MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK Prime Minister committed to defending Falklands' wish to remain British
In his Christmas 2023 Message, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak invites the people of the Falkland Islands to look forward with pride and confidence sure of your determination to shape your own future and remain belonging to the British Family. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhen the US attacked Puerto Luis in Malvinas 1831, it recognized it was an Argentine territory, or “colony” as they put it. They were well aware of David Jewett's incorporation of the islands to the United Provinces of the La Plata River in 1820. Mariano Moreno personally in London presented Argentina's denounced and protested British occupation the very same year of Onslow's forced ejection of Argentine authorities in 1833. This continuous conflict to which neither party has surrendered in any clear and specific way through proper political protocol as disputes would be settled has never occured to this day, even after the victory of the British battle for ejecting once more the rightful Argentine recapturing of the islands in 1982. The United Nations has no protocol or law that would accurately address situations of colonialism where the occupying nationals and a country's represented administration was forcefully ejected, or forced to reject their national allegiance in order to be allowed to stay in that territory. Since the islanders loyal to Her Thievingness started arriving past 10 years after the start of this territorial political conflict between Argentina and their Thievingness's subjects, they factfully have no right to direct any wish or will that would decide upon the authority of London or Buenos Aires. It is London and Buenos Aires who must first enter arbitration for the islanders to then express their sentiments to England or the UK following suit on the points or discussions had between the UK and Argentina. The matter does not start with them simply because they are not sovereign to or of the islands. And even if they were, the proper course of action would be that they then would have to negotiate and settle with Argentina a resolution to the conflict they would have inherited.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse -6The islanders do not rule the world OK? This is just so absurd to watch. Ya'll need to just stop lying so much in the world, because in this world, we are ALL LISTENING
The only person lying on this post is you Trimonde a; political activist, who spouts conspiracy theories and long winded waffle that are bananas, no negotiations will take place and the sooner you accept that and stop wasting what life you have left the better it will be for you, the Falklands have never been yours and never will be, you are a laughing stock along with that other moron Stink.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hey! Trimonstruosidades is back as Pat the Expat! Time to change the mask, eh?
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1WTF, no Edgar, no one recognised it as Argentine territory ever, thieves you say, who stole the whole of Argentina from the true native owners, seriously where do you get this garbage from.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“When the US attacked Puerto Luis in Malvinas 1831, it recognized it was an Argentine territory, or “colony” as they put it. ... They were well aware of David Jewett's”
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Your unsupported opinion versus the reality.
”As late as 1886 the (US)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
“There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description” John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820. David Jewett, and Louis Vernet as clearly named.
“The islanders do not rule the world OK?”
But they clearly get to call shots accordinging to:
“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, ...”
Self-determination
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. Wikipedia”.
Article 1 (2) - Equal rights and self-determination of peoples
Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
Shine on Falklands, no Argentina no problem, shine on.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only people qualified to decide on the interests of the Falkland Islanders are of course the Falkland Islanders themselves – according to their wishes.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There is no difference between interests and wishes.
That rules out any Argentine claim to the islands from the outset.
Interests –v- Wishes (desires) UNGA 2065 XX Misused by Argentina (1 pg)https://www.academia.edu/107054389/Interests_Versus_Wishes_Desires_UN_Resolution_2065_Misused_by_Argentina
Argentina could never ever have remotely owned any part of the islands because at the time that France And Spain were disagreeing with Britain Argentina simply did not exist. They later broke away from Spain and ethnically cleansed Patagonia of its legitimate people.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina as has yet failed to produce factual evidence of ownership and is the very reason they refuse to go to the ICJ with their case.
They have made a claim to someone elses territory. Britain is not making any sort of claim because it already has full possession. Time Argentina and the losers who cling on to indoctrination need to wake up.
