MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
April 2 Malvinas Day to further showcase rift in Argentine gov't
The April 2 Malvinas War Veteran's Day holiday will showcase the rift in the Argentine Government much more than it would highlight any question of sovereignty and patriotism. While President Javier Milei will head the ceremony in the Buenos Aires district of Retiro, where a cenotaph remembers thhose fallen in the 1982 conflict, Vice President Victoria Villarruel -who was not invited- is to attend an event in Ushuaia to join a group of former combatants, which her late father also was. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThese so called veterans that did not even know they where going to the Falklands, that did not want to be there and where desperate to go home, who where treated like shit by their own officers and government,
Apr 01st, 2025 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse +6Its like watching a circus,
An invasion based on an alleged 'usurpation' in 1833 (what law was broken in 1833?) and a supposed 'inheritance from Spain.'
Apr 01st, 2025 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/44496176/Argentina_did_not_inherit_the_Falkland_Islands_from_Spain
And can anyone tell me what law w
@ Jack Jones
Apr 01st, 2025 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -5The only veterans who didn't know where they were going in 1982 were the British, who thought that somewhere in Scotland or Ireland had been invaded.
Steve Potts
Nootka Sound
Article IV :
His Britannic majesty engages to take the most effectual measure to prevent the navigation and fishery of his subjects, in the Pacific Ocean or in the South-Seas, from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and, with this view, it is moreover expressly stipulated, that British subjects shall no navigate or carry on their fishery, in the said seas, within the space of ten sea-leagues from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain.
The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. By that time, Spain had already appointed the 13th Governor of the Malvinas. The prohibition undoubtedly included the Falkland/Malvinas islands.
Without a doubt Argie troll, you are so indoctrinated with your BS its embarrassing to see, you are either a clueless man child who refuses to learn the truth or a complete liar, take your pick, fortunately many Argentinians are now starting to learn the truth and are sick to death of you fanatical Peronists spewing stupid nonsense, you bore the pants off people,
Apr 01st, 2025 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1* was broken in 1833?
Apr 01st, 2025 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is the last troll standing. Reckon the rest have been made redundant. Just a matter of time before
Apr 01st, 2025 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense 1833 is pushed aside. Maybe it is Mercopress that removed them.
FF, he is too far gone with his ludicrous posts, he will continue boring the pants off everyone else until the day he dies, like all fanatics they have no life and nothing better to do, his opening paragraph was that of a 9 year old, the rest of it was the same excrement he posted last week, last month, last year and the previous 7 years, his wife or boy friend must be fed up with him too unless he is a hermit sat in a cave with Kohen Rodriguez comics all around him and a fantasy flag too on his boxer shorts,
Apr 01st, 2025 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chaps, re Malvinense 1833, why not just ignore him? He is a throwback to the many that try to disrupt normality and one that has devoted (wasted) his adult life in the process. Me, I just get on with life and reckon with all the progress in the F.I. since, then 14th Jun 1982 was a job well done. Salute to you all on that date.
Apr 01st, 2025 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Veteran, i stopped conversing with him months ago, nothing he posts is relevant, he is nothing more than a Parrot repeating claims that has been proven to be false, he needs his Polly wants a cracker fix to keep on living the lie. only cowards cant admit when they are wrong,
Apr 01st, 2025 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas”
Apr 02nd, 2025 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Regardless, Argentina was barred from any claim by by both Nootka and Utrecht.
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 ... ...was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way. ...”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Treaty of Nootka Sound
HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 c275W275W
§Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any United Kingdom obligations under the treaty of Nootka Sound in relation to former Spanish colonies.
§Mr. Onslow Under article 6 of the Noo
Malvi
Apr 03rd, 2025 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1You claimed on another thread that in 1832 the United Provinces were unaware of the British claim.
How come the National Archive at Kew shows the acknowledgement of a letter from the British consul Woodbine Parrish in 1829 where he reaffirms the British claim and warns Argentine not to attempt to seize sovereignty.
It also includes letters and maps that Parrish received from Luis Vernet advising that Vernet took no position on sovereignty.
Why is this Malvi?
Seems like the made up eviction, there is a made up unprovoked reclaim of sovereignty too.
