MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Filmus scheduled to discuss the Malvinas Question with C24 delegates and UN Secretary cabinet chief
Argentina will reaffirm its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty rights over the South Atlantic Islands and its maritime spaces during a meeting on Thursday in New York with members of the United Nations Special Decolonization Committee, or C24, reads a release from the foreign and worship ministry. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI think I can smell the islanders' fear. The C24 being such an efficient decolonizer and sovereignty-aportioner.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse +3Of course, it could be the scent of Argie bullcrap.
MeTHINKs we are hitting a nerve ;-)
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse -3How so, Think? C24 doesn't make resolutions and at the last four opportunities Argentina had to “discuss” sovereignty with the UK, they backed out.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse +3Mr. FitzRoy...
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1Could you please be so kind and help this frIal & forgetfull Patagonian remembering those...: ***“ Four opportunities Argentina had to “discuss” Malvinas sovereignty with the UK ”*** and we backed out...
Thanks in advance...
El Think...
Here is a quote from the UN working paper on the Falklands for 2019. It has been repeated year after year for nearly two decades.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse +4“In its resolution 58/316, the General Assembly decided that the item entitled ”Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” would remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. As at the date of the issuance of the present working paper, no such notification by a Member State to the Assembly had been received.”
[UN Doc A.AC.109/2019/6. Although dated February 26, 2019 a footnote states that it was “reissued for technical reasons on 22 March 2019.” Resolution 58/316 entitled Further measures for the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly dates from 2004]
No such notification has been received.
In other words, NO member of the UN, including Argentina, has asked for the General Assembly to consider the Falklands question.
Why not Think? The subject is automatically on the provisional agenda every year. All it takes is one member to flag it up for discussion. So why has Argentina not flagged it up?
Easy to find - last paragraph.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/un-falkland-islands-working-paper-2019-n1905669.pdf
Nerve Think? Funny bone, perhaps ;-)
Juppppp..., meTHINKs we have hit a nerve..., alright... ;-)
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2Dream on Think. Filmus is unlikely to be any more effective than he was the last time. But then, we'll have plenty to laugh about. Macri was rather boring ;-)
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse +4Why does anyone care? This happens every year.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +4Yada, yada, yada...
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Juppppp..., meTHINKs we have hit a looong nerve..., all the way to troubled Oztralia... ;-)
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse -3Just another waste of time and money......
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +2...... and Texas... :-)))
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse -1Fiddlemouse can talk and discuss till he looses his squeak. The Committee each year receives and invite o its Chair to make a fact-finding visi to the islands- each year it is ignored and not even answered!
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Yet they did at least one visit to Argentina and the Chair them made some pretty biased public comments.
Like most UN Committees the C24 has less value that the poorest quality“papel higenico”
and believe me that stuff is unsafe to use on your nether regions when visiting Arg.
The only reason FI attends is it would look bad and impolite if we did not.
How are you Heisenberg? Safe from the fires?
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Why does Think [sic] mention Texas ?
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Has Mexico found some legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty rights to Texas ? (They'd be worth rather more than RGland's claim to the Falklands.)
Jupppppp..., definitively a nerve...
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=joPn65pLnI0
;-)
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1nPd7hezM
The fact that in forums such as this one we also hear the typical British insolent pedantic Argentina bashing we hear wherever an Englishman or American take to the keyboard about the South Atlantic territorial conflict with Argentina, rather than honor and respect the fact that Argentina solely pursues use of diplomatic means created by the Britain and America themselves, is indeed insightful in revealing that such overwhelming lack of respect speaks of not just the true world controlling purpose behind the creation of the United Nations and all lies pertinent, but of the true nature of Britain's relationship to Argentina starting with its attempt to take over Buenos Aires in 1806, and its interventionism leading to the May Revolution of 1810, the backstabbing of 1833 on Malvinas, the Parana basin territorial invasion of 1845 of our own business prerogatives with our sibling nations, and all the usurping monopolizing antics of its economic invasiveness during the following century.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Fact is Britain was not settling the islands they called Falklands. Argentina was, and had been the locally administrating seat of its Malvinas Islands since 1776. Britain only decided to make up its mind and usurp the now defensless islands because it saw that the only good reason standing in between it and an uncontested taking of the islands in some distant future was Argentina's eminent and rightful settlement of them. That IS what made Britain attack and later bring settlers.
