MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 26th 2023 - 19:19 UTC



Falklands: Argentine professor visits Stanley and offers proposal to “end the dispute”

Thursday, March 29th 2018 - 14:19 UTC
Full article 270 comments

Argentine Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies of Geneva, Marcelo Kohen, has studied disputes and resolutions in different parts of the world. Last Monday Kohen was in the Falkland Islands and at a public meeting in Stanley, he presented a proposal to put “an end to the dispute”. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • gordo1

    This individual was heard by eight members of the public including two members of the local press - just indicates how much credence is given to him. He is a “s--t stirrer” and should be banned from the islands forever. He is no friend of the Falkland Islanders!

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Jo Bloggs

    I was having dinner with business partners in the restaurant of a hotel last night and he walked into the bar area. He seemed really lost (he thinks he's in the Malvinas for a start) and looked around and left again. There were loads of Argentines there and not a single one acknowledged him.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • Roger Lorton

    The arrogance of the man.

    Holds a meeting on the 5th anniversary of the Falklands Referendum and then tries to claim that the Referendum was irrelevant because it was not organised by the United Nations. Risible nonsense. The UN does not claim that it must organise a plebiscite. Res 637 of 1952 merely says that UN 'auspices' would be 'preferable'. Kohen knows this of course, but it doesn't suit his purpose, so - as lawyers do - he dissembles.

    Previously he's even argued that the independent observers were not independent.

    It seems likely that Kohen has gone mad.

    I don't know whether to pity him, or laugh at him.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • Jo Bloggs

    Professor Marcelo

    I know you read Mercopress and you'd especially be aware that a few Falkland Islanders read it also. I invite you to take the opportunity to tell us how you feel the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce went and explain who is paying you to come here and do this; and who has asked you to present the same material again in BA next week. Post it this morning before you leave the Falklands. It'll give you something to do while you're waiting for your airport transfer.

    Who knows, you may get a bigger audience on here than you did at the Chamber of Commerce.

    Chuckle chuckle

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • DemonTree

    He's a lawyer, not a footballer. Why would random Argentine tourists recognise him?

    I don't see why the MLAs refused to talk to him either. I mean, I guess they had no particular reason to as he wasn't there in any official capacity (AFAIK). But what's the harm in being polite? It would have given them a chance to put their views to him, too.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse -9
  • Jo Bloggs

    He's been staying in the same hotel as them all week and many of them are veterans who would be aware of his publicised views about the islands over the years. He also had a half page advert in the local paper last week advertising his presentation to the public in the Chamber of Commerce during the week. There are no random Argentine tourists here; they are all either veterans, marathon runners or members of a swimming club. A lot of them would be aware of who he is.

    Anyone who was here trying to drum up support and who had sincere motives would make themselves known as much as possible to 70 fellow patriots who surely would be interested in a plan that could end the sovereignty dispute.

    If you want to meet with the leaders of a country/ territory there are ways to go about arranging it. You don't just turn up and email and say 'I'm here and you should listen to what I have to say.'

    Come on Professor Marcelo, tell us about your presentation and plans for next week.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse +10
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - why would the MLA's want to listen? Why would they want to give him the status that listening to him would have provided? Why would they want to waste their time on such nonsense?

    “The matter has been settled.” So said by -

    Foreign Sec. Douglas Hurd December, 1994
    Dep. Prime Minister Nick Clegg March 2012
    Defence Secretary Fallon March, 2016
    Dep. Leader of the Opposition Eagle March 2016
    British Ambassador Mark Kent January & March 2018

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Brit Bob

    Dispute? What is in dispute?

    What is not in dispute is the illegitimacy of Argentina's claim.

    Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands has more holes than the Titanic.

    Argentina's Illegitimate Sovereignty Claims (1 pg): -

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Think

    Anglo Turnip Gordo1...
    ***“ This individual was heard by eight members of the public... ”*** you say...
    Well..., that's quite a crowd in them windblown Island... procentually it would amount to filling a stadion with 175,000 persons in the UK...

    Mr. Jo Bloggs (I)...
    I was having a drink with me last wife at the bar of the American Hotel (Amsterdam) in the late eighties when some beautiful Irish eyes walked into the bar area... She seemed really out of place, looked around and sat next to us... There were loads of Anglos there and not a single one acknowledged her...
    Why should any Argies aknowledge a bearded, jewish looking little Argie professor...?

    Mr. Roger Lorton (l)...
    ***“ I don't know whether to pity him, or laugh at him. ”*** you say...
    What about listening to him you haughty Engrishman..?, I say...

    Mr. Jo Bloggs (II)...
    ***“ Post it this morning before you leave the Falklands ”*** you command sweet Argie Mr. Kohen
    You sound very much like Theresa & Boris commanding Mr. Putin..., ya know...?

    Mr. Roger Lorton (l)...
    ***” The matter has been settled. ”*** ..., you keep repeating in your Mantra...
    The matter has NOT been settled..., I keep repeating in my Mantra...
    We will have to wait and see who os us has the best soundingTibetan Singing Bowl..., I reckon ;-)

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse -13
  • DemonTree

    I see. Strange that he didn't try and talk to any of them then. Did he make any effort to talk to Islanders and get your views?

    “You don't just turn up and email and say 'I'm here and you should listen to what I have to say.'”

    Wow, is that really what he did? He didn't even try and arrange it in advance?

    Also, I didn't know your marathon was on this week. Anyone you know running?

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • FitzRoy

    The reason the MLAs weren't there was because Marcie had arranged his presentation for the same evening as another, more interesting, presentation held elsewhere. Most of us have heard/read Marcie's interesting take on history and the future ad infinitum/ad nauseum and the other presentation was something we hadn't heard before. In fact it was over-subscribed to the point that a second one had to be arranged for the following evening. I hope Marcie fares better in his home town. Bless him.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Roger Lorton


    Why don't listen? Kohen has nothing to say, and, I repeat - the matter is settled.

    Said by the great and the good - as listed.

    Job done.

    I shall, of course, laugh at Kohen. It's the only realistic option.

    Fitzroy - he asked to address the Legislative Assembly on a different day. they weren't interested. Why would they be?

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • James Marshall

    Why is that settling the dispute in the eyes of the Malvanistas always starts with....'Hand over the sovereignty'.....Maybe if he had studied a little harder, this prof. would have seen that one side doesn't get everything they want.

    And the 30 year referendum.......ah, just enough time to implant lots or Argentinians on the Island get them settled for a generation and then hold a referendum to see if the Arg. implants want to remain Arg. implants.

    How about No.1 on the list of points being, Argentina to drop it's claim to the islands sovereignty.....just like the 'Good Friday' agreement that he mentioned in his presentation, you may get more support then, Prof......

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • DemonTree

    I would have gone if I was there just out of curiosity (and the chance to ask awkward questions), but that wouldn't do Kohen any good. What was this other presentation that was so much more interesting? Did it involve penguins? ;)

    It's not settled while it's still causing us trouble. The status of NI was settled in 1922 so why did we need the Good Friday agreement?

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Stoker

    Prof Kohen is like a dog with a bone. Still fighting a war his side lost years ago. He reminds me of that Japanese soldier who was found in the Philippine jungle in 1974 still fighting a war that had ended in 1945. As Kohen well knows the only way forward for his cause would be to present the case at the ICJ and convince a majority of the fifteen judges sitting on the bench that the Republic of Argentina have a valid legal claim to sovereignty over the Falklanders' homeland. I wonder why they refuse to bring the claim before the Court?*

    *Don't worry.......I know why ;-D

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +10
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - the following disagree. Each has said publicly that the matter is settled. It takes two to tango, and Argentina is swirling around by itself.

    Foreign Sec. Douglas Hurd December, 1994
    Dep. Prime Minister Nick Clegg March 2012
    Defence Secretary Fallon March, 2016
    Dep. Leader of the Opposition Eagle March 2016
    British Ambassador Mark Kent January & March 2018

    Did we need the Good Friday Agreement? I considered it a sell out at the time. I still do.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Think

    Ya certainly needed that Bloody Good Friday agreement..., copper...
    Them Bloody Catlick Paddies had you firmly by your Bloody balls... copper...
    The only Bloody thing you could do was Bloody Sundays and Bloody Flavius..., copper...

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -18
  • DemonTree

    It also takes two to resolve a disagreement.

    And it depends who you mean by 'we'; I daresay people in Britain didn't really need the Good Friday agreement, but our citizens in NI are better off not living in a war zone. It didn't involve any sovereignty handovers either.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • James Marshall

    DT, that would depend on whether the dispute is a valid/legal one, or based on lies and rhetoric.....every time you indulge the Malvanistas by acknowledging their 'dispute', you lend credibility to it.

    They should accept that the people/population/inhabitants, do not want to be Argentinian or be under their sovereignty, therefore the 'dispute' according to the current ideals of the UN is for now settled until the islanders decide otherwise.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • The Voice

    One must remember that unlike in Britain where a Professor title is only awarded to revered top Academics, in the Americas all college lecturers get the title foc. This applies to everyone even thouh many are absolute numbnuts.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Marcelo The Goat

    The man is a prize idiot.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Livepeanuts

    The obvious thing to do is to modify the Argentine Constitution which usurps the power of the International Court, and then put “their” nineteen forties indoctrinated fascist claims to the International Court as the UK tried to in the late forties and early fifties.
    Argentina also needs to take ALL the lies of Peron's fascism out of the way in which they teach history to provoke in young children minds open hostility towards the UK. I speak of a need to straighten the Mussolini style fairy tale of the “English Invasions” which never was against Argentina, and the “Vuelta de Obligado” which tried to protect the interior and Paraguay from the piratical monopoly of Buenos Aires. If Argentina wants peace it has to stop the “Malvinizacion de la historia” and start telling the truth about the Falklands as well. After the 1849 treaty six presidents of Argentina saw no problem and 1882 a hundred years before Galtieri another General President Roca approved the Latzina map putting the British and Chilean islands outside Argentina correctly interpreting the treaties of 1849 and 1881. Militarizing the education of its children is a war crime of Argentina, instead of training the kids to fight why don't the indoctrinators go and spill their own blood against the UK instead of programming others to do so!

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • gordo1


    You say “Anglo Turnip Gordo1...
    ***“ This individual was heard by eight members of the public... ”*** you say.”

    I didn't say it - the accompanying reported this and I copied it. EL NABO NO SOY YO SINO VOS - ¡ NABONASO! Can´t you read?

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marcelo Kohen

    Unforgettable week in the islands. I thank those having come to my talk and other Islanders with whom I had very interesting and polite discussions all along the week. Unfortunately, I was not aware that there was the monthly public meeting of the local authorities at the same time. For reasons of space I guess, the Penguin News’ article does not mention other important elements included in my proposal, such as the fact the Islands’ authorities will decide on the migratory policy (i.e. who resides in the islands), that the resources situated in the territorial sea will entirely belong to the self-governed province, and those of the continental shelf and EEZ (situated beyond 12 nautical miles) will be distributed in the same proportion as it is the case with the coastal provinces (84% for the self-governed province, 16% for the federal State), and that the self-governed province could have its own representation in international organisations of technical nature. I explained, on the basis of the reactions from someone from the public, that there is indeed a dispute concerning the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). When someone has a problem, he or she can adopt three attitudes: 1) to deny it, 2) to accommodate to it and to live with it, or 3) to try to solve it. I suggested the third option.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Jo Bloggs

    Professor Marcelo

    Our current status quo is far more preferable. What we Falkland Islanders would like to do is improve our situation, not worsen it. Is this your own initiative or are you putting forward the views of others? Who is backing you?

    I waved to you when you raced in and out of the Malvina bar last night but you likely didn't even notice; you seemed uncomfortable. Are you able to name anyone that you had private meetings with?

    When you found out there was a clash with your meeting date and time why didn't you just change the day? It's not like the Chamber of Commerce was booked out all week. Besides, there are plenty of other venues; especially ones that can accommodate 8. Sorry, but it simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Terence Hill

    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.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • DemonTree

    @Marcelo Kohen
    It's a shame there wasn't space to include all your points in the article. If you don't mind, I'd like to know what advantage there would be to the Falklanders in adopting your proposal, and what would be the choices in the referendum that you propose to hold after 30 years?

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Kohen - for reasons of space you guess? Obviously you didn't read the Facebook exchanges in which the Penguin News reporter argued that the horticultural competition was far more important than listening to someone that the islanders had never heard of on a subject they no longer considered relevant.

    The impression was that if that journalist had had his way, you would have received no column inches at all. I have little doubt that you know where to find that conversation.

    As I've listed the Ministers who have stated that the matter is settled, and as I know that your sidekick Rodriguez has twice challenged the British Ambassador for using the phrase, even you must by now be aware that the British Government considers the matter of sovereignty closed. They have done so since 1989. That sovereignty umbrella is forever.

    The Islanders certainly see the issue as finished, and now all they'd like to do is get on with their lives, and their horticultural competitions, without interference and have a neighbour that complies with its international obligations.

    To go to the Islands and deny their right to choose their future, on the 5th anniversary of them doing so, is the height of arrogance. To then assume that there is any will either amongst the people of the islands or the British Government for a cession of territory that Argentina has no valid claim to is simple foolishness.

    You left the islands to the sound of your own footsteps and distant laughter Kohen. I doubt the Macri administration will treat your arrogance any the better.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +10
  • Skip

    ”When someone has a problem, he or she can adopt three attitudes:
    1) to deny it,
    2) to accommodate to it and to live with it, or
    3) to try to solve it.

