MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, January 28th 2023 - 07:11 UTC
On Tuesday the Falklands government in an official release reiterated the need for human rights and democratic liberties of the Falklands' nation to be respected, particularly self-determination. Read full article
The Narnians continue to pretend that the Falkland Islanders are not 'a people' entitled to self-determination. Ja ja
Steve Potts, and who are those who do not lives in Narnia and believes that the islands are entitled to self-determination?.
What about the self-determination of the Chagos Islanders, you hypocrites??
''The Falkland Islanders do not exist. What exists is British citizens who live in the Islas Malvinas'' (Argentinian Foreign Minister Timerman quoted by D. Telegraph London 6 Feb 2013).
‘People,’ the Falklands and Self-Determination (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/41941566/People_the_Falklands_and_Self-Determination
They have had there referendum and decided to remain as a BOT ! and No amount of Whinging and Wining from Argentina is going to change that ! So Man Up Argentina admit You are Defeated and Leave the Islanders in Peace.
The ~ 9,000 Chiantishirers do not exist... What exists is British citizens who live in the Chianti area.
(Argentinian auld geezer El Tænk..., comment in MercoPress, Puerto Estanley 16 Feb 2022).
How much has Argentina spent over the years trying to take over the F.I.? Probably more than the U.K. has spent defending them. And the result? Zero. They will probably go on for many years to come. Argie taxpayers' money could be better used.
Pytangua, Chagos ARE British Islands and they are not going anywhere, we don't take instructions from the third world!
When we want the opinion of the ICJ we will ask for it!
All the peoples of ALL the NSGTs have the right of self-determination. No exceptions.
Perhaps that archipelago should be listed as a NSGT? Would guarantee the Chagossians the right of self-determination. All of them. Not just the ones that live 3rd class lives in Mauritius.
When the British and pretty much, all political thinking coming from the main countries of the English language, want to have their arguments serve their ambitions and win all discussions; their modus operandi inevitably always attempts to explain the whole configuration of all thinking including taking on the perspective of their enemy's or opposition's own concerns and reasoning. It's very amusing to listen to! They'll tell you the reason everything is done by them as if they were one of them. Behind this entertaining part however, something else is revealed in its own choices of syntax. The fact that they utterly and contemptuously could not care less what those people's country real situation and conditions are.
Argentinians understand very well the islander's right of self determination, yet they understand it differently to them. They understand it in the context of self determination and all other naturally endowed human rights being logically equal for all human beings on this Earth. They are not more important to some than to others, not withstanding Anglo-North American-Australian militaristic belligerency against the sovereignty of the world's nations lately. Thus, going by whosever clever ploy to use the erroneous term Falklands' Nation, beyond the fact that a self determination referendum by an invasive occupation population is inapplicable in the case of the Falkland/Malvinas dispute, if the islander's feel they are entitled to respect of nation hood, how do they surmise that Argentina's nationhood and its right to sovereignty integrity, including the honoring of their denouncement against invasion and usurpation of their territory, should be less important or less valid in the context of said right to self determination. The British argument unbelievably sounds as if it regards itself in a stand alone logic, against some inconsequential, unperceivable or virtually unseen adversary, in the face of all who know well this matter concerns two
Tell us more about what an admirable man Alexander Betts was.
I think my profile picture says it all. ... He was definitely not a obedient sheep too afraid to let what he thought be known. He cut his own path and was not afraid to speak his mind while everyone else around him buried their questions or doubts in intimidation. ... His personal life was for him and his family to judge, I'm sure he had his personal reasons for whatever decisions he made regarding his family, decisions which as it always goes, outsiders cannot understand in depth. To be trying to berate that, mock it or judge it is just the act of despicable perverted and meddlesome gossip... So reflective of who your culture is going about China, Russia Iran and so forth this day, isn't it??
(Only for Kelpers though..., I don't Tænk many others would understand the question...)
I can se that somebody took down sweet MLA Teslyn Barkman's less than flattering unmakeduped picture...
I tænk the original unflatttering one was personally chosen by grudge-holding Lisa Watson...
Don't you Tænk...?
Trimonde's picture does indeed say it all. Alexander Jacob Betts, a traitorous philanderer who abandoned his second wife and children for an Argentine skirt, who he later divorced. Eventually, he amassed four wives to his total, making him a paragon of Argentine style faithfulness. Meddlesome gossip? No, just the facts, and they do indeed make Betts look despicable and perverted. ;)
“One Man’s Villain is Another Man’s Hero.”...:
( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Betts )
As late as 1978 Betts criticized the British government for being soft on Argentina. But something made him change his mind. It was more personal than political. Could he have been the F.I:s own Vidkun Quisling if the war have had another outcome?