I wish someone could just answer this question for me.
... Middle East colonization, genocides everywhere from India to Australia, to Africa, Palestine expulsion, Argentine backstabbing and territorial usurpation, world economic exploitation and manipulation of the resources of others to this very day. .
.. WHAT THE HELL HAS THE WORLD EVER DONE TO YOU???
... Don't you get you just need to get out, and let the world live in peace?
@ Trimonde: Correct my understanding of history, but there wasn't an “Argentina” in 1776. Of course, I might be wrong, I had presumed that Argentina sued for independence from Spain in 1816, as the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. Please outline the manner in which Argentina was, apparently, administering the Falkland Islands in 1776.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I repeat my previous request to Mr. FitzRoy...
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Could you please be so kind and help this frail & forgetful Patagonian remembering those...: ***“ Four opportunities Argentina had to “discuss” Malvinas sovereignty with the UK ”*** and we Argies backed out...
Thanks in advance...
El Think...
It's very simple FitzRoy ... A people decide on the political form the territory whose sovereignty they behold by their will, they are the ones who create new movements of change and will produce the name that territory will bare with or without reason, or if they will wish to continue being the integral part of an Empire. In America we teach our kids our history starts with the arrival of the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock. It was the hearts and passions of people born in Spain mostly who conceived the idea of an independent territory not. Today people in England refer to their country as the U.K. but do they not describe the history of their county even starting before Scotland joined the British unity? ... The Malvinas are barely a self sustainable land, they are characterized by the dependence on the continent. No doubt they would have been settled by the Spanish or English much earlier and more profusely had it been otherwise, they were by necessity attached to Buenos Aires and Montevideo, this being one of the reasons Britain always played both cards and continued to be two faced with Argentina, who it played a mutual game deceit with about their relative intentions. Puerto Luis was an Argentinian outpost, and it was attacked and run over by the American Silas Duncan first, and then immedialty usurped illegally by the British navy. There was no British official anything, settlement residents of otherwise on the islands. Britain bully grabbed them from the defenseless Argentinian tacking advantage of the fact they were exhausted from their wars of independence. End of story. There are no “reservation cards” for having right to land on this world. And Britain knows it though it continues to use its military and financial power to project invasively its plans onto other parts of the world.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -4AND, you haven't answered by question yet.
WHAT HAS THE WORLD EVER DONE TO BRITAIN AND THE U.S. FOR THEM TO BE ATTACKING IT AND SEQUESTERING ITS FREEDOM THEY WAY THEY DO?
Trimonde - Nowhere within the 2 long rants can I see any form of logic for the Falkland islands becoming a colony of Argentina.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +3As one of the “people in England” I am struggling somewhat with the statement about “people in England....”. What does this mean? In fact what does all of this rant mean? Please explain.
I'm fine DT. Thanks for asking. I'm a safe distance from any fires that might threaten my neighbourhood. Touch wood:).
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tri-patrick
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In England we start learning history with the Roman invasion 2000 years ago. That was way before England or Scotland existed as countries. Then it skips to the Norman conquest. Dunno what we did to the Romans or Normans, either.
HC
Glad to hear it. From the news it sounds like the whole country is on fire simultaneously, it's hard to imagine how things got that bad.
3rdWorld Betts.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You do ramble with some nonsense. Spain administered one small garrison in a bay on the far eastern side of the archipelago from 1767 to 1811. Spain did not administer all the islands. The Nootka Convention of 1790 confirmed that Spain could not claim large tracts of land based upon a single settlement or garrison. At best, Spain could claim, as it it did in 1811, the single island of Soledad. Nothing More.
Argentina is not Spain.
Argentina's attempts at administration began in 1829 when the Lavalle government announced BA's pretensions. The Yanks threw Vernet's settlers off in December, 1831 and Britain ejected the trespassing garrison in January, 1833. That short period is insufficient for effective occupation or administration.
Argentina is not Spain.
There is little doubt in my mind that Britain usurped Spain on the island of Soledad in 1833, but then Spain did not complain. Indeed, Spain recognised British sovereignty in 1863.
Argentina was never in the game.
You really need to do something about that chip on your shoulder. Makes you look a little mad.
