MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“We want a good relationship with Argentina, but will never negotiate Falkland Islanders rights”
”The UK Government will always protect and promote the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination and only they can decide their future. We want a good relationship with Argentina, but have been very clear that we will never negotiate away the Islanders’ democratic rights. My right honorable Friend the Foreign Secretary (Lord David Cameron) reassured the Islanders about our enduring commitment during his welcome visit to the Falkland Islands last month,“ David Rutley, Under Secretary for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, replied to questions from Parliament members on Tuesday, who asked ”What steps he is taking to uphold the Falkland Islanders right to self determination?. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWe want to have a good relationship with the United Kingdom and the British inhabitants of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -10I wish to remind Mr. Dutley and Ms. Murray that the islands were inhabited by Argentines and that they achieved self-determination more than 200 years ago. They were previously part of the Spanish Province Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, which is why the islands, until the act of piracy by England, were never British.
Regards.
Just stop with these pathetic lies Malvi, you have been given the facts, your claims have been debunked and proven to be false, yet you persist with the lies, you achieve nothing other than make your self look stupid. grow up for goodness sake.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +6while friendly relations with Argentina would be better of for all concerned, the islanders neither need it or want it, people like you are the problem,
The British Empire collapsed! The cancer caused by the metastasis of this Empire will still take some time before a complete cure occurs.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -10I heard that English-speaking North American soldiers were trying to close the Rio de la Plata.
There is no shortage of Empire in our America. 5 (France, England, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands).
It's a fight over a battle!
I wish to remind Mr. Dutley and Ms. Murray that the islands were inhabited by a few Argentines in a business run by a German and a Briton between 1828-31 they possibly achieved self-determination but chose to leave voluntarily more than 200 years ago in 1831. The eastern island was previously part of the Spanish Province Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, but they also left voluntarily in 1811, which is why the islands, where available for England to reclaim their historic sovereignty, which like all the Americas has now passed to the inhabitants.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Of course should the islanders all choose to leave, and leave the islands uninhabited, someone else could gain sovereignty.
No Brassole the British empire did not collapse, it was given up voluntary, and if you bothered to do some research you would know that, Russian Empire, Chinese Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman empire the list is endless, stop talking crap and grow a brain,
Mar 14th, 2024 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +6One of Argentina's main arguments is that the Falkland Islanders are not a 'people' entitled to claim self-determination. Let's take a look...
Mar 14th, 2024 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Falkland Islanders, a people and self-determination: https://www.academia.edu/41941566/People_the_Falklands_and_Self-Determination
It seems 1833 is nothing more than a troll with nothing better to do with his life, as for Brasil, he lives in an alternate universe,
Mar 14th, 2024 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When ships transporting grain, lettuce and meat have to submit to United States policing, there will no longer be anything United States here.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -7We are neither grain nor meat!
The vast majority of Malvinistas on these forums are total fruitcakes Trimonde, Argentine zit, Brasilliero etc. Just trolling fruitcakes.
Mar 14th, 2024 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +7There are two exceptions:
Think is a broken alcoholic. An embittered loser in life, who trolls Mercopress in the utterly mistaken belief that he posts anything of value. He is so pathetic almost deserving of pity.
Malvinense is unique, he is never rude and will engage in a semblance of debate. Unfortunately, he knows much of the myths and legends around 1833 don’t stand to rigorous scrutiny, but he treats them like Gospels and worships at the alter of Kohen.
It is fun to point out that the events in 1833 are false, but even if they were not, the islanders still own sovereignty and Argentina do not.
Certainly an excellent debate, although it's obvious that the UK has sacrificed too blood and treasure, to change the current situation.
Mar 15th, 2024 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile has taken the ridiculous fantasy of the “Malvinas” just to as a pacifier to stop their incessant crying.
There is a reason why my Argentine neighbors have the highest dependence on mental health issues.
By the way, business is really good for our farm.
https://www.freshplaza.com/north-america/article/9608391/it-s-historic-to-be-selling-chilean-table-grapes-for-36-box-in-mid-march/lol
Meanwhile, our youngest daughter has returned from Chilean lake district to make fruit preserves with our niece and Madame.
Besides enjoying our precocious granddaughter, we all having great fun this memorable season.
¡Saludos de Panquehue!
I heard that the Houthis damaged another ship. Damn! Aircraft carriers, Tank carriers, 750 military bases, Abrahms, Marines...
Mar 15th, 2024 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -7And they can't do anything? You Westerners are too weak. If you push your foot on the door, there will be a shortage of toilet paper, right galeguinho?
Brasileiro
Mar 15th, 2024 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Do a quick search of newly released videos, seeing the Houthis getting their arses kicked is revealing.
