MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 7th 2023 - 21:46 UTC



Reedition of Kirchner's aggressive policy towards Falklands announced by Alberto Fernandez

Monday, March 2nd 2020 - 12:24 UTC
Full article 60 comments

The Kirchnerite government headed by president Alberto Fernandez announced on Sunday, at the opening of the 138th congressional session, the new focus of the Malvinas Islands/Antarctica policy which will emphasize the sovereignty claim over the South Atlantic Islands, particularly the Falklands, and sanction those fishing companies operating in the area. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    Argentina will never be a true democracy until it recognises the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    And so, to summarize:
    1) Another Committee
    2) A map
    3) More unenforceable laws.

    Yup, that should do it.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    Brit Bob, he stole her house, usurped her, I stay with her.
    When you claim the return I tell you that it belongs to me.
    Over time you claim again and I tell you that the house belongs to my children and grandchildren and that if they wish they will return it.
    They will cease to be a colonialist and imperialist country when the islands are returned to the country they belong to.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina, MoreCrap. That is proven.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Malvinense 1833

    I thought you were bored.
    The islands belong to Argentina. That is proven.
    Only your imaginary timeline says otherwise.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    You bore me with your repetitive nonsense. If Argentina's claims could in any way be proven, your country would have gone to the League of Nations in 1920 or the ICJ in 1946.

    Argentina, simply has no claim.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    The country that always dodged from the beginning to find a solution with vague excuses was the United Kingdom, to this day.
    “We have no doubt of our sovereignty” They repeat like a mantra.
    But they do not explain the reasons for their lack of doubt.
    They cannot end the Argentine claim because they have nothing to silence the argentine claim.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “They do not explain the reasons” Oh yes they do it's just you viveza criolla infected liars won't admit the truth.
    “Arana Southern did not imply waiver of sovereignty” It is an absolute waiver of an Argentine claim to the Islands.
    There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the 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:
    § 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.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Don Alberto

    Terence, it dates even further back to 1836 “Elements of international law” by Henry Wheaton and in Spanish, as used in just about every Spanish speaking university: Henry Wheaton: “Elementos del derecho internacional”, Volume 2 (1855)

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob


    Lot of usurping going on in the 19th century. Even Argentina usurped a piece of Paraguay.

    PS How can the Falklands 'be returned' to Argentina when she never had 'uncontested settlement of some years' ?

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hello Terence: The United Kingdom never invoked the Arana - Southern Treaty to justify and end the Argentine claim, that's a big lie.

    Brit Bob: Argentina had border conflicts with Paraguay, even lost territories with arbitrations.
    Argentina has no conflicts with Paraguay.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Brit Bob


    Ask a Paraguayan

    PS A sovereignty claim without a case can only be described as worthless.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • pgerman

    Have you seen the “scene” that CFK did to Alberto Fernandez minutes before the presidential address? Nice to see the face of embarrassment that Alberto fernandez put. And Sergio Massa, another “Argentine macho”, by his own words, fearfully kept himself at a distance ...

    It looks like when my wife challenges me in front of my friends ....

    ha ha ha ha I can't stop laughing? Who governs Argentina?

    I post the link so the islanders can enjoy it:

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “The United Kingdom never invoked the Arana - Southern Treaty” and I never claimed they did. It was you who stated “Arana Southern did not imply waiver of (Argentine)sovereignty”
    But, regardless they have never claimed it was not applicable. Like I have said, there are at leat six tenets of international law that totally support the UK's sovereignty, and not one facet supports an Argentine claim, so on your bike.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Swede

    Argentina did not control the southern part of its present internationally recognized territory until the 1880-ies.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Jack Bauer

    Malvinense 2020

    “The islands belong to Argentina. That is proven.”

    Looking at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, the FI belong to those in whose possession they are......That is fact.

    “They cannot end the Argentine claim because they have nothing to silence the argentine claim”.

    You're right, the UK doesn't have the power to STOP Argentina from CLAIMING.....only your shiite government does, by ending the stupid indoctrination of Argie kids in school. But until then, reckon it's always, and only, going to be a problem for the irrational fanatics.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “They cannot end the Argentine claim because they have nothing to silence the argentine claim.” But international law does, when Argentina acquiesced twice. First, when she failed to respond to two British diplomatic protests. Secondly, when she failed to bring the issue before the court, in a timely manner.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Terence: Again. The United Kingdom in the face of constant Argentine claims may claim that Argentina renounced its sovereignty with the Arana - Southern treaty.
    The UK never did it because that is a lie. It is a false argument of the crazy mind of P&P.
    Swede: Previously the lie of the Laztina maps that mentioned P&P was ended.
    The map you provide clearly lacks an important date 1820.
    Argentina was in possession of the islands.
    Jack Bauer:
    Argentina never said that the islands do not belong to the islanders. The islanders may have documents, passports, Argentines. They can receive education and health in the continent.
    Argentina says that the islanders cannot decide in the conflict because they arrived after the usurpation of the United Kingdom and after expelling the Argentine inhabitants who were there.