    I suggested the third option.”

    And which attitude has Argentina taken, Mr Cohen?

    Because it hides behind a facade of the third option of trying to solve it but its main thrust is the first option of denying certain facts of history, identity and expression of rights.

    Argentina (and that includes which ever government is in power as well as many of its citizens) refuse to accept that there is such a thing as a Falkland Islander and then further refuses to accept that they have certain rights.

    So I am unsure how your “plan”, and I deliberately use quotes here because the whole thing is slight half-arsed, can possibly work when the two most important bases of it require the recognition of a unique Falkland Islander identity (separate to an Argentinean and even a British identity) and their ability to legally express their rights.

    The words and actions of your past and present governments and “academics” and many of your citizens give lie to Argentina being able to accept both these hard truths.

    You have to wonder how a “valid” referendum could possibly be organised in your utopian future when it could so easily be dismissed as irrelevant or invalid because it didn't meet some legitimacy test set by a future Argentina.

    If you truly believe that only the UN can organise legitimate referenda, then how does this marry with the reality they refuse to do such a thing? A referendum is an expression of rights by a group of people but where are their rights when referenda are withheld?

    All you have done is offer to solve an Argentinean problem and not a problem of the Falkland Islands. In typical Argentinean academic fashion, you have entirely failed to take into account the actual people involved or affected by your top-down solution.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +12
  • Roger Lorton

    That's a good point Skip. This proposal is not an attempt to resolve an Islander problem, just an Argentine problem.

    From what I have heard, we have on the one hand -
    a) the Islands + South Georgia + South Sandwich Islands become a Self-Governing Province of Argentina; or
    b) remain a Self-Governing British Territory.

    Where's the advantage to the Islanders in changing?

    And why would Britain cede South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?

    What's the quid pro quo?

    The Photoshop Prof does not appear to have thought this through.

    Mar 17th, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +10
  • Voice

    Using Photoshop...?
    Perish the thought...who would stoop so low...

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Aw, don't I get even a bay for myself?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Voice

    Sorry...before your time...
    ...but I could put your name on Terry's mug if you like...;-)))

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    Go for it. And surely you could find some insignificant island for me? Isla de los Estados seems nice.

    Also, what's up with the 6° line?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    Statenland? Insignificant? LOL. There were some arguments over that Island in the early 1880's. Vernet's family said that he owned that too.

    I'm told that Kohen is proposing that the Argentine Government should allow the Islanders to have their own Constitution.

    Now there's novel.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • DemonTree

    It was a joke, Roger.

    And doesn't every province in Argentina have their own constitution? I'll be interested to see how the press over there reacts to this proposal.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    I recognised it DT.

    I'm a little surprised that no Argentine journalist was present for the talk in Stanley. There was one Uruguayan journalist in the town, but he chose to write about the Islanders' life and their connections with Uruguay. It has so far passed unremarked, but, as you say, it will be interesting to see how it goes down in BA.

    Under the last President this fanciful proposal would have achieved some headlines. Less sure about now.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Brit Bob

    Poor Argentina, nothing to take to court. So sad...

    Metford (1982) and Hensel et al. (2006) note that the Uti Possidetis principle was initially an agreement between Latin American states, it could only be applied to conflicts between them, and it was not formally adopted until the Congress of Lima in 1847 -1848, almost four decades after the alleged inheritance from Spain. (The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland Islands,Carlos Rodriguez, NOV 11 2016).

    In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principle. (Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: The Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde S. 2003, p57, quoting Antonopoulos, C, 'the Principle of Uti Possidetis in Contemporary Law 1996).
    Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu (on one's initiative) in the silence of the compromis (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. (El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, p134, 2012).

    Falklands – Argentina's Inheritance Problem (1 pg):

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Ratamacue

    Crikey, one doesn't need to be a professor of disputes to come up with that rubbish. Total arrogance and slim understanding of the people here. But that's what we have come to expect. The only solution is for the nerds in Argentina to drop the claim to sovereignty and then have a 10 year period proving to Falkland folk that they can be trusted before we start doing any deals or business with them. We are who we are; they are who they are.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • DemonTree

    That was this article, right?

    It's an interesting read; it must be quite strange for a Uruguayan to go to a place full of foreigners he knows little about and find Uruguay is the bigger neighbour that everyone has an anecdote of.

    Perhaps it'll be in Mercopress next week?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Livingthedream

    The end of the dispute will happen when Argentina drops all claims to the islands that never belonged to them.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Jo Bloggs

    So, I think you can see enough from what you've read here from the article, Professor Marcelo's own comments and those of locally based witnesses to reach an initial conclusion. Now watch his accounts of the events that took place here this week spiral out of control and credibility once he gets back to his own desk and, with the aid of his helpers, spins a vastly different story.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • RedBaron

    The Falklanders want to exist under British sovereignty. There is no dispute about that.
    So where is the dispute? There is no dispute - only an unfounded and pointless claim.
    A claim is not a dispute (for which two sides have to disagree), so there is nothing to resolve. If Argentina feels there is a problem, the solution is in their own hands - wither they drop their silly claim or they take their dispute to the ICJ. Nothing more to be said.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +9
  • RICO

    There is a much simpler solution. If the position is that a UN organised referendum would be valid then we should allow the UN to a organise a referendum. The whole thing could be resolved within 2 years instead of 30.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Liberato

    Livingthedream, the end of the dispute will comes when the UN stop listing the islands as a colonial territory, along the other nine territories under the british colonial administration in the UN decolonization process.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • gordo1


    Don't you have the “huevos” to acknowledge you were wrong? ¡Cerote!

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh


    Bank-ki-Moon on the subject:-

    “The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status”.

    The Falkland Islanders have already decided their future status in the referendum so consequently there is no dispute except in the minds of Argentine nationalists who wish to expand the Argentine South Atlantic Empire.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - it was. Links between the islanders and Uruguay, and Chile, are far stronger than is generally known. Neither of those Governments wish to get into an argument with Argentina, but both are happy enough to deal with the islanders.

    The general impression I'm getting is that Kohen is viewed as a self-publicist. Both in the islands and in Argentina. He didn't get to meet any MLAs in Stanley, and I begin to doubt his claims that he will be meeting with congressmen from both sides before his Tuesday presentation.

    I suspect he's chosen the wrong time and the wrong Government.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marti Llazo

    One has to wonder whether Mr Kohen is aware that argentine congressional votes on matters concerning the Falklands are invalid ....because -- using Mr Kohen's logic -- the UN does not oversee them.

    Will Argentina never surrender its position as Laughingstock of the Third World?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Liberato

    darragh, unfortunatelly, for you, the decolonization process does not depend on the personal opinion of the head of the UN but of the protocols implemented among the world nations to determine if a terriroty had gained self determination or not.
    The UK has yet many territories under a colonial system according to the UN. It is a pity that instead of colaborate with the UN on the process of decolonization, they remain one of the biggest colonialist nations in this century.
    The Malvinas islands remains one of those territories and the sovereignty dispute is also recognized by the UN, ergo, regardless of what britain says, the world watch those islands as a disputed territory. So what prof Kohen is doing, is right in that direction. To refuse to acknowledge the dispute goes right to the point they are not a self determined people but one of the two parts in this dispute.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -9
  • The Voice

    Liberace, what a load of old tosh. Kohen is irrelavent. Hows your mum?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    Libretto, to the islanders and the UK and the civilised nations, it really doesn't matter what Argentina and the rest of Letrine America thinks or says in its pretentious and silly little toothless third-world toy committees, the islands have become self-governing and have the right to choose with whom they may ally themselves, and in other features as well have long since ceased to be any sort of colonies, whether you care to recognise that or not. Unlike Tierra del Fuego, which continues to be an argentine colony. Why don't you tell the Americans to de-colonise Hawaii? After all, the UN didn't watch over their elections for you, and the islands are such a long ways from the American continent, aren't they?

    Haven't you noticed that since 1982 the islands have become a great deal more chilean than argentine? Five argies and some 200 chilenos there now. Fat lot of good your disputing has done, other than to cause the islanders greater resolve to have nothing to do with imperialist Argentina.

    So go dispute all you like. Here, take this mirror; the better to dispute with yourself. Dispute all the way to the church. Si disputás y llorás y pidís el libro de reclamaciones, no va a cambiar nada, ¿viste?

    Get a life. Get a real job. I hear they are looking for a calefont repairman in Río Gallegos.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Liberato

    Marti Llazo, The “civilised nations” are the ones that recognize the sovereignty dispute along with what would be in your mind the “non civilised nations”, that are gather together in the United Nations.
    The same goes about the “self determination” of the Malvinas. There is not such thing in Malvinas. Quite the contrary, The UN list the islands as a non self determination territory.

    The fisrt time i notice someone calling Tierra del Fuego as an argentine colony. First, The territory is divided between Chile and Argentina. Second, there is a huge income of chilean residents that enjoy the same rights of free hospitals and universities as any other citizens from Argentina or from the rest of the world.

    About the Chilean in Malvinas, they are just a workforce. I dont see chileans in any relevant position in the political and economic life in the islands. And not becouse they are not capable of but becouse again they have a status quo, where the metropolis, with the feudal FIH manage the judiciary, the political, the armed forces, the economics, education, etc. And not since 1982 but since always.

    So unless you people convice first the United Nations that you are a “self determined people”, Dont behave as an uneducated fool with a professor that goes with a propose to find an end to a worldwide recognised sovereignty dispute.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Islander1

    Liberato- You are way out of touch and out of date with reality. I can think of several key businesses whose managers came originally from Chile.
    Chileans on the electoral role made their view pretty clear in the referendum- they did not have to!

    Who is you feudal FIH? - if you mean the FIC - they ceased to be an agricultural property owner some 20 years ago - and the old farm feudal system you seem to be on about died about 40 or more years ago!! I know- I used to live on farms and was thus part of it.
    Dear Liberato- your idea of the old FIC “managing” the judiciary- the armed forces etc - hilarious - what do you smoke?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Raubtier

    Demon Tree,
    I read the article and was greatly surprised and discovered facts I did not know from the past. I seldom read Mercopress. At any rate, I like it because I am able to read news from Uruguay written in English.
    In spite of being a “small” country in size Uruguay is highly respected in the world.
    Receive my best wishes and kind regards for the future.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    @libretto - Of course you don't know the roles of the chilenos on the islands, and of course you don't know whether they work in significant positions in commerce and civil government on the islands, and this ignorance is carefully cultivated, and widespread among the argentines, who have never bothered to look beyond the coloured glasses on their noses and their own propaganda when it comes to the islands.

    Kohen's foolishness is well known here in Argentina, as is his lack of useful understanding of “international law” - perhaps you, I mean he, imagined his degree in the same way that Cristina imagined her imaginary law degree. When you, I mean Kohen, tried to convince the argentines that former US president Obama should have told the US Supreme Court what it could and could not do with respect to the defaulted hedge funds case and where the US held jurisdiction, he was widely laughed at for not understanding the fundamentals of applicable law, and revealed in the media to be an uneducated fool. And when you, I mean Kohen, tried to convince the argentine government that it should take that default/funds case to The Hague, you, I mean he, was nearly laughed out of Argentina.

    The least you could do toward understanding the islands would be to read what Natasha Niebieskikwiat has written, since she had the professional diligence to spend a good deal of time there while researching her book [Kelpers -Ni ingleses, ni argentinos].

    You did not know that half of Tierra del Fuego was an argentine colony? Infórmate.

    Let's help you understand the two tiers of the United Nations. There are the serious countries and the big dogs of the Security Council. And then there is the United Nations of the basement, where the yippie-yippie dogs go to endlessly debate how many imaginary malvinas can fit on the head of a pin. Small wonder nobody goes to their little tertulias. No one takes the argentines seriously. Politely, perhaps, but not seriously.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    Thanks, Raubtier. It's true Uruguay always does well in things like the Press Freedom index and corruption rankings, so you must be doing something right.

    Best wishes to you too.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • James Marshall

    Oh, now I have heard it all,. ...A non self determination territory....

    I think someone should go and educate themselves a little. But just honour us all and provide the UN document that supports your statement, LIberato.

    Have a chat with think while you are at it, he made the same comment last week and we are still waiting for him to provide the proof. Good luck.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    I agree with JM - where does the UN “list” the Falklands as a “non-self determination territory” Liberato ?

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Liberato

    Islander1, name them.

    I didnt said the FIC managed the judiciary and the armed forces. I said that the metropolis (London) along with the FIH (Falklands Islands Holding, now FIH group) controlled all life in the islands, including the judiciary and the armed forces.
    -Starting with your “constitution” that was not drafted nor ammended in the islands but in britain. And the power of britain to remove that “constitution”, the legislative assembly and all its members in a bit, like happened to Turks and Caicos.
    -Your judiciary depends on judges and lawers imported from London or its BOTs.
    -Your education system depending on people brougt from? starts with..............L.
    etc. I could continue all day.

    The important thing for you to underestand is that besides you believe you self govern yourself and that you enjoy self determination, for the rest of the world you dont and you are not. There are still 17 territories under a colonial situation. One of those territories are the Malvinas Islands which remain listed in the non self-governing territories list under a process of decolonization.

    I dont say this to mock you, but for you to underestand and welcome people like Prof. Kohen or any other person that express a different idea.

    MArti Llazo,quote: “Kohen's foolishness is well known here in Argentina” No its not.
    Useful understanding of “international law”?. Probably he is not as well educated as you but regarding international law, there are more than one interpretation of it. And here we are with a sovereignty dispute where the two sides invoke international law.
    Im not Kohen and have no idea about the non sense you said about obama and the hedge fund.

