MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
EU-Celac summit's final declaration: Falklands/Malvinas a territory under dispute
The final declaration of the two-day Summit between the European Union (EU) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) issued Tuesday in Brussels included in its 13th provision the Falkland/Malvinas Islands as a territory under dispute. The document also condemned Russia's military deployment in Ukraine with a footnote noting that one country (Nicaragua) would not adhere to that point. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh, the straw clutching...... haven't stopped laughing all day.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Let's get the facts straight.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The Falklands is not in any dispute over sovereignty. Britain has always had full sovereignty.
The issue is that Argentina a rogue land grabbing country has been trying to claim what is a British territory that has more than nine generations of Islanders living on them.
Argentina broke away from Spain to become an independent country. They assumed that the Falklands was owned by Spain so feel they have a right of possession. Just as they have possessed the Patagonian land from a previous indigenous people.
In truth Argentina not only wants the Falklands but all the territory that is owned by Britain in the south west Atlantic.
They have even indoctrinated their people to believe that the Falklands belong to them.
Not once in 190 years have Argentina taken their illegal claim to the international court of justice.
That reason being is ,they simply do not have a case.
Now they want to indoctrinate the minds of the European people that they are the rightful owners . They are counting on Spain to push that theory to the EU.
Argentina is in a desperate financial situation with billions of dollars of foreign debt and looks to everyone for monetary help like the IMF and China. Europe is trying to stop the Chinese influence and Argentina knows that so uses a so called sovereign dispute as their main argument.
It is not a dispute. Britain and the islanders have made their case known to the world, yet Argentina refuses to accept that wish of the people of the islands on the grounds that the islands population does not exist.
3800 islanders beg to differ.
Argentina says that it respects human rights. Therefore, it must respect the rights of the people of the Falklands to determine their own future.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Also uk must respect the human right of 45millon of argentines to live without an alien power usurping their territory.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Kelpers can determine their own future but uk as an alien power in the region is an obstacule.
An obstacle to what exactly Mr Hayes??
Jul 19th, 2023 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Neither the UK or the Falklands are members of either the EU or Celac so whatever whitewashing declarations they jointly cook up at the end of their summit is of no concern to anyone.
It was never Argentine territory. Nothing was usurped from Argentina.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +7The UK is there to protect the Falklands from the Argentines taking what was never Argentine.
There is nothing illegitimate about the UK presence there. It has nothing to do with Argentina. Argentines should worry about Argentina instead. It is falling apart.
The human right you define is odd:
Argentina has usurped territory from Chile, and Paraguay, and from the indigenous Americans. Do Chileans, Paraguayans, and native aboriginals also have the “human right” to live without an alien power usurping their territory?
The Islas Malvinas are part of the Argentine Republic territory. In 1493 the islands were discovered by the Spanish float. In 1520 and until the 18th century the islands were Spanish, later invaded by the French that acknowledge the Spanish sovereignty over the islands and returned them in 1766. The British established camp in 1771 in Trinidad and left when the Spanish expulsed them in 1774, and returned in 1833 after the Provinces of the Rio de La Plata (later Argentina) was formed. Historically, the Islas Malvinas belong rightfully to Argentina, that inherited them from Spain , and since 1829 the Command of the Malvinas Islands was created with Mr Luis Vernet to take possession of the Islands. The new British invasion of 1833 prompted the designation of Dr Manuel Moreno to protest the invasion of the Malvinas Islands in London, in the years 1833, 1834, 1841 and 1849 where he presented the legal and historical reasons to demand the cessation of such occupation. Argentina never resigned sovereignty to the Malvinas Islands.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Geographically, the Islas Malvinas are located in the South Atlantic Ocean Archipielago on the Patagonian Shelf, they are part of the Argentinian continental maritime shelf, they are NOT part of Britain.
It is interesting that previous comments ignore these geographical, historical and international law reasons that demonstrated that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Islas Malvinas, and that its sovereignty was never resigned.
The current economical crisis in Argentina is irrelevant to this claim, same as the alleged claim that the Patagonia Argentina belongs to Chile, Paraguay etc (????).The matter is that the British Empire illegally occupied a sovereign country territory, thousands of kilometers from Britain. When will the British stop occupying illegally other countries? The era of the empires has ended. It is time to acknowledge geographical rights and what historically has been recognised by Spain and France among other countries.
Paraphrasing retired Engrish Copper, Mr. Roger Lorton..., above...:
Jul 19th, 2023 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Oh, the straw that broke the camel's back..., haven't stopped laughing all afternoon...
Capisce..?
The words in the statement: “adherence to international law” should be welcomed. This dispute needs addressing in the ICJ and I strongly suspect that the EU would want this to happen.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Getting the Argentines to the ICJ would be like taking a horse to water and it not wanting to drink.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I also see there are a few disgruntled Argentines on this post who are cancelling out the likes. Do what they can, don't change the status. The Falklands are and always will be British.
Argentinas customary land grabbing stops right here.
If they do go to the ICJ and loose it will likely open the doors to a whole host of affected people that Argentina has wronged in its history, meaning they would likely also demand that their land is returned to them. That is the main reason Argentina will never go to the international court of justice. They are relying on mind change and that will never happen because Falkland Islanders have already been given the absolute right to determine their own future and they have made that choice in a referendum in 2013 when 99.98% told the world they want to remain a part of the British overseas territories and determine their own future. Our future will remain on the course we have chosen and with or without Argentinas blessing we will succeed.
@ Geography and History, continental shelves are irrelevant , Countries being near to are irrelevant, if you really believe the diatribe you have posted then hop on a plane and take your so called evidence with you to the ICJ were it can be decided in a court of international law, your government will never do that because your so called evidence is bunkem and they know that, so why dont all you Spanish and Italian settlers that stole the land from the natives return back to were you are descended from, the Falklanders are no less South American than you Spanish. Portuguese Italian German old uncle tom cobley and all that settled in Latin America, this topic has become so tedious and repetitive , the Falklanders are here to stay, the sooner you realise that the better and then you can get on with your own lives and stop interfering in others.
Jul 19th, 2023 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Financial Times / Paywall article...
Jul 19th, 2023 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Courtesy of El Tænk... ;-)
UK battles to reverse EU endorsement of ‘Islas Malvinas’ name...
