MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“The saddest page of history between Argentina and Britain”, Ambassador Hayes
Kirsty Hayes, current British ambassador in Argentina wrote a column, published in Buenos Aires main daily, La Nacion pointing out that April 2nd was the beginning of the saddest page of the wide history of relations between Argentines and British. A painful date that brings sad memories to many families and sensitizes us all who some way or another work to build bridges between our nations, Ambassador Hayes begins her column. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA Sad Day indeed when Argentina Launched an Invasion on a Peaceful Island Community who were merely going about there day to day Lives.
Apr 02nd, 2022 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6Quite a contrast with the ridiculous comments from Minister Guillermo Carmona who seeks to equate Britain's “ occupation” of the Islands in 1833 with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. How can one ever hope to have a sensible, balanced discussion with the likes of Minister Carmona?
Apr 02nd, 2022 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Interesting that the Argentine government now seems very willing to condemn Putin, a few weeks ago they weren't quite so vocal in their condemnation , true to form !
Minister Carmona was nearly right equating 1833 with the invasion of Ukraine
Apr 02nd, 2022 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Except:
Ukraine population: 43 million
Argentine population in Falklands in 1833: 26
Ukraine population in Ukraine: 30 years as a state, millenia as a people
Argentine population on Falklands: 10 weeks
Crimes of majority of Ukrainians: none
Crimes of Argentines on Falklands: mutiny, murder, rape
Ukraine reponse: Brave, powerful defence of their home
Argentine response: Peacefully agreed to leave
Not VERY similar
chuckle
@Dumb Dirk, The Junta in Argentina never attached the islanders. Are you not even trying to understand what happened there? They simply found themselves in the middle of a recovery operation launched by those disingenuous dictators who made a point in skirting around them while confronting with a decisive step the already existing dispute WITH LONDON.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse -7@boarder rover, don't be shallow. The whole world is already understanding how the Anglo North American financial world led by those countries' governments have got everyone under their oppressive expectations and blackmailing maneuvers. Even us in the United States are increasingly seeing it and coming to terms with it. Everyone is except Narnia Lord of Rings residents of Britain.
...
As to be expected, Ms Kirsty Hayes is following on the tradition of appearing to be sensible sensitive good Ambassador by focusing on the sub-subject of the unidentified soldiers, whilst not missing the opportunity of underscoring as a victimizing aspect the matter of the war's land mines. Naturally she must perpetuate the false but strategic notion in error of protagonizing the islanders in the dispute and their illogical supposed right to self determination, while watering down the significance of the territorial sovereignty argument as some personal matter.
Clearly Argentina feels it must accept weakness in its pressing concerns to appear passive before the present day bullying powers of the West in order to maintain its inclusion in an acceptable light. What Argentina SHOULD DO however, is to not accept any British Ambassador that is not supportive of talks between the two countries regarding this age old conflict.
Hahaha! So “Trimonde”, how do you justify locking 114 innocent people in a hall with only two buckets for a toilet? No nappies for the 4-month old baby? Only being fed slop delivered by your troops, used as human shields? For all of May as the British advanced?
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse +6What do you have to say about Patrick Dowling and his genocide comments? And the threats he made to many of the Islanders? How he took farmers off with a gun in their neck trying to find answers to his paranoid ravings?
How do you justify your forces shitting in draws of people's houses and destroying their belongings? Booby-trapping the children's toys?
Some of your supposedly “peaceful troops” were just as complicit as the junta.
@ Trimonde, So the Islanders movements were Not restricted, The Local Newspaper was still in Circulation, The Local Radio Station was allowed to Broadcast without censorship. PLEASE !!! try and do some research before making silly comments which You know full well that You are Not Able to back up with evidence !!
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3Trimonde
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse +3An illegal and unjustifiable act of force. Time to stop pretending. .
Just like what Britain always does, and has been doing around the world for centuries Steve Potts. It's doing it right now as we speak while hiding like a cheating thief behind arms sells and “lending” military personnel in other countries, so that it appears uninvolved in Ukraine. It always astounds me to see how revealing self denial lives in the British people when they write crap like yours on the internet.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Dirk; I am well aware of how uningenoulsy stupid the Junta was, and what it let its soldiers do on the islands. It would have been much wiser to first try leaving the islanders completely alone and at peace, and then if anything funny was enacted by them, take the blow and only later take measures accordingly after the fact. They were pathetic, they thought they could make the islanders Argentinians overnight. The Argentinians did not have a modern trained army, they had no understanding given to them by any experience at all, its incredible they even made the scores that they did, mostly things to do with the airforce. But that was not what I was referring to anyways. I was referring to their objective. Their objective was ejecting the British government. Their aim was not the islanders, it was a territorial defense operation meant to recuperate the islands from the British. How they “treated” the islanders was functional to that aim, but the islanders themselves were never the target. They still are not, even if the islanders and London want to MAKE IT about the islanders, for strategic reasons, trying to eclypse the sovereignty dispute with a different logic and narrative about the dispute. That's why their campaign is never ending, and why they act as if they never stop taking the islands, or stealing the islands from Argentina. That's why they maintain the dispute in a fictitious “war hypothesis” with a completely illogical unnecessary military base, installing ongoing insecurity in the islanders while giving them something to be motivated about etc etc
“Eclipsed to territorial dispute with Argentina”
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry bud no such thing now or ever, under international law.
“Islanders and London want to MAKE IT about the islanders”
You mean that the UN Charter, trumps Argentina’s bogus claim.
FitzRoy “how do you justify locking 114 innocent people in a hall with only two buckets for a toilet?”. No islander were killed nor tortured by argentine soldiers during the malvinas conflict. It happens that they were in the middle of a combat zone in a WAR!!!. Confort was not an option..
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Nevertheless, i dont see any accusation to Argentina of having committed war crimes during 1982. Perhaps you have more experience bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan where civilians were bombed, killed, tortured and raped. Oh and i forgot ransacked and exploited while your oil companies continue to benefit exploiting their natural resources.
