MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina must not be deaf to Falkland Islanders' voice, says ex deputy foreign minister
When dealing with the Malvinas issue, and its people, Argentina must stick to its diplomatic milestones and not feel attracted to push or take advantage of the UK which seems bogged in Brexit, or further isolated by the recent trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union, argues Fernando Petrella, a deputy foreign minister with Guido Di Tella, ex-ambassador before the United Nations and currently head of the Argentine Foreign Service Institute. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI'm always amused by this approach, as the ones who most demonstrate deafness are the Islanders, not the Argenine. This dispute has always been so stifled, so long drawn out and ongoing precisely because it has always been to Falkland Islander's to be deaf to the Argentinian's voice. They act as if everything is owed to them, and that the war was only and entirely Argentina's fault, forgetting it was British actions in 1833, and its century long insolent disregard for Argentina's protests that led to that war.
Aug 09th, 2019 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse -4'...it was British actions in 1833, and its century long insolent disregard for Argentina's protests that led to that war'
Aug 09th, 2019 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was a lot of usurping going on back then. Even Argentina did some...
“... to believe that Brexit will weaken the British to the point that they could accept a claudicated scenario regarding the Malvinas, is to ignore how that country solved its colonial problems ....” It is only Argentina that has a problem with the Falklands.
Aug 09th, 2019 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Petrela ... that the milestone for Argentina is Resolution 2065/65, the all powerful tool, recognized by all countries including the UK.”
Aug 09th, 2019 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Resolution 2065/6 is legally, a mere advisement which carries no legal weight what so ever.
As both the UK and Argentina under the UN Charter are bound to accept the Islanders referendum. Therefor, there can be no negotiations, without their endorsement. Since, their self determination is Public international law; globally accepted standards of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens)” International law; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In other words binding.
No, Argentina does not “have a problem with” the Falklands. The Falklanders have a problem with Argentina, it is them who have created a problem for that country. There is no obligation for Argentina to be bound by the referendum. The referendum only means anything between the Islanders and Britain. Nice try!
Aug 09th, 2019 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The real thieves of the picture here are the Islanders themselves in fact, who use the cover of Britain's geopolitical and resource access desperately greedy ambitions to forge with their little hands a “sovereignty issue” that they can't actually own, disrespecting Argentina's historical claim to the islands which is older than their own arrival, since Britain is willing to lie in cahoots with them, and provide fake defense needs that they do not actually require, and are but a stage show to play the part of the victims. Argentina never had military intentions on the islands, save the lunacy of a desperate military occupation, possibly tricked into invading, that never represented the Republic nor the Congress or much less the People. This is why the Islanders are so insolent, because to be ethically honest and sensibly natural, would have to mean lifting the mask of deceit, and facing Argentina in a sincere conversation. A conversation they want to avoid at all costs. So it is them, not Argentina who ignores the rights and the voice of the other.
Bloodly lying British politicians!
Jesus Christ I have never heard so much drivel as spouted by Trimonde.
Aug 09th, 2019 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2” tricked into invading the FALKLANDS, you are a lunatic Sir.Why did the Argentines cheer in the streets of BA when the invasion started? I await your response with bated breath.
“There is no obligation for Argentina to be bound by the referendum.” You're absolutely wrong since the UN Charter is compellable International law. Argentina want may to avoid at all costs, but she has to lump it since there is nothing she can do about it.
Aug 09th, 2019 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, “the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.”
Still spouting nonsense Trimonde? Argentina was trespassing in 1833. Received two written warning before being ejected. A perfectly legal action.
Aug 09th, 2019 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentina is the problem. Argentina has always been the problem. A nation indoctrinated into believing that they lost huge swathes of territory to all their neighbours; the Falklands being just one small part. A nation with a chip on its shoulder. A nation deceiving itself. Does Tri-Monde stand for 3rd world? Argentina will always be 3rd world until it finds a way to grow up and grasp reality.