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Once again, you make nonsense claims MoreCrap. The crazy mind of P&P? Really?

    “Rosas (sought) to buy with the Falkland Islands, which were already in the hands of England, the abstention of the Englishmen in the matter of the Rio de la Plata… 8º: (No escrita). Inglaterra se quedaba con las islas Malvinas…” [Rosas y Thiers: La diplomacia europea en el Río de la Plata (1838-1850) Carlos Pereyra 1919 pp.202-206]

    “... a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight?” [Deputy Absalon Rojas, speaking in the Argentine Congress on July 19, 1950 quoted in Cuando Rosas quiso ser inglés
    Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín 1974]

    “For Rosas the Falkland Islands were… a frozen asset in the game of diplomacy, nothing more.” [Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century H. S. Fern 1960 p.232]

    “Rosas signed the treaty of friendship with Queen Victoria. There it says: “Under this convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored”. In no article or detail of the document is there any proviso for the restitution of the islands iniquitously usurped.” [Historia de las Islas Malvinas Juan José Cresto 2011, President of Argentina's Academy of History]

    “The treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulation 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 conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question.” [Elements of International Law: with a sketch of the history of the science Henry Wheaton 1836]

    P&P are, if anything, jonny-cum-latelys.

    Nothing happened in 1820. If Argentina had made a claim in 1820, then Buenos Aires would have listed it among its claims when it told Woodbine Parish in 1824. No?

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “The UK never did it because that is a lie.” Hmm your unsupported personal opinion; or these expert persons of law publications who all interpret a peace treaty, in the manner I have shown.
    Henry Wheaton, Ll.D
    H. W. Halleck
    James Madison Cutt
    John Westlake
    T. J. Lawrence, M.A., Ll.D.
    George Grafton Wilson, Ph.D., Ll.D
    L. Oppenheim, M.A., Ll.D
    John Mchugo
    Adam Boleslaw
    Robert Yewdall Jennings
    Sharon Korman
    Hans Kelsen
    Rosalyn Higgins
    James Francis Gravelle
    Daniel K, Gibran
    D.W. Greig

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Guillote

    The law of gravity is a lie because gravity is not seen. Especially if you are Gorgory and you live in Thailand. A place where rights are not respected. You do not need to see gravity ,drop an apple and you will see that gravity exists.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    What are you talking about Gullible? Compared to the land of viveza criolla, North Korea is a better respecter of rights. Gravity can be proven, as can Britain's sovereignty. Argentina, on the other hand, dares not present its evidence to a tribunal for fear of getting laughed out of court.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • IWantYouOut!

    Now you are in trouble suckers. UK is falling apart. First Scotland will leave your ass and then Northen Ireland will follow. And I woundt be surprized if Whales give you the finger too.
    Europe dispise you suckers. You are back to the little country you were before 1700s.
    Lube it up suckers. We are coming !! ahahahahaha !!

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Guillote

    gorgory I mean your defense of rights from Thailand, you know what rights are for you and for all Thais, and what I want to explain to you and clearly you don't understand from Thailand, is that the dispute exists is not difficult to understand, unless you're a Thai gorgory brexiter

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    You are clearly confused Gullible. I am not Thai. I just over-winter in Thailand. Brexiteer? We left already.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Guillote

    I didn't say you were Thai, gorgory, I say you're a Thai brexiter and that says your twitter or you deny you're brexiter

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    ??? Something may be getting lost in translation Gullible. Which bit of 'we left already' do you fail to grasp?

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    Many quotes but you do not answer why the United Kingdom does not use the Arana - Southern treaty as evidence to end the Argentine claim.
    Rosas tried to redeem the islands for the debt with the Baring Brothers Bank.
    If he tried this, it was because he considered the Argentine islands.
    His cite says it: it was a frozen asset.
    Parish? Argentina had no claim, Argentina was in possession of the islands. The one who made no claim was Parish.
    You quote Caillet Bois and say nothing about the final conclusion of the book.
    You quote Gill Munilla and you don't quote the final conclusion of the book.
    You says that Spain claimed only one island.
    But you don't say anything about Clayton's plaque: Falkland Ysland. (Gill Munilla)
    England claimed only one island. Trinidad Island (Saunders)
    Should I continue explaining everything? ;-)))

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • pgerman

    Inflation does not yield, there is more economic recession, unemployment increases, the country does not honor its debts, social pressure is increasing, disappointment is very great, the new government is losing popularity in an amazing way .... nothing better than going back to the Malvinas issue to get some popularity !!!

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap - the UK mentioned the Southern-Arana Treaty in a letter to the UN in 2010 (August 2).

