MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK message to UN: Falklands' people must participate in any discussions on their future
British reply to the Argentine letter sent to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, about the Question of the Falkland Islands: Letter dated 20 February 2020 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesgreetings to the british from a nigerian from west africa I would like to commend the uk for its efforts in ensuring the recovery of whales in south georgia and south sandwitch islands which has been british since 1775 when captain cook claimed it for britain and wish them as we say in nigeria more grease to their elbow keep up the good work and good luck Gods speed
Mar 04th, 2020 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse +9A good summation of the Falklands situation , nothing new, but it succinctly covers all the issues, from the UKs historical sovereignty, the human rights of the Islanders to their territory to the illegal behaviour of the Argentine government in trying to disrupt legitimate commercial actives in and around the Falklands .
Mar 04th, 2020 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +6There should be more of this type of pushback from the UK . One can only trust that the UN gives this the credence that it deserves.
Of Course!
Mar 04th, 2020 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Something in this letter that MoreCrap should try to grasp.
Mar 04th, 2020 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“The United Kingdom is clear about both the historical and legal position on the
sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. No civilian population was expelled from the
Falkland Islands on 3 January 1833. An Argentine military garrison had been sent to
the Falkland Islands three months earlier in an attempt to impose Argentine
sovereignty over British sovereign territory. The United Kingdom immediately
protested and later expelled the Argentine military garrison on 3 January 1833. The
civilian population, who had previously sought and received British permission to
reside on the Islands, were encouraged to remain. The majority voluntarily chose to
do so. In 1833, the territorial borders of the Republic of Argentina did not include the
geographical southern half of its present form, nor any territory in the Falkland
Islands, Antarctica, or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. ... British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765, some
years before the Republic of Argentina even existed.” [UN Document A/74/721]
MoreCrap really needs to read more.
Nothing new under the sun.
Mar 05th, 2020 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -41765. The British arrived clandestinely on the islands that were occupied.
If they had any rights, they lost it after the diplomatic defeat and withdrawal in 1774. They were never on the islands again, never protested.
Clayton's plaque was merely symbolic if it is not continued with other acts (protests) and in addition to bad faith.
British sovereignty cannot be traced back to 1765 if one considers that sovereignty was exercised by Spain for more than 44 years exclusively.
It is then absurd to say that the establishment of Vernet was carried out with British permission.
On the other hand, who was the British official who granted such permission? Where is that document?
The United Kingdom was silent for 55 years, from 1774 to 1829 and was not in possession of the islands. So what kind of permission did he need?
A few settlers and soldiers are manifestation of the exercise of sovereignty.
The United Kingdom had nothing, therefore it is absurd again to say that its sovereignty dates back to 1765.
Not only that, the usurpation began on an island where they had never been.
Las islas Malvinas son argentinas.
“If they had any rights, they lost it after the diplomatic defeat and withdrawal in 1774” That is an absolute lie, Briton didn't, but Spain did after the Declaration of 1771. As the UK was on brink of declaring war. So Spain had restore all of damage she had done to the UK, and eat an awful lot of humble pie. “Who was the British official who granted such permission? ”
Mar 05th, 2020 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“AGN, Sala VII, Legajo F.129, docs. 70 and 71, Vernet's letters to WOODBINE PARISH of 19 and 21 June 1829.
Letter from Lt William Langdon, dated 20 January 1832, to R.W.Hay, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Colonial
Office, enclosing maps of the Falklands and his grant of ”Section 3“ by Vernet, in PRO FO 6 499, p. 102.”
Getting it right: the real history of theFalklands/Malvinas
by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Terence: I mean official documents of the British government authorizing him to settle on the islands. There is no such thing. Only in P&P dreams.
Mar 05th, 2020 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You mention letters from Vernet to Parish.
The concessions of lands to William Langdon made by Vernet, in which the settlers must commit to respect the authority of the country (Argentina). Needless to say, Vernet was the Argentine governor of the islands.
What you mention are nothing more than that, letters.
Greetings.
MoreCrap
Mar 05th, 2020 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Again, you are in need of an education.