    So according to you. there are the civilised nations, the uncivilised nations. Now you say there are another type of nations: The serious countries and the big dogs of the Security Council.

    James Marshall, my mistake i meant non self governing territory. which is the same thing. want the link?.

    Mar 18th, 2018 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -9
  • Roger Lorton

    No Liberato, non-self Governing territory is a very different thing to a “non-self determination” territory.

    Which you know well enough I suspect.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Islander1

    Liberato- Try the owner and manager of a succesfull restaurant and hotel business. Try the manager of a major vessel agency.

    Our Legal System - yes you will also find plenty of fully Independent Countries in the Commonwealth whose Laws and legal Systems largely follow British law- altered to fit the realities of their countries. Does that make them colonial subjects? I think you will find that the ultimate high court of say Canada-Australia is the Queen,s Privy Council in London - are you telling me they are not independent states?
    Wrong - the FI Constitution was drafted here in Stanley by our Elected members at that time - of course with exert professional legal expertise in this field from the UK of course- as we were not fully independent- nor do we wish to be.
    To enlighten you- as a non independent but self-governing British Overseas territory - the UN rules that Britain has to periodically report to the Un that there IS good democratic Government here in the Islands - thus naturally UK is obliged to keep an eye on what Laws we pass to ensure they are indeed democratic and ensure the Freedom of rights of our people- and that our Government members do not get corrupt and start lining pockets.
    THAT as you well know is what happened in Turks & Caicos - so after some warnings- London intervened.
    Our Education system is 100% under the Control of our education Board and Committee - to whom the Director of Education reports. For very obvious practical reasons -beyond your understanding I guess- we align ours with the UK - as many kids come from there, as do quite a few of our teachers- and that country is where our Govt PAYS to send Students who pass their exams at 16 to for their higher education and University/College studies. Perhaps even you can see it would be a bit bloody stupid if we say followed a US type education syllabus here to age 16 instead!!
    We choose to do it that way.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • GALlamosa

    Its about time for Kohen to wise up. The Kirchner era is past and gone, he needs to find a new group to join. In the mean time it takes some major intellectual contortions to, on the one hand to support human rights for all, and on the other deny the right to self-determination to an established people.

    I am not sorry I missed his visit, though would have welcomed the opportunity to tell him to his face that his bizarre form of colonial thinking belongs to a foregone era.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marcos Alejandro

    “Great minds discuss ideas”(Professor Cohen and people willing to listen)
    “Average minds discuss events”(Jo Bloggs)
    “Small minds discuss people”(Roger Lorton, Gordo1)

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse -10
  • Liberato

    Islander1, comparing Canada and Australia with a non self governing territory defies any logic in any debate.
    quote 1,you said: “the FI Constitution was drafted here in Stanley by our Elected members at that time - of course with exert professional legal expertise in this field from the UK of course- as we were not fully independent- nor do we wish to be.”
    Let me quote your own colonial government when it says textually in its webpage: “The Constitution is not drafted in the Falklands nor amended in any respect by the Falkland Islands Government. The Constitution is an instrument of Her Majesty’s Government and is amended by the Privy Council on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.

    quote 2:“as a non independent but self-governing British Overseas territory - the UN rules that Britain has to periodically report to the Un that there IS good democratic Government here in the Islands ”
    Actually quite the contrary. The UN list the islands as a non self governing territory and request the administering power, in other words, the colonial power to report periodically to the UN about the conditions of that territory.

    In Turks and Caicos, another non self-governing territory ( not like Canada or Australia), a former british judge accused the government of corruption and even without proof or a trial, London removed the governor, dismantled the general assembly and instaured the old fashioned colonial feud.

    GALlamosa, are you saying Kohen visited to spread a colonial thinking?. Is it a joke?.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    Liberato - Kohen visited to present to the islands people what he referred to as a 'solution' to a problem (Argentina's problem); the solution consisting of the Falklands + two other unrelated territories becoming a new colony of Argentina.

    Strangely enough, he was not a hit.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • James Marshall

    Yes LIberato. Suggesting a group of people accept the rule of a third nation with whom they have no common history or wish to aliign would by most educated people be called colonialism.

    Such ideas are not the result of great minds, but rather closed, indoctrinated minds. And people that agree with them are generally uneducated and lacking in moral, ethical and critical thought.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • GALlamosa

    Yes Liberato, the Argentine aspiration is entirely colonial, and is embraced by Kohen.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • gordo1

    I see el niño, Marquitos Alejandrito, has popped up with his usual facetious useless comments. I think we should add “miniature minds discuss nothing - Marquitos Alejandrito”!

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • imoyaro

    Interesting. Especially after seeing this...
    Initially I had real sympathy for the crew and their families of the ARA San Juan. Never again. National Socialists like Kamerad/Komrade Rique, Gauchito Drink, and their ilk deserve exactly what they get in the end...

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Liberato

    Roger Lorton,James Marshall and GALlamosa. The Malvinas Islands are already a colony. A Colony, recognised as such by the United Nations!!!!!. If you dont see that and see Argentina as a colonial power, we are in a serious situation.
    Why dont you ask your government to colaborate with c24 and decolonize once and for all the 10 territories under british colonialism in this 21 century. It is really a shame.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse -11
  • Malvinense 1833

    All speak and exhibit here, but none had the courage to present their point of view in a serious debate with Professor Kohen and in the Malvinas Islands!!!

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse -10
  • DemonTree

    Not in Canada and Australia, but in several independent Caribbean countries, the highest court that cases can be appealed to is still the Privy Council in London. This isn't great for anyone; for the countries concerned it's inconvenient and expensive for people having to travel all the way to Britain, for Britain it's an unnecessary cost as this service is provided free, and it causes tension because some of these countries still have the death penalty for murder, unlike the UK. They've been trying to set up a Caricom court instead, but it's going slowly.

    I just looked it up and the former President of the Turks and Caicos has been on trial since 2016. Makes me wonder what's taking so long.

    But those territories haven't been decolonised for a reason, mostly that they are small and would struggle to succeed as independent countries. Perhaps it's the UN that needs to take a fresh look and think of other solutions for these places?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Islander1

    Liberat0- what you quote is correct- As regards the final version of our Constitution and and Ammendments. But I can assure you the nuts and bolts and guts of it were argued out and debated here in the Islands by our elected members - with advice always on hand from the
    Legal and Constitutional Lawyers in London to ensure the wording was right and all democratic etc etc. The final version was then passed HERE - and sent to London for final approval and signing off and then the Royal Assent. As is correct as we are a British Territory (and happy to be so).
    Same - it is possible in the next few years we may decide to amend the constitution as regards numbers of members from each constituency - if we wish to - then the alteration will be drafted here - sent to London for approval and signing off.
    Where is your problem?
    Canada and Australia and N.Z. are indeed fully Independent- but they have chosen a system whereby their Laws are approved and signed off by their respective Governor General.s - in the name of HM the Queen.
    Some countries have different Constitutional arrangements to Argentina,s - got it?
    Turks and Caicos- it all had to do with money laundering and drugs if my memory was correct at the time. Not democratic by my values- money laundering though seems frequent in your Governments recently though?

    C24 - so are you telling me that if C24 proposed the Islands Independence - then Arg would recognise it??

    Malvinas1833- you could not debate with Kohen- he was not prepared to- he had his mind made up and was not prepared to entertain and openly discuss anything else. But he favours good old fashioned Colonial dictatorship anyway.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • The Voice

    Malvinonsense how do you know that? Are you actually Kohen the Colonialist?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1

    Malvinense 1833

    There is no need for a debate with Kohen or, indeed, anyone. The Falkland Islands will never be ceded to Argentina as there are no reasons for that to ever occur.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    “But he favours good old fashioned Colonial dictatorship anyway.”

    That's a little unfair, he's not suggesting direct rule from BA (or TdF). His plan, supposing it could ever be implemented,  sounds pretty similar to what you have at the moment, only with Argentina in place of Britain.

    Apart from the fact it's Argentina(!), the big difference is that BOTs, at least in theory, are on a path to more autonomy and eventual independence. But with Argentina, even if you had self rule for the moment, you'd only be on a path to more integration over time.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvi 1833 - obviously you haven't heard the tapes.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Marcos Alejandro...

    Never to forget what greatest minds do...;-)

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Malvinense 1833

    “The arrogance of the man.
    It seems likely that Kohen has gone mad.”
    Roger Lorton

    I don't know whether to pity him, or laugh at him.
    For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
    Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination
    We learned to talk
    All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    Stephen Hawking.

    Who is the arrogant?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • The Voice

    Once people have been brainwashed from birth there is no point in talking to them, they will never see sense or respond to logical arguments, nor will they accept the will of the people. Have you got that Malvinonsense?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • James Marshall

    Then DT, what is the point of having a discussion on the issue of it basically what they have now but with Argentina as the sovereignty holder. As the Islanders do not want Argentina to hold sovereignty, there is nothing to discuss, they Status Quo is good for everybody.

    It is for the UN to update their thinking on the path to self determination by the NSGT's to perhaps include the Status Quo ' as a valid choice of a territories political future. That would stop Argentina in it's tracks as they could remove some of the NSGT's from the list. But I fear that will not happen as the C24 wants to impose its will above that of the people they are so 'desperately' trying to protect.

    Liberato, you clearly do not have a clue what you are on about, you are a sad reflection of the indoctrination process, tell us, how many of the UK's remaining NSGT's want independence.....

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    I don't know. I did ask Mr Kohen what the benefit to the Islanders was supposed to be, but he hasn't come back and I doubt he's going to read through 70 posts if he does.

    I'm not even sure what practical benefit Argentina would get out of this arrangement, unless it's the oil money. He specified the federal gvt would take 16% of the fishing revenue, but we don't know if he said anything about mineral rights.

    But even if the C24 was dissolved tomorrow, it wouldn't stop Argentina complaining. Just look at Chile and Bolivia, those Pacific provinces aren't a colony, but they're hearing the case in the ICJ this week.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • James Marshall

    Now only if the Argentinians would take the mater to the ICJ eh....Like Bolivia and Chile, then we may see an end...but guess what....

    The fact is, just as Skip pointed out, the Profs 'solution' only takes into account the Arg. side of the dispute and tries to resolve it giving them everything they want.

    The only people that have a say are the Islanders, end of story....

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Perhaps we should wait and see how the Chile-Bolivia case turns out, before getting too gung-ho? Roger says the ICJ is unpredictable in its rulings because the judges don't follow precedent.

    “The fact is, just as Skip pointed out, the Profs 'solution' only takes into account the Arg. side of the dispute and tries to resolve it giving them everything they want.”

    No, I think his 'solution' does take into account the fact the Islanders would be materially worse off as part of Argentina, something that is surely obvious to everyone. Keeping their own currency, language and laws, and current degree of self-government, as well as most of the fishing license income, is something they want, no?

    However, I'm suspicious of the 'referendum after 30 years' part. Independence certainly won't be an option, I suspect the only choice on offer will be further integration with Argentina.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Marti Llazo

    Colombia doesn't spend all its waking hours grieving over Panama no longer being a part of Gran Colombia.

    Japan seems to have only minor occasional mention of the loss of the Kuriles

    Peru learned to deal with Arica being no longer Peruvian.

    Hungary isn't frothing at the mouth over losing control of Croatia.

    Finland doesn't waste everyone's time reminiscing about the Karelia.

    In fact it seems as though most of the civilised nations and even some of the borderline ones have sufficiently mature audiences capable of living with historical events and territorial changes.

    And then there is the perpetually pouting childlike behaviour of the emotionally unstable nations like Bolivia and Argentina, who have so much in common, as their sole purpose for existence is to forever remind the world of what it means to be not taken seriously.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Think


    You Engrish are a funny, brainwashed bunch...

    Here you all are..., discussing the right of Argentina to refuse to kiss arse to a minusciule bunch of 2,500 thieving, squatting Engrish squidllionaires in Malvinas whilst... at home..., your Majesty Government is creating a big international crisis with Russia that could..., in principle..., jeopardise all 7 billion of us...

    All that..., without an iota of proof...

    As I said before... Funny bunch you are...!

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -9
  • Marti Llazo

    I do detect another note of jealousy in tinkle's fevered rantings.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • gordo1


    There is no need for Argentina to “kiss arse to a minusciule bunch of 2,500 thieving, squatting Engrish squidllionaires in Malvinas” - whatever that may mean??????

    Just leave them alone - if Argentina were a nation like, say, Canada or Australia the islanders would be all over them! But it's not and never will be.

    As far as your remarks about creating a big international crisis with Russia - are you out of mind? Moron!

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Martillazo..., ya Anglo Turnip...
    I am a Scandinavian ..., ya know...
    I can't be no jealous of nobody..., ya know...
    'Cause we Scandinavians ard simply the best..., ya know... ;-)
    A heavy cross to bear..., but I can manage... I am a Scandinavian ..., ya know...

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • DemonTree

    ... says the 'humble' Patagonian.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Dichotomy of life...
    A humble Patagonian...
    A superior Scandinavian..
    One can't fight genetics..., laddie...
    Don't tahd me word for it... Just ask Monsanto... ;-)

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -9
  • Marti Llazo

    Jealousy interbred with delusion. But it's all good -- for the entertainment value.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • The Voice

    Bahahahaha the Twinkle is now a Skandi, the happiest people in the world… with the biggest suicide rate !!! Also claims to be an RG, with the worlds highest number of trickcyclists, brainwashed since birth and dim as 25 watt light bulbs.

