MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, January 30th 2023 - 10:44 UTC

 

 

“Falkland Facts and Fallacies”, a new contribution to the Falklands' debate

Friday, June 12th 2020 - 07:08 UTC
Full article 20 comments

By historian David Tatham (*) - This book by Graham Pascoe describes itself as a refutation of a work by two Argentine lawyers, Professor Marcelo Kohen and Facundo Rodríguez – and that is just what it is. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • bushpilot

    Patrick,
    This book would probably clear up a lot of the confusion you have with this topic.

    Jun 12th, 2020 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Livingthedream

    With all this information from both sides why has this not gone to arbitration?
    This issue will continue for decades as long as both side have different opinion.

    Jun 12th, 2020 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim.” Margaret Thatcher, April 29, 1982

    Jun 12th, 2020 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    Living the Dream - Argentina's President Alfonsin rejected the suggestion of a referral to the ICJ on Sept 24, 1984 with the words “… no type of arbitration is appropriate.”

    Argentina is wary of arbitration if only because it's own attempts to settle the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile led Argentina to agree to abide by a decision three times, only to break its word three times when they lost. That dispute was finally resolved after the return to democracy, and even then took a referendum.

    After 187 years of whining (with gaps), losing a decision over the Falklands would be more than they could handle. Certainly, the recent Chagos AO suggests that Argentina would lose and that the rights of the Islanders would be unchallengeable.

    I am glad to see Graham Pascoe's book out at last, having had the advantage of observing its development over the last few years. Containing a great amount of information, my only regret is that the effort has been expended on two non-descript Argentine lawyers.

    Jun 12th, 2020 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Chicureo

    It is clear to many of us in Chile, that “Las Malvinas” is a nationalistic tool to unite a very unhappy populace with a political distraction. They've brainwashed their school children and convinced their disgruntled suffering Peronist party supporters that they are victims.

    Most Argentines think their real enemies are vulture fund capitalists and the IMF.
    (Reminds me of the old American Pogo cartoon: “...we have met the enemy, and it is us...”)

    The term arbitration, cannot be adequately and correctly translated into the Argentine Castellano language. We saw that occur in the late '70s.

    Jun 12th, 2020 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Tarmin

    I wonder under what grounds Mr. Tatham affirms that this pamphlet wouldn't be allowed by Argentine Customs. Are there any previous incidents that support that assumption?

    Jun 13th, 2020 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctic Territory, some of my right hon. and hon. friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands

    Jun 13th, 2020 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Guillote

    Jajajaja parece un trabajo de rogerlorton y brit_bobolin
    Que ganas de llerlo
    :)

    Jun 14th, 2020 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • bushpilot

    Los Argentinos que han ganado de leer sus fantasias? Nada.

    Jun 14th, 2020 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Guillote

    podes no estar de acuerdo la vida es asi
    pero esto es una tonteria como las de roger lorton y brit_bobo
    esa es mi opinion y a quien no le guste :)

    Jun 14th, 2020 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Pugol-H

    Guillote
    Whether you believe the British version of history or not, the British do.

    And therefore, as far as the British are concerned, Argentina has no legitimate claim to any territory in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic.

    End of.

    Jun 14th, 2020 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Roger Lorton

    Gullible, I doubt that you can afford Pascoe's book but there is always the Timeline.
    540 years of history ;-)

    https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

    Jun 15th, 2020 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Guillote

    roger te sigo hace tiempo en twitter y no tengo dudas que sos un pobre mediocre y no tenes nada que aportar porque no sos neutral SOS UN POBRE TIPO que la vida lo llevo a tailandia
    y encima brexiter desde tailandia?
    UN POBRE TIPO

    Jun 15th, 2020 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Neutral? Gullible, I was unbiased when I started the research. I am now biased by the findings of the research. Research informs. You should try it sometime ;-)

    Jun 15th, 2020 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Pugol-H

    Guillote
    You should at least read the British version of history, if only for completeness.

    At least then you would (should) realise why the Brits have the attitude they do about Argentina’s supposed claims.

    Jun 15th, 2020 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Roger Lorton...

    Why the need to lieto yourself and others..., copper..

    When you started the reasearch..., you were sincere and identified yourself as an Engrishman pissed by those Argie Dagos insistence about the Malvinas Issue..., remember...?

    You later erased that fitting and sincere description of yourself...

    I may still 'ave a screen capture of it..., or could ask one of the young ones to find it for you if you don't remember...

    Memory and archives beat biased “research” everytime copper...
    Time for you to grow up..., lad

    Capisce...?

    Jun 15th, 2020 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Sorry for the delay, been having some problems with getting my comments accepted. For those that also have had problems, I have received this from the management - “Right now we have developers working on a more stable and reliable platform to move the whole MercoPress website. So it is probably that the new site will be live for the audience from next week and that problem, among others related to compatibility, will be solved.”

    Now, in response - Pissed? I think not Thunk, unless you mean ‘drunk’. Or you thunk I speaka de Yankee.

    Being annoyed at fanciful claims did not mean that I was closed to the evidence Thunk. And the evidence is, after all, clear enough. Argentina has lied consistently about its supposed rights. Continues to lie about them. Most recently about its continental shelf and a fantasy approval from the UN’s CLCS. However, seems that some of your own people are starting to notice.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6PidZ4p6sICWF0rVi4VvjGpF5ZzyGmp/view?fbclid=IwAR0ogRQjFDw-eqGnEXkUy_jOX7v3zyEWktOw39cNYcsO05V3ZsHDshPrLcw

    Get it?

    Jun 16th, 2020 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Livingthedream

    Rodger, I did find an AP report that a President asked for arbitration but was rejected by the UK The dispute is just going in circles isn't it?

    https://apnews.com/d432a9ba57231ff5206076812f85b965

    Jun 17th, 2020 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    What dispute?

    https://en.mercopress.com/2016/02/19/falklands-sovereignty-issue-was-settled-more-than-thirty-years-ago-says-fallon

    Not that there was ever a formal request by the Menem Government for arbitration.

    Jun 17th, 2020 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    Livingthedream
    As far as the British are concerned it’s a dead issue, there is nothing to discuss with respect to sovereignty, only areas of cooperation for mutual benefit, such as fisheries.

    In Argentina it comes back to life periodically depending upon the economic situation and political ideology of the government.

    It is definitely the Peronistas favourite “opiate for the masses”, they certainly don’t want to have to talk about real issues like inflation at 43%.

    Jun 17th, 2020 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!