- The UK was struggling to reverse a diplomatic defeat over the Falkland Islands on Wednesday after the EU endorsed an Argentina-backed declaration referring to Islas Malvinas, the Argentine name for the disputed territory...
British diplomats requested that European Council president Charles Michel “clarify” the bloc’s position after Buenos Aires trumpeted a “diplomatic triumph” following a summit of EU leaders with Latin America and the Caribbean (Celac) leaders on Tuesday, according to EU and UK officials...
But the request fell on deaf ears. “This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries,” said an EU official. “We cannot issue a statement on their behalf...
“The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
If I may be of service, Trunks
Jul 19th, 2023 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +6https://www.contextotucuman.com/nota/301843/la-union-europea-desmintio-al-gobierno-argentino-y-aclaro-que-no-cambio-su-posicion-sobre-malvinas.html
Probably best to treat La Nacion with some caution
Capisce...?
Another fabrication of lies from Argentina. They need to read the post on the clarin site where the EU confirm they have not supported Argentinas sovereignty dispute with the UK. They said it would not be in their realm to make such suggestions. How easy it is for an indoctrinated people to read the statement wrong then end up with egg all over their faces. Nothing new there then.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse +5Geography and historic facts speak for themselves. No need for them to fabricate them. The aggravated posters here are insulted by the truth, no surprise. The British imperialism has left five countries with those that were original habitants in disarray, and many deaths. Same is true for money and land grubbing British imperialism, usurping sovereign countries from their territories and resources. My statements are fact, and that is why you get 'offended'. The Islas Malvinas are part of the Argentine continental shelf: checked. The Islas Malvinas historically are part of the Spain, Rio de la Plata Provinces, Argentina Republic: checked. The British Empire submitted and usurped riches and land accr9ss the globe: checked. Whether you like it or not, these are facts. And the rest of the world knows this is true.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse -8Engrish copper..., dear...
Jul 20th, 2023 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting your choice of sources..., lad...
You pretend to ignore that “All Brutish institution...: the FINANCIAL TIMES” article..., that correctly describes the fierce diplomatic battle your Foreign and Colonial Office boys valiantly fought and lost last week against the inclusion of the *“M” word at the EU/CELAC final declaration...
*(“M” as in “Malvinas”..., capisce...?)
- Instead you chose an Argie article written by no other than your favourite Argie so-called “Journalist”..., Ms.Natasha Niebieskikwiat...!!!... :-)))
- That auld Engrish saying ain't no wrong...:
- “Birds of a feather flock together”
Chuchle..., chuckle...
@Juan Cervantes. To have a Spanish user name doesn't automatically give veracity to your post/ ideas. Negating the numerous historical facts that prove Argentine's sovereignty over the Archipelago of the islands of the Atlantic south neither has the effect to make them magically disappear. The British second invasion of the Islas Malvinas in 1833 is important, not only because the Argentine Governor of the Malvinas, and other Argentine residents, were expulsed by force, but because it proves once more that the Argentine sovereignty was attacked by British imperialism. This has the effect of rendering the self proclamation of the English descendants wrongly living in a usurped soil null. Yes, you read correctly, their claim is null, as there shouldn't have been living in the Malvinas Islands at all, if not for that illegal British occupation. Either you and the other posters are purposely giving misleading opinions, or you haven't taken the time to seriously research your own history in the question of the Islas Malvinas and its sovereignty. The historical documents shouldn't be difficult for you to find. One post mentions La Nación newspaper as a starting point. You should try researching the facts. Also, your patronising comment regarding my heritage, all Spanish, Italian etc etc to leave the land that was usurped from the original owners ietc etc is too rich to be left inanswered, coming from someone obviously from English descent, with a proven history of slaving and usurping foreign lands and colonise half the world; you are in no position to take a high moral ground. Also you would be surprised to know how many descendants from English, Scottish, etc are in Argentina, and since the rights of the original people of America del Sur is of grave interest of some of you, let me tell you many of us descend from original inhabitants too.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse -8@ g&h , there are NO historical facts that prove that the islands are or ever where Argentine. just indoctrinated fabricated lies, Britain was the first country to claim the islands not Spain not France, no usurping what so ever , just an eviction of an illegal military garrison that was warned twice not to go to the islands and warned to leave once they arrived , what there was on the island was a multi national business venture led by a German Vernet whos second in command was British, nothing to do with Buenos Aires who Vernet by the way had asked permission from Britain to go to the islands, it is you who needs to research the true facts of the islands not the fabricated indoctrinated nonsense you post, regarding your too rich and patronising accusation, you cant answer it because its factually true, Spain conquered and stole the land that became the United Provinces,, and you the Argentines later moved south and stole what is now Southern Argentina from its true owners, the natives of the land, So Britain enslaved the world did it ,but Spanish. Portuguese, French , Itlalians, Mongols, Turks, Arabs, Africans, and just about every one else didnt, dont make me laugh, slavery has been around since mankind existed, yes we do know Brits settled in Argentina, every white man on the whole of the American continent is living on land stolen from the natives and that includes North America too, go do some genuine research and you will be amazed at what you will find,
Jul 20th, 2023 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +4Any pantomime title that begins “Argentina claims .....” has got to be worth seeing.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse +3Seen Clarin this morning, Trunks?
Oh, the original document is here - para.13 causes all the euphoria, apparently
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/65920/st12000-en23.pdf
I doubt James Cleverly even noticed.
Paraphrasing retired Engrish Copper, Mr. Roger Lorton..., above...:
Jul 20th, 2023 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Oh, the straw that broke the camel's back..., haven't stopped laughing all morning...
Capisce..?
Geography and history rights.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse +5Face the real facts. Argentina is not interested in the Actual Falklands. No, their goal is a much bigger one. The only way to try and achieve that bigger goal is to promote all that rubbish about who was here first. As it happens Argentina was the last to come here. They actually did not exist back when Britain was on the islands. In fact Argentina was still Spain living over a thousand miles North of the Falklands.
So no your claim is much more than our little group of islands. It is the huge wealth of what is around them all the way down to and including Antarctica. We have known this for many many years, long before Argentina officially became a country. Now try explaining all that in the ICJ. You would be laughed out of court. Add to that in the 21st century the courts now rule in favour of people having the right to decide their own future. So get off your high horse and get over any desires you once had. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to change it.