I suggest you review your news propaganda.
(Saludos de Panquehue!
Bras
Mar 15th, 2024 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3By which generally accepted variations of the definition of ‘the West’ are the South American nations not Western? With the exception of the ‘Rich West’ of course.
Brasil, you say the west is week. ridiculous nonsense, you support Houthi terrorists, shame on you, they are getting their buts whipped, you hatred towards the west is just stupidity, Brazil is part of the west,
Mar 15th, 2024 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its not hatred, its envy. Bras is so jealous of the “Anglos”, he cant understand why Latam with all its resources and Spanish/Portuguese heritage is so poor, and the Anglosphere is so wealthy...it must be trickery!!!
Mar 15th, 2024 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1For once Monkey i disagree, post after post by the Russian educated Brazilian shows nothing but hate towards the USA, the EU, NATO an anything else that has anything to do with western values, , although i do not post on any other countries site i do read them, he is clearly indoctrinated with it, a lot of his posts do not even make sense , the nuttiest comment of all is his remark, Brazil has left the west, a pretty dam stupid comment at best,
Mar 16th, 2024 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Chicureo
Mar 19th, 2024 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The United Kingdom has sacrificed too much blood and money in half the world and yet in many places due to diplomatic pressures, wars, the situation has changed. In the future it may also happen in the Malvinas.
The great British fallacy is to pretend that there were no Argentine inhabitants when the truth is that they did inhabit the islands.
The second point is that previously there was the Spanish population and at no time was a warship present to evict the Spanish and thus assert their alleged rights over the islands.
It is well known that the English did not discover the islands and did not occupy them first, therefore they do not have the right.
“It is not easy to explain our position without looking like international bandits.”
memorandum 1936, Foreign Office.
Britain does not deny that some Argentines lived on the islands between 1828-31, as part of a Louis Vernet business. It maintains this commercial enterprise was not indicitive of Argentine sovereignty and left willingly in 1831.
Mar 19th, 2024 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Britain does not disagree there was a Spanish settlement on East Falkland between 1767 and 1810 which also left willingly.
It maintains the islands we all but empty in 1832, except for a handful of people under the British William Dickson when Argentina violently attacked with the SS Sarandi in an act of piracy. (Sic).
and even if Britain had followed your make believe fantasy of evicting thousands of Argentines and stealing the islands it wouldn’t matter in 2024. The sovereignty belongs to the islanders. Even if your false history were true.
Malv
Mar 19th, 2024 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The Islands were British long before Argentina ever existed, in any form.
The British have always maintained their claim, including recovering the Islands from foreign invasion three time, since landing on the Islands and planting the flag in 1690.
Unlike Argentina which acquiesced to the British claim in 1850, and where the current Argentinian gov is doing the same today.
As your foreign minister has now admitted publicly, Argentina cannot ‘negotiate sovereignty with the British, as the Argentinian constitution says sovereignty is non-negotiable’.
The only thing that is actually correct about the Argentinian position, sovereignty IS non-negotiable.
Discussions start from that point, which your governments now accepts.
@Monkey
Mar 20th, 2024 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Britain does not deny that some Argentines lived on the islands between 1828-31, as part of a Louis Vernet business. It maintains this commercial enterprise was not indicitive of Argentine sovereignty and left willingly in 1831.
The government, by virtue of the Decree signed by governor Balcarce on January 5th, 1828, ceded to Vernet all the vacant lands on Isla Soledad, except for those ceded to Jorge Pacheco and a ten-square league stretch in San Carlos Bay reserved by the State, plus Staten Island. A map of Soledad/East Falkland made by Vernet, shows the land divisions as well as the settlements existing during the Argentine administration. The condition imposed on Vernet was that within a three-year period a colony should be established “and after this period, the government will provide for what is more convenient in regard to the internal and external order of its administration.”
The scope of this decree goes far beyond a simple land concession. The government of Buenos Aires: 1) establishes a special tax system, 2) grants fishing franchises, 3) reserves the property of a strategic zone in San Carlos, on the coast of the strait of the same name, 4) manifests the will to populate the islands permanently and to organize the exploitation of the natural resources of land and sea, 5) does not limit these acts to Isla Soledad, but applies them to the entire Falkland/Malvinas archipelago, and to other Argentine territories in the South; 6) clearly establishes governmental control over the development of the colony and 7) establishes a relationship of subordination of the Colony´s director (Vernet) to the government of Buenos Aires.
No protest was raised by the British government, despite this being an act of public exercise of sovereignty was known by the active British representative in Buenos Aires.