RMN
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The Malvinas Islands were never a “colony” of Argentina. There was no need for that. Argentina started forming in 1810 by incorporating the territories it won from Spain. So politically the Islands were a transference of administration that as far as Spain or Argentina are concerned never did not involve Buenos Aires's administration, because Buenos Aires WAS Spain until 1810, and more officially by 1816. This is the accurate description of history that Britain rather avoid, and instead attempts to make it sound as if Argentina emerged out of rabbit's hat “somehow” in 1816. Because the truth is London does what it can to avoid revisionism before the world about its history with Argentina, and South America in general and as it does with nearly all history that involves it cuts and edits for the world's benefit to make narratives believable, yet nontheless self enhancing self justifying and always of course self virtuous, including when it deems calling on its own errors. For Britain's writers of political history, it's all about de-worthing and subtracting the value of foreign perspectives and truths, and painting a narrative of Britain always having to deal with situations that came out of meaninglessness are are thrusted onto it, when usually it was the other way around.
And Roger,
It's interesting to watch how you turn your language and versions with time, and see how you always like to use the “British handbook to the world” over any human truths. But the truth is that the Malvinas every time they had settlement activity had consistently by necessity always to do with Buenos Aires and involved people who lived in the Southern cone, many of who would be part of the new nation of Argentina. There is more settlement history physically tying the Islands to Argentina than to Britain. That is a fact, yet one always has to remind you that it is people... human beings, whose worth gives bases to rules and laws we later try to use senselessly to disprove another.
Buenos Aires declared for King Ferdinand in 1810. Hardly an act of independence. It did, however, reject the Spanish junta, which led to the seat of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata moving to Montevideo where it remained until 1814. An entity calling itself the United Provinces declared independence in 1816 but could not be said to have achieved it before 1823 by which time it had broken up into warring factions. Reformed in 1826. Broke up in 1828. Reformed as the Confederation in 1831 but then remained at war with itself until the 1860s when it finally became a country. During the whole of the period 1816 to 1860, there was no single central government that had effective control over the territories that it claimed. No effective control means that there was no State in international law. THAT is the accurate description of history.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3And 3rdWorld Betts
The truth is that Spain maintained a small garrison site, not a settlement, in Berkely Sound from 1767 to 1811. That garrison was administered by the Viceroyalty in Montevideo from 1810 to 1814. After 1826, the German's settlers came from all over Europe and, according to Britain's recent statements to the UN, were there with British consent. Until 1829 when Vernet got above himself. The attempts by Buenos Aires, acting without rights according to your own Senate in 1882, to found a settlement in the Falklands after 1829 were ineffective. There's that word again. Ineffective. When there is no effective occupation, there is no sovereignty.
BA was trespassing in 1833. They were rightly ejected.
By 1810 The Islands were considered part of the new country, whatever birthing pains the La Plata Vice-royalty was going through. It seems your logic is devoid of any concept towards the ordering events and written definitions in the hierarchy given to them by living human value. Many of the deemed facts you mention are contestable of questionable validity as natural human sovereign as well as the sensibleness of morality right precedes the law, and any political form that is lead by the same people, as it is a natural human right to do with effective or non effective settlement, when Argentina started breaking away from Spain, included Malvinas and Spain never contested that. Which is the only thing that should matter to Britain, instead of believing it has the right to be so emboldened in describing the significance of our own history
Jan 24th, 2020 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -3International law? in 1810? LOL
Sigh...you can debate the legal and 'moral' issues until you're blue in the face, but the only country that demonstrated a willingness to make the FI's a viable place to live were the British. Argentina has yet to demonstrate it can effectively govern it's own territory. You don't deserve the Falkland Islands Trimonde.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0DT: It happens every year. This is just that much worse, mostly due to the particular meteorological conditions, arsonists & fuel build up. Inevitably the reasons why have become politicised. Hopefully the prospective Royal Commission will result in meaningful solutions.
Honestly I think what has upset most people - both here & internationally was the horrific toll on the wildlife. There have been fires in the past when the loss of human life was far greater than this summer.
Your country bases “rights” on power, in particular fire power. Being a murderer and a thief gives you no right to land in this world sir. You have it the other way around.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse -5Argentina was still Spanish in 1810 and Spain, the following year, claimed only one island - Soledad. Now, the UP did not consider the islands as theirs in 1818, otherwise they would have told the US Commissioners. The dis-UP did not consider the Islands as theirs in 1824, otherwise they would have told Woodbine Parish. Spain apparently told the USA in 1833 that it still claimed the islands. You are, as usual, light on facts.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse +3After that, you just spout the usual rambling nonsense. Reality is clearly something you have little connection with.