The people have been given, through the UN ,the right to determine their own future and that has already been done in a referendum in 2013, where 99.98% of the Falkland Islanders chose to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
That right cannot be ignored even by Argentina.
You choose to ignore it and that we don't exist, which would further damage your illegal mythical claim.
We are here to stay and going nowhere. We are no longer afraid of a bully, we found ways to deal with him. So go back under your rock and let everyone live in peace.
@Geography and history rights Would you care to explain French Guiana and Hawaii?
Jul 20th, 2023 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse +2@FotsRoy I would prefer you illustrate me on Honk Kong and Taiwan, thanks.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse -4Hong Kong? Easy. 90% leased. The lease ran out. Thatcher used the 10% to get a better deal for the 90%. How nice was that?
Jul 20th, 2023 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Taiwan? Never been part of Communist China, but likely to be sold out by the US of A
Spot on Rog, Victoria island was not leased and did not have to be given to China, Taiwan has no wish to be taken over by communists, also France has a little island off the coast of Canada, you dont hear Canada screaming it belongs to them.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there nothing in the world that Argentina gets involved that does not include sovereignty.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +4They are so pathetic and the longer they keep this nonsense up the quicker they are going to destroy themselves.
It's an absolute obsession with them.
They have become so engrossed with their mythical claim, they have almost bankrupted their country caused half their people to live in poverty. Lost their number one status in the beef world. What a shambles, yet these morons who were such rubbish on here are oblivious to everything around them.
Who in their right mind would ever want to be a part if their system. You would gave to be almighty desperate to do that.
With a permanent presence in the S. Atlantic since the 1700s, five territories there today, stretching from the equator to the S. Pole itself, Britain is the oldest regional power in the S. Atlantic.
Jul 20th, 2023 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Since long before Argentina or any other country in the region today ever existed.
At some point it will become obvious even to Argentina that the British are not going anywhere anytime soon.
They will probably start issuing residence permits for S. Georgia or the British Antarctic Territories to feel better.
Ah Taenk, “ birds of a feather” , just about sums up Celac, a collection of whinging , corrupt, incompetent governments repeatedly failing their own citizens, eager to blame all their failures on their wicked imperialist former masters and always lining their own pockets while their countries steadily decline. Yes, you birds are in very good company, keep preening your feathers !
Jul 20th, 2023 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Argentine sovereignty was attacked by British imperialism. This has the effect of rendering the self-proclamation of the English descendants wrongly living in a usurped soil null ”
Jul 20th, 2023 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA” explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
“There was no state of war”. There doesn’t have to be.
“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” p.214 GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE, Hans Kelsen
While the UNGA echo’s well-established international practices
”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 by Peter Malanczuk
@Geography and history rights Hong Kong was leased for 99 years and given back. There is no problem with Taiwan. But you still haven't used your faultless logic to explain my question. Tell us about the Departement of French Guiana.
Jul 21st, 2023 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse +2Posting again, as my previous post wasn't published. As early as 1494 different Treaties redacted according to the international law of that time acknowledged the control and sovereignty of the southern region of South America to the Spanish Crown with ‘its territory, its coasts, seas and islands’. In 1520 a Spanish expedition lead by Fernando de Magallanes discovered the Islands, and based on this discovery rudimentary cartography was drawn after (there was a previous sight of the Archipelago by Americo Vespucio in 1502, but it wasn’t recorded). In the XVIII century both France and the British had ambitions to obtain access to the lucrative commerce of the Atlantic South, and both tried to take possession of these lands. The prompt action of the Spanish Crown blocked in 1749 a British plan to establish a settlement in the Islas Malvinas. But a few decades later they will settled in them. The French honoured the existent treaties and left but the British had to be expulsed by force. The Spanish Crown protested to the English King this illegal settlement that went again its sovereignty, with Kind Charles II denying it was his pirates, but some rogue ones not in his command. 1774 was the year the British were expulsed from Malvinas, and the Spanish established s Crown Governor from then on until almost the half of the next century, when the wars for independence started. The second invasion was in 1833 and since then the United Provinces of the South that inherited the Spanish territories, have been demanding the return of the territory rightful theirs.
Jul 21st, 2023 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse -4Geography and history rights.
Jul 21st, 2023 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +3And when Argentina declared independence from Spain, they also gave up any rights to anything Soain may or may not have claimed.
Spain later acknowledged Britain as the owner of these islands and at no time did they make mention they were including them in a breakaway country. In fact Spain never suggested Argentina should later destroy the people of Patagonia either.
Find the absolute proof to the contrary. If not go to the ICJ .srr if your myths hold up then.
Geography and history rights
Jul 21st, 2023 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2As Piers Morgan once said:
‘Everyone has the right to an opinion, what they don’t have the right to do is invent facts’.
You may choose to believe your version of history, however the evidence does not support that version of events, it is a complete fabrication.
And Argentina know this, hence they won’t go to the ICJ or anything like it, they know their case won’t stand up in the face of the evidence, it’s only fools like you that actually believe it.
“As early as 1494 different Treaties redacted according to the international law of that time … of South America to the Spanish Crown with ‘its territory, its coasts, seas and islands’.
Jul 21st, 2023 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It was simply a bilateral treaty binding only on the parties that signed it.
“Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
“Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims … One must conclude that Argentina failed to do so through neglect. ... However, … Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.”
...But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sovereignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are conclusive in establishing sovereignty.
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to Great Britain's claim results in a different conclusion.
Extinctive prescription involves possession... one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a sufficient to extinguish Argentina's claim.
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.
To avoid losing her claim by extinctive prescription, Argentina should have submitted her claim to the international court ... For over 50 years prior to 1982, Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims.
The Falklands (Malvinas) James Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
“As early as 1494 different Treaties redacted according to the international law of that time of South America to the Spanish Crown with ‘its territory, its coasts, seas and islands’. ‘It was simply a bilateral treaty binding only on the parties that signed it.’ These ‘simply’ Bilateral Treaties in place during the XV-XIX were the equivalent to International Law; in spite of this, and although been signatories of many treaties and agreements, the British Empire failed to comply with them on different occasions. Fact.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims. ... However, … Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.” Show us the title of ‘owner ‘of the Islas Malvinas that according to this pamphlet the imperialist British have. Once again, the sovereignty asserted over these territories date from the Spanish conquest, including the ‘Southern Atlantic territories, including the Archipelago where Malvinas are located. Also, irrefutable.