It is worth recalling that the American government, with Andrew Jackson as president, addressed the Spanish government through its representative in Madrid, with the aim of knowing if the Falkland/Malvinas Islands had been part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Don Martín Fernández de Navarrete, the renowned Spanish historian, was in charge of answering the president. His reply was delivered on October 15th, 1833, and is extremely important:
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Navy captain Mr. Felipe Ruiz Puente proceeded to take possession of said islands, on behalf of His Catholic Majesty and in his capacity of governor, and on April 1st, 1767 the Spanish flag was raised at Soledad bay. Since then, the peaceful possession of the Malvinas was not disturbed again, as possessions of the Spanish Crown and its viceroyalty of Buenos Aires. [...] It can be concluded from this that the Malvinas islands, as possessions of the viceroyalty of Buenos Aires before the insurrection, lawfully belong to Spain like all the countries of that portion of America, until such a time as His Majesty determines their future fate.
Credits: Kohen - Rodríguez
“Don Martín Fernández de Navarrete, the renowned Spanish historian, was in charge of answering the president”
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm a historian, or two major US government officials. Sorry your academic is heavily outranked in “Don Martín Fernández de Navarrete, the renowned Spanish historian, was in charge of answering the president”
Hmm a historian, or two major US government officials. Sorry your academic is heavily outranked in authoritative department. compartment.
Mr. Bud Spencer, I regret to inform you that the islands were indeed recognized as Argentine territory as you know, that country is... the United Kingdom in 1823 and 1825.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Mr 1833 i regret to inform you that the UK has never recognised the Falklands as either belonging to the United Provinces or Argentina, i have read with interest over time your points, and watched them one by one get destroyed, only for you to return to the same defeated arguments, which no doubt you will do again, only to be defeated again, however i will give you you some credit, at least you try to debate like an adult. even though your claim is absurd.
Dec 22nd, 2023 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Seeing as Pat the T*at Regini has raised the events surrounding the Lexington raid of December 1831, just thought I'd mention that I have very recently uploaded a Spanish language version of the 1832 exchanges between Buenos Aires and the United States representative, onto the blog site.
Dec 23rd, 2023 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse +2https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/collecion-de-documentos-oficiales-sobre-la-cuestion-pendiente-con-los-ee.uu_.-sobre-las-malvinas-1832.pdf
The nonsense from Marv '33 I'll ignore. Never did know what he was talking about.
Malv
Dec 23rd, 2023 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘Spain acquiesced to Britain’s claim when they handed the settlement back in 1771, unconditionally, note the unconditionally.’
If you read the agreement there are no conditions set by the Spanish on the return of the territory to the British.
The Spanish simply handed the territory back, along with all good and stores seized.
Unconditionally.
I know English is not your first language but really, trying to argue it is not unconditional because it doesn’t use to word, is a nonsense argument and you should know that.
Interesting how posters feel 'offended' and reactionary to some well expressed historical truth, acting not different than some unsavory totalitarians and dictators past and present. As historical facts are stated, their consensual response is to accuse the bearer of truths of 'activist/conspiracy theorist', and when that also fails, insults and accusations are thrown in in terrible toddler tantrum fashion, ha ha ha. Funny, because they fail to see they accuse Argentina and Argentinians of the very things their government did and are still practicing at present: land thieving, historical manipulation, historical ignorance or dismissiveness, and the list goes on . No historical facts or valid arguments are used, just the usual diatribe. Lies after lies, with the hope that no one will notice.
Dec 25th, 2023 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Problem is little girl. your so called facts are not actually facts and are just myths and lies, and if you bothered to do some genuine research you, would see that, the diatribe and lies stem from Buenos Aires little girl , nowhere else, so take that arrogant chip of your shoulder, as you know nothing about the true history of the Falklands, then jump on a plane and present your lies and diatribe to the ICJ, and after you have been laughed out of court, you can then return with your tail between your legs and tell the rest of Argentina the real truth, by the way the 2 posters who have tantrums and throw insults and accusations are your 2 fellow countrymen, and if you bothered to look you would see that, the Falklands are here to stay and that is the biggest fact of all.