And, before you talk about thievery and murder, perhaps you should give back the land you stole from the Patagonians while inflicting genocide?
a) A gross over-simplification, which, even if true, equally applies to your nation - and every other nation...in history.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse +3b) “...murderer and a thief...” Really? That's your argument? The British removal of the Argentine garrison was entirely appropriate, and based on the evidence of the last 200 years, necessary, given the complete incompetence of both your ancestors and contemporaries when it comes to managing your responsibilities.
Your claim is rooted in resentment, self-pity and nationalism. There are many Argentinian's I respect and admire, but you are, collectively, a nation of moral pygmy's - unworthy of lecturing anyone else about their shortcomings.
Woooow..., Mr. Heisenbergcomplex...
Jan 24th, 2020 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse -3***“ A Nation of moral pygmy's - unworthy of....” you say...?
I Think..., your last couple of comments clearly show who is the moral pigmy here...
You Anglos haven't really change a bit..., since that tuberculose syphilitic racist Cook..., huhhh...?
C- trolling Think. You used to be slicker than that. Nice avatar though...
Jan 24th, 2020 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse +3“By 1810 The Islands were considered part of the new country”
Jan 24th, 2020 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse +3Which new country?
You don't seem to know your own country's history, same as you freely demonstrate your lack of knowledge of international law, when you write “International law? in 1810? LOL”
Henry Wheaton discussed in 1836 previous and contemporary Elements of international law:
https://ia800907.us.archive.org/11/items/elementsinterna03wheagoog/elementsinterna03wheagoog.pdf try page 54.
“The truth is that Spain maintained a small garrison site, not a settlement, in Berkely Sound from 1767 to 1811.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You do ramble with some nonsense. Spain administered one small garrison in a bay on the far eastern side of the archipelago from 1767 to 1811. Spain did not administer all the islands. The Nootka Convention of 1790 confirmed that Spain could not claim large tracts of land based upon a single settlement or garrison. At best, Spain could claim, as it it did in 1811, the single island of Soledad. Nothing More.”
It is incredible in these debates the British contradictions, they try to cover all the holes to support their arguments but they do not succeed.
It is funny to read that the Spanish settlement was small and did not occupy all the islands, but an orchard of potatoes is valid or of greater value to usurp the islands in 1833. Incredible.
Sorry..., Mr. Heisenbergcomplex...
Jan 24th, 2020 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You argument sounded just sooo white Australian...
Heard it more than once when discussing abos with them...
And they weren't “trolling”...ya know...
If Trimonde had paid attention in his history lessons he'd have learned the US got most of its land by stealing it from Indians and another big chunk from Mexico after beating them in a war. Firepower is exactly what gave people rights to land for the majority of history.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1HC
By politicised d'you mean the whole selling coal to China thing? We've been having weird weather too on the opposite side of the world, but just floods, nothing nearly so deadly. I hope the wildlife is able to recover as well as the people affected. Does the government ever do controlled burns to reduce the amount of fuel building up?
Demon Tree. Do you actually believe that mankind must configure and design its civilization to the rule of the strongest? Eat or be eaten? ... So can you explain to me why then we have invested so many daily tons of effort towards developing higher human principals and values in the pursuit of a world without war which has learned to live in congeniality, togetherness and oneness? Why have we produced so many religions throughout the ages with the scope of placing a single notion of deity above us? Why do we condemn homicide theft and physical abuse? Or are you saying some of us should have the right to kill while others not? ... and if so, who decides who must have that power, and who not?
Jan 24th, 2020 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Trimonde
Jan 24th, 2020 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I assume we developed higher principles etc out of idealism and because we don't want to live in that kind of world. But you seem to believe there is something unnatural about how things worked for most of history - it's trying to resolve things peacefully and caring about people's rights that is the anomaly, and something we're still working on. Trouble is if one country uses force then so do others end up having to, or get walked all over.
Chose 'one', Demon Tree.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Trimonde writes: “Do you actually believe that mankind must configure and design its civilization to the rule of the strongest?”
Jan 24th, 2020 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Crimea, anyone?