‘...But, after critically reviewing …Argentina’s claim to sovereignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are conclusive in establishing sovereignty’. See above response, plus: the Spanish Crown established early military camps in the islands, & from 1774 on a Governor of the Islas Malvinas was designated. Read my previous posts regarding the new Provinces of the South (Argentina) designated in 1833 a diplomatic mission of Dr. Manuel Moreno to the British throne to protest the new invasion of the Islas Malvinas. Argentina has since never ceased to revendicate their sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. To this day, there are bilateral treaties between both countries; due to the militarisation of the Islas Malvinas, the Argentinian Foreign Minister requested ceased the Foradori- Duncan’. Why are they still negotiating on this, if the British are its ‘owners???
“Show us the title of ‘owner ‘of the Islas Malvinas that according to this pamphlet”
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse +1I have shown the opinion of the highest placed international lawyer of the US government.
Who has rendered his expert opinion.
Game, set, and match
Geography and history rights.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse +3You have based your complete claim on the grounds that Spain having been present in the South Atlantic automatically gave all her rights to Argentina when Argentina wanted nothing to do with Spain. If they wanted to remain with Spain then you need to answer just why Argentina broke away from Spain just as other Spanish settlers in South America also did. Do you see any of those neighbouring countries claiming the Falkland Islands. No of course you don't. So just where did you believe that Spain gave only Argentina these rights given that Spain never even gave you all that land you stole south of Buenos Aires did they.
No Argentina of all the occupying Spanish colonialists, tried to become the South American super power dominating and stealing even land from your neighbours.
You became the South American bully and you still are.
Your problem today is that your campaign of land grabbing days are over and you have come face to face with the British who rightfully said enough us enough.
You will no longer be that bully in South America.
If Britain had not intervened in the recovery of the islands you can be 100% sure that Chile would have been next to fall followed by Urugay. Likely others.
That today is why Argentina is so annoyed, because finally it has had their wings clipped.
There was never a gifting of the islands to you from Spain . There was never any Argentine sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. There is no need to ask Britain to negotiate their position because they are not the ones trying to claim someone elses territory are they.
It is Argentina who is making that claim again because they were defeated from attempting to land grab and it has hurt Argentina.
Today Argentina is but a shell of what its mighty power was so they have now turned to grovelling to other countries to support them.
That has not been as successful than they would have liked. Other people don't like bullies.
Terence Hill: you are right, it’s just an opinion, and as such is of no legal value &therefore, irrelevant to the Cuestion of Malvinas.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Argentina’s historical and geographical antecedents that support their assertion
over its continental territory, & the Archipelago of the Atlantic South:
1. Historical foundation: based on law, for having become heir to Spanish sovereignty in the islands.
2. in the possession and reaffirmation of rights of 1820, when the province of Buenos Aires took them from Spain & created the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas Islands with seat on Soledad Island.
a. Before that, 1492 Discovery of America-1520 discovery of the Malvinas Isles by a Spanish expedition; possession and reaffirmation of Spanish sovereignty that designated successive Malvina’s Islands Governors.
b. Treaties acknowledging the right of the Spanish Crown over these territories, including ‘its coasts, seas and islands’
c. The 1825 Treaty between the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata - Britain in which the latter recognises the existence of the former as an heir of Spain and its territories in the Atlantic South.
3. The invasion of 1823, an act of force against Argentina’s sovereignty.
4. Geographical foundation: the Archipelago of the South Atlantic (that includes Islas Malvinas) is located within the Argentine continental shelf.
5. Continuous Argentina’s reaffirmation of sovereignty since early XIX century to this day.
6. Numerous attempts for a peaceful resolution to this usurpation & in 1884 Argentina formally proposed to take the issue to the international court, which was reiterated a few times, but Britain didn’t respond to any of the requests.
@Flaklands: point 6 responds ‘your campaign of land grabbing days is over…’; your wording applies exactly to the way the British have acted since the XVI century in the South Atlantic and elsewhere: invade, usurp, mislead at any cost and in any manner. I couldn’t have described it better.
“Argentina’s historical and geographical antecedents that support their assertion”
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Rubbish! They do not.
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.”
Geography and history rights.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So please do explain where the Argentine actual boundaries were in 1833. Oh I keep forgetting they were very much closer to Buenos Aires wasn't they.
You had no continental shelf that connected the Falkland Islands so that argument don't wash does it.
In fact there was no Argentina anywhere near the south Atlantic.
So stop putting out untruths.
Facts are and always will be your claim is null and void. You know that and that is why you now wont go to the ICJ .Britain has never needed to go to the ICJ because those that own a territory does not need to go to court to defend it.
Do we see Spain or even France claiming Britain because it also sits on their continental shelf. Do you see Africa claim South America , because it was once firmly attached to Africa.
Those days of but its mine because it touches my home are long gone except in the mindset of an indoctrinated people as Argentina is.
Time you stopped this waste of space argument and started fixing the unbelievable mess you have made of Argentina. It is very true when one says greed never pays. Certainly not paying in Argentina right now.
The text you cited was taken out of context, & you certainly took many liberties with it. The Utrecht Treaty (masterfully manipulated by the British, I have to concede) aimed to maintain the existent British navigation and commerce agreements to obtain exclusivity over the French. It also ensured the shameful exclusivity of the enslave African commerce to the Spanish Colonies.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The phrase you cited refers to the ‘sell, pawn, transfer etc… to the French or to any other NATION…’ At not point, of course, it makes reference to the future Argentina or the Spanish own colonies, but to ‘other nations. At the time of the treaty the concept of the colonies revelling and fighting for their freedom was inconceivable. Unless they could travel in time, they couldn't have predicted the American Independence in any of its subcontinents.