    “The Government of Argentina has not continuously protested against United Kingdom
    sovereignty over the Falkland Islands since 1833. In 1850 the United Kingdom and Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement, which settled ”the existing differences“ between Argentina and the United Kingdom and ”perfect friendship“ was restored. Argentina made no formal diplomatic protests over the Falkland Islands for 38 years after the 1850 Convention of Settlement.” [ UN Document A/64/887]

    Again on January 27, 2012.

    “ British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765, some years before the Republic of Argentina even existed. .. In May 1850, the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom ratified the Convention for settlement of existing differences and the re-establishment of friendship. In the 90 years following ratification of the 1850 Convention, the Republic of Argentina only submitted one official diplomatic protest, in 1888.” [UN Document A/66/677]

    Argentina was not in possession of the islands in 1824. The Nunez letter proves this as the UP did not claim the Falklands.

    Clayton's plate claimed one island - Falklands Island (West Falkland or Gran Malouina) as stated in the 1771 convention. Saunders Island was called Saunders island, not Falklands Island.

    ”Be it known to all Nations, That Falkland's Island with this Fort, the Storehouses, Wharfs Harbours, Bays and Creeks thereunto belonging, are the sole Right and Property of his Most Sacred Majesty George the third, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. In Witness whereof this Plate is set up and his Britanick Majesty's Colours left flying as a mark of possession by S. W. Clayton, commanding officer at Falkland's Island. 1774 A.D. [FO 78/1/7]

    You'll find a Spanish map here -

    Wrong as usual ;-)

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    “Something may be getting lost in translation”

    It's probably the part where you're a Brexiteer who lives in Thailand. :)

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “why the United Kingdom does not use the Arana - Southern treaty”
    They don't have to, two diplomatic protests and the removal of some trespassers, was the only legal requirement.
    I'm sure on the advice of legal council they are simply holding all the other chestnuts in abeyance. Simply reserving their defence, and holding their cards close to their chest.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    It is interesting that approximately 160 years after the signing of the Convention, the United Kingdom has invoked this demonstrating a total lack of seriousness.
    This appeared approximately at the time when P&P wrote their pamphlet that only ridicules the United Kingdom.
    It was refuted in detail by Representative John William Cook in the following terms:

    “Dr. Rojas’ interpretation can be countered as follows:
    1° Article 1, in referring to “differences” being resolved, reads that they are “those that have interrupted political and commercial relations between both countries”. The Malvinas/Falklands conflict had not provoked this effect.
    2° In the preamble, Her Britannic Majesty declares to have “no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate”. No reference can be seen regarding the Falklands/Malvinas.
    3° Evidence of what has been stated in the previous points – that the treaty refers solely to the resolution of issues created by armed interventions, blockades, war situations, etc. is Article 6, where it emerges that the Argentine Government considered the acceptance of its ally, President Oribe, an indispensable condition.
    If the interpretation is made that without an express reservation of Argentine rights over the Malvinas Islands, the position previously held is repudiated and English rights are tacitly accepted, considering the “difference” existing in the conflict ended, the absurd result would be reached that both the renunciation of Argentine rights as well as the strengthening of the English rights – which would result from the treaty – would be subject to the acceptance of president Oribe, because said acceptance is for the Argentine Government (Article 6) an “indispensable condition in any arrangement of the existing differences.”
    Can it be maintained that he has been granted this role of arbitrator, even tacitly?Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Jack Bauer

    Malvinense 2020:
    “Argentina never said that the islands do not belong to the islanders”.

    But Argentina says the FI are their's....what's the difference ??

    “The islanders may have documents, passports, Argentines. They can receive education and health in the continent.”

    Oh, “may have documents” ? Yes, British passports....which means they don't need any other.
    So the islanders don't have access to health services and to education ? where did that bs come from ?

    “Argentina says that the islanders cannot decide in the conflict because they arrived after the usurpation of the United Kingdom and after expelling the Argentine inhabitants who were there”

    'Argentina says'....sure, and the moon is made of green cheese....what else does Argentina say ?
    And exactly which Argentine inhabitants lived there? ....prior to 1833

    Argentina is pissing against the wind.....get used to it.

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    4° Using the same argument of reduction to the absurd, whoever interprets that there has been an omission in not including a reservation of the rights over the Malvinas, should also consider an omission exists in respect of all navigable rivers of the Argentine Confederation, because in Article 4, Her Britannic Majesty only recognises the navigation of the rivers Parana and Uruguay as internal, without mentioning the rivers Negro, Colorado, Napostá, etc. And I will not mention further arguments.(...)”35.

    No interpretation on the basis of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or of interpretation in good faith of the text in its context, taking into consideration its object and purpose, can assert that Argentina renounced its claim through the Arana-Southern Treaty. The preparatory works also do not support this statement36. The issue of the Falklands/Malvinas simply did not enter into the negotiations, and therefore it is not included in their outcome.
    Credits Kohen- Rodríguez

    Jack Bauer 24: The islanders can obtain dual citizenship if they wish, just by proving that they were born on the islands without renouncing their British citizenship, they can access health and education.
    I ask him: exactly what British inhabitants were there before 1833?
    Why then consider the Argentine inhabitants established there legitimately intruders?