The Falklands have been British since 1765. Spain disputed this but eventually saluted the British flag in 1863.
Argentine was never in the game.
The ICJ has also stated that self-determination applies to 'populations' of non-self-governing territories so Trimonde's 'they are not a people' argument is dead in the water.
Aug 10th, 2019 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1In the Court’s view, it follows that the legal regime of non-self-governing territories, as set out in Chapter XI of the Charter, was based on the progressive development of their institutions so to lead the populations concerned to exercise their right to self-determination. (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 Feb 2019, para 147).
Ambassador Petrella has been in and around the UN long enough to understand there is no game in town other than self-determination. That is the only doctrine which respects fundamental human rights and democratic principles, and the only one that will be used to measure movements towards independence.
Aug 12th, 2019 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Commentators above are right to say that Islanders are deaf to Argentine drivel. We have heard so much of it for so many years it becomes just background noise.
I remain optimistic that the argument over sovereignty will one day slip away, but it will be a few years yet, when Argentines finally wake up to the fact that they have been royally misled about the facts of history in this region, and when they themselves become proper beneficiaries of imbedded democracy and democratic institutions. Then they will begin to understand and accept the principle of self-determination and the right to choose.
Roger Lorton sigue con las mentiras de siempre. En 1765 los franceses tenían prioridad. El infame Byron no cuenta. De hecho, los britànicos nunca tuvieron razòn de ser en esta parte del mundo. Esta inmundicia anglosajona sólo sigue demostrando en esencia su enemistad y plan de seguir disgregando los territorios hispánicos.
Aug 14th, 2019 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Las palabras de Mike Summers hay que tomarlas como de quien viene, un agente de la FIC, con sus intereses colonialistas.
The French left in 1767, leaving the English with 'priority' Serg. Spain only purchased a settlement, it didn't obtain a cession from France.
Aug 14th, 2019 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1In any case, Argentina is not Spain. Argentina was not a party to the Anglo-Spanish dispute. Inheritance is just another Malvinista myth. Revolutionaries emancipate themselves, they do not 'inherit'.
Go learn about trespass - https://www.academia.edu/38855220/Falklands_Wars_-_the_History_of_the_Falkland_Islands_Paper_6_-_1830_to_1833_Counter-claims
Ya cansás con tu cuento de siempre. Pensás que me vas a persuadir? Tengo que ¨aprender¨ de tus propios artículos? Fuente: vos mismo? Te pensás que uno no se cultiva sobre el tema? Jajaja. Los franceses se retiraron reconociendo la soberanìa española, a cambio de una indemnizaciòn por las instalaciones hechas. Y los británicos debieron hacer lo mismo, pero como son unos miserables pendencieros la hicieron larga, para finalmente violar la convención de Nootka. Los piratas se interesaron recièn en 1829? Tarde, Argentina ya estaba reconocida. No hay más que agregar Lorton. Ustedes están invadiendo territorio tradicionalmente hispánico (aunque hables de Strong y la mar en coche), no tienen razón de ser en estas latitudes y nunca van a estar en paz mientras permanezcan en el Atlántico sur o cualquier otra parte originalmente española. Vos sos un agente de los intereses de tu reino, enemigo de la hispanidad, y por lo tanto jamàs vamos a estar de acuerdo, a pesar de los visos de ¨legalidad¨ con que quieran disfrazar sus pretensiones y usurpaciones como hace tu amiguito Potts. Tema terminado.
Aug 14th, 2019 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sergio Aracri
Aug 14th, 2019 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“The French withdrew recognizing Spanish sovereignty, ... And the British had to do the same”
Hardly as they were not apart to the Bourbon Compact.
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” “The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
The French did not recognise Spanish sovereignty in the Falklands.
Aug 14th, 2019 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Bougainville represented the St. Malo Company when he negotiated compensation. He did not represent France. Choiseul knew that. A devious fella that Choiseul.