But you missed the last of this article, the very interesting part that shows that the British acknowledged and committed to respect the Spanish American Colonies. The British alleged as the reason for the afore mentioned paragraph ‘to maintain the dominion of the West Indies whole and entire’. Ironically, you forget to mention that Queen Anne included the following: ‘(The British) will endeavour, and give assistance to the Spaniards, that the ancient limits of their dominions in the West Indies be restored, and settled as they stood in the time of the above-said Catholic King Charles the Second, Spain… if it shall appear that they have in any manner, or under any pretence, been broken into, and lessened in any part… It took them only 60 years to invade part of the ‘Spanish territories of the West Indies’ by usurping the Malvinas Islands. I have no words to judge the British actions that follow this treaty: they invaded the islands not once, but twice in the course of a century. And that is how the British failed to be true to their own word.
Geography and history rights
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We have heard this Argy version of history many times, most recently and also repeatedly from Malvinense 1833, could you be related?
As you will know by now, every word is disputed by the British and in the strongest possible terms, as the evidence does not support the Argy version of events, it contradicts it, just like the UN resolutions.
https://en.mercopress.com/2023/07/21/argentine-fm-sends-message-to-his-british-colleague-regarding-south-atlantic-islands/comments#comment527093
Add to this Argentina’s constitution says sovereignty is non-negotiable, as does British law, there is simply nothing to talk about.
Argentina has a whole government department replete with secretary of state, whose sole purpose is the exercise of full Argy sovereignty and control over the S. Atlantic.
The British have a military base to prevent that and keep Argentina inside its 200nm continental limit.
Britain is the oldest regional power in the S. Atlantic, since long before Argentina or any other country in the region today ever existed.
At some point it will become obvious even to Argentina that the British are not going anywhere anytime soon.
“It took them only 60 years to invade part of the ‘Spanish territories … by usurping the Malvinas Islands”
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which was recognized as completely legal.
The Americans were hip to your dishonest claim, as they told you.
”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
Terence Hill: I noticed you failed to respond to my Utrecht Treaty-1793 regarding Queen Anne not recognition of the sovereignty of the Spanish South American Colonies, but fail to honour the peace treaty she signed. Remember that the Spanish thwarted Britain’s plans to invade Malvinas in the 1760s; but of course, Britain gave excuses & invaded the islands 5 years later. These are only two of the reasons why the invasion of the Islas Malvinas was illegal in 1770 and in 1833. So I don’t see how you can justify the invasions were declared as legal.
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The declarations of the Americans regarding the invasion of Malvinas are irrelevant, as they blatantly ignore the mentioned treaties. Because of the reasons explained before there could never have been a British title of the islands; & the agreement they had with the Spanish after the 1770 invasion never surrendered the Malvinas sovereignty. Recently, an Argentina-Britain bilateral agreement was mediated by the UN prohibiting the introduction of unilateral changes to the islands. This time also Britain failed to comply with this agreement, an acted unilaterally by introducing different changes. It is funny that Falkland… accuses Argentina to be the bullies (!),
Pugol: I’ve discussed previously some of your points. Britain is not the oldest regional power in the Atlantic South: this is basic history. The Spanish expeditions discovered America, and surveyed South America and asserted its dominion since then. Malvinas were discovered by the Magallanes expedition in 1520…etc etc. They can try to enforce the 200 nautical miles, but this is no longer valid. The fact that the South Atlantic Archipelago lays in the Argentinian continental shelf is of more importance than what you attribute it. Finally, Argentina is there, was born there, and will still be there after all this.
Lastly, Falkland: thank you for your polite advice, but the use of my time when I am not working is not of your concern.
“Remember that the Spanish thwarted Britain’s plans to invade Malvinas in the 1760s”
Jul 22nd, 2023 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1That’s a fairy story buddy. The Spaniards usurped British territory and had to engage in abject groveling so as not get their lights punched out.
'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
I state some primary and secondary sources, historical documents on which the Argentina’s legal sovereignty considerations on Malvinas are based. For instance, the Treat of Utrecht 1713 VIII between Spain-Britain that acknowledges the Spanish Crown dominion on South America and Atlantic South territories (later Argentina); this recognition is later reinforced by the Nootka Sound Treaty of 1790. These treaties are accessible online. Based on them & other international laws of the time, the dominion of Spain over the Islands is asserted ‘by right of prior discovery… (& later) sovereignty was transferred to the new nation (Argentina)’: this is a citation from ‘Una tierra Argentina: las Islas Malvinas’ by Caillet Bois, 1948: this book offers extensive historical documentation and maps, and even covers the USA’s denigration of the Monroe Doctrine since it failed to denounce, and even justified the 1833 second usurpation of the Islas Malvinas by the British empire.
Jul 23rd, 2023 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse -11960 UN Resolution 1514 (XV) On the Principle of Decolonization & Self-Proclamation: A) the Spanish sovereignty of South America & the Archipelago of the Atlantic South was recognised, (& the Argentinian afterwards; And since B) the Islands were deserted; after Spain expulsed the French & the British circa 1770, from 1774 to 1833 Spanish Governors to the Malvinas Islands ensured their possession (after 1813 the Argentines continued); Then, C) discovery & possession constitute sovereignty in international law. D)Since the Spanish/Argentinians had discovery, sovereignty, & possession, they came to be the original people of the islands, whereas the British invasion of 1833 that expulsed them by force, illegally replaced the originals inhabitants with their own citizens, whom descendants are still living in what it still is to them a foreign soil. This in turn voids the 2009 referendum of self-proclamation, as the residents of Malvinas are not original inhabitants of the islands.
The Utrecht Treaty is based on only its contents, not what is not written in it. It is exactly same interpretation as a contract is given, a literal interpretation. WHICH MEANS Argentina is subject to it,
Jul 23rd, 2023 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...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.”
Argentina, Malvinas & Utrecht Treaty (UT) further to previous post
Jul 24th, 2023 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2Historically & geographic documentation, in addition to the discovery, sovereignty, dominion and & possession of the territories of the West Indies (known as the Spanish dominions by the British empire and other European countries) are what constitute & support the Argentinian assertion to the Malvinas ownership. Read previous post on this topic. There were two treaties in 1713: the Madrid Treaty & the Utrecht Treaty reaffirming the Spanish dominion over these territories (what are now known as Mexico, Central America, and South America in its totality with exception of Brazil, a Portuguese dominion). As Kohen & Rodriguez state ‘Spanish were the rule (in America), and the British the exception’.