    What a turnip…

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • James Marshall

    DT, Argentina get everything they want. The islanders would be worse off, so how is that a good solution for the islanders. Why would they even entertain such a solution, let alone sit and discuss it.

    You seem to sit on the fence on this issue, but let me ask you if you think it is morally or ethically right to give away the rights of the islanders to Argentina, forget all the 'solutions' , ideas and even history, in 2018 is it the just and right thing to do against their wishes?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Different classification methods by Countries...:

    Engrish unemployed depressed missus badly fkucked by her lazy Anglo hubbie found dead with her head inside the open gas oven gets classified as a “ Domestic Accident”

    Scandinavian unemployed depressed missus badly fkucked by her lazy Scandi hubbie found dead with her head inside the open gas oven gets classified as a “ Suicide”

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Somehow I knew that you were ready to remind me of such a small episode :-)

    I felt like this guy :-)

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    I didn't say it was a good solution, just that it does take *some* of the Islanders' wishes into account. It gives Argentina most of what they want, and I'll be interested to see what people there think of it if it gets published in the Argentine press. I suspect there will be more than a few people objecting with Think's attitude.

    As for me, no I don't think it's morally okay to give away their rights to Argentina. I can't imagine anyone in the Falklands will be remotely keen on this plan, but whether they want to consider it or not is up to them.

    It's the long, dark winters. They all get SAD, get wasted and top themselves. That's why they're the happiest people in the world; only the cheerful ones are left.

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Think rambling again? Get back into bed Think, your nurse will be along shortly.

    At this moment, Kohen should be presenting his 20-point plan to CARI. I wonder if he got a larger audience this time?

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Sr. Marcos Alejandro...
    May that feeling accompany you for 10,000 years ..;-)

    Mar 19th, 2018 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Faulconbridge

    “The Islands would become a self-governing province of Argentina, with the electorate electing a Governor and Assembly. The judiciary would be independent. He said many aspects of life would remain the same - tax, customs, currency, language, ordinances, and the federal government would not interfere with the province. ”

    This is the situation suggested by the British government before the !982 invasion: comparable with the Åland Islands in Finland.
    The only problem is, there has never yet been an Argentine government which ignore any guarantees or promises any Argentine government has made as to how it would treat the people of Argentina or anywhere else when it has seen the slightest immediate benefit to be gained from it. Given the psychological and emotional emphasis put on regaining the Falklands, any Argentine government that acquired them would treat them as a conquered province and set about wholesale Argenisation. A later government could decide they'd make a very good prison camp or hand them over to friends as gifts.
    When Argentina has had sufficient practice in ruling itself and its citizens in a civilised way - give it a hundred years or so - it may be better able to persuade other people of the virtues of Argentine rule and Argentine citizenship, but not before that.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marti Llazo

    We would do well to remember what a succession of argentine governments did to the Welsh in Chubut province here.

    You know, the parts about promising to respect their culture and all that, only to renege on all of it by forbidding the teaching of Welsh and requiring that all Welsh children be taught only in Spanish in their schools. And today, that province is no more Welsh than is Moscow.

    Argentina has reminded us again and again that its promises and its contracts are worthless.

    In one of the more recent events, when Argentina promised to abide by a US Supreme Court decision, immediately after the result was announced the country reversed itself and said it would not abide by the decision after all.

    The islanders know what sort of an unreliable, dishonest, and two-faced country Argentina is, and we would all do well to keep that in mind.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Stoker

    Marti is 100% correct. If history has taught us anything it is that any Agreement, Contract or Treaty with Argies are not worth the paper they are written on. Hence Kohen's “proposal” will never fly. If the Argies want sovereignty over the Falklanders' homeland (and we all know they do) let them take their bullshit claim before the ICJ in den Haag and see how far they get with it. Kohen can be lead Counsel if he wants ;-D

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Room101

    The eternal solution is: The Islanders decide for themselves; this is and will be protected.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • James Marshall

    DT you said....'.I don't see why the MLAs refused to talk to him either. I mean, I guess they had no particular reason to as he wasn't there in any official capacity (AFAIK). But what's the harm in being polite? It would have given them a chance to put their views to him, too.'...

    I am confused as to why they need to listen to him, if you yourself have just stated that it is up to them to consider their options, not Argentina, hence why they refuse to meet with someone who has no say over what the Islanders choose to do.

    As for being polite, why should they entertain a person who maintains the Islanders do not exist,

    Liberato, Think and Prof Kohen have all stated on these boards that the islanders are not a people and do not have the right to self determination, without one shred of evidence to back up their opinion. They will fob you off with the 'population' v 'people' argument, but that is false flag argument as the C24 themselves have used the word 'population' alone in draft resolutions to describe certain territories that they maintain have the 'right to self determination' for example St Helena C24 Doc. A/70/23 page 68. - Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2015.

    Or the implanted issue, another red herring.....same doc page 67 re Pitcairn....

    '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'

    So you have answered your own question as to why they didn't feel the need to meet him.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    Oops, getting ahead of myself again. It's tonight that Kohen is addressing CARI. Yesterday was when he claimed to be speaking to members of Congress.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    We would do well to remember what a succession of argentine governments did to the Welsh in Chubut province here.

    “You know, the parts about promising to respect their culture and all that, only to renege on all of it by forbidding the teaching of Welsh and requiring that all Welsh children be taught only in Spanish in their schools.”
    Strangely, Lady Di visited Welsh villages in our country.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • R. Ben Madison

    How about holding a referendum to let the Islanders themselves choose their own future?

    Oh, that's right -- that already happened and Argentina refuses to accept the result.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Stoker

    ......just as they refused to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1955 when the UK tried to bring them before the Court regarding sovereignty of South Georgia/South Sandwich islands
    ”Following the Argentine claims, the UK offered (in 1947, 1951, 1953 and 1954) to take the matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague but this was turned down by Argentina. When Britain took the issue to the court unilaterally in 1955, Argentina declined to cooperate, citing a lack of jurisdiction.”
    You'd think the Argies would know that the Court (which is the judicial arm of the United Nations) is the ONLY body with legal jurisdiction regarding sovereignty disputes.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1

    Malvinense 1833

    RELEVENCE?????????????? ¡NABO!

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    How can they consider their options if they don't speak to him? They voted to remain a BOT for now, but that doesn't mean they will want to stay as one forever. It was obvious they wouldn't consider this particular option, but that may not always be true, and it might have been useful to explain their objections to him.

    “As for being polite, why should they entertain a person who maintains the Islanders do not exist”

    If he really thought they didn't exist, he wouldn't have done his presentation in Stanley and asked to talk to the MLAs, but in London and tried to talk to MPs instead.

    Personally I think this 'people' vs 'population' thing is an even bigger red herring. The UN doesn't offer self-determination to peoples, that would be far too inconvenient and disruptive to its members. Only countries and colonies are supposed to have self-determination, and it doesn't matter if they are composed of one people, or several, or only part of one. That is why there is a whole committee for the few tiny non-self governing territories left, despite the fact it has achieved nothing for years, but little notice is given to peoples like the Kurds, who are split between three different countries.

    However, there are a few signs that the world is moving more towards a view that peoples should have self-determination, even if they are claimed by another country, or already part of one. We'll have to wait and see.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - You'd be quite amazed at how many discussion there have been on the possible differences between 'people' and 'population.' For international law theorists they are two very different things. For Argentina, the islanders are a population not a people.

    The difference appears to be considered important.

    UN Resolution 1514, operative paragraph 2 says -

    “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

    Resolution 2625 of 1970 adopted the - Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - which says;

    “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development,...”

    It may be a lot of things, but it aint no 'red herring'

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • James Marshall

    DT, because, as Think is so fond of saying, they would speak to the Organ grinder, not the monkey. Prof Kohen as far as this trip is concerned, is not a representative of the Arg. Government, but a private petitioner (please correct me if I have made an error there, but I understood this was a privately funded trip).

    If and when the Islanders decide to change their status, they will talk to who ever they decide. It is them and them alone that make that choice. maybe if you were an Islander and were being told you do not have rights, you may feel differently.

    Prof Kohen's solution is based around Argentinas spurious claim and not in the interests of the Islanders, it hinges solely on the handover of sovereignty, but letting the islanders think they have some say until the Arg. Gov. at the time change their mind.

    Prof. Kohen is well aware of the objections, no need for explanations and yes he has said on many occasions and in many papers that they do not have the right to self determination as he believes the Islanders are not considered a 'People' by the UN. Remember this is more a self publicising stunt than a heart felt gesture.......why do you think it was done when it was.....

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    If that's so then why does the UN not urge Spain to hold a referendum in Catalonia, or try and arrange a country for the Kurds out of the mess in the Middle East?

    I don't know why he's doing this, or why he chose that date despite it clashing with a more important meeting. What do you think his purpose is?

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • James Marshall

    I just told you, self publicising, I assume he was hoping that there would be plenty of Argentinians around to attend, plenty of media and so a lot of interest and publicity in his 'Solution', from the Islanders, UK and Argentina. He has a book out recently, so who can tell....

    But it appears, at the moment, to have been a little flat, well, that is until after his tour of the Arg. Gov. departments. Once the Arg. press get hold of it, we may find it was nothing short of a miracle being offered and the Uk are seriously considering his proposals as it was well received by the huge crowds that attended his talk in the 'Malvinas'.

    So who knows let's just wait and see what transpires.....

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    “He has a book out recently”

    Ah, right. What's it about?

    And I think Joe Bloggs said that last week there were extra tourists from Argentina over for the marathon and a swim; maybe that had something to do with the date. I daresay you're right that he'll get more attention in Argentina, though you'd think they'd all be bored of the subject by now.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • James Marshall


    Surprisingly about the 'Spurious claim' and Argentinas rights to own the Islands....

    Lots of Argentine people and press on the Islands for the next month I gather, because of their celebration of starting a war (2nd April) and identification of their unknown soldiers.

    So what better time for a self publicist to peddle his wares.......

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - now you're confusing 'internal' self-determination with 'external' self determination.

    The latter applies only to the old colonies listed for decolonization by the UN and gives the right of self-determination up to, and including, secession. Internal self-determination allows the 'people' that have that right to exercise their self-determination up to, but not including, secession.

    You may need to read more.

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    Maybe I do. I thought that the UN cared (at least nominally) about the rights of 'minorities', but I never heard that they had any kind of self-determination. What does 'internal' self-determination look like then, if it cannot include determining their own political status?

    Mar 20th, 2018 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The UN is mostly about preserving the status quo, not the break-up of nations. You exercise your right of 'internal' self-determination every time you vote in a General Election. That - it seems - is considered to be determining your political status.

    This is all International Law theory, or, as I prefer to call it, International Guidelines theory. Laws are capable of enforcement.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Pete Bog


    “About the Chilean in Malvinas, they are just a workforce. I dont see chileans in any relevant position in the political and economic life in the islands”

    Don't you consider an Chilean- born, elected member of the Falkland Islands Government to be a 'relevant position'?

    “The dispute will comes when the UN stop listing the islands as a colonial territory, along the other nine territories under the british colonial administration in the UN decolonization process.”

    So what if the elected members of the governments in these British Overseas Territories vote to remain British because they want to?

    Why should the peoples of Bermuda, Tristan da Cunha, Pitcairn Island, Gibraltar, or for that matter those Chagossians who want to remain British, not chose what they want?

    Is it because they are not members of the Spanish master race?

    You seem to be under the misguided impression that it is wrong for people born on British territory to wish to retain that status but alright for everyone else to decide.

    Why? Do you believe that worldwide that peoples living on a geographical territory cannot vote for whatever status they want?

    If so, that must mean that the people born in Argentina, equally have no right to decide their own future.

    Bermuda have voted to remain British, rejecting republic status some years ago, so have people in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.

    Should these people be excluded from choosing their status, because they are not members of the Latin Master Race?

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • DemonTree

    “The UN is mostly about preserving the status quo, not the break-up of nations.”

    That's what I thought. But the UN DID want to break up the old Colonial empires, so they were and are treated differently.

    And if self-determination is supposed to be exercised by voting, what about the many countries that hold no elections? Why was the UN happy for the UK to hand Hong Kong over to China with no vote, despite the fact they have no more say in China's government than they ever did in Britain's?

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton


    Mostly the British Empire was the target. Both the USA and Russia saw it as a threat and took the opportunity to reduce British influence. Or am I being cynical?

    Are you suggesting that the UN is not consistent in its approach? Quite.

    Hong Kong was a very different issue. 90% of the land mass had been leased, so had to be returned when the Chinese refused to extend the lease. The remaining 10% came down to a choice of either going to war with China or being used as a bargaining point to try to get the Hong Kong people a special deal within communist China. The deal being for 50 years.

    China is breaking the deal of course, but the alternative is war. China does not pay attention to the ICJ.

    There are some very good books on these subjects. The latest I would heartily recommend despite not agreeing with all of it. But then, do you want to spend 70 quid on a book. Reading these days is for the rich.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    IMO they didn't see it as a threat so much as ending the British (and French) Empire was an opportunity for the two superpowers to extend their influence and make more money through trade. AFAIK the empires functioned as giant free trade zones that primarily benefitted the metropolis and the US wanted to get into those markets, plus both wanted to recruit more countries to their 'side' of the communism-vs-capitalism rivalry.

    And the people in those territories wanted more autonomy / independence; after they became independent they naturally supported their neighbours doing the same. But they'd have a lot less sympathy for something that could end up reducing the size of their own countries.