Not having recognised Spanish sovereignty, the French could then attempt to reassert a claim for an establishment during the Amiens peace negotiations of 1801. A claim made against Britain, not Spain.
As for the British, we suffered a defeat at Spanish hands in 1770 but then won the diplomatic argument that followed. Spain never again raised its flag over the western islands. England in the west, Spain in the east became the status quo.
Nootka? As with most of your kind you attempt to reinterpret that convention for your own purposes. The Falklands were not included in that agreement which is recognised as being the final nail in Spain's pretensions to all of the Americas.
Buenos Aires (not Argentina) attempted to impose itself in 1829 with the public decree of that year (any pretensions before that public was covert and irrelevant). A private business venture was of no consequence.
Britain gave BA two written warnings in 1829 & 1832. BA declined to listen and was legally ejected as a result.
Argentina was/is not Spain.
Latitudes? Who says we have no right there? We have as much right as you have to be in South America. Colonizers we both are. Argentina has no high moral ground to shout from.
Topic finished? Not until your ignorance is finished, which appears unlikely. Malvinistas never learn but let me be plain - Malvinistas can never win. 186 years of whinging and you have achieved nothing.
An inability to learn is one of those factors that defines you as a 3rd rate nation. You are on the verge of letting a Kirchner back into the Pink House. What other proof of your idiocy is required?
Sergio Aracri
Aug 15th, 2019 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The British had to do ... to finally violate the Nootka convention.
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
A little known element of the Nootka Sound convention was that it included a complaints procedure:
Aug 15th, 2019 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1Article 7: In all cases of complaint or infraction of the articles of the present convention, the
officers of either party, without permitting themselves previously to commit any violence or act of force, shall be bound to make an exact report of the affair, and of its circumstances, to their respective Courts, who will terminate such differences in an amicable manner.
There is no evidence that either side ever registered a complaint against the other under Art.7.
Abreviando, tras retirarse los británicos en 1774, los españoles en Malvinas destruyeron las instalaciones piratas, no flameó ninguna union jack y la supuesta placa de reticentes perdedores alegando una impropia soberanía fue llevada a Buenos Aires, robada por Beresford en 1806 y quién sabe cómo siguió. Fin de la cuestión tras el intento de Byron.
Aug 15th, 2019 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse -1Luego Nutka. Fin de cualquier pretensión pirata en los dominios americanos de España. Tras Trafalgar, alianza de España y los piratas contra Napoleón, mientras secretamente la pérfida Albión alienta la disgregación de Hispanomérica. Los piratas nunca reconocieron el principio español de dominio sobre los territorios descubiertos y por descubrir, ni el uti possidetis. Nosotros tampoco reconocemos ningún derecho británico. Si las cuestiones se dirimen por la fuerza, entonces el resultado está por llegar.
Las palabras de un viejo pelele farsante y engreído como Lorton me tienen sin cuidado. Es sólo representante de un reino decadente con una sociedad podrida llena de malas mañas (al menos moralmente, una sociedad del quinto mundo), con varios problemas sociales que bien le gusta ocultar al rancio escapista al lejano oriente, igual que lo hace con las vergüenzas y derrotas en la historia de su infame isla. Alegar idiotez (de la que no me hago eco, por no haber votado eso, ni aunque fuera el caso contrario) en base a los resultados de una elección (después de todo, Kirchner o Macri son funcionales a la vieja Windsor, así que Lorton carece de una perspectiva apropiada (más bien es un completo ignorante además de charlatán en lo que hace a la profunda realidad nacional, o en el mejor de los casos un maquillador u ocultador) de los tejes y manejes en las relaciones entre ambos países, incluso en los sucesos de 1982, muetrasn a las claras que es un bocón, un triste polizucho autor de un mamotreto tan frondoso como inexacto, bien tendencioso, y a medida de los verdaderos idiotas, sus leales seguidores.
Again you prove yourself no student of history.