1) The French arrived clandestinely in 1764, yet your country claims to have had French rights ceded to you in 1767. Spain's expedition to take over the island of Soledad in 1767 was also clandestine. Unreported. Britain occupation in 1766 was reported.
2) Spain lost the diplomatic battle in 1771, confirmed by Spain's second defeat in 1790.
3) Symbolism was important in the 18th century and Clayton's plate complied with recognised practice. England had nothing to protest about. Spain stayed on Soledad. As that was the status quo after 1771, why would London have protested?
4) Spain's exclusive sovereignty was only exercised over Soledad Island. Nowhere else. Spain only claimed that one island in 1811 when its garrison was withdrawn by the Viceroyalty in Montevideo.
5) Britain's Foreign Office clearly state that the settlers in 1826 had Britain's permission. Vernet approached the Consuls on two occasions to seek their consent. Vice-Consul in 1826 was Pousett; Consul in 1828 was Charles Griffiths. The first document does not appear to have survived. The second has and is detailed in the Timeline. [Paper 5 p.71]
6) Britain was not silent. Licences were issued for whaling ships throughout that period. The Board of Trade Enquiry in 1789 discussed the issue & the question was dealt with in 1790. Also in 1801/02 when France made another claim. Dealt with by the British envoy. A Royal Navy ship also visited the islands in 1813.
7) No, a few soldiers and settlers are NOT a manifestation of sovereignty. It takes effective control to be able to claim that. Getting kicked off in 1831 and 1833 is not 'effective control'.
8) Britain should actually date its sovereignty from 1766 when McBride arrived to occupy the islands.
9) Falklands have never been Argentine. Argentina was never in the game.
10) P&P do not agree that Britain consented.
11) Vernet was trespassing after 1829. Trespassers cannot make concessions.
Malvinense 1833'PRO FO 6 499, p. 102,' which is the Foreign Office.
Mar 05th, 2020 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Not only that, the usurpation began on an island where they had never been.” Doesn't matter conquest was legal then. They can point to at least two Anglo-Spanish treaties that exclude any possibility of an Argentinean legal claim.
“In the nineteenth century, it was inevitable that international law should allow states to acquire territory by conquest ... It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern 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'. Siehr, Conflicts, Indian ”
Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law Seventh Revised Edition, Peter Malanczuk
So they have peace treaty that legally recognises that Argentina has no claim, and additionally a right of conquest that was lawful at that time.
“A few settlers and soldiers are manifestation of the exercise of sovereignty.”
Mar 06th, 2020 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse +4Not so.
Mere discovery without settlement has little bearing on the present question of sovereignty. This was admitted by Manuel Moreno, the Argentine Minister in London, who acknowledged to Palmerston in 1833 that:
‘to establish a right to dominion on the fortuitous act of discovery, or on momentary possession, is not sufficient: it must be formal or tranquil settlement, which includes habitation and culture’.1
When on January 11, 1833, HM sloop Clio arrived at Puerto de la Soledad representatives of the Buenos Aires Government were attempting to re-establish order after a mutiny where the BA appointed commandant had been murdered. Three months of contested occupation hardly makes for ‘formal or tranquil settlement’.
1Introduction. Falklands or Malvinas ? The Background to the dispute by J. C.J Metford. July 1968
I still do not understand how a territory can be British sovereign in a place where they were not since 1774.
Mar 06th, 2020 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Where they also say that Spain did not control all the islands and the United Kingdom did not control any.
Where they say the United Kingdom granted settlement permits to settlers in a place they did not control.
Where they say that momentary possession is not enough etc. and the United Kingdom lacks all those elements.
Where they question three months of occupation and the Kingdom had 59 years without occupation.
The United Kingdom does not want to negotiate because it simply knows that all of the above applies first against it.
Las Malvinas son argentinas.
MoreCrap does not understand. Hardly unusual
Mar 06th, 2020 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The UK has sovereign territory in the form of islands all around the world, where we have never done more than claim them. For example, Henderson island, Ducie island and Oeno Island in the Pacific. Gough Island and Inaccessible Island among others in the Atlantic. There are others too. Google it. Once sovereignty is established and effectively unchallenged, there is no need to place anyone on that territory.