    What you say about Hong Kong is a good description of the decision Britain faced. But what was the UN's opinion of it? Imagine if China hadn't wanted HK, and the UK decided to make it part of Britain and gave them 80 MPs in the Commons to elect. I think the UN would have had some objections.

    And no, I don't want to spend £70 on a book, wow. That's what libraries are for. What does it say that you disagree with?

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    A few, very few, of the opinions are based upon an inaccurate understanding of history. I have spoken to the author regarding this and supplied more information.

    Also I believe that he has failed to recognise that 29 years of silence by the UN actually speaks volumes about UN thinking. And we disagree on the 'currency' or relevancy of those UN Resolutions between 1982 and 1988. He was not aware of the Sec-Gen's use of the term 'relevant' in 2012 and I have provided more information from 1989.

    He also believes that Argentina's claims are current rather than irredentist which I struggle to understand as Argentina's pretensions are based upon is particular view of history. I'm still thinking about that.

    By and large I can accept Jamie Trinidad's reasoning.

    May I suggest you find a library.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    I don't know that I'd be able to get through it even if I could find it in a library. Is it aimed at the layperson?

    And what's the difference between a current and irredentist claim anyway?

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Stoker

    As any fule kno (as Nigel Molesworth would say) the UK never had sovereignty of Hong Kong. Hong Kong was leased by the UK and returned to China when the lease expired. Unlike the Republic of Argentina the UK abides by the Leases, Contracts, Treaties and other legally binding Agreements it signs up to.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • LEPRecon

    So his proposal is for the UK and the Falkland Islanders to give up total sovereignty for...Argentine citizenship!?!?!? And for some reason for the British to give up ALL of it's territory (which Argentina absolutely no right too - they haven't even got the 6 week illegal invasion by UP troops in 1832 to fall back on) for absolutely no return whatsoever.

    Everything else he's proposing the Falkland Islanders already have, and they have more than he's proposing. They have their own Government, their own currency, British citizenship, their own education system, FREEDOM, and the right to self determination. They also have a country at their backs that will protect them from tinpot 3rd world countries who have delusions of Empire.

    When will these malvinista lunatics get it through their heads that the Falkland Islands don't need Argentina in any way shape or form. Yes it would be much more convenient if Argentina were a grown up sensible country that they could do business with, but that's not going to happen in my life time.

    So the Falklands will continue to thrive and prosper and one day, perhaps in the not too distant future, they will declare their independence and become the newest nation on Earth and take a seat at the UN. Of course, they will still be able to rely on their big brother to help them out when they need it.

    As for South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, Queen Elizabeth Land and the British Antarctic territory...well they'll still be British long after Argentina has been swallowed up by Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay and Bolivia.

    As for the referendum. It was 100% legitimate and recognised by the UN. Only tinpot pseudo democracies and dictators refused to accept the result.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Alejandro Candioti

    Dear Livepeanuts, regarding your statement “…President Roca approved the Latzina map putting the British and Chilean islands outside Argentina...”, may I point out that in Francisco Latzina's major work, “Géographie de la République Argentine”, published in French by Felix Lajouane, Éditeur in 1890, the main map on page 24 clearly marks the Falkland Islands as part of Argentina, using its Spanish name “Islas Malvinas”. (The map is in Spanish and dated 1889).

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • gordo1

    Alejandro Cannelloni


    Mar 21st, 2018 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Alejandro Candioti


    Exactly! Live peanuts comment on Latzina's maps is not relevant. That's my point.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    @Alejandro Candioti
    Are you saying Livepeanuts is wrong about the map that Roca approved, or that Latzina published more than one map?

    Interesting icon, by the way.

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - you said “And what's the difference between a current and irredentist claim anyway?”

    That's the bit I'm still thinking about.

    The controversial Latzina map, the colouring in which indicated that the Falklands were not Argentine, was published in 1882.

    My footnote on the subject says -

    ”The colours used by Dr. Latzina became an issue during 1977's Beagle Channel arbitration; a consideration of contested sovereignty over three islands situated in the Beagle Channel between Argentina and Chile. On the map, foreign nations such as Chile and Uruguay, were shown in a light beige; the same colour as that used for the Falklands archipelago. Chile believed that Latzina's map was official and confirmed that the disputed Beagle Channel islands lay below the border set by the 1881 Treaty. Argentina, however, denied that the map had any official character. While basing its decision on the Treaty, the 1977 arbitration panel agreed that the map confirmed Chile's contention that Argentina had not considered the three islands as its own territory in 1882; the official character of the map being demonstrated by Yrigoyen's appeal for extra funding. A similar argument could be made concerning the Falklands although this is disputed, by, amongst others, Dr. Marcelo Kohen who has produced copies of the map where the colour differences are less distinct than those originally published, for example, by Pascoe & Pepper (2008). Kohen & Rodriguez (2016 p.233) argue that the colour of the islands is the same as that used for Buenos Aires City which is inset into the main map (and therefore the same colour as Chile?). Regardless of these contrary views, Argentina was quick to recognise the potential implication and a new map was announced just two years later.”

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Goooooood boy..., copper...

    Next question...:
    By which name are those multicoloured.., heavily photoshopped windblown Islands called on each and every authentic or tricked copy ov the Latzina map circulating on Internet...?

    By the way..., one of the heaviest coulored false versions on Internet is the one posted by your Engrish mate..., fellow Falklandist Crusader and Wikipedia Keyboard Warrior... Justin Kuntz...
    Did you know that...?

    Mar 21st, 2018 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    Oh, so that's the map Voice photoshopped. Do you have both versions on your website? I'd like to see them.

    And is the new map published two years later what Alejandro Candioti was talking about?

    Now does surprise me: Estrecho de Falkland, Falkland Occid., Falkland Oriental... I bet no current Argentine map uses those names.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Think - how's your memory? Here's a copy of the richly coloured original -

    Now, only recently, the Photoshop Prof - Marcelo Kohen - wrote a letter to the Penguin News announcing that names were not important.

    Whatever - go argue with the 1977 arbitration panel ;-)

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Ya know I don't click on no copper's den...
    Those places have more lies on them and are more dangerous than even Facebook...;-)

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    Is this why you call him the photoshop prof? And have you seen the original on paper yourself?

    I found Kohen's version on twitter; I wanted to see the coastline. It's shaded for Argentina, but not the rest of the continent. Just compare the Falklands to Isla de los Estados.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JustinKuntz

    The Latzina map has been digitised by a number of institutions. Example Sardoa Digital Library, Museo sardo di Geologia e Paleontologia “Domenico Lovisato” - Dipartimento di scienze chimiche e geologiche - Università di Cagliari (Cagliari),_1882.jpg

    Example Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library.,_1882.jpg

    They're high quality, colour accurate, high resolution scans of the original.

    I did produce a photo from a map held by the British Library. Only manipulation I did was to correct some basic framing errors. I rotated it straight, trimmed the edges and documented what I did when I uploaded it.,_1882.jpg

    Then there is the version favoured by the Photoshop Prof (I still have the screen captures).,_1882.jpg

    Judge for yourselves. The problem that most liars and bullshitters have, is the truth has a nasty habit of biting them on the arse.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Damn, the link bug strikes again.

    JustinKuntz, you'll need to remove the 'https://' from your links if you want them to be visible. It's that or post them one at a time.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I call him the Photoshop Prof because his book with Facundo Rodriguez (Spanish language version) contained an image of the 1821 announcement in the Times of Jewett's claim to the islands on behalf of the United Provinces of South America. The actual announcement was in the bottom right-hand corner of an inside page. In the Kohen/Rodriguez version the Times banner had been placed directly above the article to suggest a prominence that the original simply did not have.

    Notable, the English language version of that book no longer contains that image.


    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • JustinKuntz,_1882.jpg

    Doesn't matter, all 4 images are linked from above. You can flick between them.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    ...still think my version is the best...

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Think

    I fully aree ;-)))

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    Yes, your version is easily the best. I think you should have called them 'Islas del Voice', though.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    What is in dispute? Ah Narnia is in dispute...

    The islanders have chosen to remain 'freely associated with the UK' their legal right.

    Falklands – UN Resolutions & 2013 Referendum (1 pg):

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Malvinense 1833

    I repeat, everyone is very brave behind a screen, but nobody was able to discuss these issues face to face.
    Screen smoke. .-)

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse -12
  • Stoker

    If some guy turned up at my front door saying he wants to discuss with me why he should own my house I wouldn't “discuss these issues” with him. I would tell him to bring his claim before a Court of Law. I wonder why the Republic of Argentina refuse to bring their case before the United Nations International Court of Justice?*

    *Don't worry......I know why ;-D

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    It's 2018. The islands are British. Get used to it.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    @The problem is that the guy who knocks on the door of “his house” is actually the owner who was forcibly evicted and who demands his return from the first day.
    And the answer to your question about the International Court of Justice is in this article. Please read again.

    @It is 2018 and the islands are illegally British, there is no existed local people, there is no self-determination.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • LEPRecon

    Malvi 1833

    I'll repeat this then: Argentines are very brave against unarmed civilians but not so brave when people start shooting back at them.

    As for discussing this face to face, what's to discuss? The Falklands are now and have always been British.

    Argentina has no historic, legal or moral claims to the Falkland Islands (much less South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, Queen Elizabeth Land and the British Antarctic Territories), so why should anyone sit face to face with any Argentine about issues that are none of Argentina's business.

    If Argentina has a problem take it to court. If you don't then you, me and everybody else in the world knows that you have no case (which is really the CASE).

    Attempting to steal the Islands got Argentina nowhere. Crying about it has got Argentina nowhere. Lying about the issue has got Argentina nowhere. Begging anyone who will listen to steal the Islands on Argentina's behalf have got Argentina nowhere.

    So perhaps instead of trying to steal someone else's land and constantly FAILING, Argentina should be looking at what it actually has, developing it for the benefit of ALL and not just a few politicians, and building a better future for your country and countrymen.

    Or you can spend the rest of eternity as losers, bemoaning for the rest of eternity, the fact that you are losers is due to the fact that you can't steal someone else's land.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    Moving to the present with the legal sovereignty established absolutely in the UK’s favour.
    The legal governance is clearly laid out in the UN Charter, in which the UK has adhered to the letter. This is the only definitive binding international law.
    7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…
    73. Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
    103. In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. ...

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • The Voice

    Sometimes I begin to feel sorry for these Argies, deluded, brainwashed and pursuing a fruitless objective that will never come to pass. Then theres the more aggressive types like the thugs like we saw in 1982 who got a good thrashing. Then theres their poodles and quislings, not much sympathy for them. Lastly theres Think and his acolytes, never seem to give up their fruitless campaign. Must be on a payroll or perbanently pissed IMO.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • James Marshall

    Malv 1833...No, the guy who knocked on the door , had some ancestors who tried to steal the house many , many years before, but were again told to leave by the rightful owners, now the guy who is knocking on the door, seems to think he has a claim as they squatted there once upon a long time ago.

    As for delf determination, please provide the UN document that states that.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marcelo Kohen

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Marti Llazo

    Yes, marcelo, we are quite certain that you are very proud of being in the argentine newspapers. And likely equally proud of inventing something that, with very good reason, none of the islanders wants.

    What part of “no” do you not understand?

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Alejandro Candioti

    Demon Tree: regarding your comment “@Alejandro Candioti
    Are you saying Livepeanuts is wrong about the map that Roca approved, or that Latzina published more than one map? Interesting icon, by the way.”; yes, Latzina published several maps of Argentina or parts of it at the time; three in the same book I mentioned in my previous comment. One of the other maps is a railroad cartography, and in it the islands are note even drawn because -I presume- there were no railroads in the Falkland Islands at the time. So, reading Latzina's maps of Argentina (or any other map for that matter) without considering the context of its publication may lead to erroneous conclusions.

    The icon in my profile is a Japanese wood print (ukiyo-e) by an artist named Yoshitoshi (1839-1892) titled “Inamura Promontory Moon at Daybreak” from the series “One Hundred Aspects of the Moon”. It's an image about sincerity.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Stoker

    The United Nations International Court of Justice 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 and Article One of the UN Covenant of Human Rights, applies to ALL non-self-governing territories without exception.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Alejandro Candioti

    Dear JustinKuntz: Regarding your comment that starts with: “The Latzina map has been digitised by a number of institutions.”, can you please post the links to the four maps you mention again? I mean the Cagliari, Boston, British Library and photoshopped versions. I can only see four links of a same map (which, by the way, is accurate; we own three originals of that map in my family and the photo you shares is the same). Thank you and best regards.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    We see that Argentina's external debt increased by nearly US$52 billion in 2017. And the default clock is ticking.

    They must quickly find a distraction.

    Ah, here's one that works every time.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • FRodriguez

    Dear Mr. Stoker, please, feel free to visit:

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    Sr. Marcelo Kohen...
    Good article and even better initiative...
    Wish you the best of lucks with your initiative...

    Sr. Alejandro Candioti...
    You could just Google a bit...
    Herewith a link to “Slim Jim's” Flickr
    An Anglo Patriot armed with a colour pencil...;-)
    Anyhow..., I salute you and raise me imperfect Edo period Hagi chawan on your artistic good taste...

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • FRodriguez

    And Mr. Kunz and Mr. Lorton, regarding your obsession with the maps, feel free to visit:

    And remember that the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is very clear on the matter:

    “Whether in frontier delimitations or in international territorial conflicts, maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial titles, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights.”