Mr Hill, laws are interpreted based on its content, its historical context, and with regards to other laws. In this case, the aim of these treaties was: 1) to prevent the unification of Spain and France as a result of the Spanish succession, as Britain etc foresaw & feared it would create a superpower. 2. Literally, the Utrecht Treaty excludes the French from uniting, accessing, inheriting etc any Spanish dominion. 3. UT Article VIII reaffirms Spanish sovereignty on its ancient dominions & makes references to the ways France should not have access to them; logically these don’t apply to the own Spanish colonies or future Argentina. 4. Ironically, Argentina came to be as a result of this treaty, as the Provinces of the South didn’t fight the Spanish rule in America, but the right of the French Prince Philip to rule Spain, throne he inherited as the result of the Utrecht Treaty. 5)The formation of the Provinces of the South was a result of these historical events & are tied to the independence wars.6. ‘uti possidetis iuris’ (‘as you possess under law’) is the broadly accepted international law of succession of old colonies into new sovereign states which should retain the domains their predecessors.
“Laws are interpreted based on its content, its historical context, and with regards to other laws”
Jul 24th, 2023 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1Is merely your unsupported opinion, whereas reality is:
“Across the interpretation of contracts, wills, trusts, deeds, patents,
statutes, regulations, treaties, and constitutions,1 legal theorists and
practitioners regularly evaluate the text’s ordinary meaning. ”
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/134-Harv.-L.-Rev.-726.pdf
“The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear”
https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
The Utrecht Treaty is based on only its contents, not what is not written in it. It is exactly same interpretation as a contract is given, a literal interpretation. WHICH MEANS Argentina is subject to it,
“...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.”
Crystal clear, there’s no ambiguity.
Geography and history rights
Jul 24th, 2023 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your repeated claims about the Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Nootka Sound Treaty of 1790, 1960 UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and 1770, from 1774 to 1833 have all been repeatedly debunked, proven wrong and completely wrong.
Einstein defined madness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Yet you persist, in the hope of divine intervention perhaps???
After all the Pope is an Argy, which brings me to your list of Spanish/Argy Governors of the Falklands.
In the Vatican there is a list of Popes all the way back to St Peter, but that is all it is, a made up list of names, in fact there were no Popes before 1053.
Just as there were no Argentinian Governors of the Falkland Islands before 1832.
And no Argentina before 1816.
Where Britain is the oldest regional power in the S. Atlantic, since long before Argentina or any other country in the region today ever existed.
Inconvenient truths of Islas Malvinas, one of the last vestiges of British Imperialism
Jul 25th, 2023 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1IN 1492 America was discovered. In 1494 Spain & Portugal signed the Tordesillas Treaty, as only these nations had dominion the entire continent. Later, France, Britain, & Holland attacked the Americas colonies from mid XVII, when they started attacking these colonies. Kohen & Rodriguez statement on the Spanish American territories is correct: Spanish were the rule, & the British the exception. Name calling & dismissiveness can’t refute history. Their use demonstrates the lack of valid arguments on this topic.
The Madrid & Utrecht Treaties reinforced the Spanish sovereignty of its American dominions. Yet, imperialist defenders argue this treaty is the reason why Argentina shouldn’t have sovereignty over Malvinas. But let consider:
1. The Utrecht treaty prevented France or ANY OTHER NATION to settle or access etc the Spanish colonies. Since Britain is A NATION, this means that imperialists dis-honoured the treaties they signed when they invaded the Malvinas Island, in 1770 & in 1833.
2. Again: the British ignored the treaties they signed, & attacked the South Atlantic colonies.
3. The British ambitions to encroach its tentacles in South America didn’t stop at the 1770 invasion of Malvinas Islands; they illegally invaded the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata twice, in 1806 & 1807. Both times they were expelled from Buenos Ayres by a mix of soldiers, ‘criollos’ civilians, & women that united to expel the attackers. At that time, their contemporaries guarded the Malvinas from further attacks.
4. In 1833, Argentina had sovereignty & possession over Malvinas.
5. The imperialists argue sovereignty over Malvinas, but their occupation is & was unlawful, as with their invasion, they attacked the Spanish territories they agreed to respect.
History is against you, imperialist Britan, you can’t reinvent it.
Geography and history rights.
Jul 25th, 2023 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to very cleverly miss out one very important fact . In the years you describe as historic dates you fail to record where Argentina was at that time. Maybe you need reminding that Argentina simply did not exist. The Spanish, French and even Britain existed then.
North America was still occupied by the indigenous people.
Now assuming Spain claimed the southern hemisphere, did that also include Australia and south Africa. All in the southern hemisphere.
Spain just like France and Britain were once dominant in many areas of the world but all of them could not maintain these vast masses of land so they allowed breakaway groups to form their own territories. Canada being one, Portugal another. And many others.
Be honest here, how many of them that today have other foreign powers sitting on their continental shelves are making claims for that land. Apart from China and Russia only Argentina is actively trying to claim anothers land using all the old history tricks it can dream up.
Fact is while Britain was doing it's own thing Argentina when granted the right to independence was but a tiny fraction of what it is today. Do ask yourself how did it get this big. I can tell you, by invading other people's land. But I see you avoid speaking about this but rather only about Britain supposedly usurping land from Argentina. Truth is the land Britain is occupying is not Argentine land , never was.
Patagonia was never granted to Argentina by Spain. So before you shout from the roof tops which you appear to be doing. Do your own history and justify why you had to remove the indigenous people from Patagonia.
That act is exactly what you accuse Britain of. Usurpation of anothers land.
I suggest you stop living in the past. Move forward because all the past is doing to you and Argentina is destroying it all.
Grow up start living this current way of life. Why you might even start to enjoy it.
Mr Falkland, I didn’t omit it, I assumed is common knowledge that the Spanish conquered the South America continent. The British arrived centuries after.
Jul 25th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Historically, these territories changed as new areas were incorporated, and were later divided into administrative centres, the Viceroyalties. What is now Argentina was located in the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, which was created in 1776, and was fairly the same territory that today’s Argentina occupies. These administrative divisions were allocated by the Spanish authorities, and didn’t change with the Independence. Argentina didn’t take part of Chile neither: that is a misconception based on a mistake some historians made.
You can see the map on:
El Arcón de Historia: Creación del Virreinato del Río de la Plata (1776) (elarcondh.blogspot.com) this map is only from a blog on the Viceroyalties, but still accurate.