There is no bigger atrocities than the acts committed by the USA and its “allies” in the modern age. Not even Russia acted with such horrific “manners”. Perhaps, the difference is that the iraqians were not part of NATO and the british in Malvinas form part.
Libby , look at the news, today Ukrainians with hands tied behind their back and shot in the head, Klitschko calls it genocide.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Judge Jose, and operation “shock and awe” was more civilised uh?.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/19/britain-guilty-systemic-torture-iraq
Libby, get off your high horse, your own ancestors are no better stealing land and killing the true natives of south America, No country is pure as the driven snow,
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Liberato
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2In Iraq there are now democratic elections where the Iraqi people decide their government, its not perfect but better than Saddam Hussein.
Will Russia allow Ukraine to elect their government post invasion without interference?
Would Argentina allow the Falkland Islanders to determine their future?
Of course not!
With the exception of Argentina civilization has depended on democracy, where people choose the government to represent them. It has generally worked better than the alternatives.
I admit, if my country had continually elected corrupt, lying, cheating, murdering Peronists for the majority of the last 50 years, I'd question democracy too.
Judge Jose, exactly, so the remark i was responding to “how do you justify locking 114 innocent people in a hall with only two buckets for a toilet?”????. There are not good or bad people as you are indoctrinated to think of. There are interests, So condemning the common russian for the atrocities of their government or condemning the argentines becouse 40 years ago kept islanders without a toilet its the same if we condem you for the atrocities of your own government and we dont have to look back 2 centuries ago.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2So your hands are not clean to put on accusations on others. You want Putin under jail, arrested or executed?, go find Tony Blair first, he is an adviser executive on oil these days.
Monkeymagic, “Will Russia allow Ukraine to elect their government post invasion without interference?” And thats what you think happened in Iraq post invasion???? or Afghanistan???. Your media even have used the phrase “puppet presidents” to refers to the governments there.
“Would Argentina allow the Falkland Islanders to determine their future?”. The Malvinas islanders can determine their future as british in british territory or as argentines on argentine territory. It depends on the results of the sovereignty dispute negotiations. Do you consider the United Nations have allowed islanders to determine their future?. If so, why are they still in the decolonization process?. Why all resolutions made regarding Malvinas have not requested to be taken care of their wishes as a “people” with self-determination rights?.
“I admit, if my country had continually elected corrupt, lying, cheating, murdering Peronists for the majority of the last 50 years, I'd question democracy too.”. I dont question democracy, i question your governments with parliamentary accused of corruption, composed with high cocain consumers, a PM that lied to you, telling you to “free” Iraq that was asociated with al qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction. And that deliberately invaded and still their oil.
Libby, Just stop with the nonsense, your own country is built on the stealing of land off the true owners of the South America continent , more recently your evil government killed thousands of your own people, and if by some miracle they had won the Falklands war then Chile would have been next, and it wouldnt have stopped after that ,.there is no such place as the Malvinas and never will be, it is sad that you waste your life on a myth and fantasy,
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liberato
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our media says a lot of things...it is free to tell the truth or lie through its teeth. Your media says what the government tells it to...I know which I prefer. Indeed your government recently issued a “Malvinas document” to tell the media what to print.
If Argentina had a free press it could hold your corrupt and broken government to account, but it wont change the fact that Argentina is unique. It chooses to be lied to, loves corruption, and wants to be poor because being wealthy requires work.
It is the only country in the world that was a first world country and is now a bankrupt 3rd world country.
Judge Jose, “Just stop with the nonsense...”. What nonsense?. Do you think the colonial situation of the islands its a product of Argentina?. Do you want Argentina to recognize Malvinas, Georgias, the Sandwich islands, the Orkney, the antartic and millons of square kilometers of sea, as british sovereign territory becouse of what you claim our ancestors took land from the natives?.
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -2And what will you gain if Argentina drop its claim?. Do you think that the ten territories under british colonialism will cease to be considered in a colonial situation?.
Monkeymagic, It is evident you have not the remotest idea of our media. But to give you a clue, it is exactly like your media. We also have our own version of Murdoh tycoon.
Going back to the democracy topic, wasnt the son of Thatcher convicted and fined in South Africa for funding the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt?. Nice perception of democracy you have there.
Liberato
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “territories under British colonialism” could cease to be considered a colonial situation tomorrow if they wanted.
The French overseas territories have done it, simply by voting in French General Elections.
They went straight off the list.
The 10 British “colonies” want to run themselves as self-governing territories NOT as part of the UK.
So if by giving the people in the territories what they want make them colonies carry on.
Gibraltar has been free from Spain longer than Argentina.
So, you can carry on with the silly “whataboutery” but the fact remains, Argentinas claim is a nonsense, aimed at directing the gullible against a made up enemy based on no historic basis whatsoever.
As I say, if its colonialism you want to see an end of...make the islands independent, it worked for Argentina! We will defend them though, so if you attack again.........
“Do you think the colonial situation of the islands its a product of Argentina?”
Apr 03rd, 2022 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is simply Argentine viveza cryoll, as the Referendum was the final step in decolonization process.
As the UK and the Islanders have complied with all the required UN Charter articles.
”Decolonization (American English) or Decolonisation (British English) is the undoing of colonialism ... The fundamental right to self-determination is identified by the United Nations as core to decolonization, allowing not only independence, but also other ways of decolonization. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer but to allow a process of self-determination.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
Monkeymagic “The “territories under British colonialism” could cease to be considered a colonial situation tomorrow if they wanted.”. Uhh right, i forgot they are considered a colony becouse the islanders didnt choosed the “three” options. what a pity, i guess the world is gonna have to wait until islanders decide in a bit one of the three options or until the UN say lets start a fourth option, right?.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess you dont mind if we continue to consider the islands a colony until the UN says otherwise?.
Terence Hill, The referendum its your exclusive viveza criolla. Asking the british people if they want to continue to be british people?. Imagine if France invade part of Britain and implant their population there and organize a referendum between its people to decide if they wants to be with france or within the UK. That will not resolve the invasion, nor it will legitimate the invasion and will definitely be choosen a french result in the referendum in the same way as in Malvinas referendum, with a positive vote of over 98%.