The man left for Argentina at the start of the war Swede, before the recovery of the islands, he did not stay in Stanley trying to convince the islanders to follow an Argentine model of government, demonstrating his absolute conviction towards the Argentine nation's right to sovereignty on Malvinas. You're comparison is pretty stupid sorry to say. Quisling did not abandon Norway, he simply thought in his heart his political beliefs were righteous and was doing what was best for his country, but his country later betrayed him. In any case, such is the process of clearing out our heads of propagandist indoctrinations @Swede, as many contemporary journalists and broadcasters will attest to, where they once wholeheartedly believed the American and English b*** s*** of being the good saviors of the world, who champion freedom and democracy only to later research, as Alex did, and discover that they are actually instead the bullies of the planet forging their will through covertly drawn out manipulations and fueling endless wars they initially created the conditions for.
And @Imoyaro; REALLY?? You truly don't see the absurdly ridiculous prejudice in that overly rehashed dumb story about Alex? Studently Alex doing what half the men in this world do, if not more of them, is the act of a villainous traitor? Oh? So he left his wife and children? How do you know what was going on between them? How many men in every single walk of life today, who left their wife and children we are best friends with, glorify and are blind fans of? It is so, but so blatantly obvious and pathetically weak that instead of judging Alex by the things he did, you are all taking the things he did to judge him with (for self explaining reasons) that frankly, it strikes a compassionate cord in me for how desperate the British b*** s*** lying rhetorics are. ALL OF THEM
Actually, Trimonde, what I see is you supporting a National Socialist Narcokleptocratic regime, spouting b*** s*** lying rhetorics year after year. Given Argentina's position, it is you who is desperate.
What exactly is wrong with National Socialism? ...
Surprised by the question? Of course you are, because 'your head' has been conditioned to think that National Socialism is equal to the Jewish holocaust. You're little more than a loud speaker for our current media spun status quo self absolving capitalist imperialist narrative that has got all of us in Europe and LatinAmerica in a chokehold, and a knee on our necks
What a somber tone this thread is developing...
One of me young ones just Whatsapped a new British joke were the Malvinas/Falkland are absolutely Central...
As I luuuuuuuuuuuuv Engrish humour..., I wish to share it with you..., me mates...
(starts at minute 02:28...)...:
Prince Andrew is a total jerk and I have no respect for him. I wouldn’t give him the steam off my shit and I hope we don’t reach out to him.
Being a war veteran doesn’t earn you respect. Being a respectable human earns you respect.
The people on the islands were brought on the islands after expelling the Argentine. This fact is crucial and entirely determining of the situation. The dispute was initiated and the protest launched officially by Argentina immediately following the British usurpation some eleven or twelve years before the arrival of any new British settlers, a fact that even within the framework of the United Nations defines the local British population as occupation population (although the UN has not ventured to actually state that).
The paradigm of power between a people and their government ultimately results in people needing to honor nation and government first and above their own rights (for those rights to be worthy and valid). As such government must be regarded before the people may put their wishes for changes forward to that government, even when considering a foreign government. Therefore the people on the islands must first honor the dispute Between London and Buenos Airs and second themselves to it, before their right to sovereignty and self determination is dealt with or brought into the equation. Indeed the islanders are endowed with the right to self determination, and yet that self determination cannot very well be applied whenever or anywhere they wish to apply it to without first considering the political governmental structure that is ruling over them, as well as that government's affairs with another one in the world, of the same governmental category as would be between two sovereign nations. In is clearly understood that a British Overseas Territory, no matter to what extend of governmental autonomy it lives in, still is ultimately administrated if not ruled by London or the UK. Thus these constant outbursts of self determination and nationhood or whatever, are completely bogus, unfounded and inapplicable from whatever perspective of logic they may be tried from, making all the people who attempt to voice them sound frankly, absurd.
Hmmmmmm..., Mr. Jo Bloggs...
I Tænk I remember you using that ...: I wouldn’t give him the steam off my shit contemptous-[ity] against this humble Argie Patagonian Viking some time ago...
- Are you perhaps implying that defending your Country against some Bloody Foreign Pirates from the other side of the World amounts to not being a respectable human and doesn’t earn you respect...?
