MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, January 26th 2021 - 19:11 UTC



Argentina, a bi-continental territory, South Atlantic and Antarctica; this year marks the 200th anniversary of its flag in the Falklands

Monday, January 6th 2020 - 09:50 UTC
Full article 34 comments

The administration of Argentine president Alberto Fernandez will implement an integral policy towards the Malvinas Islands, Antarctica and the South Atlantic because it wants to emphasize the maritime projection of Argentina and the fact that it is a bi-continental territory. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Swede

    Norway also has an Antarctic claim. But they do not call themselves a “bicontinental country”. Why is Argentina so special?

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    You've gotta love them complaining about Britain having far-flung territories and then boasting about being a bi-continental country.

    France might be the country that straddles the most continents. French Guiana, Mayotte, New Caledonia etc are an 'integral part of France', and they have an Antarctic claim too.

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    Perhaps they have found the instructions from Rodriguez? He took power as Governor in the Province of Buenos Aires 6 months the privateer Jewett had sailed from the Rio de la Plata. Perhaps he sent a text?

    That said, Argentine historian Caillet-Bois considered Rodriguez to be the common element, suggesting that he had advised Pacheco about the cattle on East Falkland as early as 1820. Strange that the UP had not mentioned their pretensions to the US Commissioners in 1818. If the UP/BA had designs on the Falklands, strange that they told the Commissioners that their southern boundary was at latitude 37 degrees south. But then, they said much the same to Woodbine Parish in 1825.

    Interesting, but not particularly relevant for the question of sovereignty. Jewett's 'act of possession' in 1820, preceded the claim by Buenos Aires (not Argentina) in 1829. Wrong way around.

    Most importantly, Jewett's action was not adopted by the government of the United Provinces. Not announced in the official Gazette. Not formally made public. A necessary prerequisite to any pretence of ownership. But then the UP had broken up in April, 1820, so there was no country to adopt the act.

    And then of course, when Jewett sailed away, he left nothing behind. No flags or other marks & signs of possession. A minor, and little strange, footnote in history.

    Not effective possession, so therefore of no great relevance.

    Still, them Argies do like their straws ;-)

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Felipe Ordóñez de Rivera

    All rather pathetic. With poverty rampant in Argentina, with the economy in tatters thanks to the profligate and irresponsible policies of the “other” Fernandez during her presidency, the new Fernandez can only turn to beating the old and discredited drum of fallacious Argentine “sovereignty” over the Falkland Islands. It is the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses, to keep the attention of the economically downtrodden populace anywhere but on their plight, one induced but the discredited policies of Peronism.

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    Sr. Felipe Ordóñez de Rivera

    All rather pathetic..., indeed... With Drug War rampant in Mexico, with a death toll of ~500,000 and some 50,000 “desaparecidos” thanks to the inastiable Yankee appetite for Snow..., you..., me dear Mexican Neoliberal Cuate ..., have the Chuzpah to tell us Argies to let them Anglos steal our territories as they did with me dear poor old Mejico... tán lejitos de Diós..., tán cercita de los Estados...?

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Steal our territories” by refusing to reply to to two diplomatic protests is a clear admission that their claim is valid, and thus yours is false.

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Don Alberto

    Anyone who claims that Jewett claimed the British Falkland Islands on behalf of The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, must provide a a credible explanation of why Jewett did not mention this in his official report, which can be read in photos of the original here:

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Islander1

    Would make an interesting law case- what right does a foreign military officer have to raise another nation,s flag in a territory and claim it for them??
    And as Alberto says- had he raised a flag and made a formal claim- he would indeed have recorded it in his Log. So we can reasonable assume - he did not - as no evidence.

    Amusing that the new ranty Governor of TDF is all so worked up and foaming at the mouth about the dates- He needs to read his history- his state/province - did not even come into existence for another 40 years or so after 1833!!! Not a European living on TDF then- and it was settlers from the Falklands who helped found Ushuaia as well!!
    Just normal delusion.

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Chicureo

    A news item in the New York Times...

    Jan 06th, 2020 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Malvinense 1833

    It is interesting that all acts of sovereignty carried out by Argentina are intensely questioned.
    But all the strength of the British argument is based on marks, signs and signals.
    Still, them British do like their straws.-

    Jan 07th, 2020 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Don Alberto

    Malvinense 1833

    You aquire 12,200 km2 (4,700 sq mi) land for the government you serve.

    Do you mention it in your report to same government or do you not mention it in your report?

    Jan 07th, 2020 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap. Britain does not base its sovereignty on any 'act of possession' by Byron, but on the occupation in 1766 of West Falkland; Spanish challenges defeated and continuous sovereignty of that island from 1771.

    As regards the Spanish Island of Soledad, Britain's occupation commenced in 1833, following Argentina's ineffective attempts to occupy it. Spain never challenged British sovereignty of Soledad after 1833 and saluted the British flag at Stanley in 1863.

    Argentina was never in the game.

    Jan 07th, 2020 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Just saw this strange piece of news from Argentina:

    Who the heck thought letting a man convicted of violence against women change legal gender on request and be moved to a women's prison was a good idea?