It is bad for me to tell you, that it should have been better to convince one or too more voters to vote no in the “referendum”. It would have looks more legitimate.
Nevertheless, the organism that supervise decolonization did not supported that charade..
Seem to recall that a fourth option was added by Res 2625 (XXV) in 1970.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1“The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
“... emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people...”
Since forgotten or ignored by the UN.
Another paragraph from 2625 is worthy of note -
“The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles...”
So much for the Islanders being British.
Argentina and Russia sit in the same boat. Both governments think they have the right to claim territory outside their own country for some historical reasons.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina believes that the F.I. are “usurped” Argentine territory, which they want to “take back”. Putin believes that Ukraine is Russian territory, which he wants to “take back”. Ukraine was de facto under Russian/Soviet rule for more than 300 years. It declared independence when the USSR fell apart. Of course Ukraine has the right of self determination even if it was Russian for a long time. Even more now after the war crimes committed by Russian forces.
But Argentina's claim is even weaker. If they think they could take over the F.I. because they had some minor presence there before 1833, Russia could claim all the former USSR plus Finland, Austria could claim Hungary, Turkey could claim Greece and Spain could also claim Argentina. Many borders around the world would be changed if more countries claimed “territorial integrity” as they consider it was 200 years ago.
”Asking the british people if they want to continue to be british people?. Imagine…”
Apr 04th, 2022 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It absolutely comports with “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 ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination. The Falklands are on the list, so they enjoy the right to self-determination.
Michigan Journal of International Law
Paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, “the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.”
Roger Lorton, Great, so the 10 territories under british colonialism can be decolonized following your theorie, but are ignored by the United Nations?. So it seems the UN is deliberated discriminating Britain, having decolonized the French overseas territories?.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Swede, Russia had not clamed sovereignty rights over Ukraine. Not even in Crimea. They argue that with the Coup d'etar in 2014 the people living in Crimea decided in a referendum to become part of Russia. So the “people” in crimea are the one ceding sovereignty to Russia. Pretty much in line with the british refusing to negotiate sovereignty becouse the people in Malvinas choosed in a “referendum” to stay with Britain and refuse to negotiate with Argentina.
When you say that Argentina had some minor presence in Malvinas before 1833 you are assuming that Britain had a mayor presence. Britain had a non existance presence. In 1833, there was 59 years of no british presence, nor claim nor anything. And before those 59 years of non existance british presence, there was a minor british presence in a place already occupied, settled and claimed territory.. In 1833, when the british invaded and took Puerto Soledad, it was the first time ever the british set foot on that island.
Your theorie of all the world borders to be changed are an indoctrinated lie you are eating every day. Finland, Hungary, Greece and Argentina are legally stablished nations with self determination rights. It will never change its status. Malvinas legal status its of a colony of the UK. No matter what the british legal status is conserning the “BOT”. This is a sovereignty dispute, not an anexation of a nation.
“Your theorie of all the world borders to be changed are an indoctrinated lie.”
Apr 04th, 2022 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is exactly what you’re doing, I have presented the truth, and thus the proof.
“Malvinas legal status its of a colony of the UK.”
The Referendum has legally decolonized the Falkland Islands.
Libby. Putin is on record saying that Ukraine does not exist as a country and it is part of historical Russia,
Apr 04th, 2022 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it is irrelevant if anyone was on the islands or not, the islands were already claimed by Britain, this was recognised by both France and Spain.
Again you have reverted back to your old ways of waffle, drivel, twisted fact and untruths.
There will be no negotiations on sovereignty ever,
Terence Hill, The “legally” is subjective to the colonizer power to a disputed territory. It is not legally under international law becouse under international law, the sovereignty is under dispute. you can invade a sovereign nation and impose your laws, but that law is not made by the legitimate owner. you can call them Falklands, BOT, whatever but for the UN they are the Falklands/ Malvinas, a territory with a colonial situation, which sovereignty is under dispute between the UK and Argentina.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The same with the referendum. Britain can organize a referendum or impose any law they want becouse they are the de-facto administrator of the colonial regime. But that law is not legitimate in a territory under dispute. Thats why the UN ask for the UK as the colonial administration all data over the colony each year instead of asking Islanders.
Judge Jose, no waffle, under international law of the time and of any time, to claim a place granted no sovereignty rights over a territory already discovered, claimed and settled by another power. France and Spain did not recognized any rights to Britain. quite the contrary.
Not true Libby, check out their historical records not the United Provinces propaganda.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0every statement you have made has been debunked over and over again by various posters but you keep repeating the same waffle, drivel , twisted facts and untruths, indoctrination runs deep in you, stop wasting your life on a myth and a fantasy.
“Legally is subjective to the colonizer power to a disputed territory.”
Apr 04th, 2022 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Legally means what has been already established under international law, as under the UN Charter or by ICJ rulings et al.
“The sovereignty is under dispute” so you claim. But it’s not legally, Argentina is barred from any legal determinations; because of her continued legal acquiescence.
“But that law is not legitimate in a territory under dispute.” That’s your unsupported assertion, no proof, no truth.
“France and Spain did not recognized any rights to Britain.”
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
Judge Jose, quite the contrary. you continue to spout that the UN consider the islands as a british territory which do not delist them from the colony list becouse of a burocracy procedure where the islanders have to choose one of three options to be delisted. There is nothing more fantasious excuse than that. And then you go to the c24 committe to cry about the evil Argentina and the evil UN for not recognizing their self-government.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What statement from mine was debunked?.
Terence Hill, “Legally means what has been already established under international law, as under the UN Charter or by ICJ rulings et al.”. Right, no UN charter specifically talks about Malvinas, No ICJ was ever dictaminated about Malvinas. For the UN, legally, under international law, the islands status is of a colony of Britain in a process of decolonization, which sovereignty is under dispute between the UK and Argentina.