How did Argentina come into possession of the provinces Chaco, Formosa, Misiones and all of Patagonia south of Bahia Blanca and the row of fortines?
Use of force against Paraguay and against the indigenous people.
How did Argentina come into possession of Argentina?
Use of force against Spain.
How can descendants of Europeans be in power in South America, or Australia?
How did most states change from a conglomerate of small states to become *one* state?
- and so on and so fort, and so on and so fort, and so on and so fort, again and again.
Before you discuss power politics, Argentine history and international law, do study the subjects.
Think: 'Heisenbergcomplex' is pretty funny, otherwise...a D. Your slipping old feller.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT: By politicisation I refer to the ideological didacticism that assumes, on the one hand, that the fires are exclusively due to climate change, and on the other that arson & fuel load build are the true culprit, when, actually these are all factors. And yes, all of our state govts, along with shire councils & property owners are obliged to do controlled burns, however this time many were not given authorisation in time - this is also a politicised issue alas.
Aborigines knew perfectly well the dangers & how to deal with them for tens of thousands of years. I think some greater consultation is in order.
Trimonde
Jan 24th, 2020 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1One what??
HC
Right. The only political thing I've seen is Australians complaining their government won't talk about climate change because they make so much money selling fossil fuels.
Do they usually do controlled burns when the weather is less pyrogenic? I should think there's a big risk of them becoming uncontrolled right now...
MoreCrap. The Soledad establishment was a small garrison site. Fact. The Soledad garrison rarely ventured outside Berkeley Sound. Fact. They couldn't. Much of the time they had no ship.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The gardens on Saunders Island are not the foundation of Britain's sovereignty. Spain's inability, even unwillingness, to challenge British sovereignty over the western islands is. You keep forgetting, MoreCrap, that in 1811, Spain claimed ONE island.
Argentina is not Spain. Argentina got nothing.
DC: It's like everything else. The govt. will compromise as much as it can while still allowing mining and exporting coal. There have been several carbon pollution reduction/emissions trading schemes proposed, failed and enacted in the last decade.
Jan 25th, 2020 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, you don't engage controlled burns in summer, but even in cooler weather it's still a fire and can easily get out of control. Much of the country has been subject to an extended drought, it was drier than usual in the months a proposed 'prescribed' burn would normally be conducted and deemed too risky. Catch 22...
Mr. Heisenbergcomplex...
Jan 25th, 2020 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1A lousy “D”..., huhhhhhhhhhhh...?
Well..., Heisenberg always was a demanding professor....
Wonder how he would have graded an XXX performance excused by a “just trolling” utterance...
“When there is no effective occupation, there is no sovereignty”
Jan 27th, 2020 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So: when was there effective British occupation?
The answer is simple there was never effective British occupation.
“There is little doubt in my mind that Britain usurped Spain on the island of Soledad in 1833, but then Spain did not complain.”
In these years it is perhaps the third time I read you saying that Britain usurped Soledad Island to Spain.
You are wrong in the concept, but you are recognizing Argentine sovereignty over the islands.
“Indeed, Spain recognised British sovereignty in 1863.”
Spain never recognized British sovereignty over the islands, the courtesy greeting from the captain of a ship means nothing.
There was an effective British occupation of West Falkland island between 1766 and 1774. There was no challenge to Britain's title after 1774, until 1829 when Buenos Aires thought it could act as if it were Spain. Buenos Aires was warned in 1829 and 1832. BA's trespassing garrison was legally ejected in 1833.
Jan 27th, 2020 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain had effective occupation of Soledad Island from 1767 till 1811, when it withdrew the garrison but confirmed it's title to that single island. Spain's title to Soledad was still good in 1833, when Britain raised its own flag.
Since 1833, Britain has had effective occupation of the whole archipelago.
Spain recognised British sovereignty when it sent an Admiral to salute the flag. He was not obliged to salute the flag, courtesy only extends to flying the flag of the port on entry. Pinzon insisted on saluting the Union Flag. Very different.
Argentina has no sovereignty to recognise. Spain did not complain in 1833.
There was a clandestine occupation in 1766. Effective no, because it was clandestine, not approved by the British parliament, on a smaller islet, with the islands occupied by Spain and immediately protested.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All that without mentioning the British diplomatic defeat and its withdrawal in 1774.
The effective occupation of the entire archipelago corresponds to Spain for occupying the main island according to international law.