Spain did not extend control over all the islands in the archipelago. Remember, Spain only claimed one island in 1811.
The issue of permits would be proof that Britain did control the islands. Even from a distance.
Momentary possession is not sufficient where sovereignty has not been previously established. Britain's sovereignty over the western islands had been established in the 1760s. There was no challenge to that sovereignty between 1771 and 1829.
Again, Britain had established its sovereignty over the western islands. Spain had established its sovereignty over the eastern islands. Buenos Aires was trespassing. Trespassers can only gain rights over a long period of time. Some argue, 30 years. Squatters rights.
The UK has nothing to negotiate. The matter was settled. In blood.
Never have been, never will be.
Malvinense 1833“
Mar 07th, 2020 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse +1”I still do not understand how...“ Well that's no surprise, that's the way that nations comported themselves. Thus, the UK has followed the requirements of international law to the tee.
”Had 59 years without occupation.“ Its none of your's or your nation's business. Three times, you have failed to negotiate. Which means you have acquiesced those issues to the British position. Twice, you have attempted force, and have been deservedly vanquished.
The fact that the British have at all times been in the right, and are simply further exercising that right. ”There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
So there is no other choice for Argentina, but to 'Like it or lump it' because there is nothing they can legally do.
Solo para molestar @tony_webber muy divertido
Mar 07th, 2020 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse -2Something old, something new, something borrowed, something ........ else.
Mar 09th, 2020 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse +2https://www.academia.edu/42170548/Falklands_Wars_1700_to_1850_A_concise_narrative_history
Thanks for that Roger, it promises to be a good read.
Mar 09th, 2020 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse +2always repeating the same thing and selfing. like brit bobolin
Mar 10th, 2020 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse -4Just to annoy @tony_webber very funny
Actually Gullible, it is new.
Mar 10th, 2020 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse +4A new book? I can imagine Spain claiming only one island. And with documentations that mention islands in the plural.
Mar 10th, 2020 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -3https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
There is no worse blind ...
Roger, Your narrative history of the Falklands from 1700 to 1850 is an excellent read. A scholarly account that is well referenced and easy to read . The maps are fascinating. Thanks for all your efforts.
Mar 10th, 2020 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +3'Esta Isla' is clear to anyone with eyes to see MoreCrap and even the most basic of Spanish comprehension. Posted on every door, according to one Argie historian. History speaks for itself.
Mar 10th, 2020 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Downunder - thank you.
Hey Roger, and the other transcribed documents are not valid?
Mar 10th, 2020 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The islands must also be Chinese because of the amount of Chinese fishing boats around them.
All those documents identify very clearly the words that were to be posted at the Soledad garrison site. The order was carried out explicitly, and one Island claimed.
Mar 10th, 2020 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Chinese boats? In 1774?
roger is a great researcher and very active on twitter and has ..... 1000 followers jajajajajaajJ
Mar 11th, 2020 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse -3Says Gullible, the stalker
Mar 11th, 2020 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse +3Sad little man
It's very funny to see what people like roger lorton or anthony webber say and what real people who live on the islands think. But gorgory desde tailandia no lo entiende y es logico gorgory es gorgory
Mar 12th, 2020 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse -3“Britain's Foreign Office clearly state that the settlers in 1826 had Britain's permission.”
Mar 13th, 2020 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The British pamphlet asserts that “Vernet submits his concession to the British” in 1828 and the British Consul in Buenos Aires, Mr. Griffiths, “countersigned it on January 30th, 1828” .Unsurprisingly, there is no footnote indicating the source of this assertion. On the basis of this claim, British bloggers affirm that Vernet´s settlement had “British authorization”, something suggested, but not categorically affirmed, by Pascoe and Pepper´s pamphlet. The authors then speculate on whether or not Parish met with Vernet at the time, and fast forward to a meeting the latter requested with Vernet more than a year later. The pamphlet attempts to make its readers believe that while the venture was private in nature, the British government was free not to react, and that such a reaction was only required when the venture became public. This is plainly wrong. If the British government considered the islands to be a possession of His Majesty, it could not have remained passive faced with the Argentine government´s granting of public concessions to a private party. Far from favouring the British claim, the truth supports the recognition of Argentine sovereignty by Great Britain. All Vernet did was to have the Decree of January 5th, 1828 certified at the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. This certification was given on January 30th, 1828 and was signed by the British Consul Charles Griffiths. It was a typical consular legalisation by which a Consulate in a foreign country certifies that an official document is signed and sealed by the competent authorities of the State in which the Consulate is located or has jurisdiction. This function of “legalisation” of official foreign documents is still exercised in Consulates the world over.