For Britain, that considers the islands its territory, the british laws conserning the islands are the laws that internationally are binding to the islands.
For Argentina, that considers the islands its territory, the argentine laws conserning the islands are the laws that internationally are binding to the islands.
For the UN, The islands sovereignty is under dispute. Which turns any british or argentine laws regarding the islands irrelevant until the sovereignty dispute is solved. For them, the islands are not a BOT, or argentine territory, for them, The islands are textually a Non Self-Governing Territory, administered by Britain and claimed by Argentina. If you once in your life visit the UN webpage you will get the same conclusion.
About Utrech treaty, You are explicity recognizing spanish rights over Malvinas to claim that Argentina was infringing the spanish territory as an excuse to invade. Do you realize how absurd if what you are claming?.
Again Libby your wrong, i have never ever mentioned the c24 , others may have, the c24 is nothing of importance, every statement you make is bunkem, you deny Britain were the first to record the islands, you deny Britain ever had the islands , Britain does not run the islands, the Falklanders do. i could go on and on ,the list is endless, all you have ever had is an illegal garrison on the islands for a few weeks, Why not go to the ICJ if you are so confident of your proof.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Judge Jose, i mentioned the c24. My statements are responded with lies. You guys claims that the UN recognize the self-governance and self-determined rights of the islanders but as the options for decolonization are not choosen by the islanders they remain in the UN colony list as if a burocracy was the impediment for the UN to recognize the “decolonization” of Malvinas.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0quotes:“Britain were the first to record the islands”. The islands were recorded by spanish navy since the 1500's.
“you deny Britain ever had the islands”. Britain landed on Isla Trinidad and claimed sovereginty and settle them a year after the french and abandoned the islands in 1774 to never return. They left a plaque but did not mantained any intention to keep the place that were under spanish exclusive control. That is called acquiescence. Then in 1829, they remembered they claimed sovereignty in 1765 and protested to Argentina, invading in 1833 what they considered theirs!!!.
“Britain does not run the islands, the Falklanders do”. That is your theorie. For the United Nations, the islands are a non self-governing territorie, administered by Britain, claimed by Argentina. Thats a FACT. It is not a myth fabricated by Argentina or by me. It is the United Nations that considers that the islands have a colonial situation, that the UK its the administering power and which sovereignty is claimed by Argentina.
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/content/falkland-islands-malvinas#:~:text=The%20Falkland%20Islands%20(Malvinas)*,Charter%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.
In this link, it is described the legal status the UN considers apply to Malvinas. In that description, it is mentioned also who is the administering power of Malvinas. and it is stablished also that the sovereignty is under dispute between only the UK and Argentina.
You can go on and on talking about the legality of being a BOT or about the legality of the queen as their Head of State or its “constitution” or “referendum” but nope.
More untruths Libby. no one knows for sure who saw the islands first but Britain not Spain were the first to officially record them ,fact, stop the BS,
Apr 04th, 2022 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is every island in the world occupied, of course not, is every Argie island occupied, of course not, islands do not have to be occupied to be claimed, grow up,
Britain does not run the Falklands, they are governed by themselves, your UN argument is nothing more than a technicality and rather childish,
On top of that you lost a war, no dispute, its finished, you can whine and moan for the next 50 years but nothing will change, there is no such place as the Malvinas, never has been and never will be, enough of your waffle.drivel, twisted facts and untruths,
Liberato
Apr 04th, 2022 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly you are confusing two completely different things
Whether the 10 British Overseas Territories are colonies or not, and whether or not there is a sovereignty dispute.
We are perfectly happy for the UN Decolonisation committee to call them whatever they like, we know the methods others have used to decolonise, and at the moment its not what the inhabitants want, so what...nothing that happens in Pitcairn, or Anguilla or St Helena is anything to do with sovereignty. In fact, the UN General Assembly voted against an Argentine ammendment suggesting a sovereignty dispute being something that should stop self-determination being an acceptable route out of colonialism.
You talk of British abstentia from the islands, but Argentina has never been present on the Islands except for 10 weeks in 1832 where they murdered their own governor and raped his wife.
So unfortunately, there is a sovereignty dispute because, just as if I claimed Patagonia tomorrow there would be a de facto sovereignty dispute, my claim like yours however would be without merit.
What is really the problem with BOT:s (or colonies if you prefer that term) if the people living there prefer that status? Nobody is opressed. And why can some European countries have territories in other continents without problem? In South America there is a part of the France. It is totally integrated in the French Republic, not more self-governing than Provence or Normandy. But it is not considered a NSGT and not on any decolonisation list. Greenland is in North America, but part of the Danish realm, no problem.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Judge Jose, uhhh a technicality!!!!. hahaha right!!!. I get it, solve the “technicality” first and then we will recognize the “New” nation. Becouse if it is a technicality that the UN put the islands on a colony list, it is also a technicality that Argentina considers them to be a british colony.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Monkeymagic quote:“We are perfectly happy for the UN Decolonisation committee to call them whatever they like, we know the methods others have used to decolonise, and at the moment its not what the inhabitants want”.
Great, i agree. My opinion is that the other “methods” you suggest its called decolonization, And are managed according to the UN. And if the islanders are happy with the status they currently have, Its fine but do not pretend us to have a different definition to the islands while the current status (they currently have) in the UN is not changed from a territory with a colonial situation and a sovereignty dispute. You like the status quo?. fine, do not pretend to change us.
quote2:“...the UN General Assembly voted against an Argentine ammendment suggesting a sovereignty dispute being something that should stop self-determination being an acceptable route out of colonialism”. what resolution are you referring to?.
quote3:“there is a sovereignty dispute because, just as if I claimed Patagonia tomorrow there would be a de facto sovereignty dispute”. Nope, becouse you are not a nation. But yes there is a sovereignty dispute also becouse Britain invaded a took Argentine territory to mantain a colony.
Swede, the answear its very simple. They are not colonies. You want decolonization without being decolonized.