Also article from a Chilean on ‘Is is true Argentina ‘stole’ the Patagonia from Chile? That although is in Spanish, you can hit the translate button:
¿Es verdad que Argentina “le robó” la Patagonia a Chile? https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/2015/08/02/es-verdad-que-argentina-le-robo-la-patagonia-a-chile.shtml
I have been honest in everything I've posted. Argentina assertion on the Malvinas Islands comes since when it was part of the colony, and then after 1810. There was possession. I have said this once and again, and you can see that I was correct in my previous arguments.
I don't accuse Britain of usurping Malvinas: they did it themselves; and in doing so they broke the treaties they signed agreeing not to invade Spanish territories, but they did, and they invaded Buenos Ayres too. Search online and you'll see these are facts.
I am a grown up with my feet planted on the ground. But I can't stay silent in front of injustice and misinformation.
Have a good day, sir.
“Argentina assertion on the Malvinas Islands comes since when it was part of the colony”
Jul 25th, 2023 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Utrecht Treaty is based on only its contents. It is exactly same interpretation as a contract is given, a literal interpretation. WHICH MEANS Argentina is explicitly barred,
“...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.”
There were the two diplomatic protests from Briton.
Such silence meant that Argentina had legally acquiesced.
“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
Leaving GB to look to what ever remedy she wished to apply. Which she has done with perfect effect
G&H
Jul 25th, 2023 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, divine intervention is your hope here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3eyeO0R94
I assume you’re just filling in for our resident Argy Propagandist Malvinense 1833, while he’s on holiday or something?
Well, there is certainly much good to be said about the French!
Jul 25th, 2023 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I don't know Propagandist Malvinense 1833, but by his username, he or she sounds like a smart person.
Problem you Geography , is that there was no Argentina in 1776.
Jul 25th, 2023 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain may have said they intended to own all that area but when they invaded south America they had no possessions in this hemisphere.
They, just like Britain and France were looking for new territory and Britain found an unoccupied piece of land now known as the Falkland Islands and claimed it for Britain. No sign of Spain or indeed France in 1596.
Argentina untill it broke away was indeed further north . Only after they broke away from Spain did they venture south. Now if Spain was claiming all of south America, why did Argentina need to invade and occupy Patagonia. Surely according to you geography, Spain already owned this so called land and surely you would have had it automatically included in your independence from Spain. You and I both know that never happened just like the Falklands Islands, they also were never part of the Spanish gift to this new breakaway country.
Have you ever asked why Spain has never formally claimed that the Islands was given to Argentina. Because they knew they did not own them and did not want to start another war with Britain.
So I don't agree with your comments and that this current campaign is another attempt to land grab what is known to you as a very rich source of income if exploited.
Oil and fish worth trillions of dollars for the taking and you desperately need it.
I also know that in the seventies Argentina had already discovered oil and gas deposits very close to the shores of the islands.
They knew the oil had to be secured but lacked the power to do it.
You were so greedy that you did not want us or Britain to share in your finds, so you started a new campaign to claim the islands to divert the real intentions. It failed and now we islanders are sitting on the verge of extraction and that hurts you so badly.
You could have shared in this new bonanza but as usual you threw the offer away. You did that because your greed got in the way.
G&H
Jul 26th, 2023 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Injustice??? Injustice???
Injustice is the land you now call Argentina having been stolen from the indigenous people who were massacred in the process.
Like the ‘Conquest of the Desert’, some 50 years after the British recaptured the Falklands. Ok for Argentina to conquer vast areas of S. America and annihilate the natives, but not ok for the British to recapture a small piece of their territory in the S. Atlantic, where no civilian population was expelled or massacred.
Sheer Hypocrisy.
Argentina, a country of 97% European people and 100% of the land stolen from the indigenous people.
And you call the Islanders an ‘implanted population’, pfff.
Injustice is Argentina trying to annex British territory in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic and subjugate the Falklands population, steal their land and resources.
You’re not dealing with ‘a handful of Savages’ now. Unlike Atahualpa or the Mapuche the British have more than just sticks and stones with which to defend their territory.
Hence the importance of the military base, keeps Argentina inside its 200nm continental limit and prevents any expansion into the British territories (long established territories, since before Argentina existed) in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic.
If you’re posting here for a while, no doubt Malvinense 1833 will put in an appearance, although you seem to have taken over his job.
Falkland: your post shows ignorance of the history of the discovery, exploration and conquest of America by Spain from 1492. Spanish & the Portuguese were the ONLY 2 European nations in the continent until the XVIII century, when the British arrived and started attacking their colonies. In 1776 the British invaded the Islas Malvinas, & the French were occupying the other island. Spain protested to their respective governments, & while the French honourably acknowledged Spain’s sovereignty over them & left, you had to be forcefully removed.
Jul 26th, 2023 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Pugol: yes, injustice. It isn’t right for Britain to invade the Malvinas Islands, knowing they were part of the Spanish Crown, & neither in 1833 forcing the citizens of the Provinces of the South out. The protests of Spain & Argentina the British government the usurpation never stopped, but were ignored by the imperialists. There is no honour in usurping & claiming Malvinas as their own while ignoring the rightful owners protests’
All conquests were bloody, but Spanish rather than killing produced a trans-culturization. Were there mistakes: yes, there were. The indigenous people have received land in compensation. The only stolen lands are the Malvinas Islands you stole from Argentina.
Since you want to discuss indigenous people, lets discuss the massacre of the aboriginal people in Australia, and New Zealand, the treatment of Indian people as sub-humans etc, not to mention the shameful slaving of African human beings sold as slaves. Get off the horse, Pugol.
I hope you enjoyed reading the Chilean historian rebutting your version that Argentina stole the Patagonia from Chile. Pass it to Falkland, so you both learn that the territories were assigned by the Spanish in XVIII, & that the Patagonia, the coasts & islands were not annexed in the XIX century, but inherited from the Spanish as part of the administrative Viceroyalty of the Rio de La Plata.
The term savages you used to describe indigenous Argentinians demonstrates your di
Geography, what part of your last comment you did not make up. Guess you have been truly brainwashed. Clutching at elusive straws so you are.
Jul 26th, 2023 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Nothing you say would stand up in a court of law and you know it.
Try writing some truths from now on. We are not stupid. Argentina has always been a rogue country and will always be that untill a regime change in that country happens.
