MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The central ceremony of the Malvinas war 36th anniversary is held in Ushuaia
On the 36th anniversary of the beginning of the 1982 South Atlantic conflict Argentine Interior minister Rogelio Frigerio called “for intelligent ways to advance in our legitimate claim of the Malvinas Islands' sovereignty”. Frigerio was the main speaker at the central event of the 36th anniversary held this Monday in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego province, next to the Beagle channel. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYup, Argentina's version of Britain's Remembrance Sunday.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse +3“... recalling the recovery deed of what is legitimately ours, of what belongs to us Argentines by right, which is the sovereignty of Malvinas.”
And this from Claren - ”The 36th anniversary of the start of the Malvinas war on Monday went largely unnoticed in the United Kingdom media. However, it should be noted that from that side is commemorated the day of the Argentine surrender and the consequent British victory, on June 14, and not the Argentine reconquest of the islands as in our country.”
Argentine reconquest?
Honouring their dead?
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining (as the Yanks say)
“We will return to our Islands, but with the force of dialogue, of the truth, of our rights and of Justice ”, insisted Frigerio”
Dialogue? With who?
;-)
When Argentina attempted to assert its sovereignty over the Falkland or Malvinas Islands, the Argentinian generals seem to have expected political support from the Third World against Great Britain, the archetypical colonial power. One reason that much of the international community reacted negatively was the perception that the Argentinian junta was more concerned with extending its rights over adjacent territory than with carrying out the responsibility of governing the inhabitants of the Falklands, who seemed thoroughly dismayed at the prospect of Argentinian rule.(Law, Power and The Sovereign State, The Evolution and The Application of The Concept of Sovereignty, Fowler M.R. & Bunck J.M., Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, p 12 -13). Sovereignty: Power Beyond Politics, London : Shepheard-Walwyn, p6, 1988).
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse +2The islanders have chosen to remain 'freely associated with the UK' their legal right.
Falklands – UN Resolutions & 2013 Referendum (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/35921248/Falklands_UN_Resolutions_and_2013_Referendum
Roger says that Clarin(?) commented ”However, it should be noted that from that side is commemorated the day of the Argentine surrender and the consequent British victory, on June 14, and not the Argentine reconquest of the islands as in our country.”
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1I returned to the UK from Latin America 6 years after the Illegal invasion by Argentina of the Falkland Islands and in those 30 years I do not recall any national commemoration by Britain of those dates - where do they get their false information from?
It's commemorated in the Falklands, perhaps that's what they meant? They don't seem very good at telling the difference.
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Demon Tree
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“They don't seem very good at telling the difference.” So they equate the Falklands with the UK? Maybe that's a good thing?
No-one, British or Falkland Islander should waste a minute being concerned about the antics of these poor brainwashed fools. They will still be at it in 100 years. (Despite Hepatitus's boring assertions)
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Hey Bob...you are confused...
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You are quoting UN Resolution 2625...
Take a note of the title...
“Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation AMONG STATES in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”
The Falklands are not a State...
EVERY STATE has the duty to promote through joint and
separate action universal respect for and observance of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the
Charter.
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the
free association or integration with an independent State or
the emergence into any other political status freely
determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the
right of self-determination by that people.
Its very satisfying watching the losers cry
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +12625 says rather a lot Voice. For example, it also says -
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“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, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter....
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, (through the)
• establishment of a sovereign and independent State,
• free association, 354 or
• integration with an independent State, or
• the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people...
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter...
The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles...
Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.”
You are adding stuff that isn't there...there is no “through the”
Apr 03rd, 2018 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1This resolution quite clearly is for States..a clue is in the title...I repeat the Falklands are not a State...
When is does mention a NSGT that a STATE is administering it clearly gives the NSGT a separate status under the charter...because it is not a STATE...
We all know there is a separate resolution for NSGT's that gives free association as an option but not...“the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people”
You are not the first to try and give BOT'd an extra option by trying to use 2625 as being applicable to BOT's when it is clearly for States...
..and no doubt you won't be the last...
save your old chestnuts for folk more gullible...
I quote it as it is without trying to twist it into something it isn't...
There are only three options for Bot's
Free Association (and that doesn't include being partially governed by a State....Bob)
Integration
Independence
The current Argentina government is not expected to insist about the start of conversations with the U.K. towards the restitution of Malvinas.
Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse -3In September 2016, president Mauricio Macri demonstrated poor judgement when he tried to make hay out of an encounter with British PM Theresa May.
He bragged to the media that May was okay to hold sovereignty talks. Macri was quickly rebuffed by his own foreign minister Malcorra, and later by the U.K.'s Foreign Office.
However, in the same month Argentina signed an agreement that vowed to facilitate Falkands' economic development--without obtaining any British concession in exchange.
That is the wood out of which our current president is made.
2625 is applicable to peoples and adds a fourth option to the existing 3.
Apr 04th, 2018 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, (through the)
• establishment of a sovereign and independent State,
• free association, 354 or
• integration with an independent State, or
• the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people...
Regardless of what you read into the title.
Did your ever read Prof Willetts paper on the referendum - he specifically refers to to the relevance of 2625 ?
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OCCPAP12.HTM
Potts knows what he's talking about Voice
;-)
@EM
Apr 04th, 2018 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse +1What 'British concession' were you hoping for, other than sovereignty talks?
A little rushed before. Willetts considers the 2625 4th option vis-a-vis the referendum. Only 2625 provided this.