“The …in the UN is not changed from a territory with a colonial situation and a sovereignty dispute”
Apr 04th, 2022 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes it is, due to the fact the referendum was carried out under the auspices of :
“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 ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination.
Since the Referendum is an excise of the right to self-determination, Bingo.
Still not read this piece by the South Atlantic Council's Professor Willetts then, Libby?
Apr 04th, 2022 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/occpap12.pdf
A rounded explanation, methinks.
Oh Terence, Terence, Terence ... How can you be so bright, and not see the trickery that you yourself are perpetuating. Let's take what you are saying and order it properly, shall we??
Apr 04th, 2022 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“...peoples who have not yet attained ... of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount”.
Question: Have not yet attained self government FROM WHO? Who is keeping the islanders from their “independent self governance”? I'll answer: Britain is. So the terminology regarding their interests being “paramount” are contextualized in this non-self governing case to Britain's lack of will keeping them, or they keeping themselves, from independence from Britain. ... What does Argentina have to do with all that? I'll tell you what; nothing. This is the reason why Britain itself listed its own people on the islands on the List of Non-Self Governing Territories, to create a paradigm it could steer and maneuver over the never properly presented to the United Nations denouncement by Argentina of British territorial usurpation in 1833 followed by the American attack of 1831, which Argentina disingenuously adhered to, never understanding the trap it subscribed to by accepting this protocol created by the imperialist victors of WW2 .
Terence Hill, No it isnt. The UN charter did not auspiced that “referendum” and you are confusing the obligations that the UK have as its administering power and the decolonization process. Whatever the form of colonialism, all administering power have the same obligation to support the peoples of the NSGT. But it doesnt mean that any territory in the decolonization process suffered one kind of colonialism where its administering power subjugated them. Thats why there was no United Nations Observer in the referendum nor any kind of UN support. Which, by the way, supporting NSGT in organizing referendums are one of their main aims.
Apr 04th, 2022 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Going back to reality and not taking openly of a UN Charter as you. I will again send you the United Nation webpage where it describes the Malvinas Islands status that directly, openly, correctly and without technicallities describe the LEGAL and CURRENT status of Malvinas.in that international forum:
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/content/falkland-islands-malvinas#:~:text=The%20Falkland%20Islands%20(Malvinas)*,Charter%20of%20the%20United%20Nations.
I can also Link to you all and everyone of the resolutions made in the UN, by the UN regarding Malvinas. In all of them it is described the same thing.
Lorton, like Think said in another article, i cant open your link, it may contain phishing links. but im sure it is a document written by british where it doesnt even talk of the UN. Am i right?.
“Who is keeping the islanders from their “independent self governance”?
Apr 04th, 2022 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You can try all the sophistry you want, as the Referendum was inaugurated solely by the Islanders. They had a number of voting options, and we all know how that went down.
“Never properly presented to the United Nations denouncement by Argentina”
What are you talking about there was a deliberately fraudulent submission to the UN in 1965.
Legal position is, you cannot win as a result of your own fraud.
OK Terence. I take it back...
Apr 05th, 2022 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1you are not 'that' bright.
Try reading what I wrote, again, I admit I'm not as good a writer as Liberato is and I make a lot of typos, but give it a go anyways.
“The United Nation webpage where it describes the Malvinas Islands status”
Apr 05th, 2022 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0A politically biased third-rate committee’s opinion cannot fly in the face of overwhelming UN Charter article compliance. The Charter is tops, there is no higher authority.
None so blind, .......
Apr 05th, 2022 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0From a talk by Prof Willetts in March, 2013.
Principle VI of Resolution 1541 says there are three ways in which a colony “can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent state;
(b) Free association with an independent state; or
(c) Integration with an independent state”.
...
Applying this to the Falklands, self-determination means choosing to be independent or to
integrate with Argentina or to integrate with Britain or to have full self-government in association with any country that agrees to offer support with external relations. ...
Resolution 1541 is just as important to the Falklands as is the Decolonisation Declaration. It
specifies that the Falklands must remain on the agenda of the Decolonisation Committee until one of the three options has been chosen and implemented. It also specifies that no option will be valid, unless it is freely chosen by the people of the Falklands. This means that even if some future British government were to agree to hand the Falklands over to Argentina the Falkland Islanders would still have the right to say yes or no to the integration option. The very fact of being on the agenda of the Decolonisation Committee each year is the strongest possible evidence that the Falkland Islanders do have the right to self-determination.”
At their 2013 referendum, the Falklanders chose an option that was not on the UN's list. That is the reason that the Falklands remain listed as a NSGT.
Argentina's views are quite irrelevant. If the Islanders opt for one of the three, their territory will be delisted.
Terence Hill, if its not a technicality, it is a sophistry. Im not an academic. But its a simple fact that colonial powers will never accept losing its colonial dominions. Unless that it is in its interests to do so. Geopolitics is not new to this age. So they will push for self-determination in one place and refuse to grant it on another, They will make a referendum charade in one place and transfer sovereignty without question in another. They will invade a whole nation claiming an inocent mistake in the intelligence reports, but accuse of mass murdering another nation that makes “another” “mistake”.
Apr 05th, 2022 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you have the colonial regime accusing Argentina of not treating them like humans becouse we considers they are a territory under colonialism, just like the UN, while they pretend us to treat them as a new nation.
The link i gave you is not the webpage of the c24, it is the UN webpage.
Lorton, in this same article you said textually:”Seem to recall that a fourth option was added by Res 2625 (XXV) in 1970.
“The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.””.
And you add :“Since forgotten or ignored by the UN”.
It seems you british used the fourth option and yet, the islands remain listed in the colony list. And dont blame the c24 or the UN, all resolutions made historically regarding the islands end with the same thing. The way to put and end the special and particular colonial situation is through peacefull negotiations between Argentina and the UK. Taking care of course, of the interests of the inhabitants.
The UN has not forgotten or ignored the islanders as you suggested. They simple do not believe there is a people entitled to self-determination. The ICJ in chagos case was clear enough of the scopes of the self-determination right.