Aug 15th, 2019 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1There was no burning in 1774. Indeed, it was 1776 before Spain gained the courage to stand before Fort George. Stealing a plaque was a petty offence of no consequence and Spain would wait until a time of war before burning the fort. Even then Spanish troops crept in like a thief in the night.
Nootka finished Spanish pretensions in the Americas. What Spain did not occupy, Spain did not own. Spain did not occupy the western islands. Spain versus England. Spain lost and England gained the whole. Argentine was ever irrelevant.
What you believe is also irrelevant. History speaks for itself.
You speak nonsense but then the world expects nothing else of an idiot Malvinista.
Sergio Aracri
Aug 15th, 2019 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Then Nutka End of any pirate claim in the American domains of Spain”
The only pirates in the South Atlantic were “There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description - it appears that at Buenos Ayres itself commissions of Artigas have been sold to the Captains of the Buenos Ayres privateers, who have gone to sea, and used one or the other commission as suited their purposes... There is not a day passes but we hear of new crimes of this description committed under the flag and commission of Buenos Ayres ...“
John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820
Notka violation by Argentina ”no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power gave the UK the the absolute legitimacy and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
As to any claims by Argentina, history has spoken.
As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832 “...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf
Lorton, dije tras 1774, no específicamente 1774 (pude haber dicho 1780, pero no fue el caso). El hecho sólo pone de manifiesto tu malicia para increparme suponiendo cierto desconocimiento. Ciertamente no voy a estudiar TU ¨historia¨ sabiendo de quien viene. Veo que te hiciste eco de mis observaciones y corregiste el horror sobre la segunda fundación de Buenos Aires (así que originalmente había sido en 1582 por un tal Diego Valdés? En buena hora enmendaste el error). Y qué pasó en 1588? Mejor aún, qué pasó entre 1589 y 1605 con la armada inglesa? Yo lo sé, pero y vos y tus fieles seguidores?
Aug 15th, 2019 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1En fin, cada maestrito con su librito. Lorton y Terence recurren a fuentes en inglés (y de seguro anglófilas). Es impensable imaginar a Lorton leyendo a Scalabrini Ortiz o a Julio González.
Terence, lo que pueda decir un tal Baylies me tiene sin cuidado (de un burro sólo pueden esperarse patadas), pero rescato algo: no puede esperarse nada bueno de un gobierno argentino sometido a intereses anglos (sean yankees o piratas).
No esperaba menos de la fauna que comenta en este pasquín del paraíso fiscal inventado en 1828 a instancias de Ponsonby.
El tema terminó 8 comentarios arriba. Una réplica provocará una respuesta repetida ad nauseam.
Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis. ;)
Sergio Aracri
Aug 15th, 2019 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.”
Was at best not applied until 1848, so it cannot be applied retroactively to its creation, as that is barred under international law. So you take comfort in your indoctrination, while I will rely on the rulings of international law
“Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis By Suzanne Lalonde
2.4.1 Absence of Uti Possidetis in Constitutions and Treaties
When in the first decades of the nineteenth century, the Spanish American Republics established themselves as newly independent States in territories of former Spanish America, they proclaimed the uti possidetis principal was the general rule to define their respective titles to territories and boundaries.30
Although it is often stated that the uti possidetis principal was proclaimed by the newly independent republics, in fact very few constitutions actually used the expression uti possidetis.31 Of forty-three constitutions examined from the period 1811 to 1850. only one mentioned the uti possidetis principle. With the exception of treaties to which Brazil was a party,35 no reference to the uti possidetis principle was found in any of the fifty treaties examined between the Spanish republics in the period from 1811 to 1850. It has also been stated that the uti possidetis of 1810 was proclaimed by the Congress at Lima in 1848,49 but the statement appears not to be altogether accurate.”
As I said Serg - there was no inheritance. A 20th century concept such as uti possidetis juris cannot be applied to the 18th. When all of Argentina's distortions of history are reduced to their base its only argument is that of inheritance. If uti was such a given, then Argentina would have gone to the League of Nations in 1920 or the ICJ in 1946. Argen5tina has no argument. The details of history prove that well enough. That you are blind to reality is your problem.