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT. No doubt that Gullible has a strange fascination with irrelevant details.

    MoreCrap. John William Cooke being an Argentine Peronist lawyer who died in 1968 and whose quote can be found in the fantasy work of two other Argentine lawyers? Which is where you got it. Do you own more than one book? Fascinating that Cooke should be trying to refute a claim that, according to you, only came from Pascoe & Pepper in 2008.
    Did Cooke tell fortunes too?

    Somehow I think that a letter from one nation to the United Nations rather outranks an obscure left-wing lawyer's assessment but that is hardly the point. Once again, your assertions have been proven to be wrong. The UK Government HAS used the 1850 treaty to show that Argentina ceased its claim.

    Your ability to be wrong so often takes some real ability, methinks. You are actually good at it.

    Did you like the chart, by the way. Makes me laugh. But then you actually need to have done some research to understand why it makes me laugh. So you will have no idea.

    For the record, I do not quote Gill Munilla. I quote Pena y Pena who cite del Carril who cites Gil Munilla in confirming that the Spanish claimed one island in 1811. I repeat:

    “Del Carril quotes Spanish scholar Gil Munilla who pointed out that the plates left by Lieutenant Clayton at port Egmont and by Guillen at Soledad referred to “the Falkland island” and to “this island” respectively, both in singular, and therefore the reservation of dominion would apply only to West Falkland (Gran Malvina) in the first case and to East Falkland (Isla Soledad) in the second.” [Peña & Peña 2018]

    It's your inability to grasp such details that make you look a little daft here, MoreCrap. And it is your repetitive nonsense that I find so boring. In that Kohen & Rodroguez cannot help you. Their book contains the same nonsense.

    I suggest that you go learn. You could buy another book. Or try here (full of detail) ;-)

    Mar 03rd, 2020 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “The Second Tyranny
    Documentation Authors And Accomplices Of The Irregularities Committed During The Second Tyranny
    john William Cooke
    Argentine politician, one of the leading figures as Member of the Peronist dictatorship and so-called ”leftist Peronist.
    Now the opinion of a member of the dictatorship. “If the interpretation is made that without an express reservation of Argentine rights over the Malvinas Islands” versus ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, wrote:As to the question of sovereignty she stated earlier “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80”
    80. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hey Roger, I really think that age is affecting you.
    I am simply going to tell you that the one who is not in the small details is you.
    John William Cook refutes with those points Dr. Absalón Rojas who is cited by P&P, which in turn is mentioned by you in an entry above.
    In turn, John William Cook's allegation is useful in responding to the British Government, which quotes P&P which in turn is cited by Roger Lorton.
    Capisce? ;-))

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    John William Cook states emphatically “If the interpretation is made that without an express reservation of Argentine rights over the Malvinas Islands” In other words it doesn't matter what legal or historical truths are presented. The outcome must be predetermined in Argentinas favor. Don't be ridiculous, you resorted to to force of arms twice. You don't get to demand to renegotiate, what you have already rejected three times.
    ”There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
    Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    Malvinense 2020

    “The islanders can obtain dual citizenship if they wish, just by proving that they were born on the islands without renouncing their British citizenship, they can access health and education”.

    That's all very nice....and who in the FI needs either of them ?

    “I ask him: exactly what British inhabitants were there before 1833?
    Why then consider the Argentine inhabitants established there legitimately intruders?”

    Well, considering that first “registered” landing on the islands occurred in 1690, by Capt John Strong - before that other Europeans had come and gone - who claimed them for England and named them after Lord Falkland, is more than the Argies ever did.
    At the end of 1832, Argentina, whose independence was not yet recognized by Spain, sent a few dozen soldiers and colonizers to 'occupy' the islands - so technically Argentina invaded Spanish territory - who were then 'invited' to leave in Jan 1833 when Capt Onslow arrived.

    Even if you are one of those who believe that the Falkland's existence, as a territory, only started in 1832 - when Argentina 'invaded' the islands - you have to concede that the Brits, by taking them (back) in 1833, made them British territory.

    To keep on crying over spilled milk, and invade them again in 1982, and lose, should end all of Argentina's silly claims. Two-hundred years ago, wasn't military force was a valid way to obtain territory ? (as the Argies attempted and failed to do, in 1832 ?)
    For example, even later, in the Paraguayan war (1864-70), started by Solano Lopez, Paraguay was soundly defeated and lost roughly 1/3 of its territory, annexed by Brazil, AND Argentina....shouldn't Argentina give it back ?
    It's useless to argue Argentina's claim, reason why your government is loath to go the ICJ.

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton


    For balance, I have added a quote by Cooke (with an e if we are talking about detail) to the Timeline. One politician facing off another is of no great consequence mind. That the Uk chose to use 1850 in its responses of 2010, 2012 and 2013 makes the point that you were wrong.