I quote:
Apr 05th, 2022 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse +1“In 1970, the situation changed a little by the UN opening up of the theoretical possibility of a so called “fourth option”. The Declaration on the Principles of International Law re-affirmed the right of self-determination and re-affirmed the three options from Resolution 1541. But it added new wording. I will quote the paragraph in full:
“The establishment of a sovereign and independent state, the free association or integration
with an independent state or the emergence into any other political status freely determined
by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people”.
The idea of “any other political status” has never been expanded and it is unclear what it could mean. Presumably, it could cover the use of other existing models, such as the Isle of Man, the Aland Islands, Andorra or Liechtenstein, or some variation of free association, as options for self-determination.”
Negotiations were completed in 1989. There has been no UN resolution since then.
The UN clearly considers the matter settled, and the status quo will remain until such time as the Islanders opt for one of the three. There is no doubt about the right of the Islanders to self-determination.
Britains position is clearly made out in its last letter to the UN.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/letter-dated-18-january-2022-from-the-united-kingdom-to-the-united-nations.-refutes-allegations-in-agentine-letter-dated-31-dec.-2020-concerning-the-falkland-islands.-a76656-en.pdf
Argentina is impotent. Irrelevant.
Lorton, So now the UN did not forgotten or ignored, but they closed the matter?. And the fourth option is now a theoretical possibility and has never been expanded and it is unclear what it could mean?. Wow how fast change things in only one article!!!. Is there an argentine lorton here that debate with the british one?.
Apr 05th, 2022 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0quote:“Negotiations were completed in 1989. There has been no UN resolution since then.”. No negotiation was completed in 1989. The topic remains permanently in the General Assembly provisional agenda each year, need the link?. And there is, each year, a resolution made by the committe in charge of the Malvinas decolonization process in the United Nations.
About your link of the british letter, it is the same old lies. It is really funny that they say and i quote: “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”
impose Argentine sovereignty over British sovereign territory?????. In 1833????. First there was no british sovereignty of any kind in there by 1833. The british government have not the remotest idea of the Soledad Island becouse theyve never landed there. The islands was in complete controll of Spain. And if we took the nine years the british settlement lasted (59 years before 1833) in Trinidad Island, they only “controlled” that little island.
Nevertheless, The UN still is unimpressed with the british tales.
Liberato
Apr 05th, 2022 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0You continue to confuse two separate things. The UN decolonisation committee has only the ability to discuss whether regions have been decolonised. They do not like the current status of British Overseas territories. Each of those territories could adopt any of the three options that 100 other colonies chose...including full integration or full independence. Canada chose independence, Martinique chose full integration into France.
Separate to that, the UN recognises there is a sovereignty dispute. That is a fact. It makes no comment on the merits of the dispute, that is beyond its remit.
You are trying to claim (wrongly) the two are related. They are not.
So...back to 1833.
We agree that
1) The Spanish had a colony on the islands
2) The Spanish left the islands voluntarily, with the inhabitants returning to Spain via Uruguay
3) Vernet set a business up on the islands having recognised both British and Argentine claims
4) Vernet left voluntarily leaving the British Matthew Brisbane in charge.
5) Argentina sent a governor in October 1832, he was murdered by his own crew, his wife was raped in front of their children
6) Britain returned to the islands in Jan 1833, to re-establish its historic claim.
Very little supports any historic Argentine claim, less still why 190 years of peaceful inhabitants should hand over their homes to a hostile neighbour.
Britain peacefully broke up its Empire returning 1/4 of the world to the current inhabitants, if that worked in Canada, Australia, Malaysia etc...it would work fine in the Falklands.
The United Nations as it was designed, is quite a corrupt piece of work!
Apr 05th, 2022 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1The “Falkland Islands” do not qualify nor meet the requirements for which the list of Non-Self Governing Territories was created. A clever name I would not be surprised to find out it was worded as such so that cases like Malvinas could pass for the category of those Colonized Peoples this list and all pertinent articles and protocols were supposedly created for. It doesn't matter what Britain cleverly said the islands were, it created the Falkland Islands from scratch with people itself brought over to live on the islands (After taking them from Argentina and expelling Argentina's government off the islands) from its own territory under its own government from departure to arrival. This has never been the kind of problematic territorial situation the List of Non-Self Governing Territories was meant to assist.
The wording and forms of this “area” of the United Nations was created by the subjugators themselves, people who were either British, American or from countries that were loyal allies to these countries.
As they say on TV law shows; “This is not a case which this law addresses, it needs to be thrown out of court!” It's a totally ridiculous scam. When have the islanders themselves ever presented their case before the United Nations countering their “administrative power”, Britain? I'll tell when, NEVER. So who are the protagonists to which the purpose of all these articles apply to? Have the Islanders or Britain formally complained to the United Nations about Argentina regarding the list of Non-Self Governing Territories? Nop. Argentina is merely at times freely referred to made to be the country this language applies to AS IF it were the country responsible for the islands being part of the list of Non-Self Governing Territories, yet it is not.
It's a hugely corrupt and cleaver ploy being orchestrated by the British and its cohorts.
Trimonde
Apr 05th, 2022 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse +1You claim to have studied Falklands history. You would therefore know that the British did NOT expel an Argentine government in 1833.
The only person on the Sarandi that was assigned a post by Argentina was Mestevier. He had been murdered by his own crew, and his wife raped in front of their children. He could therefore not have been expelled.
Pinedo was the Captain of the Sarandi, he was NOT a representative of the Argentine government nor afforded governor status.
So..lets maintain the truth.
Argentine knew it did not have sovereignty in 1832, it wanted sovereignty. It sent Mestevier to the islands to gain sovereignty. Mestevier was murdered by his crew. The crew were expelled 10 weeks later.
These details do not constitute the overall category and definition of Argentina's political status regarding Malvinas. Just because the Americans attacked and destroyed the Puerto Luis settlement and Argentina found itself in a moment of difficulty re-establishing its functionality does not detract from the islands being officially incorporated into the government of Buenos Aires in 1820 nor any of the merits brought on by all the official activities carried out since then and through Vernet. So If I go to Britain and sequester the Queen and your Prime Minister putting them in exile somewhere outside the UK, suddenly somehow Britain is no longer British?? You people will just say anything so as long as it appears to sound right!
