that no Menem agreement would have survived the Kirchner years - unless it was way powerful.
The only other fact that I can state with certainty is that, the last UN GA resolution was 1988, and since the discussions of 1989, no C24 resolution has made it to the GA.
The current system whereby the C24 include a list of recommendations in their report only started in 1999. I have read every Report and since that time, and the C24's Falklands resolution has been excluded from the list of recommendations on each occassion.
It's a secret and I've hurt my head against that particular brick-wall, but no one is talking.
The questions that follow have to be a) what was so overpowering that Argentina had to agree to it? and b) was that agreement time limited?
I have no more answers on this and now you know as much as I do.
Annoying, isn't it? :-)
Ooh, a mystery. Is the photograph up on your website?
Sep 20th, 2017 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AFAIK the only Menem agreement that survived the Kirchner years was the one that allowed the weekly flights from Chile as long as there was a monthly stop in Argentina and Argentines were able to visit without a visa.
Would it make any practical difference if the C24 did recommend the resolution to the GA?
The photo is not currently posted as the site is under 'reconstruction.' I tried to put a link through to the document, but it wouldn't work for reasons I do not understand. I'll look at it again.
Sep 20th, 2017 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As for whether a C24 recommendation would get the GA to issue a new Resolution, I have no idea. I rather suspect that a new resolution would, in any case just be ignored by the UK. They are only advisory and so many get ignored that it doesn't really seem to carry any great stigma now.
Malvinense 1833 - the FCO has not said anything since the letter presented to the UN in 2012 which is here https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/27-jan-2012-uk-note.pdf
That said, the UK's Defence Secretary said the matter was settled in March, 2016. A sentiment repeated by the then deputy leader of the Labour Party. Mercopress reported on it, so go look
I was wondering how big a concession it would really be for Argentina. A resolution would probably be embarrassing for Britain, even if we ignored it, and I agree CFK would not stick to any agreement made by Menem unless she had a damn good reason. The C24 provides the government of Argentina with a low-effort way of looking like they are doing something, but on the other hand why agree to something that helps your opponent?
Sep 21st, 2017 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did this briefing note mention whether the agreement was with Argentina? Or could it be with the UN itself somehow?
It was a single sentence in a paragraph explaining the 'Role of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation' -
Sep 21st, 2017 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse +2”The C24 then adopts resolutions on each territory. Most of these are forwarded to the UNGA, via its Fourth Committee. All C24 resolutions on UK OTs reach the UNGA, except that on the Falklands (a position agreed by the UK and Argentina since the resumption of bilateral relations in 1989/90). On Gibraltar the C24 adopts a consensus decision, which both Spain and the UK support. The Fourth Committee debates and adopts the consensus decision, and UNGA simply takes notes of the decision.”
Not sure whether the link works now, but, if you cut and paste those words into google, it'll take you to the document.
The link is https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/overseas/ot11.htm
Okay, so it definitely does say an agreement between the UK and Argentina. That Menem might have made such an agreement is not so surprising, but why would CFK stick to it? Could it be tied into the resumption of diplomatic relations somehow? I don't think CFK would want to risk ending those.
Sep 21st, 2017 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The link worked fine for me. The changing attitude of the UK to the C24 over time is somewhat interesting; it seems the current position is to try and get the BOTs delisted and claim the C24 is pointless. I'm not sure I agree that the status of the remaining territories has been satisfactorily resolved, but the C24 certainly doesn't seem to be achieving anything useful in improving it. Perhaps they need a new paradigm for the 21st century.
A Governor that don't govern?????
Sep 22nd, 2017 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!