    I have no great issue with 1850. After all, the abandonment of a spurious claim makes it no less spurious. And Dr. Absalón Rojas is not the only quote.

    You should read more.

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    John William Cook says: If it is interpreted and accepted that without an express reservation of Argentine rights over the Falkland Islands, Argentina lost its rights, then it is absurd that the loss of its rights is subject to the President of Uruguay, Oribe.
    In the same way, it is absurd that the British strengthening is subject to the President of Uruguay.

    Jack Bauer 24: I didn't say they needed it. I said they could access those services if they wanted to.
    Before Strong, the Spanish had already landed there, and the islands were already on their maps.
    In any case it is symbolic, it does not grant rights.
    Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820, not in 1832. and not only the islands but the entire Spanish colonial territory. Spanish recognition was not necessary, in fact it was consolidating its entire territory without Spanish recognition. In turn, the United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence with the islands in its possession.
    Argentina had a few soldiers and settlers. Never mind. It is a concrete manifestation of the exercise of sovereignty.
    You also enter into a contradiction: If Argentina “invaded” Spanish territory then why would Captain Onslow “invite” the inhabitants to leave if they are in a Spanish territory and not English?
    Technically it is possible that it was an ”invasion because it was a civil war in one of the Spanish provinces (Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata)You say a few settlers and soldiers downplaying it. The United Kingdom had neither a few settlers nor a few soldiers.
    Solano López? Even assuming what he says is true, Argentina has no conflict or claim from Paraguay.

    Roger Lorton: The fact that the United Kingdom uses the Treaty of 1850, in 2010, 2012 and 2013 demonstrates that its government is poorly advised by following P&P guidelines casually after its ridiculous pamphlet in 2008. You must read more and stop lying. ;-)))))

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “The fact that the United Kingdom uses ....that its government is poorly advised.” In your unqualified opinion.
    What else can you say when the UK is sitting with a royal flush their hand. It certainly disproves Argentina's lame claim of an inheritance, when international law of nineteenth century is unreservedly on their opponents side. Which is all that matters.

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap, you believe that the British Foreign Office follow P&P ? Wow, they will be impressed.

    Before Strong, the Spanish had NOT landed on the Islands. They were not featured on charts before 1600 and, according to Bougainville, Spain had no idea of where the Islands were.

    Argentina did not exist in 1820, and so could not take possession of any islands. No central government. No country at all. Privateers without a mandate, even less so and the 1882 Senate hearing concluded that BA was acting beyond its powers. So, nothing of importance happened in 1820 and when BA notified Britain of its territories in 1824, no mention was made of the Falklands. The treaty of 1825 was based upon the information provided by BA and the other Provinces. Are you suggesting the information was false?

    The illegal government of Lavalle attempted to 'take possession' of the Falklands for the first time in 1829. An act immediately protested by Britain. The possession failed and they were ejected. The USA did not recognise any right of BA to be there either.

    The Confederation attempted to take 'effective control' of the islands in 1832 by sending an armed garrison to invade them. They were ejected.

    Spain's claims to Soledad Island were undoubtedly better than Britain's, while Argentina had no claim at all to anything. Spain did not protest in 1833, however, and recognised British sovereignty in 1863.

    Yet again, I have to repeat the facts to highlight your distortions of the real history. I never tell lies MoreCrap, but clearly you do.

    Go learn, idiot troll

    Mar 04th, 2020 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    “I didn’t say they needed it”…exactly, and in my sentence, ‘needs’ should be understood as ‘wants’.

    I did say that “other Europeans had come and gone”, but Strong was the first to claim them, for Britain, in 1690. Well before 1820. The fact the islands were on the Spanish maps IS, as you say, symbolic, grants no rights. What grants rights is possession, even more so when you consider this occurred 200 years ago.

    Even looking at 1820, when ARG sent a frigate to claim the islands, the islands still belonged to Spain. So who was the intruder ? the fact they sent Vernet to the islands in 1826 to establish a settlement, which was destroyed in 1831 by the Americans (dispute over fishing rights), and sent him back to Argentina, still did not give ARG sovereignty over the islands.
    ARG tried again end 1832, and was removed once again in Jan 1833…If anyone had to complain back then, it would’ve been Spain…..and since then, the islands have been inhabited by Brits (and other nationalities) without interruption.

    The fact that ARG tried to “conquer” the islands 38 years ago, goes to show that ARG still believed in the use of force, in 1982 - valid for Argentina - had they won - but not for Britain…how come ?

    You allege “Spanish recognition was not necessary…” really ? If Spain only recognized ARG’s independence in 1857, I’d think that in 1820, or in 1832, Spain’s recognition was imperative.

