MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' right to self determination: US Congressional staffers message to their offices in Washington
Like much of the world’s population, the three US congressional staffers visiting the Falkland Islands this week admit that their preconceptions of the Falklands had been largely shaped by the conflict. Nevertheless they have a strong message to take back to their respective offices at the US Congress, the clear right to self determination of the Falklands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules''The overwhelming message they’ll take back is one of a clear right to self-determination. Part of that, they say, is overcoming the notion that some have that self determination does not apply to small populations.''
Nov 02nd, 2018 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just as international law does not require a state’s territory to be a minimum size, nor is there a minimum population requirement. Infinitesimal smallness has never been a reason to deny self-determination to a population.(The Right to Self-Determination in Very Small Places.’ Franck T.M. and Hoffman P.L. 1976, P331, ) In this respect, the UN general assembly issued a resolution in 1970 where it stated that the Charter was unconditionally valid and applied to states irrespective of their size, geographical location and level of development. (UNGA 2734 (XXV) Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, 16 Dec 1970, part 1).
Argentina will never be a true democracy until it recognizes the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination.
Falklands – Self-Determination (1 pg) : _https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page
Why doesn't the FI just declare itself an independent country and recognized as such by the rest of the world? Isn’t this the ultimate Self Determination?
Nov 02nd, 2018 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Belize, Jamaica and other former “British Territories” have done this.
Argentina would be forced to recognize the FI as a sovereign nation.
“Argentina would be forced to recognize the FI as a sovereign nation.”
Nov 02nd, 2018 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Sounds logical, but you're assuming Argentines are a rational and reasonable nation of people. I've lived next door with the kleptomaniac maniacs all my life and I can assure you they'd never recognize the FI as a sovereign nation.
They're really nice people, but not when it comes to common sense.
'Isn’t this the ultimate Self Determination?',
Nov 02nd, 2018 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Livingthedream...Well, no, they already have made their ' Ultimate Self Determination' choice which was the result of their referendum.
They chose, that is the Islanders, not Arg, not the UK, not you, not me, just them, they chose to remain a BOT. That was their choice and one that should be respected by all.
@Livingthedream
Nov 02nd, 2018 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You're assuming they would be recognised by the rest of the world. Somaliland declared independence in 1991, and is in practice a completely independent state, but not one other country has recognised it as such.
Take your colonists back, there can be no self determination on an implanted populace if the conflict is open. There is abundant proof of spanish occupation on these islands, and the Lexington incident proves argentina occupied thr islands far before england took them with cannons
Nov 03rd, 2018 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -5LukeDig
Nov 03rd, 2018 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +4If what you say was as accurate and evidence-based as you make it sound, the matter would have been before the ICJ years ago and world opinion at the court’s ruling would have forced us to vacate.
We’re not going anywhere and you and your government are too impotent to do anything whatsoever about it. a) Because you’re case is absolutely flawed; and b) because the Argentine Government couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.
;-)
Last I heard, LukeDig, Argentina is not Spain. Never was. In 1811, when Spain withdrew its garrison, it claimed one Island - Soledad. Not entirely surprising in the circumstances; Britain having become Spain's new best friend. Spain still claimed that island in 1833. If there was a usurpation in 1833 then it was of East Falkland, and it was Spain that was usurped. Spain hasn't protested in the last 185 years, so it seems unlikely that they'll do so now.
Nov 03rd, 2018 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Last I heard Roger Spain was not occupying the island in 1833, Argentina was...
Nov 04th, 2018 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse -7So it would stand thus...Argentina usurped Spain...Britain usurped Argentina...
...and low and behold that is the original nature of the complaint...
Argentina wasn’t occupying the Islands in 1833. They briefly occupied the Islands in 1982 and that was it. Too impotent to do anything about it and happier to just complain about it. Like a Scotchman complaining about Brexit.
Nov 04th, 2018 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse +4No such thing as a Scotchman...
Nov 04th, 2018 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse -5...and you really should take your head out the sand....it wasn't the British occupying those islands in 1833, it wasn't Spain either so who was it...?
Impotency...let me tell you about the Assyrian Empire or perhaps the Greek or Roman ones or maybe the decline of the British one, all Empires appear to have one thing in common...
Doomed I tell you ...Doomed...
Doomed to impotency...
You’re the one with your head in the sand...Scotchman. You actually think 1833 is relevant to anything.
Nov 04th, 2018 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +4It's relevant to Argentina...
Nov 04th, 2018 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse -5...and I'm sure you found it fairly relevant in 1982....
Britishman....
That's what the Falklands is isn't it...a South American island full of British people...
How did that happen...
It’s relevant to some in Argentina...
Nov 04th, 2018 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse +5...and I didn’t find it relevant in 1982...
Britishman...
That’s what Scotchland is isn’t it... a part of the U.K. full of British people...
How did that happen...