    Jan 08th, 2020 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    1766? In his own words, it is not an effective occupation either.
    1771? No effective occupation.
    Ineffective attempts of Argentina?
    They threatened to open fire on an Argentine warship, evicted its population and lowered the Argentine flag.
    Please Roger, you should drop your face of shame.

    Jan 08th, 2020 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    Sorry I never heard of any country succeeding with a sovereignty claim simply by whining and lying.
    Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
    “The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory”
    “..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..”
    Why don't you try for a judicial resolution, oops I forgot that route is closed too.
    “Extinctive prescription continues to be of importance in interstate disputes where the tribunal in question is applying public international law to resolve the dispute.”

    Jan 08th, 2020 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Don Alberto

    Malvinense 1833

    Why do you avoid answering the question:

    You aquire 12,200 km2 (4,700 sq mi) land for the government you serve.

    Do you mention it in your report to same government or do you not mention it in your report?

    Jan 08th, 2020 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap. Clearly you are confused. The 1766 occupation was effective because Spain's challenges were defeated. Spain removed its marks & signs of possession and retreated to Soledad. Where it stayed after 1771. After 1790, Spain could only claim a 30 mile radius around their Berkeley Sound Garrison.

    Buenos Aires (not Argentina) was trespassing in 1833. Two written warnings given. Ignored. The police action by Onlsow could hardly have come as a surprise. As Gore said.

    You need to read more.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Well, at least someone recognizes that the Argentine territory was conquered.
    The challenges of Spain were defeated with the British withdrawal, leaving behind an orchard and with Spain occupying the islands. What a strange defeat!
    Buenos Aires is Argentina.
    Buenos Aires represented the other provinces.
    Argentina did not need any authorization, carried out administrative acts since 1810 without British protests because there was nothing to protest.
    You must read more.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Recognizes that the Argentine territory was conquered” Not at all, it is just one of half-dozen legal tenets that are carved in stone, that have forever disqualified Argentine pretensions. Since Argentina cannot show anywhere under international law where she would have a valid claim, versus the UK's enumerable recognised claims. As she can rely on Utrecht and Nootka as legally barring any and all Argentine claims.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap, don't you know about the events of 1770? The diplomatic war? The defeat of Spain? You will find a blow-by-blow account here -

    Buenos Aires is Argentina? Not according to the Argentine Senate in 1882. Said that BA was acting outside its powers in making grants to Pacheco and Vernet in the 1820s. But then, there wasn't an Argentina in the 1820s was there? Just a succession of internal struggles for power.

    Buenos Aires represented the other provinces? Only for the negotiation with Britain in 1824. A short term agreement. BA had no power beyond that, although it tried to claim one. You can hardly 'represent' provinces that you are at war with.

    Argentina did not exist in 1810. Argentine as the UP only claimed independence in 1816. Argentina, as the Confederation and then the Republic, only attained Statehood in 1863. Neither BA nor the UP carried out administrative acts in the islands. None. They did trespass after 1829.

    I read everything. Do try to do better, MoreCrap ;-)

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Pugol-H

    Whatever “interpretation/spin” you put on the events of 1770/71 and the subsequent treaty, it proves beyond doubt that the British disputed/rejected Spain’s claim to the Islands, long before Argentina ever existed in any form.

    Where Argentina claims to have “inherited” the territory from Spain, it is clear that at most they inherited a Dispute.

    200 years ago someone raised a flag, which was not even Argentinian, we first raised a flag there in 1690.

    Argentina is not in it, largely because it did not exist at the time these things happened and the issue was decided.

    As for being a “bi-continental territory”, dream on.

    Jan 09th, 2020 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    All points were answered by Professor Kohen.
    I see that it continues with the same fantasies of Pascoe and Pepper.
    However, the strongest argument they found to justify usurpation is an orchard.
    No older maps to the Spanish.
    No effective occupation older than French, Spanish or Argentine.
    Why don't you try to find something in the British archives?
    It will not because there is nothing at all.

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “All points were answered by Professor Kohen.”
    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 FIG. 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.

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Don Alberto

    Malvinense 1833

    Now that you have reached the toddler level of arguments: All British claims were proven by Pascoe and Pepper.

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton


    Kohen & Rodriguez were caught out photo-shopping their supposed evidence. K&R are refuted by the facts. They are something of a joke. Kohen knows too little and reinterprets too much.

    What Spanish maps? The Spanish were great cartographers in the 16th and (early) 17th centuries, although most of their experts were Portuguese born. After that, they were not good. Now, if you think that I have missed any maps, please let me know.

    Effective occupation has to be viewed over a period of time. In Britain's case, 1766 to 1774 (West Falkland) and 1833 to now over the whole archipelago. Getting kicked off and being kept off is no indication of 'effective'.

    The British archives are stuffed with documents, charts, books and, it has to be acknowledged, dust. What were you looking for MoreCrap?

    Jan 13th, 2020 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    A lot of dust, a lot of dust but nothing is found.
    No British government in the existing time of dispute dared to make the claims you make.
    Obviously you doesn't read everything, read more about Argentine history. Argentina exists even before being Argentina.
    Read Professor Kohen's book.
    Byron came to the islands clandestinely. Why should I do it clandestinely if the islands belonged to His Majesty?