    Regarding Onslow’s invitation for Capt Pinedo and his men to leave, this can be regarded as taking the islands from “Spain” and getting rid of squatters, besides being a way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

    The fact that as a result of the Paraguayan war (1870), Pguay lost territory to Argentina, and today, “Argentina has no conflict or claim FROM Paraguay”, a similar view can be applied to ARG with regards to the Falklands…or, as Pguay has no claim over their lost territory, neither does Argentina have any over the FI. Quite simple really.

    Mar 05th, 2020 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Strong did not claim the Islands. He was the first person known to have landed. He named the Sound but recognised the archipelago as having been claimed by Hawkins.

    Davis was the first known European to see them a century before Strong. Hawkins claimed them in 1594.

    As for maps -

    Please feel free to indicate any that I am missing.

    Mar 05th, 2020 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    Thanks for the link, and for correcting me. A serious study of the historical events, and clearly explained.
    Two things are plain - Spain only reacted after (France, in 1764, and) England (1765, Byron) started to show serious interest in the islands, because of her 'pretentious claim' that she was the owner of (south) America, based on the Treaty of Tordesilhas (signed with Portugal in 1494, under the auspices of the Pope), recognized by only those two countries (and even then, with both trying to screw each other)....and that John Strong's landing in 1690 becomes irrelevant in comparison, considering Hawkins’ visit, in 1593.

    Which reinforces the fact that Argentina, a 'revolted' Spanish colony, had absolutely no right - even less than the French (Bougainville, 1764) - to claim anything.
    Argentina’s claim seems to be based also on her (erroneous) belief that she was always the rightful heir to all of Spain’s overseas territories.

    Have one question, which perhaps you can clarify :-
    On the map, or Chart of Hawkins’s Maidenland, created by John Byron in 1773, it is mentioned that Richard Hawkins ‘discovered the islands in 1574’ (as well the ‘Falkland Sound’, so-called by J. Strong, 1689), so why does the link state Hawkins only claimed the islands for England in 1593 ?

    Mar 06th, 2020 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “the Treaty of Tordesilhas”

    Heh. It only gave a small bit of South America to Portugal, must have seemed pretty harmless to the Spanish. Yet somehow Brazil now covers nearly half the continent. Also I just learned that according to the Treaty of Zaragoza, Spain and Portugal each own half of Australia. Someone should really tell the Aussies...

    JB, to avoid cluttering this thread, I replied to you on

    Mar 06th, 2020 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Davis was the first European recognised as having sighted the islands in 1592. He did not land and was struggling to survive in a storm. He was also to be accused of deserting the Cavendish expedition which he was part of. The notable geographer of the time was Hakluyt, who happened to be Cavendish's father in law. Cavendish did not survive and Hakluyt refused to recognise any discovery from Davis's journal.

    Hawkins arrived in 1594, may have landed - it is uncertain - but made the claim that Davis had been too busy surviving to make. 1574 must be a very early typo or a result of poor handwriting.

    Tordesillas was actually in defiance of the Pope's edict and he refused to recognise that treaty for 12 years.

    Mar 06th, 2020 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Roger & DT
    Changing the subject slightly, I read about the Tordesilhas Treaty in ‘Brazilian history’ classes, and basically it was an attempt by Spain & Portugal to divide the ‘new world’ 'n ‘that yet to be discovered, between them.
    They had already signed an agreement abt 15 years earlier, whereby Spain would have rights over lands to be explored/colonized in the northern hemisphere, 'n Portugal in the southern hemisphere. Unnecessary to say, not recognized by the other European countries, notably France and England.
    Anyway, as information started to circulate, especially after Cristofaro Colombo “discovered” N.America (1492), Spain & Portugal became wary of others encroaching on what they believed to be theirs, so in order to try to guarantee possession of lands yet to be discovered (Spain, of lands south of N. America, and Portugal, in Africa), in 1493 they signed the “Bula Inter Coetera”, which established a meridian 100 leagues west of the Azores (to the west would be Spain’s, to the East, Portugal’s).
    However, as this line landed in the middle of the Atlantic, Portugal demanded it be revised, which would indicate (and become clear years later) that Portugal was aware of the continent to the south of N. America.
    To avoid a conflict, Spain agreed that the meridian be shifted to 370 leagues (abt 1,100 miles) west of Cape Verde. By this 1494 treaty (of Tordesilhas/ Tordesillas), Portugal got a foothold in what is today, Brazil.
    The fact that Brazil’s current territory was expanded (to the west) to roughly 3 times the size of the original eastern portion, conceded to Portugal by the treaty, is thanks to the exploratory expeditions (usually sponsored by colonial authorities) of the “bandeirantes” in the 17th C (explorers, who went west looking for gold etc, and to enslave indians).
    The Tordesilhas meridian went from (roughly) Belém do Pará in the north, to Laguna (SC) in the south, which represented approx. 1/3 of Brazil’s present territory.

    Mar 08th, 2020 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    I found this map of Brazil's territorial expansion over time:

    Comment from the author:

    ”Darkest green is the oldest territory and darkest red is the newest territory.