Dec 25th, 2023 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2MAHGR
Dec 25th, 2023 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The problem is that you haven’t presented any facts, just repeated false versions of history.
Your claim of s threefold the first being an inheritance from Spain.
This is flawed, firstly Spain only had sovereignty of East Falkland, second no Spanish settler claimed independence nor became Argentine, third no Spanish settler was expelled by new Argentina, the islands were over 1000 miles from the New Argentina. All Spanish settlers left in 1810 and returned to Spain via Uruguay. It is a massive assumption to claim inheritance of any of the islands, let alone all the islands including South Georgia and surrounding Maritime spaces.
Your usurpation myth is a blatant lie. The actual logs of the Sarandi prove it a lie and have been recounted on these forums numerous times.
Your geographic argument is nonsense, the islands are closer to Chile in 1833.
So, the historic facts are those above. You don’t like them so you make up new ones.
Historical facts Miss Malvinas ? what you really mean is the indoctrination of lies, distorted facts and ignorance of true historical evidence from the minute you could read and write, Hitler did that with his children, look at the first post, who is attacking who ? every argument you have put forward has been disassembled long before you started posting on here. your so called claims to the Falklands are FALSE. no inheritance, no usurping no eviction of civilians, no nothing, also you will find that it is two Argentine posters who spit poison, one an activist another a baby who has not grown up, but you ignore that, hypocritical or what, before posting again think and learn before you do and stop making a fool of yourself,
Dec 26th, 2023 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Bud Spencer, the United Kingdom recognized the United Provinces as an independent nation, that of course includes the islands on which acts of sovereignty had already been carried out and were inhabited.
Dec 26th, 2023 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pugol The agreement between both countries establishes the return of the Port and Fort Egmont, not the return of the Malvinas Islands, not the return of the Saunders/Trinidad islet.
You can see this by reading the heated discussions in the British Parliament.
@Monkey Spain exercised sovereignty throughout the archipelago, that is proven and verified with numerous documents.
If Spain exercised sovereignty only in the eastern island (which is false) then why did Onslow expel the inhabitants of Puerto Soledad? Or as you falsely say, why did you kindly invite them to remain under British sovereignty?
They still cannot explain how the islands could be British, without population, without claims, while another nation occupied them.
Regards.
Malv
Dec 26th, 2023 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1771 agreement proves several things.
The British rejected the Spanish claim and the Spanish acquiesced to this, thus maintaining Britain’s claim dating back to 1690.
All this long before Argentina ever existed, where Argentina is not Spain.
The most you can claim to have inherited from Spain is a dispute, which had already been settled in Britain’s favour.
Then again in 1832 and 1982 the British had to recover the territory from foreign invasion, again maintaining their claim.
Compare this to Argentina, which started its claim in 1820, in conflict with Spain which still claimed East Falkland, then dropped its claim in 1850 and did not start again until 1939.
Argentina was never in it.
MA H&G
Again you repeat the same old propaganda, without so much as a shred of evidence to support your claims.
As I have pointed to Malv above, the issue of who has/d sovereignty over the Falklands was settled long before Argentina ever existed and where Argentina dropped its claim anyway.
Is the uncomfortable truth for you.
100% a lie 1833, never has the UK accepted the islands as Argentinian, to even claim that is loony land, you have lost the argument clearly as you would do in any court, many islands around the world are unpopulated but are still claimed, it is irrelevant, their is not one shred of evidence to support that they are your islands, come back when you have something new instead of repeating the same debunked argument,
Dec 26th, 2023 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malv
Dec 26th, 2023 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If Spain had sovereignty only on the Eastern island (which they did), why did Onslow ask the inhabitants of the Eastern island to come under British sovereignty?
Good question.
Possibly because 10 weeks earlier Argentina had ignored British claims to the western island and aggressively seized the archipelago despite British warnings.
Had Argentina chosen to negotiate rather than streak it would possibly have been possible to revert to the shared historic Spanish/British compromise.
That compromise is now impossible as Argentina has twice aggressively made military action.