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • KelperSmoko

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Stoker the way asserted “the answer to your question about the International Court of Justice is in this article”. If the guy who comes knocking on my door saying he owns my house thinks he can move in and share it with me for 30 years BEFORE he takes his claim before the appropriate Court of me......that ain't going to happen ;-D

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Marti Llazo

    A relevant observation made yesterday at The Hague concerning the Chile-Bolivia matter:

    “ existe ninguna obligación de que los estados negocien con sus vecinos, sin duda lo pueden hacer, pero la frustración de uno no hace nacer una obligación por parte de otro....”

    (Nations have no obligation to negotiate with their neighbours, though they may certainly [voluntarily] do so - however, [mere] frustration on the part of one does not give rise to an obligation upon another....”)

    If only Argentines could understand such simple things.

    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    And as I said, Malvinense 1833, you obviously were neither there, nor had heard the recordings. Kohen was challenged and struggled. He even mentions his reception in the Infobae article. Really, Kohen got off lightly, simply because no-body actually believes that there is a problem that requires a cession of the Falklands to Argentina. Kohen's basic premise.

    I'm told that the comments section under the Infobae article is illuminating.


    Mar 22nd, 2018 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    That article gives a fuller description of Kohen's plan, and based on that, I would say he has shown a lot more sense than any of his governments have ever done.

    Particularly the last paragraph where he says the proposal is directed at the Islanders, because the UK is just going to keep saying the same thing unless the Islanders change their minds. None of the governments in Argentina really seem to understand this, or believe it.

    Roger, I don't see any comments on the article, which is disappointing because I was hoping to to get an idea of what people in Argentina think of this plan. Do you know if there is somewhere else I could look?

    @Alejandro Candioti
    There's never been any railways on the islands as far as I know. There wouldn't be much point.

    RE the significance of the map, Wikipedia says

    “The Latzina map of 1882 proved to be significant in the ICJ case between Argentina and Chile over the disputed Beagle Channel islands, since the disputed islands are shown as Chilean territory. It was created under the auspices of Señor Irigoyen, who had been previously responsible for negotiating the Boundary Treaty of 1881 with Chile. Due to his involvement, the significance of showing the islands as Chilean was deemed by the ICJ as a direct representation of Irigoyen's view of the boundaries between the two countries.”

    But that would not apply to the Falklands.

    I did a search for your icon after I posted, it's pretty cool, and nice to learn of something new.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    Discussions in The Hague reminded us of why Argentina would not fare well with its constitution providing a foregone conclusion for any “negotiations”

    The distinguished French jurist on the Chilean team, Jean-Marc Thouvenin, reminded the Court of their own determination “ .... if there exists an obligation to negotiate, the outcome cannot be determined previously...”

    Yes, the Infobae note comments were interesting: summarised translations

    “ ...I wonder if the kelpers are not completely right in not wishing to be part of Peron Land...”

    “citing [Spanish king Juan Carlos] ' let the Argentines keep the Malvinas and let the English keep the Falklands.' ”

    We see that Roger L was there to remind everyone that the islanders don't have a problem. Only Argentina has a problem.

    “Whatever simplistic and delirious solution is established based on hatred towards the kelpers is destined to fail. That's exactly what is seen from the outside and at the same time reinforces the kelper's hatred of us [argentines] .”

    “...offering a kelp dual citizenship with Argentina is like offering an Argentine dual citizenship with Angola....”

    “...who in their right mind would want to be part of Argentina right now...”

    You get the idea. The argentines and others who read the article pretty much recognise Kohen as a special sort of delusional nutcase.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - Strange, I can see them.

    As for the 20 points, I hope to post those to the Timeline shortly and will provide a link (that Think will not visit)

    There's a reduced list here //

    Obviously I've removed the https: due to the usual problems.

    The islanders didn't listen to him, and I doubt they will have a change of heart. As far as they are concerned, the issue of sovereignty was and is settled.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Alejandro Candioti

    Dear Demon Tree. I am glad you liked the ukiyo-e.

    Regarding your comment on railroads, again, my point is that Francisco Latzina's railroad map of Argentina did not include the Falkland Islands simply because of what you wrote: there were no railroads in the islands. But that does not mean that the islands did not exist. They were not drawn in that map.

    Regarding the citation of taken from wikipedia, please be careful when doing so: anyone can write anything there; it is not a reliable source. The entry that you mentioned is actually flagged as “a high likelihood of counter-productive edit warring fact”.

    Also, it is not true that the 1882 map “proved to be significant”, since it was immediately rebutted by showing the 1889 map that marks a boundary line around Navarino Island consistent with Argentina's claim in Beagle Channel dispute. This is the same map I have referred to in a previous comment, of which we have three copies. (And you can purchase your own on mercadolibre dot com).

    Again, my point is do not focus on maps, there are maps for every position on the Falkland Islands claim; there are even maps that name the sea around the islands as the Paraguayan Sea, and that is certainly not the basis for any sovereignty claim over the islands by landlocked Paraguay. Maps are not relevant to this discussion.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Maps cannot be so easily dismissed AC, as the indicate the thoughts of the time. What has not been considered is that the 1882 Latzina map (which had nothing to do with railroads) was produced around the same time that the Argentine Senate rejected an 1879 compensation claim by the Vernet heirs regarding their father's lost grants. The grants of 1823 and 1828 were founded upon the fishery law of 1821, which the Senate held to have been an act of the Province of Buenos Aires, and not an act of the nation.

    As Argentina founds so much of its claim to the Falklands on the grants made to Vernet, perhaps this was why Latzina did not include the islands as Argentine territory?

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Stoker

    Dear Mr.FRodriguez , please, feel free to visit

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I haven't read all the comments on Infobae, but I saw this on Facebook from an Argentine contributor -

    “By reading the comments of the argentine readers at the bottom of that page, I can tell that his fellow Argentinians didn't like his proposal. They call him a traitor, agent of the British colonialism, that he is payed by the Crown, he's crazy and so on. He can't convince the Argentinians, much less the Falkland islanders!”

    A mixed reception it would seem. Possibly not helped by Kohen going first to the Islands to present his plan. It suggests that he was seeking their approval and that smacks of self-determination.


    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Malvinense 1833

    There are fanatics, intransigent on both sides, I am at a mid point where I can listen to the islanders, understand them, agree on some things and not others. And I also know that there are islanders with a similar thought to mine.
     It is very easy to say that there is no problem thousands of miles away, Mr. Kohen's proposal is very reasonable.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Roger Lorton

    Kohen's fantasy is predicated on a cession of the Falklands plus South Georgia plus the South Sandwich Islands to Argentina, regardless of the Islanders' wishes regarding the future of their territory.

    What Kohen has failed to identify is why he would think for one moment that the UK would do such a thing.

    These are British territories and, contrary to Kohen's assertions otherwise, their sovereignty is not in dispute. To be in dispute they would have to be in an adjudication process. These issue are not in such a process because Argentina, as the plaintiff, has never sought a legal determination.

    So why would the British Government countenance a handover of British territory? Where's the quid pro quo? The UK does not have a dispute. Why would the UK seek to resolve Argentina's problem?

    Kohen's proposal is not “reasonable”, it is risible fantasy.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • darragh


    How can you see it as 'reasonable' when it's basic premise is that the Falkland Islands should, as an initial step accept becoming part of the Argentine South Atlantic Empire.

    Why would the islanders do such a thing or even consider it taking into account Argentina's arrogant attitude towards them, regarding them as being of no account, mere untermenschun.

    As far as I can see Kohen doesn't suggest removing the Falkland Islands clause from the Argentine constitution. That would at least have demonstrated some sort of honest intent.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Chel

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Pete Bog


    “ Mr. Kohen's proposal is very reasonable.”

    Mr Kohen's proposal, under Argentine administration = 16% of fishing revenues go to Argentina.

    Under present British/FIG administration =0% of fishing revenues go to the UK government.

    Do the maths, then learn some basic human psychology;

    or this might clarify things:

    If Mr Kohen made a 'very reasonable' offer to Lionel Messi, to play for Shrewsbury Town FC rather than Barcelona, which team you think it is more likely that Mr Messi at present would chose and why?

    According to Mr Kohen's understanding of psychology, I predict that Mt Kohen would expect Mr Messi to chose Shrewsbury Town.

    Also, it may be news to Mr Kohen (who apparently is a professor and therefore would be expected to do some research), that South Georgia is no longer run by the FIG, it is a separate British territory.

    Therefore if the Falkland Islanders 'did' (here, 'did,' in reality means 'never'), become Argentine, they would have no say over South Georgia so the only way Argentina could influence SG, is by possessing forces that could kick off the UK, which is going to take a lot more than '25' years.

    If you can work out the 'complicated' question relating to Lionel Messi ,perhaps you won't be scratching your head over why the Falkland Islanders do not rate Mr Kohen's offer?

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Alejandro Candioti

    It is interesting to see that many persons -perhaps the majority of the comments I have read or heard so far- reject Mr Kohen's proposal in Argentina too. In my opinion, there lies part of the strength of Mr Kohen's position.

    Can the persons participating on both sides of this discussion respond to the following question: If the claim of Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was submitted to final and binding resolution of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, would you accept a ruling of the ICJ that is 100% unfavourable to your position ? (Please avoid responses such as it will never happen because there is no dispute, or lack of jurisdiction or any invalidating argument of the sort; will you please assume this as a theoretical scenario and respond sincerely?).

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • golfcronie

    You know and I know that if the decision went against Argentina they ( Argentines ) would not accept it anyway.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Sr. Alejandro Candioti...

    This humble Patagonian would..., reluctantly..., accept a final and binding ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the Falkland/ Malvinas Issue that is 100% unfavourable to my position...

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Stoker

    Bring it on. I would 100% accept the verdict of the fifteen Judges sitting at the UNICJ either way. I wonder why the Republic of Argentina refuse to bring their bullshit claim to the Falklanders' homeland before the Court?* Could it be they cannot face the prospect of another humiliating defeat similar to the 1 - 14 loss in the Argentina v Uruguay “paper mill” case?*

    *Don't worry........I know why ;-D

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Marti Llazo

    golfcronie is quite correct -- Argentina has a long history of selecting a jurisdiction, submitting a matter for litigation, and then when the outcome was unfavourable to Argentina, crying all the way to church that it would not accept the results. There are many reasons why one should be skeptical when dealing with the ephemeral nature of gauzy Argentine promises.

    There actually have been efforts under recent Argentine governments for studies toward taking the Falklands claim to the ICJ. I remember that in about 1999 Dante Caputo had prepared a project for taking the claim to the ICJ and it went so far as a short list of international jurists to be sought for presenting the Argentine position. But one of the more respected Argentine legal authorities commented that going to the ICJ was a waste of time since the court, in his opinion, operated on “anglo-saxon principles.” And the matter was shelved without effect. The latest effort I know of was one was done under the Kirchnerists and I believe that Timerman may have been involved. But eventually in all those stillborn attempts, those various governments agreed with the results of the studies, that Argentina did not have a sufficiently strong case, and the approach was dismissed. After all, an inevitable failure there would have been even more significant than the Argentine surrender in the Falklands in 1982.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Thanks, with your link the comments magically appeared. Since I didn't see them yesterday I had assumed there weren't any.

    Unfortuneatly not too many of them were really considering Kohen's plan, but rehashing much of the same stuff that comes up whenever the subject is mentioned. Anyway, I see you have been very busy replying to them. ;)

    @Pete Bog
    “Mr Kohen's proposal, under Argentine administration = 16% of fishing revenues go to Argentina.”

    “Under present British/FIG administration =0% of fishing revenues go to the UK government.”

    That's just quibbling though. If it was the other way around, they still wouldn't agree to the proposal, would they? The reason the people are so against Argentine sovereignty is that most of them hate, fear, and distrust Argentina. Signing up to be part of another country that you feel no kinship with is already a tough sell. Most communities would be reluctant to do it, even if it was clearly advantageous, even if they got to keep their original nationality. Persuading someone to voluntarily join a country they hate and see as the enemy is surely impossible.

    @Alejandro Candioti
    “It is interesting to see that many persons -perhaps the majority of the comments I have read or heard so far- reject Mr Kohen's proposal in Argentina too. In my opinion, there lies part of the strength of Mr Kohen's position.”

    How so?

    As for the ICJ ruling, I would accept it, but I would then expect our government to negotiate for something like Kohen's plan, or the agreement over Hong Kong.

    The real question is whether the respective governments would accept it.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Stoker

    Both governments would have to accept the jurisdiction of the Court at the outset. That is why the UK got nowhere taking the sovereignty of South Georgia/South Sandwich islands before the Court in the 1940's & 1950's - because the Republic of Argentina refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Court (because they knew they had no case and therefore would lose).

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Voice

    Alejandro Candioti

    You have omitted the South Georgia/South Sandwich islands...
    This part of the claim is now written into the Argentine constitution, yet Argentina have no historical claim for these islands other than proximity...
    Argentina would need to separate the two claims to have any hope of a favourable outcome.

    For Britain, they are two separate and distinct titles and likely wouldn't agree to one case...
    I'm sure Argentina are aware of their shortcomings concerning the South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands and have therefore scuppered any chance of the case ever going before the ICJ...

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • James Marshall

    Yeah, what he said above......

    Geeeee Voice, that was a good thoughtful post, I have given you a +1

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    Argentina has lacked the wisdom to distinguish between the Falklands and the Dependencies in the past, and there is little hope for any such future wisdom arriving here on the matter.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Alejandro Candioti

    Too bad not many of you are willing to give a simple answer to my question. Including all pro Argentina users in this forum.