    Brazil's greatest territorial gain (that it still owns) was the Glorious Bandeirantes Heroes' expeditions throughout the highlands. Whereas its biggest territorial loss was the independence of Portugal from the United Kingdom.”

    Lol, pretty sure it was Brazil that became independent from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves.

    Shame Brazil abandoned those Amazonian claims in Colombia. Could have had a small Pacific coast as well. That would really piss off Bolivia.

    According to the page on the Treaty of Zaragosa, it was supposed to the anti-meridian of the Treaty of Tordesillas, but they didn't have any way to determine where it fell, and ending up picking a line that gave Portugal 191° of the earths circumference. Even so, Spain ended up colonising the Philippines which are on Portugal's side of the line, so neither country stuck to their agreements.

    Mar 08th, 2020 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Thank you JB, I was aware of much of that.

    While I'm here -

    Publishers told me that there was no profit in it. Fortunately, I am not looking for one.


    Mar 08th, 2020 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Absolutely, Brazil gained independence from Portugal, not the other way round.

    Interesting to note, is that in 1815 Brazil was elevated to part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarve, as the Congress of Vienna had just determined the return of the status quo of the European borders prior to Napoleon’s invasions, and, the fact that D. João VI was ruling the kingdom not from Portugal, but from a colony, made things awkward for Portugal.
    To make matters worse, in 1820 Portugal was going through an economic, social and political crisis, and an uprising by the elite in the Cidade do Porto, (demanding D. João’s return, plus the fact his mother had died 5 years earlier), forced his hand.
    The situation only resolved itself completely when D. João returned to Portugal in 1821.

    Not familiar with Brazil’s claims in the Columbian Amazon - what triggered them, how did it end ?...... but if Brazil had obtained a passage to the Pacific, wonder if Columbia, today, would consider it a done deal, or would be reclaiming it.....Yes, and Bolivia for sure, without a maritime coastline, would keep on whining.
    Treaty of Zaragoza (1529): It’s funny when you think of it, how Spain and Portugal in the 16th C, believed they could divide the world between themselves, ignoring the rest...

    Thanks for the link. Was it published it, despite ‘no profit in it’?

    Mar 09th, 2020 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Did you notice on that map it's labelled 'United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and the Algarves'? Quite funny, but I can see why the Portuguese would object to being ruled from Brazil, especially back when all communication required a lengthy sea voyage. It's almost like Portugal became the colony instead.

    Also, what are the 'Algarves'? I thought there was only one and it's part of Portugal anyway.

    Do you know when Brazil's population first exceeded Portugal's? I was wondering if Brazil was already bigger when it first became independent. The 13 colonies in America had almost a third the population of Britain during their war of independence, but the disparity between Brazil and Portugal is much bigger.

    Don't know anything about the Amazon claims, the author gave a link for the Antarctica claim, but not the Amazon one. The map was made by a random person on the internet, so who knows if it's even accurate?

    It is pretty funny that Spain and Portugal thought they could divide the whole world between them, without any reference to the people who already lived there, or even to other rivals in Europe.

    Maybe less funny when the European countries really did divide up Africa between them, or when Britain and France agreed to carve up the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. These old treaties have a lot to answer for, cutting up countries nonsensically and causing disputes and even wars by their vagueness.

    Mar 09th, 2020 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I may yet do a print run, but for the time being the work will remain available for free as a pdf.

    Free sells ;-)

    Mar 09th, 2020 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Yeah, I noticed. Reckon that Portugal felt it had been relegated to 2nd plan, and the Portuguese in Brazil became jittery about what was going on during their absence..

    For centuries, Algarve was one of those (semi-independent, or) separate kingdoms (on the southern tip), eventually becoming part of Portugal, and the Portuguese monarch was acclaimed king of Portugal and of the Algarves - a kind of honorary title /recognition of the region.
    In practice it was just another region of Portugal, no different to the rest of it.

    Brazil’s name was removed in 1825, with the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, whereby Portugal recognized Brazil’s independence.
    In 1910, when Portugal became a republic, the name Algarves was also removed.

    Brazil’s population first exceeded Portugal’s in early 1800s… Brazil 3,3 million, Portugal 2,9 million, so when it became independent it had a slightly larger population.
    Just a side note : 06 months after Brazil’s declaration of independence (in September 1822), in Mar 1823, Admiral Lord Cochrane was hired by D.Pedro I (through his Prime Minister, Jose Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva), to help get rid of the Portuguese.

    Found nothing on the AMZ claims that’s why I asked….either don’t know how to look for it, or wasn’t important enough to make the news.

    Regarding the division of Africa by the European powers, they used the justification that it was to ‘civilize’ those territories (which was last on their list of priorities), and they took no notice of the natural, or imaginary boundaries in place, which had traditionally separated the hundreds of different tribes in those regions. Today, for better or worse, don’t think there’s any room to change things back again.