Apr 05th, 2022 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse -1“The islands being officially incorporated into the government of Buenos Aires in 1820”
Apr 05th, 2022 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Too little to late the UK had already claimed them.
“The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” ”The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Libby, ... “So now the UN did not forgotten or ignored, but they closed the matter?. And the fourth option is now a theoretical possibility and has never been expanded and it is unclear what it could mean?. ”
Apr 05th, 2022 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which bit of “I quote” did you fail to understand?
And now ... “The topic remains permanently in the General Assembly provisional agenda each year,..”
Provisional Agenda, Libby. Provisional. Takes just ONE member of the UN to call for a debate.
NONE, not even Argentina, has done so since 1988. This is the current UN Working Paper. Read the last paragraph.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/un-working-paper-falklands-2022.pdf
”In its resolution 58/316, the General Assembly decided that the item entitled “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” would remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. As at the date of the issuance of the present working paper, no such notification had been received.“
”NO SUCH NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED”
Sorry for shouting, but your deafness to reality is well known.
So, if Argentina will not call for a UN GA debate ..... the matter IS settled.
Argentina is impotent.
1833? Yes, Buenos Aires (not the UP) was trespassing. Given two written notices (ignored) and the legally ejected.
Go learn
Trimonde
Apr 05th, 2022 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is where your argument falls apart.
We have reached the crux.
The islands were not part of the government of Buenos Aires in 1820. You cannot have it both ways. There was nobody on the islands in 1820.
Your claim entirely exists around an inheritance from Spain that holds no ground. Spain voluntarily left the islands, the people who lived there returned to SPAIN via Uruguay. None of them were ever Argentine. How on earth can you claim a territory in absentia when not a single one of your citizens have ever set foot on it? You might as well claim Mars or Jupiter.
So, you then move on to the Vernet business. Which was just that, Vernet left voluntarily and left Matthew Brisbane in charge of his business. Matthew Brisbane was British was he your “Argentine governor”.
Finally we move to Mestevier, as previously stated he was your appointed Governor along with the 26 souls onboard the Sarandi....they murdered him. Who was the governor after the murder....and who were they governing.
Before 1820 there were Spanish people on the islands who returned to Spain
These are highly inconvenient truths, between 1820 and 1832 there was NEVER an Argentine community, NEVER an Argentine Government..only Vernets business that he left to Matthew Brisbane.
And in 1832 the one time Argentina actually sent someone to the islands with the express purpose of claiming them, he was murdered by his own crew and they raped his wife in front of their children.
This pitiful history you believe is a sovereignty claim, a indeterminable right to the territory. I am sorry...but it isn't. Its a set of myths...a poor chain of events that no more gives Argentina “rights” than it does to the Moon!
Britain gave 1/4 of the surface of the earth peacefully to back to the inhabitants of the land...the reason the Falklands have not been “returned” to Argentina is because they were never Argentine, and Argentina has proved itself untrustworthy to protect the rights of the inhabitant
Actually, 5/16th of the worlds land area, 1/3rd of the world’s population.
Apr 05th, 2022 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When is Argentina going to give Wallmapu back to the Mapuche, the rightful owners???
Lorton, I think this is the fourth or fifth time we talk about this. The provisional agenda, its provisional becouse it is a draft of the topics to be debated in the GA. Which means as you said, that any nation can pick up that topic and present it in the assembly. In 1989 Argentina and the UK decided to put the dispute on the GA on hold as to advance in more practical matters. It was called the sovereignty umbrella formula. That formula was not aimed at settled the sovereignty dispute the colonial situation. In that provisional agenda, the topic of the question of the Malvinas its permanent, which means that each year the topic is included in the GA provisional agenda waiting to be taken to end once and for all the special and particular....
Apr 05th, 2022 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you know the 1989 series of talks and you know they presented the agreements to the GA and you know that the topic of Malvinas remains in the GA provisional agenda, which means it is not a matter closed.
Resuming, if the matter is closed why remains on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly each year?. Why do you think that becouse Argentina does not take the question to the GA its the sign that the GA considers the topic settled?. What event happended in 1989 that you think closed the matter?.
You are playing the mistery claiming, in the name of the UN, that the matter is closed in 1989?. what event happened in the General Assembly in 1989????.
“In 1989 Argentina and the UK decided to put the dispute on the GA on hold”
Apr 05th, 2022 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dispute was fully answered in 1850 according to the precepts of international law.
“Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849
To the Honourable Chamber of Representatives
Mess’ Representatives
The Government, in discharge of its duty, has the honour of presenting to your enlightened examination the following state documents. The confidential correspondence held with H.E. the Minister Plenipotentiary appointed to reside in this Capital, Henry Southern Esquire. representing the settlement of differences between the Argentine Confederation and Great Britain, originated from the armed intervention of England and France in the Plate.
It was issued, after Her Majesty had informed herself of the literal terms of the draft of the Convention of Peace. ...
It respectfully requests that you will be pleased to take this matter into your high consideration, and decide upon it, should it be possible for you, during the first days of January 1850.”
JUAN M. DE ROSA FELIPE ARANA.
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:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 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
Agreement in 1989, Libby?
Apr 05th, 2022 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Can you show me that?
Or a reference to it?
The sovereignty umbrella only concerns talks between Argentina and the UK. It is an ad hoc arrangement, applied on occasions when needed. It is not a treaty.
So no, the sovereignty umbrella does not have any effect at the UN. It cannot prevent Argentina calling for a debate, and even with your poor understanding of it, the umbrella could not prevent say Peru, calling for a debate. Or Cuba. Or Chile. Or any of the so-called supporters of Argentina's spurious claims.
Until such time as someone calls for a UN GA debate .... the matter is settled.