    Thank you Demon Tree for your comment; it actually leads to where my thoughts on this are heading.

    Thank you Voice for your comment too. In my personal opinion, Argentina´s sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands is stronger than in the case of the South Sandwich and Georgia Islands. It is also a more challenging dispute because the islanders must be respected.

    Golfcronie, Stoker, Think, Marti Llazo and James Marshall, could you please respond to my question?

    Any pro-Argentine user willing to participate in my humble survey?

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    I agree, you make a good point.

    It's interesting that of the only two benefits to the Falklanders listed in the article, neither are actually in Argentina's power to give: both a treaty guaranteeing British citizenship, and the fishing revenue from the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands would require Britain's agreement.

    Think did reply, and he's *very* pro-Argentina.

    But what does it matter what people here think? Do you believe that either government would accept a ruling against them?

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Sr. Alejandro Candioti...

    Soy perfectamente consciente de que mi inglés no es de lo mejorcito...

    Sin embargo considero mi anterior respuesta a su pregunta clara, concisa y entendible...

    Un saludo del sudoeste chubutense...
    El Think...

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Stoker


    As my post above clearly states:-
    “Bring it on. I would 100% accept the verdict of the fifteen Judges sitting at the UNICJ”

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - Kohen's 20 point plan as presented at Stanley. I hear there is a 10 point version and a 15 point version so perhaps he's having to make adjustments.

    Mar 23rd, 2018 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig

    I am not surprised at all, over 100 comments, but no islander showed the least goodwill to approach a dialogue....

    What´s most annoying from my fellow argentinian countrymen is that they continue to believe that the brits have any interest at all in a peaceful solution, it´s a widespread stupid misconception in Argentina to believe that if there is goodwill and reach out to these “common people”.
    They ignore how much do brits despise us, how much arrogance and ambition there is in these islands and in the far north in britain. All they care about is oil, fish and money. That´s it, as long as you have the military upper hand, you´ll just steal all you can, peace, convivence, union and everything else be damned.
    Indeed we are from different cultures, and the main problem with mine is the stupid stupid naive people in my country, specially academic people like this dumb professor, for all he studied the subject, he was not smart enough to know that no one would show up, because all the brits care about is money.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Roger Lorton

    Goodwill? As Argentina has never shown any, why would the Islanders?

    And no dialogue because no solution is required LukeDig. The Brits and Islanders do not have a dispute regarding sovereignty. That is Argentina's alone.

    Money? I've been told that all the Islanders care about is chutney, but I suspect that I've been misinformed.

    I now see that Kohen's 20 pints is reduced to 15 -

    20 points on the 12th, 15 by the 24th .............. I figure Kohen will be down to Point 1 by the middle of April. No self respecting Malvinista could object to point 1.


    Mar 24th, 2018 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Stoker

    Money? The Falklanders are not interested in money. They just want to be left alone. During January/February I was on a cruise and among the islands we visited were Aruba and Tobago. Both these islands are far closer to Venezuela than the Falklands/South Georgia/South Sandwich islands are to Argentina yet the people who live on Aruba and Tobago don't have to put up with that “you're on our continental shelf so you belong to us” bullshit. And do please enlighten me as to what money the UK makes out of the Falkland islands.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Speaking of money, if there are any Islanders still reading this, would you consider suspending the oil exploration indefinitely if in return Argentina offered to repeal all the laws they passed to inconvenience you, stop bringing up the dispute in international forums except for the yearly C24 meeting, and give overflight permission for all the charter flights you can handle?

    The 15 point version is basically the same, just with some of the points grouped together.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • James Marshall

    AC, to answer your question, yes i would accept the decision, although, certain decisions may impinge on the rights to self determination and human rights, which would diminish the role of the UN and the C24.

    LD, what an arrogant person you are. You make out that it is the UK that doesn't want a peaceful solution, when for the last 35 years there has been peace even though Argentina moan and whine

    What you mean is that you are not happy because the Islanders prefer to have British Sovereignty over Argentinian, that is their choice, not yours.

    What is Argentina offering the Islanders that they do not already have......apart from less freedom, less control and less autonomy.....

    And what do you mean by 'common people'.....they are not 'common' to you as you clearly contradict yourself by pointing out that you are a different culture.

    The problem you have Luke is that you are starting with the premise that you are in the right and the Islanders and the UK are in the wrong. Bad news I am afraid, it is you and Argentina that has an issue and it has become ingrained in your psyche. Mine, mine , mine....

    The solution to 'your' problem is staring you in the face.....let them get on with their lives in peace, problem solved, a 'peaceful solution' guaranteed.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Stoker

    If I were a Falklander I would say we can do what we like in our own EEZ and - as for all the other bullshit - I might have to pay a little more for fresh fruit and veg etc but all your pathetic Argie bullshit does is give me more reason to hate you and harden my resolve that I want nothing to do with you.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • The Voice

    Luke, its folk like you who are the problem. Brits dont hate Argies, we are wary of them yes, because we remember the attack and deaths caused by the attack and subsequent war in 1982 and the constant whining ever since. Argentina is not a stable country and that makes us nervous too. Its the reason for the military prescence. Oil and fishing licence money means that the islands can be self sufficient. You need to stop whining, learn to live with your peaceful neighbours in peace and friendship and dismantle the blockade.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I guessed.

    As for the oil, the reserves - if and when the price is right - will be far more valuable than Argentine flea bites.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Stoker, you wrote “Money? The Falklanders are not interested in money. They just want to be left alone.”

    However, judging by your and Roger's responses, you would both choose the oil money over being left alone by Argentina.

    Anyway, neither of you are Falklanders; it's just a theoretical question to you. Perhaps the people who actually live there and have to deal with Argentina's trouble would feel differently?

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Think

    Mr. Roger Lorton...
    You “Guess” an awful lot..., copper...
    Curiously enough..., always in the Engrish direction...
    Some suspicious mind could Think that all your “Research” is quite biased...

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Roger Lorton

    The 15 point version is basically the same, just with some of the points grouped together.”

    I guessed.

    It wasn't much of a guess. Malvinistas are just sooooooo predictable.


    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Stoker

    DT I think the way the Falklanders feel is quite well known

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Stoker, that is perfectly true, and perfectly irrelevant to the question of whether being left alone by Argentina is more important than extra money. Have you changed your mind now you've thought about what it might mean in practice?

    What do the Argentines posting here think of the idea? The Falklands would stop oil exploration starting on some future date, and Argentina would repeal the laws against them, effective on the same future date, allow charter flights to pass through its airspace, and agree not to bring up the subject in international forums including Mercosur, the OAS, etc, except for the C24 committee and other places where it's relevant.

    If either side breaks their promise then the deal is off.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -11
  • Stoker

    There is no need for any such deal. The Falklanders can do what they like in their own EEZ.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Roger Lorton

    The UN says that all resources belong to the people of a territory. The UK says that the resources of a territory belong to that territory's people. Up to them I say.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • darragh


    How exactly would that work then?

    The Falklands Government would presumably have to revoke the licences they sold to the exploration companies, refund the monies paid for the exploration licences then get their arses sued off by the exploration companies for costs, loss of prospective earnings etc.

    In the meantime Argentina revokes all those laws affecting the FI or at least those laws that Argentina says affects them then two years later some other bunch of Peronists get elected in Argentina and think up a petty excuse for revoking the revocation leaving the FI to pick up the pieces and of course the FI would by then have lost all credibility with oil exploration and other companies wishing to invest there.

    If it were the other way round and the FI broke the agreement then Argentina would have lost nothing.

    I’m not an islander but I can’t see how they could possibly agree to such a scheme.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • The Voice

    No one with any common sense would accept anything from the Argies. They cannot be trusted. 33 revolutions per minute! Any agreement is worthless. Only the gullible would suggest or accept it.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Stoker, RL
    Sure it's up to them, that's why I addressed my question to Falklanders and not to you two. It's easy to say money isn't important, but people's actions usually show exactly the opposite, as do your replies and the 8 downvotes I've had so far (more than Kohen!)

    You're right, I'm sure there's all kinds of reasons why it's impractical, but after reading Stoker's comment I was more interested in what people there really valued most: money, or being left to get on with their lives without any more harassment.

    I don't mind if other people want to give their opinion, but please when answering imagine you can magically stop and start oil exploration with some notice period but no major repercussions.

    I take it you don't support the agreement for a second flight then?

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Stoker

    It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Under the UN Charter the Falklanders have the right to:-
    1) Develop and benefit from any and all resources within their own EEZ
    2) Live free of harassment, threats, intimidation, economic blockade, etc, etc by any and all of their neighbours.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1


    What an oaf you are! You seem sadly unaware that the Argentine version of the history of the Falkland archipelago is totally false and that is the reason why your governments fail to take the matter to the International Court of Justice. You are scared of losing - if Argentina were totally convinced of their case then Argentina long ago would have presented its case to the ICJ.
    Another point, of course, is that as the Argentine legal system is totally corrupt then Argentina believes ALL legal systems, also, MUST be totally corrupt - that belief includes the ICJ.
    Do have a nice week end!

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • GALlamosa

    LukeDig. I am a Falkland Islander and I have spent the best part of my life trying to find ways to achieve a better relationship with Argentina............actually doing stuff, not just commenting on social media accounts. I did not speak to Cohen because I was not in the Islands, but from our past interactions I doubt if it would have come to much. Anyway he only represents himself, not the country.

    I had an interesting interaction last year with a highly respected Chilean national in the de-colonisation sphere. He asked why there could not be discussions with all parties with everything on the table. I asked him to confirm that in his thinking this would include self-determination. He would not.

    Therein lies the problem. Your idea of a solution is I guess the same as his and Cohen's, finding a way to transfer sovereignty to Argentina that is acceptable to Islanders. That will never be acceptable.

    You need to reflect on the basic human rights of people a little more, and less on blame culture.

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    Which brings us back to the original flaw in Kohen's proposal - why would the UK wish to hand over 3 British Territories to Argentina? What's the quid pro quo?

    Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • LarissaN

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    Tell you what - how about the UK gives Argentina South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in exchange for Tierra del Fuego and the Isla de los Estados ? I'm sure Chile would prefer us as neighbours.


    Mar 25th, 2018 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • LukeDig

    @Alejandro Candioti and others....

    We do not go to the ICJ for a very very simple reason. Not long ago UK was doing political maneuvers to “secure” several judges in the ICJ, stating, as the UK press said, that if the UK lacked handpicked judges they stand out to receive judiciary demands in the ICJ and lose them (of course, theres no legal basis for much bs that was done, specially with the chagossians).

    So please, stop hammering with the ICJ or Hague, they are about the same. And even more: Whenever any of these two courts ruled against a military superpower they just ignored the rule. So what´s the point in going to dirty courts, paying a lot of money to get a fair rule, and then the brits laughing their asses off at the rule, like someone could force them on court order to vacate the islands if the ICJ or Hague said so...

    So please, cut the dumb remark

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 05:00 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Stoker

    “the ICJ or Hague, they are about the same.”.....that's a dumb remark if ever I heard one.
    I know it comes as a shock to Argies but there are Courts in the world outside the Republic of Argentina where there are no bent Judges and the UNICJ in the Hague is one of them.
    The UNICJ in the Hague is the ONLY Court which has the legal jurisdiction to decide on sovereignty disputes so - put simply - it is the only choice available to you. The UK is never - I repeat NEVER - going to “negotiate” with the Republic of Argentina regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. We have a duty to defend the people who live on those islands and we are never going to shirk that duty. So it's up to you. You can take your bullshit claim before the UNICJ or you can try to take the islands by military force. We are going to defend those islands whether in Court or on the battlefield. Take your choice.

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • gordo1


    Your latest comments are even more “oafish” than your previous efforts. Indeed, they just show a complete absence of comprehension of the nature of the ICJ!

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • LEPRecon


    Firstly the ICJ is at the Hague, so they are one and the same court.

    Secondly, you write that 'military' superpowers just 'ignore' the court. Well actually Argentina has 'ignored' the ICJ's court rulings numerous times. Because Argentina is all for the ICJ whenever they 'rule' in your favour, but the minute they don't then it's an 'illegitimate' court that Argentina doesn't recognise.

    The ICJ has no power to enforce it's rulings, it leaves that up to the honour of individual nations (Argentina has no honour, hence why it ignores it's rulings), so the question as to why Argentina won't take its laughing called 'case' before the ICJ is simple. I mean if they ruled for you you'd be 'demanding' that the UK honour the ruling, but if they rule against you, you'd claim the court has no jurisdiction over Argentina. However, taking your 'claim' to court would then expose the blatant Argentine lies that you have been pedalling over the years, and bring it all into the light of day. It may even lead to a UNGA resolution against Argentina (and they can't be enforced either).

    So the reason Argentina won't take it's 'case' to court is because you can 'fix' the result in your favour, and it would expose Argentina's lies, threats and imperialist ambitions fully to the world.

    But if, as you claim, Argentina's sovereignty case is so solid, then you shouldn't have a problem taking it before an independent court who can examine ALL the evidence. You'd win right?

    Of course you wouldn't, because even YOU know that Argentina's claims are ridiculous and based on lies, upon lies, upon lies, and you know that you would LOSE big time. But since you're Argentinian you should be used to losing, right?

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Stoker

    A visual metaphor

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Conqueror

    I couldn't bring myself to read all the comments. Sorry.

    The problem with Kohen is that he's a true product of the argie propaganda system. He's stupid!

    As noted elsewhere, he should have figured out from how many people were in his audience what chance his “solution” had.