You first have to reestablish some kind of order before you can go forward. We have human rights firmly on our side. Obviously you don't care for human rights in the 21st century.
I agree that a lot of aggression took place hundreds of years ago, but personally that does not affect me. What affects me today is the ancient aggression your country still has in this modern free world.
You were taught a lesson that aggression does not pay and you rightfully got that message loud and clear in 1982.
Is that how you want to see Argentina go into the future, dragging its violent past with it. Most humans have moved on now except Argentina who is still living firmly in the past.
Nothing you say or do will ever change how the people of the islands want to live. They made their choice internationally known. Time you and your deluded lot started doing the same.
You can keep having these aggressive conversations for millenia and it wont make s blind but of differance.
Mr Falkland: my posts are based in historical documents that are free online, it wouldn’t harm you to access & read them for your enlightenment. Tordesillas, Utrecht treaties, history of the Spanish discovery of America, its conquest & colonization, UN 1514 article, etc etc I would never result to name calling to prove a point, Mr Falkland. I think your Malvinas Islands history version is loosely based on what Britain fed you. As their claims fall one by one, they are desperately grasping at the self-determination principle. As Argentinian Citizen well said, everything lies on which country has sovereignty (judgement of an English judge). Argentina is not afraid, as we know we have sovereignty. Even if it was for the wrong reasons, the recovery of Islas Malvinas was just another assertion of that sovereignty. Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of war, but the blood of my brothers was shed for the Malvinas in the last demonstration of our firm beliefs. A peaceful resolution where the historical reasons for sovereignty are consider will be definitive.
Jul 27th, 2023 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse -3Pugol: ’You’re not dealing with ‘a handful of Savages’ now. Unlike Atahualpa or the Mapuche the British have more than just sticks and stones with which to defend their territory’.
I won’t even call you Mr: you don’t deserve that treatment. The term savages you used to describe indigenous Argentinians demonstrates your disregard for them & other races, same as the treatment your ancestors gave to their colonies. I descend from both ‘Savages’ and Spanish blood and I wouldn’t change it for anything in the world. You are not more than a racist.
Geography.
Jul 27th, 2023 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse +1So you believe your brothers fell fighting for their country. I rather think they fell because their corrupt dictator sent them to their deaths by invading someone else's country.
That invasion was an act of violence against a peaceful people, who I might add, never once lifted a finger in anger towards any other people.
You claim you are a descendant of the original indigenous people. Has it ever occurred to you the we are descendants of an original people as well. What happened two, three or even five hundred years ago is now history which is exactly what you have said about the actions of Argentina two hundred years ago.
I just like you, are several generations later that have no actual idea what life was like all those years ago.
What I have learned and learned well, is that the entire world three hundred years ago was in chaos as emerging powers were trying to discover and conquer new land.
That even continued up untill the second world war.
Is that how you still want to exist, trying to conquer more land.
Humans are their own worst enemy and even if only two people lived on this earth there would still be fighting for power. Is that what the human race has really become. What happened to the garden of eden and tranquility.
Obviously religion is not your style as most Argentines claim to be.
So why do you continue to demand that you have more rights than us. We are as many say all equal. Except that Argentina is unequal in their belief we don't exist that we were implanted.
The exact same could be said by the indigenous people of Argentina, that the Spanish don't exist.
Do you see where I am coming from.
You and I should be living in peace as good neighbours. Not trying to destroy each other over land that none of us actually own.
We all borrow the land while we are on this earth it is never ours to keep. You think about that before demanding we give you OUR right to live in peace. That today is how the UN sees us.
Mr F.F. you can and have the right to believe what pleases you, but historical facts don’t change.
Jul 28th, 2023 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The blood of my people has been shed since the 1760s, as a result of British imperialism:
in 1774 (1st Britain invasion of Malvinas Islands),
1806 (1st Britain invasion of Buenos Ayres),
1807 (2nd Britain invasion of Buenos Ayres),
1833 (2nd Britain invasion of Malvinas Islands),
& 1982 (Argentina’s recovery of the Malvinas Islands). There has been a continuous defence of the Malvinas Islands by my ancestors.
In spite of General Galtieri de-facto government, Argentina’s people never relinquished the Islands sovereignty, & for that reason they supported their recovery. Ask the families of those that died in the war, and all Argentinians to forget Malvinas, & you’ll see that’s impossible.
The Malvinas Islands war was a recovery act that never attempted to harm their residents. I never claimed to have ‘more right’ than the islanders, I said Argentina has the right & sovereignty of the Islands & provided historical facts as proof of this.
The difference between the Argentina & other former British colonies is that it’s a big, wonderful mixing pot where Spanish, indigenous people, criollos, black people, and later on people from every other corner of the world, were mixed & together they produced this unique country, based on a rich history (including pre-comlombinian history) & unique culture manifestations that express the love & pride Argentinian have for their homeland. Yes, it is untidy now. But we are young, and want & we’ll be better.
Argentinians want a peaceful resolution to the Question of Malvinas, but this doesn’t mean relinquish its sovereignty.
I have extensively provided Argentina’s proof of rightful claim to the Malvinas Islands. I consider this thread has reached its end, as I continuously have to cite the same reasons. Those who read & research them will understand their relevance if Argentina is taken to the the ICJ.
It's a goodbye from me now.
Geography.
Jul 28th, 2023 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is your whole problem in life. The desire to possess something that has never been yours.
1774 the British did not invade these islands, you cant invade a place that has no occupants. It's called settling . Your history is just as brutal as you claim any British History.
Has it never occurred to you that the British might have been trying to rescue the indigenous people who's land Spain conquered . Remember it is not Argentina that Britain attacked it was Spain. Argentina was not in existence then. You broke away from Spain and in so doing list all your rights to everything Spain possessed. I ser the breakaway Srgentina has never claimed Uruguay, Paraguay, or Chile who were all a part of the Spanish conquistadors who invaded South Smerica in the very first place.
The Falkland islands were never owner by Spain. France tried to settle the islands and when Britain objected they agreed to leave, but in their ever treacherous ways thought they could get one over Britain by suggesting the give Spain their illegal right to the British territory.
That would have been the end of the matter had Spain not removed the British from port Egmont.
Then followed by your lot.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!