@Pugol
Dec 26th, 2023 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“The 1771 agreement proves several things.
The British rejected the Spanish claim and the Spanish acquiesced to this, thus maintaining Britain’s claim dating back to 1690.”
This statement refutes what you expressed:
Thomas Pownall´s statement in the British Parliament, on March 5th, 1771
whatever may be the present ostensible form of the convention, mark well the end: It will end on our part either in the actual cession of the island or in a gradual direliction of it. Without some such idea as this; namely that as soon as reparation is made to our honour for the violent and hostile manner in which we were driven off that island, and as soon as we were put in a situation to evacuate it of our own motion, its tacitly understood we are to cede it. Without some such idea as this; the whole of the negotiation is inexplicable and unintelligible. But taking this line, as going to a matter mutually understood, the whole is plain, definite and but of one construction.
“All this long before Argentina ever existed, where Argentina is not Spain.”
Again you are wrong, this entire region was considered a Spanish province.
“The most you can claim to have inherited from Spain is a dispute, which had already been settled in Britain’s favour.”
As demonstrated by Thomas Pownall's statement, the British withdrawal, the absence of protests and with Spain occupying the archipelago, what you mention above is unfounded.
Thomas Pownall as a Parliamentarian is certainly entititled to his opinion. But he was badly out of step with the times, and the correct legal situtation.
Dec 27th, 2023 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse +1”As late as 1886 the (US)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
Dec 27th, 2023 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess you're not being serious. Away from the times! He is a parliamentarian contemporary to the crisis of 1771. and the facts show that he was right. You are the one who is far from the times. You were not the protagonist.
In relation to the Secretary of State of the United States, he demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding the supposed “title” that was not sustained or affirmed since the crisis of 1771, when Spain occupied the archipelago, appointed governors, carried out acts of sovereignty, and the same thing happened with the United Provinces, the British protest only arrived late and unfounded in 1829.
Saludos.
Malv
Dec 27th, 2023 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In the first place as an MP he can express his own opinion in Parliament, it was not the government’s view nor policy.
Also history has clearly shown he was wrong, the British garrison may have left but the commercial activity continued with the British continuing to maintain their claim.
As in 1833 and 1982.
There were no ‘protest’ about the Spanish as the matter was already settled in the 1771 agreement, with Spain acquiescing to British demands and sovereignty.
The Spanish never considered the entire region a ‘Spanish province’, it was British and they knew that.
Once again British since 1690 and still British, where Argentina dropped its claim, such as it was, in1850.
How do you explain the absence of any diplomatic protests from Argentina between 1850 to 1939 about the Malvinas???
Also, where is the evidence that Thomas Pownall ever said that???
All I could find was:
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754-1790/member/pownall-thomas-1722-1805
‘In February 1767 he entered Parliament for Tregony. His career in the House was disappointing. His delivery was poor, and he spoke at excessive length, larding his speeches with historical surveys and philosophical analyses. When the point finally emerged, it was often jejune.
So you base your sovereignty claim on the inane ramblings of a blithering idiot.
Not much of a claim is it???
Desperate argument 1833, an opinion of 1 MP, a useless one at that,
Dec 27th, 2023 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malv
Dec 27th, 2023 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The historical significance of the treaty of 1771 was it marked the end of Spain as any kind of power on the world stage, when the French refused to back them the Spanish had to back down, the British didn’t even have to go to war, just threaten it.
Where Spain ceased to be a European power with the war of Spanish succession and subsequent treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
They couldn’t hold on to Gibraltar, a part of Spain, they had no chance of taking the Falklands from the British.
Also, ‘how do you explain the absence of any diplomatic protests from Argentina between 1850 and 1939 about the Malvinas???’
Following the signing of the Convention of Settlement in 1850, and the restoring of ‘“perfect relations of friendship” between the two countries’.
@Pugol
Dec 27th, 2023 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Of course Thomas Pownall can express his opinion, after all that is what he was elected as an MP for, ideas are debated and then government policy is followed.