It seems Argentina sent a militia and a governor in Oct 1832 fully in knowledge of the British claim, attempted to usurp the islands and ignore the British claim and have lied about it ever since.
Woodbine Parrish was decorated by the UP government and is a reliable historic source.
Sorry Malvi.
Perhaps you should have negotiated in 1832 rather than try and steal the islands ignoring a claim your government officially acknowledged.
@Monkey
Apr 03rd, 2025 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I didn't say that.
I said there was an entire period of Spanish and then Argentine occupation during which there were no British claims.
And that the first malicious and belated protest was in 1829.
None of you could tell me what the British claim is based on: on an alleged discovery by Davis? No protests? No population?
@Steve Potts
You have nothing to show, that's your “great” argument.
Do you want to know what laws were broken? There are many archives with documents and books to research.
Do you want to know about the historical legal arguments? Read the Ruda statement.
Don't like what an Argentine says?
Read what the Uruguayan ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Carlos María Velázquez, said in 1964.
The only invaders and usurpers are the British.
Cont.
Apr 03rd, 2025 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Treaty of Nootka Sound
HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 c275W275W
§Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any United Kingdom obligations under the treaty of Nootka Sound in relation to former Spanish colonies.
§Mr. Onslow Under article 6 of the Nootka Sound convention 1790, Britain and Spain agreed not to make any settlement on the eastern or western coasts of South America, or on the adjacent islands to the south, already held by Spain. However, the convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of the war between Britain and Spain. In 1811 Spain evacuated the Falkland Islands and abandoned them, so that, although the convention was revived in 1814, it could not then be taken to apply to the Falkland Islands.
“protest was in 1829”
“On 17 June 1833 the first major protest by Argentina referred to the succession to Spanish rights as the basis of its claim. Spain's rights to the Falklands were, in turn, based upon the prior occupation by and purchase from France and by the abandonment of possession by Britain. Palmerston's response on 8 January 1834 was to refer to the communications that had taken place in 1770-1 as demonstrating no intention on the part of Britain of relinquishing its claim, and included the often quoted statement that ”the Government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other State to exercise a right as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself”
P.35 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Mr. Terence:
Apr 04th, 2025 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I'll give you a brief answer:
With the Nootka Treaty, Great Britain
1- recognized Spanish sovereignty.
2- Spain authorized British subjects to carry out temporary activities in its territories.
3- and these activities did not constitute an exercise of sovereignty by other powers over Spanish territories.
4- The British landing at Port Egmont was prohibited by this and other treaties, as demonstrated in 1749 with Admiral Anson.
5- Spain did not abandon the islands; it evacuated them as a result of the Wars of Independence.
6- The territory was not terra nullius, therefore Great Britain could not establish a presence there.
7- Before the 1833 usurpation, they were never under British control.
To summarize once again, the Falklands/Malvinas were never British.
I have a paddle tennis tournament this weekend; we'll continue later.
Best regards.
Treaty of Nootka Sound
Apr 05th, 2025 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 c275W275W
§Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any United Kingdom obligations under the treaty of Nootka Sound in relation to former Spanish colonies.
§Mr. Onslow Under article 6 of the Nootka Sound convention 1790, Britain and Spain agreed not to make any settlement on the eastern or western coasts of South America, or on the adjacent islands to the south, already held by Spain. However, the convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of the war between Britain and Spain. In 1811 Spain evacuated the Falkland Islands and abandoned them, so that, ALTHOUGH THE CONVENTION WAS REVIVED IN 1814, IT COULD NOT THEN BE TAKEN TO APPLY TO THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.
Malvi
Apr 05th, 2025 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I will ignore you’ve changed your story as you were caught lying.
We have now established Argentina was aware of the British claim BEFORE it gave Vernet a title (one he only accepted as he didn’t want Argentina sending anyone else, and Argentine knew of the Brish claim BEFORE it tried to steal the islands in 1832.
I am glad we agree.
Argentina knew of the British claim and ignored it.
It had moaned for 200 years that Britain knew of Argentinas claim and ignored it.
Neither had sovereignty just a claim.
Both ignored the others claim.
Perhaps Argentina should have negotiated in 1832 rather than attempting to steal the islands by sending a militia.
Argentina was the aggressor in 1833 not Britain.