Malvi
Mar 20th, 2024 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Exactly, no protest was made by the British because they didn’t recognise it. yet as soon as Mestevier was sent, Britain reacted.
What does that tell you about Vernet.
@Monkey
Mar 20th, 2024 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -4”Britain does not disagree there was a Spanish settlement on East Falkland between 1767 and 1810 which also left willingly.”
Various internal Foreign Office memoranda express similar views on the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Two of these (dated 1911 and 1928) read as follows:
No objection appears to have been made at any time on the part of Great Britain to the possession of Soledad by the Spaniards, who continued in undisturbed exercise of all the rights of sovereignty, not only over the East Falkland Island, but over the whole group, until, according to R. Greenhow, about the year 1808. They, however, appear, according to other writers, to have exercised these rights until a later period, for G. A. Thompson, in his “Geographical and Historical Dictionary of America and the West Indies”, published in 1812, states that: ”The Spaniards now send criminals to these inhospitable shores (of the Falkland Islands) for their settlements in America; and Dr. G. Hassel, in his “Geographisch-Statistisches Handwörterbuch”, published in 1817, says: “Die Spanier aber besitzen noch ein geringes Dorf auf der grössen Insel bei Port Soledad”. Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad during this period we have no distinct accounts. The remains of the town show that though small it was tolerably well-built and provided with a Government House, church, store-houses and forts, all of stone. It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled “Commandant of the Malvinas”, who was dependent on the Viceroy of La Plata; and vessels of war were from time to time sent from Buenos Aires to cruise among the islands and to warn all vessels of other nations against trespassing on the coasts ...Spain abandoned the Falkland Islands in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and has not since that year directly claim to them. The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands was the Government of Buenos Aires.
Malvi why are you repeating a point we agree, Spain had sovereignty of East Falkland between 1767 and 1810 administered by the Viceroyalty in BA.
Mar 21st, 2024 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain had sovereignty of Aden (Yemen) administered from Bombay in India.
By your logic Yemen is part of India irrespective of what the people of Yemen want.
The Falklands belong to the islanders.
1833, this is just silly, Argentina is not Spain, you did not inherit them from Spain. just like you did not inherit Cuba or Jamaica or anywhere else, its over the Falklands exist and will always exist unless they choose a different path,
Mar 21st, 2024 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse +2The Falklands were over 1000 miles from the rest of the Viceroyalty in 1810. It was administered by expedience from Buenos Aires. When Argentina claimed independence it was by people not land, that’s why the Viceroyalty split into multiple countries. There were no people on the Falklands to choose to be Spanish, Argentine or British.
We can keep having the same debate, you claim inheritance of an empty disputed territory, we don’t recognise it, Spanish sovereignty of East Falkland which we did recognise ended in 1810 when the garrison left and returned to Spain via Montevideo.
We also don’t now, or neither did we at the time recognise the Vernet business as Argentine sovereignty. That is why we didn’t protest. I know you are desperate to claim it was, and you have an argument, but Vernet left in 1831 with the majority of his business. Three years business 200 years ago.
You now know the events of 1833 that you have been fed are nonsense, Pinedo own logs tell the truth. There was no eviction, nobody was forced to leave against their will, indeed Pinedo was trying to force people to stay. There was no piracy, no violence, no usurpation.
The point remains, even if there had been, even if Britain had stolen the islands (they didn’t) the ownership of the islands has passed to the islanders. The 1982 invasion was a disgraceful act of unprovoked violence for which Argentina should be wholly ashamed. Sadly they appear not to be.
The history is interesting from an academic point of view, but from a sovereignty claim it is purely propaganda.
Monkey
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Pinedo, who had arrived on December 31st from his inspection voyage around the Strait of Magellan, Tierra del Fuego and the rest of the Falklands/Malvinas, had only just finished restoring order in the colony, after the mutiny that had ended with the death of Mestivier. Onslow´s message to Commander Pinedo on January 2nd, 1833 reads: “It is my intention to hoist, tomorrow morning, the National Flag of Great Britain on shore; when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag, and to withdraw your Forces, taking with you all the stores, &c., belonging to your Government”. Argentine and British sources concur in affirming that Pinedo did not accept to lower the Argentine flag, although he was prepared to withdraw his forces, given the evident military superiority of the British.
Pascoe and Pepper affirm that the islands were not taken by force in 1833, but that Onslow had “persuaded” Pinedo and his garrison to leave peacefully. This analysis goes against preceding arguments.There is no doubt that these actions may be qualified as a forcible action, despite the fact that not a single shot was fired. The use of a war ship and military staff, the coercion exercised by requiring the lowering of the flag and withdrawal of Argentine forces within 24 hours with a warning that in case they failed to do so, he would do it himself, mean that possession was obtained by a military presence in the territory and by threatening the use of force.