Spain did not recognize British sovereignty, the Spanish ship was traveling on a scientific mission and due to technical problems, it came to the islands. The courtesy greeting of a captain does not imply the recognition of sovereignty of the Spanish state.
There was a clandestine occupation in 1764. Bougainville's was as secret as Byron's in 1765. All such operations were secret. There was, it was hoped, money to be made. McBride's occupation in 1766 was not secret. It was in the journals. It was effective and it was ordered by the same British Government that had sent Byron.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was Spain that suffered the diplomatic defeat in 1771, not Britain. The withdrawal of the British garrison did not affect British sovereignty because Spain never, after 1771, re-erected its marks & signs of sovereignty. That is why Spain claimed just the one island in 1811.
Spain did recognise British sovereignty in 1863 and no, Pinzon's was not a scientific mission. He was a full Admiral with diplomatic papers. The scientific part was a cover. No scientific paper ever came out of it. Pinzon did go on to nearly start a war in Peru. His real mission was to check on the old Spanish colonies to discover whether there were any Spaniards who still held allegiance to the Court of Madrid. It was only after Pinzon visited Buenos Aires that a new treaty was signed. You need to read more, MoreCrap.
I read, but I don't do the same as you, misrepresent the facts.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You extract small paragraphs taking them out of the general context.
You read Caillet Bois' book and extracted a small paragraph from there, but why don't you tell everyone here what conclusion the book comes to?
Conclusions are often wrong, whereas the simple facts speak for themselves. I have no need to misrepresent them. That is what argentine historians tend to do.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain claimed only one island in 1811. Spain was usurped by Britain over that one island in 1833. Facts, MoreCrap. Not interpretations from the likes of Caillet-Bois.
“and no, Pinzon's was not a scientific mission. He was a full Admiral with diplomatic papers.”
Jan 29th, 2020 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse -1So they don't misrepresent the story?
Could you tell this forgetful patagonian if Pascoe & Pepper mention a scientific mission of Pinzón?
P&P? They have not produced anything in years. I can ask, if you like?
Jan 29th, 2020 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you try here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/1853-to-1899.pdf
Try page 36.
You need to read more, MoreCrap. There's been quite a lot more in the last decade.
Could tell this forgetful Patagonian, who is the author of the timeline?
Jan 29th, 2020 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If you do not read it, you will never learn. But then, you do not want to learn. The Timeline is far more extensive that anything published by P&P. They use it too. As for Pinzon, here's a quote from the Timeline.
Jan 29th, 2020 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“... the O'Donnell government, in Isabella's name, sent a “scientific expedition” to South American waters. It was to be one of the least productive – though expensive – expeditions in the annals of scientific endeavour. Its research results are undetectable. Probably only the scientists themselves were unconscious of the true intent of their sponsors... The confidential instructions given to Pinzon made clear a concealed objective: the pursuit
of the financial and legal claims of Spanish citizens still living on the continent.” [The Bombardment of Paradise: March 31, 1866: why the Spanish attacked Valparaiso and the British and American Fleet merely watched David J. Woods 2011]
The Timeline employs many sources, both primary and secondary.
You, do not read enough. Go learn.
You did not answer who is the author of the timeline.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0P&P say it was a scientific and diplomatic expedition.
You say it was not a scientific expedition.
However, his quote says it was a scientific expedition.
There is not even a match between you.
That happens because they don't agree on the lie.
Pinzón's expedition was scientific, he came to Stanley by chance for technical repairs.
The courtesy greeting of a ship's captain does not imply the recognition of a State's sovereignty.
Pinzón's visit is irrelevant and demonstrates British despair to justify the dispossession of Argentina.
You must read more and above all do not misrepresent the facts.
For the islanders who want to know the truth I leave the following link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9byenf96IzoJ:www.cervantesvirtual.com/descargaPdf/breve-descripcion-de-los-viajes-hechos-en-america-por-la-comision-cientifica-enviada-por-el-gobierno-de-sm-durante-los-anos-1862-a-1866-acompanada-de-dos-mapas-y-de-la-enumeracion-de-las-colecciones-que-forman-la-exposicion-publica-2/+&cd=1&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=ar
You know who the compiler of the Timeline is. It's writ large on the first page.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0P&P say? When did they say? It was a diplomatic mission disguised as a scientific mission.