Aug 15th, 2019 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1My reading list up until the beginning of the year. There are a few to add when I get the chance including Arnaud and Munilla.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/bibliography.pdf
TheFalklands are British. Argentina was never in the game. End of lesson.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Aug 16th, 2019 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.
Aug 17th, 2019 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse -1Sergio Aracri
Aug 17th, 2019 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1”Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.”
This is the fourth time you've raised this thoroughly defeated contention, you're pathetic.
https://en.mercopress.com/2019/08/09/argentina-must-not-be-deaf-to-falkland-islanders-voice-says-ex-deputy-foreign-minister/comments#comment50325
Uti possidetis? A legal theory. Of no consequence to the Falkland Islands.
Aug 17th, 2019 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis. Terence Hill, tu madre.
Aug 17th, 2019 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Sergio Aracri
Aug 18th, 2019 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.”
This is the seventh time you've raised this thoroughly defeated contention, exactly in line with Argentine ethics of viveza criolla
https://en.mercopress.com/2019/08/09/argentina-must-not-be-deaf-to-falkland-islanders-voice-says-ex-deputy-foreign-minister/comments#comment503256
”Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Los Roosevelt eran basura andante. Terence Hill, tu madre.
Aug 18th, 2019 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.
Sergio Aracri
Aug 18th, 2019 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis.”
This is the eighth time you've raised this lie, exactly in line with Argentine ethics of viveza criolla
https://en.mercopress.com/2019/08/09/argentina-must-not-be-deaf-to-falkland-islanders-voice-says-ex-deputy-foreign-minister/comments#comment503256
”Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.“
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Trash, hardly since there were two presidents from the family. Yeah that is why he was elected three times. It also shows why Argentina are apposed to 'free will'
”Their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.
What Fazio and colleagues actually found, is THAT THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE ON WHETHER A STATEMENT WAS JUDGED TO BE TRUE WAS... WHETHER IT ACTUALLY WAS TRUE. THE REPETITION EFFECT COULDN’T MASK THE TRUTH. WITH OR WITHOUT REPETITION, PEOPLE WERE STILL MORE LIKELY TO BELIEVE THE ACTUAL FACTS AS OPPOSED TO THE LIES.
Tom Stafford’s ebook on when and how rational argument can change minds is out now.
https://en.mercopress.com/2019/08/09/argentina-must-not-be-deaf-to-falkland-islanders-voice-says-ex-deputy-foreign-minister/comments#comment503256
Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis. Los británicos son el enemigo.
Aug 18th, 2019 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -3https://vdocuments.mx/los-protocolos-de-la-corona-britanica.html?fbclid=IwAR0vFdV4hCY1tSl8RKEkXkZuH8lhtMtZkgUn3yXwPPbgT7zvqoSOYkKTm3k
Sergio Aracri
Aug 18th, 2019 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Uti possidetis.” You'd be able to show where they ever signed on to such an agreement if true.
This is the tenth time you've raised this same lie. ”The British are the enemy.” Well that's tough titty 'cause
theres nothing do about it.
Historically you signed a peace treaty but of course you reneged like any anything else you promise.he Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Plus Ultra. Uti possidetis. Los británicos son el enemigo.
Aug 18th, 2019 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2https://vdocuments.mx/los-protocolos-de-la-corona-britanica.html?fbclid=IwAR0vFdV4hCY1tSl8RKEkXkZuH8lhtMtZkgUn3yXwPPbgT7zvqoSOYkKTm3k
Dream your dreams Sergio.
Aug 18th, 2019 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If uti possidetis was of any use, Argentina would have taken a case to the League of Nations in 1920 or the ICJ after 1946. Uti is just another Argie wet dream.
A fantasy.
Sergio Aracri
Aug 18th, 2019 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah but in spite of your thirteenth lie, it favours the British not Argentina idiota.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it
..Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!