”In its resolution 58/316, the General Assembly decided that the item entitled “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” would remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. As at the date of the issuance of the present working paper, no such notification had been received.“
On every working paper since the format changed in 2004.
Argentina is irrelevant
You're such a complete moron Roger. You think insulting us and trying to demean us with hurtful language you're going to achieve anything? You're the irrelevant one. You're a relic that thank god will soon be gone from this world.
Apr 05th, 2022 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Terrence Gil, “If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor”. There was no conquered and there was no war regarding Malvinas.
Apr 05th, 2022 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lorton, It was a joint statement on a sovereignty formula. https://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/4_1989%20_joint_british_argentine_statement_including_text_of_sovereignty_umbrella.pdf
quote:“. It was agreed that both Governments would jointly send the text of the present statement to the Secretary General of the United Nations for distribution as an official document of the General Assembly, under Item 35 of the Agenda of the current session, and of the Security Council. The United Kingdom will transmit this joint statement to the Commission of the European Community, and, for its part, the Republic of Argentina
will do likewise to the Organisation of American States.”
Thats what happened on 19 OCTOBER of 1989 in Madrid. Perhaps you that were so explicit as to 1989 could explain what happened in 1989 to claim that the matter was settled to the UN while they (the United Nations General Assembly), keeps, to this day, the question of Malvinas on their provisional agenda of each year. without to mention the UN body in charge of its decolonization.
A joint statement, Libby?
Apr 05th, 2022 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Saying that they would send a text?
Nothing about any permanent arrangement affecting UN GA debates then?
The sovereignty umbrella does not affect debates at the UN, and yet no member has called for one since 1988. not even Argentina.
No debate, and no resolution.
Have a read - 'Sovereignty Settled
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/falklands-future-in-own-hands-by-douglas-hurd-1994.pdf
Argentina is irrelevant
“There was no war regarding Malvinas.”
Apr 06th, 2022 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0There doesn’t have to be according to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General Theory of Law and State he writes:
“If the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
“So “Trimonde”, how do you justify locking 114 innocent people in a hall with only two buckets for a toilet? No nappies for the 4-month old baby? Only being fed slop delivered by your troops, used as human shields? For all of May as the British advanced?”
Apr 06th, 2022 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1He doesn't need justification, he's a filthy Peronist propagandist who supports torture and political oppression, you know like when Peron added a wing to Buenos Aires' Ramos Mejía General Hospital, whose basement was converted into a police detention center for torture. The abuse of innocent civilians is an amusing part of the story for an individual like Trimonstruosidad...
Terence Hill, if there was no war, there was no peace treaty that secured that “conquest”. You talk of a peace treaty sealing the conquest but there was no conquest, becouse there was no war. You are claiming a principle of conquest. jurist Hans Kelsen referred that it was possible, but not legal. For conquest you need a war!!.
Apr 06th, 2022 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse -2in 1833, the british used the principle of prior discovery and occupation as expressed by the response of Viscount Palmerston on 8 of january of 1834 to the protests made by Argentina as the excuse for the invasion, not conquest.
imoyaro, “how do you justify locking 114 innocent people in a hall with only two buckets for a toilet?”. Entire cities were bombed in Iraq in Operation shock and Awe before the militaries put one foot over Iraq. Killing thousens of civilians. the coalition members were so cynical that told publicly that intelligent bombs were drop to avoid hurting civilians. Of course the bombs were drop in the cities.
Palmerston to Moreno
Apr 06th, 2022 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1January 8, 1834.
Complete
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/palmerston-to-moreno-1834.pdf
Forgotten I had this. Been a decade, mind.
;-)
“Entire cities were bombed in Iraq in Operation shock and Awe before the militaries put one foot over Iraq. Killing thousens of civilians. the coalition members were so cynical that told publicly that intelligent bombs were drop to avoid hurting civilians. Of course the bombs were drop in the cities.”
Apr 06th, 2022 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Illberato, and this has anything to do with what? Keep supporting torture and murder, you Peronists are easy targets... ;)
“There was no conquest, becouse there was no war. You are claiming a principle of conquest. jurist Hans Kelsen referred that it was possible, but not legal. For conquest you need a war!!.”
Apr 06th, 2022 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aren’t you shown for the liar you really are?
You complain the Islands were usurped.
He emphatically states. “Annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Hmm the opinion of an expert of international law, or of a self-serving, indoctrinated, unqualified prejudiced you. That’s a no brainer.
Liberato
Apr 06th, 2022 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep arguing the same old things, which keep getting refuted in the same old way, then when you have no answer you start diverting to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Chagoss islands.
None of which changes the real history of the S. Atlantic, which is your basic problem, you don’t have a case.
We were there before the Spanish and long before Argentina ever existed in any form and have successfully resisted all attempts to invade by both.
Argentina is, always has been and always will be, a S. American country only.
I have to ask, are you getting paid to do this???
Or, blink twice if you are being made to under duress???
Liberato and Trimonde know the history by now.
Apr 06th, 2022 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They claim an inheritance from Spain. This has been proven impossible. The Spanish settlement left and returned to Spain via Uruguay. No Spanish islander ever became Argentine.
They claim Vernets business was an Argentine settlement. This has the tiniest element of truth, but ignores the huge flaw. Vernet knew there was a sovereignty dispute in 1828 before he got there, thought his best interests were served with Argentina in 1929, left the islands voluntarily in 1831 leaving the British Brisbane in charge, agreed financial settlement with the British in 1834. Vernet doesnt count either.
They then go to Mestevier, and the supposed usurpation. The crew of the Sarandi (all 26 of them) who mutineed, murdered Mestevier, and raped his wife....were apparently an established Argentine government according to Liberato....even though they'd been there only 90 days. Doesn't work either.
So yes, it is not illegal for a country (or sorry excuse for one) to believe these fantasies and myths make a sovereignty claim, but equally its not illegal for another country to laugh at them, and pity them.
Not illegal to point weapons at them either, just in case they start believing their own Bullshit.
Apr 07th, 2022 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!