As to you question of how the Falklands become a South American Island full of British people. I imagine it happened in much the same way as other South American territories became countries full of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese people...
...with one big difference... my ancestors didn’t kill thousands of natives in order to make their home here.
Enough of you...you’re too boring... Scotchman
I’ve already wasted too much time playing with you. Now go away and moan to someone else... or I’ll get doveoverdover onto you... or Think.
A classic “my ancestors didn’t kill thousands of natives ”...
Nov 04th, 2018 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse -7you are British aren't you...?
You are right the British Empire never killed thousands of natives...they killed millions...
...and of enslaved about 3.1 million...and sold them...
You are right giving up Joe...whilst you are still behind....
Well, Scotchman, I reckon it's time you PROVED some of your gabble. But let's be clear. The Scotch were invaders. From Hibernia. Because the northern part of OUR island used to be called, by its own people, Alba. A name that the Scotch have stolen. Alba was inhabited by Caledonians and Picts. Where are they. In the 5th century AD, a tribe of Gaels (notice connections to “Gallic” and “Galicia”) known in Latin as “scothi”, meaning brigands and pirates, infiltrated Alba. And, one presumes, wiped out the original inhabitants. England hadn't yet formed one country. It was still smaller kingdoms fighting Scandinavian invaders. Until the 10th century. And then it faced a fait accompli in the north.
Nov 04th, 2018 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But now we know more. And the Scotch, a name that is grammatically accurate, demonstrate their worth regularly. Despite having been saved economically in the 18th century, by England, have they managed to attain economic self-sufficiency in more than 300 years? No. Still subsidised. And the vociferous part still lies as well. When they had a vote on “independence” in 2014, I researched their “claims”. Especially “claims” to be contributing more than anyone else to the UK Exchequer. Load of rubbish. Like their SNP “leaders”. They “claimed” gas and oil revenues that are actually paid by the international and UK companies that recover the resources under UK licences.
The Scotch haven't changed in fifteen centuries!
Conqueror
Nov 05th, 2018 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's great to see that you are still alive and kicking...
...and, of course, still expressing your love and admiration for the Scottish nation...
Thank you for your thoughts and evidence that the Kingdom of the Scots and Alba existed as one nation before England existed as one kingdom...
”Kenneth MacAlpin (Medieval Gaelic: Cináed mac Ailpin, Modern Gaelic: Coinneach mac Ailpein; 810 – 13 February 858), known in most modern regnal lists as Kenneth I, was a king of the Picts who, according to national myth, was the first king of Scots. He was thus later known by the posthumous nickname of An Ferbasach, “The Conqueror”. The dynasty that ruled Scotland for much of the medieval period claimed descent from him, and the current British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II is descended from him through Malcolm III, Robert the Bruce and James VI and I.
Yup even Lizzy herself...
@lukedig
Nov 06th, 2018 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1“there can be no self determination on an implanted populace if the conflict is open.”
Not according to the United Nations General Assembly who on 20/10/2008, rejected Argentina and Spain's motion that self determination was not universal.
“ There is abundant proof of Spanish occupation on these islands”
No, there is abundant proof of Spanish occupation only at Port Louis (Soledad) on one island , not 'islands'.
If the Spanish were on both islands, why did they not occupy Jasons Town?
“the Lexington incident proves argentina occupied thr islands far before england took them with cannons”
Great Britain (not England) expelled the illegitimate United Provinces military in 1833 with a polite letter, not with cannons. Pinedo went because over 50 British sailors working for him refused to fight.(I wonder why?). And some of the United Provinces soldiers were in chains on the British ship the Rapid because of their mutiny, killing of Mestivier and raping his wife a month earlier, that's why they didn't fight. So Britain only needed to write a polite letter to Pinedo to get the illegitimate squatters to leave.
Was the USS Lexington was around the islands in 1765, when Britain surveyed Port Egmont (i.e Fort George and Jasons Town?).
That was before the Spanish turned up.
Britain was on the Falklands first, indeed the first recorded landing was in 1690, by Britain near Port Howard.
Where was Argentina in 1690?
Or in 1765.
To parrot another poster, Argentina is not Spain.
Been away for a few days Voicey. Apologies for the late reply. In 1833 Buenos Aires was trespassing. Spain reasserted its claim in November of 1833.
Nov 07th, 2018 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Occupation was not required as East Falkland had been occupied for long enough to complete sovereignty and no-one occupied West Falkland.
Buenos Aires stated its claim to the whole archipelago in 1829. Got thrown off by the Yanks in December 1831. Went back October, 1832. Got thrown off again, January 1833.
They weren't there long enough to gain any title at all.
As I've said before - if there was an ICJ in 1833, Spain would have had its title to East Falkland recognised. The ONLY island it claimed.
I'm back ................... I hear the Chamber of Deputies has been talking about me. Nothing bad I hope :-)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!