This was the interpretation made by the government of Buenos Aires three weeks after the events, in qualifying Onslow´s actions as “an aggressive and violent dispossession” and “the most outrageous abuse of force.” Claiming that in such circumstances, the act performed was not violent would be like affirming that the Argentine actions of April 2nd, 1982 were not violent either because any military actions on that day were merely a response to the few British troops stationed in the islands opening fire.
Credits Kohen-Rodríguez
Credits Kohen-Rodriguez ?? dont make me laugh, hardly a credible source are they ? , a full blown miliary force invaded in 82, the military barracks were blown up, not violent , you are one confused and very deluded man and nothing more than a fanatical troll, stop the BS and get a life, you are making a fool of yourself,
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You haven’t read Pinedo logs have you?
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pinedo was already due to leave, everyone who left with him were already due to leave except a few of the mutineers who Pinedo was ordering to stay against their will. Onslow made him take them too.
That’s it, a flag that had been put up 10 weeks earlier was lowered, and a people who were planning to leave, left.
Unfortunately the rest is nonsense and propaganda
@Monkey
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“you claim inheritance of an empty disputed territory, we don’t recognise it”
Due to the state of rebellion in the South American provinces, the international legal situation in Spanish America was comparable to that of a civil war. The rebels could not invoke a right of independence from Spain: they had to gain independence. Third States had to adopt a policy of neutrality –which they did. This means that they could not take advantage of the situation to take possession of the territories of the rebel provinces. The existence of a civil war or rebellion did not turn the territories of the States involved into vast terrae nullius, requiring occupation by one side or the other to avoid foreign occupation.
The British position was clearly described by George Canning on March 4th, 1823:
“In the year 1818, the Contest between Spain and her Colonies then raging with extraordinary violence, an Application was made by the Court of Spain to the British Government to interdict the Service of British Subjects in the Armies of the Insurgent Colonies - An Act of Parliament was passed for this purpose, but it was felt that in making such Concession to Spain, it would be right that the Mother Country and her Colonies should be placed by this Country upon that footing which the Neutral Position of Great Britain between the two Belligerent Parties prescribed; the prohibition therefore against serving in the Armies of South America, was extended to those of Spain”
The fact that British de iure recognition of Argentina occurred after 1820 does not change this conclusion in any way. In 1818, Great Britain recognized the South American provinces as belligerents, as is apparent from George Canning’s note.
My intention is not to be right but also so that they can understand our point of view.
Mono, Juan, Good Weekend.
Regards.
Malvi, we know your point of view, we have always known your point of view, but it does not stand up to scrutiny, everything you have claimed has proven to be false ,go watch some football and have some fun,
Mar 22nd, 2024 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Mar 23rd, 2024 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we accept your civil war notion, and agree that as a result of the war the people of Argentina chose to be Argentine, the people of Chile chose to be Chilean, the people of Peru chose to be Peruvian….what did the people of the Falklands chose to be?
The answer is there weren’t any….nobody who was Spanish living on the islands chose to be Argentine, they all remained Spanish and returned to Spain. Therefore the islands unlike the mainland did not become independent they became vacant.
Argentina would have no need to claim them in 1826 or 1828 or 1833 if they were already theirs.
The fact remains no inheritance because there was nobody to inherit.
So, was Vernet business Argentine sovereignty? Britain didn’t accept it at the time and he left voluntarily in 1831.
You know full well what happened in 1833 and even your propaganda is laughable.
We don't want and don t need good relations, they expelled our inhabitants from Port Louis in 1833.
Mar 23rd, 2024 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -2We just have to wait for windows of opportunity, global geopolitical changes or for them to kill each other in a war with China and Russia... or develop our economy and weapons first.
and if all that does not happen, in all that time isolate them from a peaceful position without doing anything.
Here we go again with Argie zits fantasies and lies, just let this sink in to your indoctrinated brainwashed fuddled brain,
Mar 23rd, 2024 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 There will be no window of opportunity ever again, technology will see to that, if by remote chance there is ever a nuclear war then Argentina will be affected just like everyone else,, the whole world will be screwed, thousands of nuclear weapons exploding all over the planet and you think Argentina will be ok, grow a brain,
2 the biggest lie of all, no evictions what so ever Pinedos logs prove its all a pack of lies, there was never Argentine ownership there was no Argentine settlement Brisbane and Vernet where not Argies, and no usurping, so grow a brain get a life then hand back the whole of Argentina to the true owners of the land, and you return back to Italy or Spain. your case is fraudulent and a joke.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!