There is no lie to disagree on.
Pinzon's mission was entirely diplomatic, as the quote I gave you shows.No science was ever reported.
The diplomatic mission of an Admiral can be taken as recognition by the State he represents.
Pinzon's recognition is irrelevant. It made no difference to the situation that he found. The status quo was unaffected.
The Islanders already know where to find the truth - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
The author of the timeline is Roger Lorton?
Jan 30th, 2020 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you a historical scientific researcher? The diplomatic mission is not mentioned at all in the link I provided above.
Where are the evidences, where is the Spanish recognition document?
I am a qualified researcher, yes.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The link you provided? Of course not. Did you not read my quote. I'll repeat the relevant bit.
“Probably only the scientists themselves were unconscious of the true intent of their sponsors..” Your report was written by an unknowing scientist, 3 years later.
Almagro does not mention Pinzon much, now does he. The papers? In the Spanish archive perhaps. They have not been published. What we know came from a report that the Governor sent to London in which he stated that Pinzon 'insisted' on saluting the flag. That's a gun salute by the way. A Spanish Vice-Admiral, insisting on firing a salute to the British flag in an old Spanish territory.
Recognition indeed.
There's a better copy of Almagro here - http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/breve-descripcion-de-los-viajes-hechos-en-america-por-la-comision-cientifica-enviada-por-el-gobierno-de-sm-durante-los-anos-1862-a-1866-acompanada-de-dos-mapas-y-de-la-enumeracion-de-las-colecciones-que-forman-la-exposicion-publica/html/c2885b34-2277-4535-a43c-70226e24ed3a_7.html#I_0_
You must be a pretty bad investigator. I can't find references that mention you.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The title mentions a Scientific Commission. The work too.
There is no mention of the diplomatic mission.
Of course the task is to describe the trip made and not the life of Pinzón.
You have not provided documents that test what you say.
Facts Mr. Lorton, facts.
Try typing my name into Google ;-)
Jan 30th, 2020 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The work? It is by one of the scientists used as camouflage. Pinzon's mission is recognised as having been both secret and diplomatic. He nearly started a war. You should read more.
Facts? Pinzon, a Spanish Vice-Admiral, insisted on firing a gun salute to the British flag at Stanley in 1863. 30 years after the British had taken control of Soledad. No coincidence. Recognition indeed. Fact. MoreCrap. Fact.
You are really hilarious, the work is from one of the scientists who accompanied the expedition.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is the diplomatic document of Spanish recognition of sovereignty?
Cite the authors, books, where are the proofs of Spanish recognition.
If you can only mention a few gunshots, the Spanish recognition of sovereignty only lives in your feverish mind.
You are easily conned. The Scientists did very little, as is apparent from your report. Pinzon, on the other hand, did a great deal.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Recognition by a Spanish Vice-Admiral is recognition indeed. His alternative was to protest. He did not. A few gunshots? LOL. It's called a salute.
Go read more, MoreCrap.
You have absolutely nothing Roger.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A researcher is supported by historical documents, books, authors.
You have nothing to endorse what he says.
Pure words thrown into the wind.
You can continue with your fairy tale.
For the islanders who wish to know the truth, Roger left a better link:
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/breve-descripcion-de-los-viajes-hechos-en-america-por-la-comision-cientifica-enviada-por-el-gobierno-de-sm-durante-los-anos-1862-a-1866-acompanada-de-dos-mapas-y-de-la-enumeracion-de-las-colecciones-que-forman-la-exposicion-publica/html/c2885b34-2277-4535-a43c-70226e24ed3a_7.html#I_0_
That's just one scientists letter. He had nothing to do with the diplomatic mission. You need to read more.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“... the O'Donnell government, in Isabella's name, sent a “scientific expedition” to South American waters.
It was to be one of the least productive – though expensive – expeditions in the annals of scientific endeavour. Its research results are undetectable. Probably only the scientists themselves were unconscious of the true intent of their sponsors...
The confidential instructions given to Pinzon made clear a concealed objective: the pursuit of the financial and legal claims of Spanish citizens still living on the continent.”
[The Bombardment of Paradise: March 31, 1866: why the Spanish attacked Valparaiso and the British and American Fleet merely watched David J. Woods 2011]
A diplomatic mission during which the Spanish Vice-Admiral saluted the British flag. Recognition indeed.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!