Glad we cleared that up finally.
You destroyed your own argument.
@Terence
Apr 07th, 2025 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -3There are a variety of reasons why the secret clause could not be invoked against Argentina. Firstly, because Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights over the Malvinas; at the moment in which it recognized Argentine independence and the two nations established diplomatic relations and entered into a treaty of amity in 1825, Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity. Secondly, even if the secret clause were in force and opposable to Argentina – which is not the case – because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights, there was no settlement established by “subjects of other powers”, but only a continuation of Spain’s rights.
British sources concur on the fact that the Treaty of 1790 prevented Great Britain from settling in the Malvinas islands. No serious British author, nor the British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence. Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:
in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
@Monkey
The only country that:
-Did not respect the existing treaties
-Illegally settled in Port Egmont
-Never had control and therefore sovereignty over the islands
-Was not continued through diplomatic channels if it had any kind of claim
For all the above, the only invader and usurper is the United Kingdom.
As I mentioned earlier, both Spain and Argentina appointed governors and established a population; in Spain's case, long before Vernet, so the British protest is unfounded, malicious, and belated.
“There are a variety of reasons why the secret clause could not be invoked against Argentina. Firstly, because Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights over the Malvinas”
Apr 07th, 2025 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“On 17 June 1833 the first major protest by Argentina referred to the succession to Spanish rights as the basis of its claim. Spain's rights to the Falklands were, in turn, based upon the prior occupation by and purchase from France and by the abandonment of possession by Britain. Palmerston's response on 8 January 1834 was to refer to the communications that had taken place in 1770-1 as demonstrating no intention on the part of Britain of relinquishing its claim, and included the often quoted statement that ”the Government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other State to exercise a right as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself“
P.35 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
”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”.
@Terence
Apr 07th, 2025 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3What Palmerston said is irrelevant because the communications of 1770/1771 are perfectly known, the declarations of the British Parliament are known, and they go in the opposite direction to what Palmerston mentioned, not to mention the subsequent British attitude of recognizing, once again, Spanish sovereignty, as well as the British withdrawal from the islands.
As for self-determination, the Argentine people achieved it in 1810. The fallacious British argument of self-determination cannot be applied to inhabitants who are not subjugated and who are also part of the occupying colonial power, not to mention that they are on territory usurped from another nation.
The British inhabitants of the islands cannot be judges and parties to the resolution of the conflict.
No Argie troll what you say is irrelevant,
Apr 07th, 2025 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands have every right to have the final say about the Falklands , its enshrined in the UN charter of self determination with no exceptions, despite Argentina protesting, your protest was REJECTED outright , only you think that, so you lie yet again, just 1 of many that you post, what a sad little character you are, grow up Pinocchio. now go have an orgasm of your Kohen-Rodriguez fairy tail,
“self-determination cannot be applied to inhabitants who are not subjugated”
Apr 07th, 2025 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that were true you would have been able to cite such a binding declaration!
No proof, no truth.
Decolonisation is a mere political term
”In the context of decolonisation, the 'political' moment in international law is repeated several times over. ... begins in 1960 with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, an initiative taken by the Third World at the United Nations General Assembly (GA Res. 1514).“ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sundhya_Pahuja/publication/322381803_Decolonization_and_the_eventness_of_international_law/links/5a56be0e45851547b1bf25db/Decolonization-and-the-eventness-of-international-law.pdf
Which, while a worthy goal, is merely an advisement, and not international law.
”UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
October 16th,1975
The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...” The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory
Malvi
Apr 08th, 2025 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +2On this thread you have finally admitted that Argentina gave Vernet a title and invaded the Falklands in October 1832 in full knowledge of the British claim.
Argentina was the aggressor who chose not to negotiate before its belligerency.
Your last remaining argument is that the Falklands automatically became Argentine in 1810 when Spain vacated.
This would only be true if the Spanish population had remained and chosen to be Argentine (more likely they’d have been Uruguayan).
So Argentina twice invaded the islands, twice got thrown off, and now wish to negotiate,
How about no.
You destroyed your own argument. Sorry Malvi we got there in the end, but you lost.
Argentina was the aggressor in 1832
Cont.
Apr 08th, 2025 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)
of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976,
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!