“The people on the islands were brought on the islands after expelling the Argentine. This fact is crucial and entirely determining of the situation”
Rubbish, international law is the only relevancy.
Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory ...
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
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.
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction To International Law
Seventh revised edition. Peter Malanczuk
Now, I’ve seen this thread devolve into petty name calling and arguments but never has it sunk so low as to Trimonde defending National Socialism… God damn that’s a hot take completely…
I mean, what the hell Trimonde, of course National Socialism equals Jewish Holocaust, actually it equals just Holocaust as NS prides itself on having a national enemy for the people to rally behind, for the Hitler it was the Jews. But the ideology itself is disgusting, there is no defence for it.
Trimonde, you aren’t worth talking to if you defend an ideology that had killed millions in only 6 years.
Above article textually says..:
- The Falklands government in an official release reiterated the need for human rights and democratic liberties of the Falklands' nation to be respected, particularly self-determination.
- A right of all nations which was confirmed by an overwhelming support from the Falklands' people in the 2013 referendum, when they decided to remain as a British Overseas Territory and retain close links with the UK.
- The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics governments in many official releases reiterate the need for human rights and democratic liberties of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics Nations to be respected, particularly self-determination.
- A right of all nations which was confirmed by an overwhelming support from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics people in the 11 May 2014 referendum, when they decided to become Independent Republics and retain close links with Russia...
DOUBLE STANDARDS anyone...?
Let’s conveniently forget about the fleeing Ukrainians from those regions which would’ve outnumbered the Russian population and also forget the fact these referendums were created by the Russian separatists and weren’t following International Law of Free and fair. Much like Crimea, where Ukrainians and Tatars had to flee too.
Danish Mercian above...
Please educate yourself...
Ukraine's history is *well-documented...
Especially the recent 1990's - 2020's period...
*(Try to diversify some from Anglo Russia ate My Hamster sources.)
After that..., I will engage... If not...........
Have a nice, brainwashed life...
Danish Mercian?? That’s a bb new title
Like Prince Andrew..., blaming us Argies because he can't sweat...?
No link to support the validity of your about comment false argument..., I see...:
The fleeing Ukrainians from those regions which would’ve outnumbered the Russian population.
Keep telling porkies to yourself..., mate...
I don’t need to post any links since why should I since you will just deny it anyway :shrug:
Also idk how Prince Andrew came into the conversation about Ukrainian refugees
I ask you to...: Try to diversify fro “Russia ate My Hamster” sources...., and you link me to some unreferenced data from the Official Ukrainian Newsagency ... ? ! ?
(So much for the Engrish Education System...)
BTW..., I couldn't avoid noticing the second part of your first comment above...:
- These referendums were created by the Russian separatists and weren’t following International Law of Free and fair...., you say...
- ”This referendum was created by the Anglo Kelper squatters and its legality wasn’t recognized neither by the UN nor any other other State except their Colonial Administrator...: Great Brutain..., I say...
Double Standarts..., anyone....
Except the Falklands 2013 referendum was acknowledged by the UN and deemed free and fair and within international law, stop making shit up bruh
Danish Mercian just above...
Except the Falklands 2013 referendum was acknowledged by the UN..., you say...?
Would you be kind to provide a link to your above postulate..., or must one take you word for it...?
Thanks in advance...
I’m sorry, but you didn’t link anything when you stated the UN didn’t recognise the referendum in the Falklands, I guess that means you don’t have to submit sources but I have to.
And I’m not even related to Danes…
I’m an Anglo-Saxon yes, but I have Welsh and Irish blood in me… plus I live in Southern England that was under the control of Wessex not Mercia
This conflict is defined by a string of British cowardly acts along a 190 year span of time based on its bulling belief in the injustice of war, one of which is no less this publication's shameless attempt to bolster Falkland Islands economic significance in the world by cheating in the age old English tradition, ridding on the coattails of a lie, attempting to suggest that in some way it is part of Mercosur.
“The injustice of war”
The aggression of the placing of a garrison; after acquiescence to two diplomatic protests says it all.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Whereas Britons claim was so well known that:
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
No-Danish Mercian Angelsachse just above...
Hereby..., as you requested...,the Official UN General Secretary..., Officially Taking Note of the local referendum in them Islands and stating their Official UN position on the Malvinas/Falklands Issue...:
Read C A R E F U L L Y what it says..., what it doesn't say and compare it with your above provided unreferenced, brainwashed opinions...