Furthermore, these opinions demonstrate that the conflict was resolved in favor of Spain as demonstrated by the facts.
His approach is totally illogical, it is hilarious to say that Spain acceded to British demands and sovereignty but in fact the British abandoned the place and the Spanish exercised sovereignty over the entire archipelago.
And there was no protest against the Spanish because the matter was resolved in favor of the Spanish in the 1771 agreement, contrary to what you say.
1690- Planting a flag on land and saying that the territory is British is a fallacy, occupation is necessary as established by the law of the time.
As explained many times, Argentina did not abandon its claim in 1850.
Malvi
Dec 27th, 2023 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many times have I said to you that in reality what did or didn't happen 200 years ago is totally irrelevant, all that matters is what the Falkland Islanders want today. You do know what the English word 'today' means don't you?
Argentina's opinions or yours or what the self acknowledged liar Kohen thinks doesn't matter in the slightest.
If however you are so convinced of the legitimacy of your claim then take it to the ICJ. You've had over half a century to do so but you haven't. Now I wonder why that is.
So, enough of Argentina's silliness and your childishness, put up or shut up.
You are wrong in every way Malvi, you know it, i know it , but it must really hurt to find out everything you have been told and believe is a load of nonsense,
Dec 27th, 2023 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Dec 28th, 2023 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0We can all agree that Spain exercised sovereignty over East Falkland. However they left voluntarily in 1810. You are trying to claim that East Falkland was an integral part of what became Argentina 15 years later.
It quite clearly was not.
If your claim was it was once Spanish so a vacated historic claim carries then there is no reason why it should automatically become part of Argentina, rather than Uruguay or Paraguay.
If your claim is that any Spanish island must be Argentine then Jamaica or Cuba should be Argentine.
If your claim is that Spain administered East Falkland from Buenos Aires, then Yemen should be part of India.
East Falkland was a separate territory with a separate governor that Spain vacated voluntarily a decade before Argentine independence. The entire Spanish garrison left to return to Spain via Montevideo.
Not a single Spanish inhabitant became Argentine, not a single Spanish inhabitant claimed independence, not a single Spanish inhabitant lost to an Argentine insurgent.
Whether you want to claim “inheritance” is one thing, but it doesn't pass any test that internationally is reasonable.
Spain vacated the territory and sovereignty claims remained.
As has been shown until 1833 no successful settlement was made.
@Pugol
Dec 28th, 2023 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0December 1849
Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature is of key importance, having been made a month after the signature of the Arana-Southern Treaty.
“The Government pays serious attention to the pending claims of the Republic before Great Britain for the unjustifiable retention of the Malvinas Islands. The government fully approved the well-founded complaint and protest of the Argentine minister against the inaccurate assertions of HM’s minister of foreign affairs and expressed that, through that protest it supported, as it should have and as it had to verify in any case, the proper rights of the Argentine Confederation in the Malvinas Islands, against the renewed disregard of HM’s Minister of foreign affairs, who made the unfounded supposition that the correspondence had ceased by reason of acquiescence on the part of the Confederation or of both parties, according to the different versions that appeared in the newspapers. the Government ordered its Minister that when discussing this, he always uphold the same principles and base himself on the same facts that resulted from the correspondence followed on this topic, and transmitted other orders for upholding the unquestionable rights of the Confederation in the Malvinas island”.
“Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature ...”
Dec 28th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that were true you would have provided a citation. What he actually said.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.” (Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286 which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
The historical view of Argentina has been observed. As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832
“...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf
Malvi, just stop, you are making a fool of yourself now, as Darragh has said its childish, if you fell so confident go to the ICJ, it is pointless rehashing old debunked claims, you had a good try but have lost convincingly, go celebrate the festive season.
Dec 28th, 2023 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature ...”
Dec 28th, 2023 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that were true you would have provided a citation. What Sarmiento said.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.” (Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286 which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
The historical view of Argentina has been observed. As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832
“...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...“
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf
'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”
@Terence
Dec 28th, 2023 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Rosas' speech in the Legislature is proof that the Argentine Confederation did not renounce the Malvinas Islands.