Credits: Kohen -Rodríguez.
You should read more and above all stop misrepresenting the story.
Malvinense 1833
Mar 13th, 2020 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Unsurprisingly, there is no footnote indicating the source of this assertion.”
No surprise as you have no evidence as such, so you engage in a “fraud of omission”.
Since I have clearly indicated such a source in the following posts.
https://en.mercopress.com/2020/03/04/uk-message-to-un-falklands-people-must-participate-in-any-discussions-on-their-future/comments#comment507566
https:// en.mercopress.com/2020/03/04/uk-message-to-un-falklands-people-must-participate-in-any-discussions-on-their-future/comments#comment507577
“Could not have remained passive faced with the Argentine government´s granting of public concessions to a private party.” It didn't, after two diplomatic protests it moved to effect the only legal remedy open to it. Which was Argentina's eviction.
Are you attempting to rely on 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 F.I. government. 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.
MoreCrap
Mar 13th, 2020 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I asked before, but did not get an answer - do you own only one book?
The pamphlet K&R refer to was first written in 2008. My quote from the UN Documents section is from 2016. I'll repeat that too:-
”... civilian population, who had previously sought and received British permission to
reside on the Islands, were encouraged to remain. The majority voluntarily chose to
do so. ... British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765, some years before the Republic of Argentina even existed.” [UN Document A/74/721]
As an official position, it seems clear enough.
Anyone heard of 3rdWorldBetts lately? There are rumours he's snuffed it.
In the face of such indisputable evidence of Spain´s exclusive possession, some British online commentators who, like the authors of the pamphlet, lack academic qualifications, attempt to prove that Spain only controlled the eastern island (Soledad). The base their assertion on some isolated references, such as Bernardo Bonavía´s note when taking over leadership: “On this date I was given the command and government of the Island of Soledad in the Malvinas...”
Mar 13th, 2020 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Many other documents refer to the archipelago in general terms and therefore use the plural. We have already seen some of them, as well as Spain´s concrete actions in the whole of the archipelago, including in Port Egmont. Francisco Xavier de Viana introduces himself as the “Governor of these Malvinas Islands” in the government agreement concluded in Soledad de Malvinas, on April 18th, 1800. Antonio Leal de Ibarra signs the letter notifying the capture of the English brig “San Agustín” as “Commandant of the Malvinas” The aforementioned facts, as well as the destruction of the British fort at Port Egmont and regular visits to ensure the British had not returned, as well as the exercise of authority over foreign ships located on other islands of the archipelago, clearly show that Spanish sovereignty extended to the archipelago as a whole. The instructions issued directly by the King of Spain to verify, once a year, that the English had not reestablished themselves at Port Egmont/de la Cruzada were crystal clear. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the decision to withdraw the settlement at Port Soledad in 1811 established that “annually a ship must be sent for reconnaissance, verifying the same also for other [settlements] in the Islands so that no other Power may establish itself or take possession of them.” The importance of this last assertion lies in its being the last decision to have been taken before Spain´s withdrawal. It is clear proof of Spain´s animus domini over the whole archipelago.
Kohen.
Still quoting the same author/s MoreCrap? Their booklet is just a series of fantasies. Do you recall my review of it in the Penguin News?
Mar 13th, 2020 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.academia.edu/27823634/Las_Malvinas_Entre_El_Derecho_Y_La_Historia_-_A_Review
The later book by Pena y Pena also destroys their own countrymen's arguments. You should read it.
You become boring again.
As for Betts, the quisling is confirmed as deceased. No more. Pushing up the daisies.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!