    Jan 14th, 2020 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    Kohen's book is a crock.
    “No British government ...dared to make the claims you make.”
    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

    Jan 14th, 2020 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    What the British government has said? How would you know. You do not do any research. You should read the letters from Lyall Grant, the UK Ambassador to the UN, when he countered Argentina's ridiculous claims at that organisation. They are in the Timeline.

    Argentina existed before Argentina? Now you are rambling. The name is actually Portuguese in origin and may predate the settlement at Buenos Aires. But the country that now claims that name, did not exist in any form before 1816 and more likely 1860. I read a lot about Argentine history. Only yesterday I was reading a work by Carla Louis (2012) on how Argentina has developed its mapping after 1862 to show an amazing increase in the claimed size. I read a lot. You should try it.

    Kohen's book is a farce. Photo-shopped documents and long disproven claims. Still bangs on about the non-existent secret promise of 1771. Disproven in 1834. Kohen put his name to it, which was a mistake. Kohen did not write it. That was Rodriguez. Who knows far too little.

    Bougainville also went to the islands clandestinely. Nobody shouted out their intentions. Why would they. They hoped that there was money to be made. McBride's occupation was no secret. Talking of secrets, even now there is no record of the 1771 convention to be found in Spain. Letters referring to the negotiation, certainly, but not the document, nor anything about the hand-over. Face had been lost, so it was all hidden. Spain had lost.

    Argentina is losing still.

    Go learn MoreCrap.

    Jan 14th, 2020 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Secret promise or not, the British withdrew.
    The British victory only exists in their fantasies, I do not see a victory when the islands are left, an orchard is left, a permanent Spanish population and then Argentina without protests.
    “Argentina does not exist.”
    I do not understand then how the greatest power of the time signed treaties in 1823 and 1825 with a non-existent state.
    In addition, the British made no mention of the islands when recognizing Argentina as an independent state, they did not have to, because the islands did not belong to them.
    Bougainville also arrived clandestinely, Spain protested immediately and had to surrender its establishment.
    Mc Bride arrived clandestinely, kept his establishment hidden until the Spaniards found them.
    The diplomatic defeat forced the British years later to withdraw.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “British made no mention of the islands when recognising Argentina” They're was no requirement since Spain had acquiesced to British demands or be at a state of war.
    While Argentina was barred from any claim under the provisions of Utrecht, and Nootka.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hello Terence:
    You are talking about Nootka, I mention the recognition of a non-existent state according to Roger-, while Argentina carried out activities in the islands without British protests.
    So why didn't they mention Nootka?

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Argentina carried out activities in the islands without British protests” Until they found out, and sent two diplomatic protests which were ignored resulting legally in the acceptance of Briton's claims.
    “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
    A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
    “So why didn't they mention Nootka?” They didn't need too, they told you to get lost and you did.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Don Alberto

    Malvinense 1833 writes: ““Argentina does not exist.”
    I do not understand then how the greatest power of the time signed treaties in 1823 and 1825 with a non-existent state.”

    There seems to be a lot you don't understand.

    You don't understand the significance of: if you acquire the Falkland Islands, 12,200 km2 (4,700 sq mi) land, for the government you serve, and you don't mention it in your report to same government, means that you did not acquire the Falkland Islands.

    You don't understand that the treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation was between Great Britain and The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, as can be seen here in pring

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap. Withdrawing the garrison is not 'abandonment'. We left a large notice to say we would be back. There was a small Spanish garrison in Berkeley Sound. They did not go much further, except for an occasional trip to see whether the British had returned. The Spanish only had effective control over that small area. They did not control the whole archipelago. By the way, have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain?

    In 1825, Britain did not recognise the legality of Argentina. As the Australian jurist James Crawford explained - “Canning's distinction between de jure and diplomatic recognition and his application of it to the Spanish-American colonies are significant. … this recognition 'of right' reflected the then influential principle of legitimacy.” De facto existence, not de jure. As Canning told Spain (too long for here).

    There was no need to mention the Falklands in 1825. It was the UP that was claiming to be a new State. Not Britain. Britain did recognise the Argentine Confederation in 1850. Article 5 of that treaty ;-)

    France did give up its settlement in 1767, but without recognising Spanish rights. Spain was an ally, and France did not see the profit in arguing over a few barren islands. France did claim again, of course, in 1801. They claimed against Britain. They were refused.

    McBride did not arrive clandestinely. He found the French, who then knew where Port Egmont was. Strangely, they did not tell Spain. Spain lost the argument of 1770. A huge loss of face, unreported to its people. Spain was defeated. Not the British who withdrew simply because we had problems in North America. Spain always knew that we would be back. They were quite right.

    In 1829 and 1832, Buenos Aires was trespassing MoreCrap. Two written warnings give. Both ignored. Arrogant of BA. Stupid too.

    Nootka was another defeat for Spain. A dramatic defeat. After Nootka, all Europe knew that unoccupied land farther than 10 leagues from a settlement was up for grabs.

    Jan 15th, 2020 - 10:20 pm - 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!