As for Samiento, his speech is taken out of context, he clearly refers to the international situation prevailing at the time, conflicts between Chile and Peru, Chile and Bolivia, Peru and Spain, Chile and Spain, Argentina with Chile, Argentina and the war with Paraguay etc.
Nowhere in his speech does he renounce the Malvinas.
I hope you stop repeating the fantasies that Argentina renounced the islands with the Arana-Southern treaty and Sarmiento's speech.
Malv, no one cares whether Argentina renounced or not, they where not your islands in any way shape or form to renounce, its irrelevant. however you did stay silent for decades, as other posters keep saying this is all childish nonsense, you know what you need to do, why has Argie land not done it, the answer is simple, you have no legal leg to stand on, 200 years have passed, their are far more important things that concerns Argentina than the myth of a place called Malvinas, no usurping, no civilian evictions, no Argentine settlement, no ludicrous claim of inheritance, its just all BS,
Dec 28th, 2023 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malv
Dec 28th, 2023 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain returned the territory to the British, with no conditions.
The Spanish acquiesced to the British demands and thereby Britain maintained its Sovereignty claim dating from 1690.
It cannot be argued otherwise given these facts.
The British withdrew the garrison however the commercial presence continued, with Spain in control of the east island, until they abandoned it.
The British withdrew their garrison only, the Spanish abandoned the territory completely.
The British claim was maintained, the Spanish was not and Argentina was never in it.
Argentine diplomatic protests about the Falklands stopped for 89 years, you cannot argue Argentina has always maintained its claim, it clearly has not.
The signing of the Arana-Southern treaty and the cessation of all diplomatic protests or even mention in the diplomatic record for 89 years effectively ended Argentina’s claim.
Such as it was.
“Rosas' speech in the Legislature is proof that the Argentine Confederation did not renounce the Malvinas Islands....”
Dec 28th, 2023 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that were true you would have provided a citation.
“An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http ://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
'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.
§VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that the question was a very simple one, so far as this country was concerned. It was well known that a TREATY OF PEACE and reconciliation was concluded and ratified between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation more than twelve months ago.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1851/aug/04/buenos-ayres
”The confidential draft of CONVENTION OF PEACE, arranged with H. E. the Honourable Henry Southern Esquire, and referred by him to the Government of H. B. M. and which is the same that same that has been accepted without any alteration by the Government of H.M., and signed by the Argentine and British Plenipotentiaries, ...
Malvi
Dec 29th, 2023 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1You try really hard to find a kernel of truth in the Malvinas myth to support the Argentine claim, but you are using very outdated views of land v people.
The Falklands are a distant island group, it is impossible for anyone to claim territorial integrity less still from 1000 miles (as Argentina was in 1833) or 9000 miles as the UK is.
So what matters are the wishes of the inhabitants.
In 1810 there were no inhabitants so pretty much everything before amounts to sovereignty claims, British or Spanish.
There were no inhabitants to chose to be Argentine, no inhabitants to win or lose a war of Independence.
You then come to the Vernet business. Whether this was a private business or an Argentine population is debatable, but the majority left in 1831 and showed no signs of wanting to return in the following 18 months. The majority of the remainder wanted to leave with Pinedo in 1833 before Onslow arrived.
You would need to show that the remaining 22 people and their descendents had British sovereignty forced on them against their will. This includes British civilians like William Dickson.
No civilian was evicted.
What you are now asking is that 3000+ Falkland Islanders are forced to live under Argentine sovereignty, because 21 people may or may not (probably not) were forced to live under British sovereignty 191 years ago.
It makes zero sense.
“Rosas' speech in the Legislature is proof that the Argentine Confederation did not renounce the Malvinas Islands....”
Dec 29th, 2023 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the contrary, HALLECK et al absolutely refutes any such contention.
'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.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!