Apr 04th, 2018 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse +2I should have also added that IMHO and the view of quite a few others Res 2625 was far more important than 1514 for the rights of self-determination. For example, 1514 had not been sufficient to change the UK's view that Self-Determination was a principle rather than a right. It was only after 2625 that the UK accepted that SD was a right of peoples. All peoples. Particularly those in the NSGTs.
That something is not mentioned in the title does not mean that it is not covered by an Article within a Resolution. For example, the old decolonization Omnibus Resolution to cover the odds-n-sods NSGTs didn't mention the Falklands in its title but the 2nd article did not limit itself to the territories listed in that title and it was therefore relevant to all the NSGTs. So annoyed was Argentina that its cronies on the C24 changed the whole system last year to avoid the need for an Omnibus Resolution.
To suggest that 2625 is not applicable to the peoples of the NSGTs is laughable.
Couple of quotes relating to 2625:
“This represents a significant step in the progressive development of international law when compared with the positions taken in 1964. Many states had never before accepted self-determination as a right.” [The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: A Survey R. Rosenstock 1971]
“It seems clear from this and other formulations of the principle of self-determination that where the principle applies, it does so as a right of the people concerned; it is not a matter simply of rights and obligations as between existing States. … It may thus be concluded that the people of a Chapter XI territory* enjoy a separate legal status, and with it a measure of legal personality.” [ Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed) 2007 p.618]
*Ch.XI territories are the NSGTs
Oh I see Roger...
Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -3You are saying that Resolutions that are specifically made for States should be applicable to NSGT's, that of course, are not States...
Or are you saying that anyone can pick and choose which parts of those resolutions that we would like to apply to Non-States...and totally ignore the resolutions that have been specifically made for NSGT's..
The only mention of NSGT's in 2625 is..
The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.
All that clearly states is a NSGT is not a State and has a separate and distinct status, I'm sure a separate and distinct status from a State means it doesn't have the same status as a State..
As for the nutty professor..
“Peter Willets, an Emeritus Professor of Global Politics from City University London, had his credentials as an official referendum observer removed by the Falkland Islands Government because he stated the referendum result would not be recognised legally”
“At the press conference Willetts pointed to the innate contradiction of the islanders’ status.The islanders can only claim self-determination if they are in the process of de-colonization. Since they claim they are no longer a colony, they have no right of self-determination. The professor, no doubt aggrieved after being rejected as an observer, was being pedantic. ”
and...
“Professor Willetts was writing solely in his own name. The views expressed in South Atlantic Council Occasional Papers are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by all members of the Council.”
Keep twisting Roger it doesn't mean what you say it does..
If it did there would be no NSGT's
Talking through your rear Voice.
Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +12625 applies to peoples - ALL of them
Thought you were brighter. Obviously not
I'm bright enough to know what it doesn't say...
Apr 04th, 2018 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It does not give NSGT's a fourth option it gives STATES four options...
Next you might explain how the complete crew of the 14 gun Sloop Swift minus the cook and two seamen, plus the complete crew of the 14 gun Sloop Favourite, plus 100 settlers fit on the Favourite that has a normal crew of one hundred...when they were evicted on the 14th July 1770...
I don't think there was any settlers...
Voice
Apr 04th, 2018 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3UN resolution 2625 XXV 24 Oct 1970,
Furthermore, the 1970 Declaration distinguishes between four modes of exercising the right to self-determination. The Declaration determines that: ”the free association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
It is important to note that both declarations base the exercise of the right to self-determination on the free expression of the will of the people concerned. This interpretation of the right to self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned lies at the heart of the right to self-determination. This is also how the right to self-determination is interpreted by the International Courts of Justice when in its Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara, expressly provides that self-determination must be understood as 'the need to pay regard to the freely express will of peoples.' (International Law & Governance of Natural Resources in Post Conflict Situations, Dam -De Jong D., Cambridge Studies in International Law 2015, p73).
@Voice
Apr 04th, 2018 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Something I am curious about is why the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not considered colonies. Could the BOTs be decolonised in theory by giving them the same status, whatever it is?
You don't think Voice? I suspect that covers it.
Apr 04th, 2018 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 2625 fourth option, in any case, is of no great value as it has never been expanded upon since, and its parameters are therefore unknown. That is exists and applies to the NSGTs is not actually contentious. Except by you it seems.
As for the 1766 settlers, the Spanish went to a great deal of trouble to draw an accurate plan of Jasons Town in 1770. No mention of dereliction. Those 100 settlers remain a mystery. But Britain appears to have built Jasons Town for them. That they went seems likely. How long they stayed is unknown. Work done in 1774, and monies paid, suggests that at least 25 remained before the garrison left. There is no suggestion anyone remained after the garrison left.
DT - The British Government no longer engage with the Decolonization Committee for the very reason that it believes that all the remaining BOTs are such by choice, and that, therefore, decolonization is no longer necessary.
DemonTree
Apr 04th, 2018 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dunno...the Crown Dependencies are a bit of an enigma I don't know why they exist or why the UK feels responsible for them...probably it was to stop foreign powers from muscling in on them...like the Scottish Union to keep out the French influence...
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 05th, 2018 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1I was hoping the two of you would know more, oh well. Maybe the UN considers them to be in free association or something?
Apr 05th, 2018 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice, that might apply to the Isle of Man, but the Channel Islands are right near France, they should be the ones worrying if anything. Scotland is different, much better to get help with the empire building than have someone waiting around ready to stab you in the back.
I don't know much about the Crown Dependencies or the Isle of Man, but they weren't listed as colonies in 1946, so the UN probably doesn't consider them at all.
Apr 05th, 2018 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 06th, 2018 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 09th, 2018 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!