    From my point of view, he was on a loser as soon as he suggested his “proposal” should cover the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. I'm sure that the Islanders are only really interested in their Islands. Proposing that the Islands become a province of argieland under “any” conditions was a total non-starter.

    I can only think that either he really enjoys flying or that he's a complete masochist.

    I strongly recommend that the FIG declares him persona non grata and never permits him to land again.

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “San Lorenzo works against Argentina: “... an extra secret article removed the restriction on new establishments if any other power did make an establishment south of ”the parts of those coasts already occupied“ by Spain. In the late 1820s, Argentina did in fact form an establishment at Port Louis in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention, Britain therefore became entitled to form an establishment in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there.
    Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 ... ...was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way. ...”
    Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
    Unfortunately, for you the UK doesn’t have to answer that desperately shrill belated piece of sophism. As RL has stated international law correctly “Argentina was never in the game”.

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • gordo1


    I don't believe “stupid” is enough to describe Kohen - he is both “stupid” and (worse) “devious”!

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marti Llazo


    Less us not be so harsh with Kohen. He is simply argentine and suffers from argentinism.

    But this also means that argentine agencies will pay him handsomely for malvinistic arguments that have no basis in reality but which play well with the team back home. He makes a good living from this, as do Evo Morales' oceanfront show-ponies and Scientology's attorneys.

    We should perhaps admire Kohen as we sometimes admire exceptionally clever criminals, for his lawyerly (if ultimately vacuous) artifice and craft, and for helping to remind us of the imperialistic intellectual depravity of a country that seeks to colonise while decrying the imaginary colonisation of others.


    Mar 25th, 2018 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Voice


    What are you taking about....?

    ..but I'll answer it anyway...
    Spain is not Argentina...
    A bilateral treaty between Spain and Britain is not legally binding on any other State...
    Also Spain was not occupying anything when Argentina established a settlement...
    Also the secret article does not even mention any islands and only refers to the mainland coasts of South America...
    Also Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari is completely wrong... the treaty was about the Pacific and the South Seas not the Atlantic...
    What are you...? a one book something else....

    Mar 25th, 2018 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • gordo1


    In 1833 Spain had not recognised the independence of Argentina - thus the alleged dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland archipelago did not involve Argentina or whatever it was called at that time.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    That Spain was not in occupation when BA announced its pretensions in the islands in 1829 is of no great consequence.

    Spain had established its sovereignty over East Falkland island and left a notice of that claim in 1811. It's claim remained far better than that of the United Provinces which failed to maintain an effective occupation of any sort - getting kicked off by the USA in December, 1831 and again by the British in January 1833.

    Establishing a settlement is not enough.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Capt Rockhopper

    @ Marcelo Kohen. I am the former British Army officer who had a public debate with you a couple of years ago, during which you categorically failed to answer my questions regarding human rights and self determination. You failed to explain how Argentine rights outweigh those of the Falkland Islanders. You failed to explain how article 1 of the UN Charter does not apply to the islanders. They have the same rights to self determination as you do. Now allegedly you are a renown international human rights lawyer, if that is the case why can you not answer these very simple questions? Why did you refuse to answer the questions? Why do you harass the islanders and challenge their right to the same freedoms afforded to you. Freedoms you abuse by the way. Remember I am just a lowly former Captain seeking your enlightenment.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Voice

    What you are saying there Roger is that the Spanish claim had legitimacy only because they were not kicked off the islands...
    ...because most people agree that the French “Settlement” was apparently enough to give them title, that title then passing to the Spanish...
    Or are you suggesting that the Spanish had previous entitlement beyond purchasing from the French...?
    If that were the case then the British 'occupation', (Garrison) and I stress the word occupation because it was not a settlement, was therefore illegal...

    Either way it appears that settlement was enough...

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “The treaty was about the Pacific and the South Seas not the Atlantic…” If it was geographically specific it is required to say so. Otherwise its something you have dreamed up without any support. What am I? Someone who has a sufficiency of qualified legal materials to wipe the floor with you any time. Any book is better than you who can rely on no such source.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Detailed proposal exposed by Professor Marcelo Kohen in the Falkland Islands on 12 March 2018 and in Buenos Aires on 20 March 2018

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    You appear to be confused Voice. The legal phrase is 'effective occupation,' with the emphasis on 'effective.'

    Britain - settlement & effective occupation over West Falkland 1766 to 1774 (effective control asserted in 1770/71)
    sovereignty of West Falkland not effectively challenged 1775 to 1828 (assertion of sovereignty 1801)
    UP reminded of British sovereignty in 1829 & 1832
    effective control of East & West Falkland 1833 to 2018 (minor challenge in 1982)

    Spain - settlement & effective occupation of East Falkland 1767 to 1811 (recognition of Britain in West Falkland in 1771)
    sovereignty of East Falkland not effectively challenged 1812 to 1833
    sovereignty lost after 1833

    Argentina - sovereignty pretensions announced June 10, 1829
    settlement & effective occupation of East Falkland July 14, 1829 to December 31, 1831 (ejected by USA)
    effective occupation of East Falkland Oct 7, 1832 to January 2, 1833 (ejected by Britain)

    Most people do NOT agree that the French settlement gave the Spanish title - certainly not the French who demanded a settlement on the islands in 1801 from the British. And there was a 'settlement' in 1766 - called Jasons Town. MacBride took out 100 apparently.

    Malvi 1833 - Kohen's proposal is a joke. He's not offering anything. Now why would the UK government hand over 3 British territories without a quid pro quo?

    I have suggested that we'll give Argentina South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands in exchange for Tierra del Fuego & the Isla de los Estados, but he hasn't come back with a counter-proposal yet.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1


    Kindly explain how ENGLAND has the facility to actually do what you so emphatically claim?

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    Voice - most of our knowledge of Jasons Town comes from the Spanish who drew it. I have a few here (about half-way down) -

    It is worth remembering that:
    a) Britain never claimed that the harbour of Port Egmont was ''on” the Great Malouine - Spain did; &
    b) the nonsense about Saunders Island only started in 1910 when Groussac revealed it as the new idea in his book.

    Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What the heck is up with this story that keeps being reposted every few days, disappearing from the original link and appearing at a new one with all its comments? It should have expired long ago.

    Mar 30th, 2018 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    Round two anyone...?
    I've limbered up and ready to go...;-)

    Mar 30th, 2018 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jo Bloggs

    I know it is Autism Awareness Week but why is Professor Marcelo’s story still on here?

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • cheiVabi8v

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Pete Bog:
    You only pay attention to a tiny part of the problem: money.
    0% of fishing income goes to the government of the United Kingdom.
    The price to pay for it is to maintain the conflict.
    The price to pay for it is to pass on the problem to future generations.
    The price to pay for it is to have no additional flights.
    The price to pay for it is not being able to develop the infrastructure of the islands
    The price to pay for it is not being able to establish cultural and commercial relations with the rest of Argentina and the other countries of the continent.
    The price to pay for it is to have no peace.
    Think about it.

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • James Marshall

    Malv 1833...So the thing to do is hand over sovereignty and the price to pay is...become worse off, less Autonomy, less freedom, less human rights and less self determination.......

    Or you could simply drop your spurious claim and everyone will live in peace.....think about it?

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1

    Jo Bloggs

    Maybe Kohen has paid Mercopress for an extension of his nonsensical suggestions! (In which nobody in the Falklands was even minimally interested)

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Jimmy: Professor Kohen talks about integration, respecting the island's way of life, its culture, language, religion.
    In short, respecting his human rights, he mentions the possibility of appealing to the Court of Justice in case the islanders do not wish to live with the new system. It is the opportunity to win peace forever.

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvi 1833 - Kohen talks about a cession of three territories without offering any quid pro quo. Now why would we do that?

    One of the territories is wholly within the remit of its people. Kohen is not offering anything that they don't have. So why would they be interested?

    Apr 03rd, 2018 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Jo Bloggs
    “I know it is Autism Awareness Week but why is Professor Marcelo’s story still on here?”

    A great idea is making you nervous “Jo”?

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    The date on this story has changed a couple of times. It keeps reappearing MoreCrap. Sadly, so do you

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    RE your comment on the other thread, I was wondering: if Argentina didn't exist in 1806, does that mean the Falklands doesn't exist now?

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    As a State? No the Falklands are not a State. They are a British Overseas Territory.

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • The Voice

    Like tbe vacuous comments of Narcos and Malvinonsense Kohens scheme makes no sense whatsoever? Why would any Islander want to live under the boot of Argentina? The government of Arganistan could revert to KFC loonies at any moment and they would immediately wish to eject the Islanders and tear up any agreements.

    It all makes as much sense as the perenial 25 year Hepatia..

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    So if Britain didn't try to invade Argentina in 1806, but part of the Spanish Empire, does that mean Argentina didn't invade the Falklands in 1982, they invaded part of the British Empire?

    Kohen is Argentine himself, he probably doesn't see it as such a *very* terrible fate. ;)

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - In 1982 Argentina invaded a British territory. It's simple enough.

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Mmmhmm. So if a Falklander says Argentina invaded their territory in 1982, you'll be sure to point out that the Falklands doesn't exist and they actually invaded British territory, right?

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    The Falklands are British Territory DT.

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Stoker
    Morons ;-D

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I'll take that as a no.

    I guess some people aren't content with remembering their dead soldiers and instead want to go and get another few hundred killed. How stupid.

    Apr 04th, 2018 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • ko7veeSoof

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Roger Lorton
    Poor Roger, you spent so much time writing lies just to get a poop medal, meanwhile Professor Kohen is getting all the attention for a good reason.

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Demon Tree: It is useless to try to reason with Roger Lorton, he is an intransigent Falklandist. Therefore, he will never discuss with Professor Kohen.

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Kohen wrote an article for Clarín and it has 0 comments. How much attention has his plan had in Argentina, really?

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    There is nothing to discuss and Kohen is whistling in the wind as he's offering the UK nothing in exchange for three territories. It's as though he believes Argentina has some right.

    It doesn't.

    The matter was settled long ago. Only Argentina that can't see it. And yet someone in Argentina signed up to the deal whereby there are no more UN GA resolutions. Somebody in Argentina knows.

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger: You apparently do not want to see it. Kohen offers the possibility of integrating the islanders to Argentina, to the rest of the continent with all the benefits it would bring to the parties, including peace. If they are not satisfied with the system, the islanders could turn to the Court for a definitive solution in 30 years, does not it seem so? For me it is a great possibility and very reasonable.

    Apr 05th, 2018 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Three territories? What's the third?

    Apr 06th, 2018 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The Islanders have no wish to “integrate” with Argentina. A message that they've shouted clearly enough even for the most diehard Malvinistas, such as Kohen and yourself, to hear.

    Kohen's plan is a nonsense. Only the Islanders can decide the future of the Falklands, but they have no say in the future of either the South Georgia or South Sandwich Islands territories. Why would the UK consider for one second handing over two territories to Argentina? There is nothing on offer to the UK in Kohen's plan.

    The Islanders have ignored Kohen. That is their right, but then he wasn't offering anything that they wanted.

    This proposal from Kohen is just the fantasy of a publicity seeker.

    Apr 06th, 2018 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ui7aiPhaid

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Apr 06th, 2018 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - The Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands are all separate territories with separate histories. At one time they were all bound together for Administrative purposes. Today the Falklands stand alone and South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands are partnered for Administrative purposes. A matter of convenience. The moment its not convenient, they will be divided.

    Three territories.

    Apr 06th, 2018 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands are partnered for Administrative purposes”

    That's why I thought there were only two territories. I don't see why we'd want to give them to Argentina either.

    Apr 06th, 2018 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Pete Bog


    “The price to pay for it is to maintain the conflict.”

    That finished in 1982. (14/6-not 2/4)

    “The price to pay for it is to pass on the problem to future generations”

    The problem is Argentine, so to prevent your national wailing over a myth, you think the Islanders should become Argentine? For the Islanders there is no problem, they have what they want now. To prevent Argentine chagrin in the future, just drop the mythical claim. .

    “The price to pay for it is to have no additional flights.”

    You mean from Argentina?. You seem to be unaware that aviation technology is not going backwards therefore, aircraft will be developed with greater range and greater fuel economy.

    Apart from cost at the moment (remember the Islanders will make more money in the future) , there will be nothing stopping the Islanders getting flights that don't have to pass over Argentina.

    The world outside the Falklands is getting smaller and smaller, and the islands are not surrounded by Argentina.

    “The price to pay for it is not being able to develop the infrastructure of the islands”

    Do you mean like the Argentine airstrip that was blown away by the wind in the 1970s and a few oil tanks, or infrastructure such as:

    An international airport?
    New secondary school?
    Wind turbines?
    A regional airport (Stanley)?
    Roads on the West?
    Social Housing?
    A hospital?
    A swimming pool?
    A new FIDF drill hall?
    Oil rigs?

    You might want to take a look at how infrastructure has developed since 1982, as you think all the houses on the Falkland Islands are built of turf thatched with tussac, right?

    “The price to pay for it is not being able to establish cultural and commercial relations with the rest of Argentina and the other countries of the continent.”

    The rest of the continent as in Uruguay and Chile?

    “The price to pay for it is to have no peace”.

    Why, planning another illegal invasion within the next 25 years?

    Good luck with that one and don't forget to pack a Bandera Blanca.

    Apr 07th, 2018 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beth

    The question is why is this piece appearing in Mercopenguin, a British government propaganda organ supposedly devoted to America, South America and the “South Atlantic”?

    Apr 09th, 2018 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!