I repeat..., please educate yourself...
Argentines calling British people brainwashed is like the pot calling the kettle black >.>
Deflecting again..., huhhhhhhh...?
Not a single link to anything confirming your above unreferenced, brainwashed opinions..., I see...
- Feel free to be an Anglo Colonial Nuclear Bully if that suits you...
- But stop telling yourself (and your victims) that you are the Goodie of the movie...
“Stop telling yourself that you are the “Goodie” of the movie...”
Not hard to do when at every instance, there is a facet of international law to support the British claim.
But, none to support Argentina’s.
Since a search for “Mercopress, education and propaganda” shows nothing it’s thus fake.
“Taking Note” of the local referendum in them Islands and stating their Official UN position on the Malvinas/Falklands Issue.”
The UN said nothing as to their position.
The UN didn't observe or legitimize your sham referendum. Yes, they did their silence is a legal endorsement. With the completion of the Referendum ...the Islands are now decolonized”. UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...” October 16th,1975 The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...” The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
‘The people on the islands were brought on the islands after expelling the Argentine. This fact is crucial and entirely determining of the situation.’
No civilian population was expelled in the British Re-capture of the Islands in 1833, they had permission from the British to be there, only the newly arrived and illegal garrison and their dependants, were expelled.
Your argument falls at the first hurdle, by your own definition, as it is predicated on a myth.
Nope..., AngloTurnip just above..., it is your argument that falls at the first hurdle, by your own definition, as it is predicated on a myth...
- The Current Official UN position on the Malvinas/Falklands Issue is more than clear when it says...:
- ”Sovereignity over the Islas Malvinas (Falkland) has been disputed since 1833, when they were invaded by British troops that expelled the Argentinean settlers...”
You will need something a bit better than a link to a Micro Anglo Newsagency to trump the United Nations official position...
Pugol is 100% correct,
Hardly the ‘Official UN position’, it’s the news website and it is wrong, scraping the bottom of the barrel there.
Can’t seem to find the same article in the English section, funny that.
But what price evidence, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Never mind Mercian Danelaw, ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’, or at least it’s implanted, Indian murdering, Kurepi population overseas.
“Sovereignity over the Islas Malvinas (Falkland) has been disputed since 1833,”
It was subsequently repudiated, by the Convention of Settlement, 1850; and by every ruling, and interpretation of international law since.
“The United Nations official position...” Apparently is zero from what they have said.
“Ban reiterates offer of good offices for negotiations on Malvinas (Falkland)”
- Taking in consideration the recent developments in the Rus Nations of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk..., where the Anglosphere clearly shows their completely disregard for the -Paramount, Undeniable Right of a Nation to Self-Determination..., I would warmly recommend them Kelpers NOT to put all your eggs in that one basket...
- In the hope of that a peacekeeping UN Force intervenes positively in the Ukraine crisis and gives us some time to get rid of the warmongers...
I remain yours..., el argie Tænk..
particularly in terms of the undeniable right of a nation to self-determination.
“The undeniable right of a nation to self-determination.” Shear bunkum.
The authentic legal determination is:
.” October 16th,1975 The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...” The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
Poor Thunk, cannot understand the difference between territorial integrity and the right to self determination.
He is unable to comprehend that the Falklands do not, have not and never will be part of Argentinas territorial integrity as they are not part of Argentina.
They are not part of Argentina through inheritance from Spain (no such thing exists), nor through the will of the people who live there, nor through conquest (like Patagonia), nor through some fairy story around Luis Vernet or Esteban Mestevier.
So there is no territorial integrity question.
For the Ukraine of course there is a territorial integrity question. However, the answer should be made peacefully. If significant regions of your country (e.g. Scotland, Crimea, Catalonia) wish to leave and either join another country or be independent, what is the mechanism by which they do this?
This clearly has to be managed, they can't vote on a weekly basis (as the SNP wish in Scotland) and they cannot be denied a vote (as Catalonia), and we cannot have a situation where a belligerent neighbour floods a region with its own people to tip the demographic.
Also the size of the territory has to be significant and geographically determinable, not tiny enclaves or villages. Islands and peninsulas are ideal!
No solution should be the handover of territory from the status quo against the will of the people who live there.
My question to Ukraine is why do you want to have territories where the majority do not want to be part of your country?
Nothing happening in Ukraine strengthens Argentinas case for the Falklands which is a pathetic Peronist propaganda machine which Thunk is part of.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!