    Mar 10th, 2020 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    My previous comment was for JB, not DT. Apologies. It was 5am

    Mar 10th, 2020 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “the Portuguese in Brazil became jittery about what was going on during their absence.”

    That's a good point, those Lords and courtiers etc would want to be close the Royal family and court, but wouldn't want to leave their estates for too long, either. They probably would pressure the King to return.

    Portugal was a lot more realistic than Spain, which didn't recognise Argentina's independence until 1863. Dunno how they thought they'd be able to hang onto Brazil though, when it already had a larger population and still had plenty of room to grow.

    I never heard of Admiral Cochrane before posting on this site. Not surprised we didn't learn anything about Brazil or Chile, but I wish we'd studied the Napoleonic wars in school, it's a pretty interesting and significant part of British history to just ignore.

    I couldn't find anything on the supposed Amazon claims either. There was an area disputed by Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, but not by Brazil. Only difference to the latter was who they'd be sharing the border with.

    ”Regarding the division of Africa by the European powers, they used the justification that it was to ‘civilize’ those territories (which was last on their list of priorities)”

    Yes. And now all these countries are unwilling to give up any land, no matter how much it damages their stability having different groups who can't agree. Compare the new countries created from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, along ethnic and linguistic lines, with those created from the former Ottoman Empire by drawing straight lines on a map. It's obvious the first group have been a lot more stable.

    To be fair, doing the opposite can cause it's own problems. Britain maintained the administrative borders of the different kingdoms after conquering India, which caused a huge mess after partition when neighbouring kingdoms chose to join different countries:

    Online-only publishing is popular these days...

    Mar 10th, 2020 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Portugal’s relatively small population was a problem for them when they needed to populate their overseas colonies.

    ‘Portugal was more realistic than Spain’ – Spain knowing it had no way of recovering its (ex) South American colonies – but perhaps just took longer to sink in.

    Admiral Cochrane was instrumental in kicking out the Spanish and the Portuguese, and today, many historians regard him as a better naval commander than Nelson.
    Despite his military achievements, he had a hell of a time while trying to deal with corrupt ‘n jealous officials, while in the service of both Chile and of Brazil (end 1817 to end 1825). While I was at school, Cochrane was briefly mentioned in Brazilian history, as the founder of the Brazilian navy, and that’s about all.
    Perhaps the Brazilian historians did not appreciate the fact Brazil needed a foreigner (especially a Brit) to help it gain independence.

    Even today the borders between countries in the Amazon region are relatively deserted, imagine back then with countries trying to be smart while consolidating their territories.

    While I was in West Africa, although things were relatively peaceful, at times you could feel the latent animosity between people of the different major tribes. And unfortunately, don’t think they’ll ever see eye to eye.

    It’s quite amazing to see the map of Austro-Hungarian empire in 1913/14, and see the many nations it eventually split up into… perhaps the knowledge of ‘who’ inhabited ‘where’ was fundamental in making the split-ups/borders more rational, leading to greater stability....the idea that you can draw lines on a map and that’s it, is bound to ignore reality and set the stage for future conflicts.
    In Africa, it’s likely the colonizers weren’t too familiar with the different ethnicities, or even cared. In the case of India, looks like both India and Bangladesh later took measures to rationalize their international borders by exchanging enclaves (land boundary agreement, 1974).

    Mar 11th, 2020 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Maybe Portugal being smaller than Spain made the government realise quicker that it was hopeless. Or maybe the fact independence was lead by the King's son and heir made him more sympathetic. Kind of a weird situation, really.

    ”Perhaps the Brazilian historians did not appreciate the fact Brazil needed a foreigner (especially a Brit) to help it gain independence.”

    Probably. Just from the Wiki article, Cochrane seems to have been pretty damn successful as a naval commander, but it makes it sound like he caused a lot of his own problems dealing with officials, due to paranoia and suspicion. Perhaps it was triggered by being wrongfully convicted of fraud in the UK? I also noticed two of his kid's names in the article: William Horatio Bernardo Cochrane and Arthur Auckland Leopold Pedro Cochrane. Think you can guess when each if them was born. :)

    When I looked at Brazil's border with Colombia I saw there are no roads allowing to drive from one to the other, it did look pretty damn deserted. Can understand why they had trouble determining them and mapping them back in the 19th C, though it does make you wonder why they cared so much about random bits of forest enough to threaten to or go to war over them.

    “And unfortunately, don’t think they’ll ever see eye to eye.”

    That's awkward, and they don't have much reason to identify with the country rather than the tribe. Seems to work better in the US and other countries formed by immigrants where people have chosen to be there and generally embrace certain ideals.

    I think there were a lot of nationalist movements already in the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the war, plus the allies were more sympathetic to them. Whereas in the Middle East they were more interested in what they could get out of it (oil). And in Africa they were all in a race to grab what they could. Senegal and the Gambia are probably the weirdest example of arbitrary division, dunno why they don't try and unify, really.

    Mar 11th, 2020 - 11:06 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!