MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina celebrates UK/Mauritius agreement on Chagos as a path to a Falklands dialogue
This Monday, May 26, the Argentine Foreign Ministry published a release celebrating the Agreement between the governments of UK and of the Republic of Mauritius referred to the Chagos archipelago including the island of Diego Garcia. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAh the rhetoric but alas another false dawn for Narnia.
May 27th, 2025 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse +2They live in a dream world, what part of no do they not understand, they can bleat about it for ever and nothing will change,
May 27th, 2025 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse +2The $64,000 question, did the 2019 UN ICJ Chagos Opinion give any support to Argentina’s Falklands claim or benefit the Falkland Islanders? Much the same re Gibraltar.
May 27th, 2025 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse +2Falklands – Chagos Ruling (2 pgs): https://www.academia.edu/38498842/Falklands_-_Chagos_Ruling
They clutch at every little straw. Problem is their straws are getting much shorter.
May 27th, 2025 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2First it makes me laugh how they whinge and bleat about something that has never been theirs in the first place. Secondly we islanders have made it very clear. there is nothing to negotiate regarding the British Falkland Islands.
Unless they find undeniable proof that Spain actually gave them anything, they will only have their mythical claim to go on.
We islanders were hurt badley when Argentina invaded. They destroyed that little bit of faith and trust we had with them. Unlike other parts of the war torn world, we will never forget or forgive that act of aggression.
We may be smaller in numbers than Argentina, but we have a very powerful voice and a very strong economy.
Argentina needs to look at what they actually did to an indigenous people back in 1869 when they invaded and stole a people's land. The world even then watched and said nothing.
The world is trying to say nothing about what is going on here on the islands and that constant threat by Argentina. That makes all those who turn a blind eye just as guilty as Argentina
In the Chagos debacle there are two issues which are dangerous for the Falklands, fortunately the population is there unlike Chagos.
May 27th, 2025 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1However Labour traitors have recognised as “internatinal law” the vote in the UNGA which is the “government of the losers” strongly under the control of Russia and China “the great South”.
The other point is the ICJ which has terrible judges divorced from justice and the law, we can no longer rely on the ICJ which operates on the back of envy and politics.
UK, if it had a patriotic government would be talking about leaving the ICJ, it joined under condition it would not intervene in Commonwealth issues and that is what it did at Chagos, ICJ didn't have jurisdiction.
Finally Labour which is infesting everything with anti-British characters like Starmer, Hermer, Sands the Mauritius lawyer “advising Starmer” on our security!
Unless a Labour landslided parliament is capable of defending our country we are going to give away our islands and 30 billion pounds!
Dr. Starkey put it very clear: “We are about to vote in a government nobody wants”.
”Argentina renews its call on the UK to resume negotiations on the sovereignty ... as established by Resolution 2065 (XX) of the UN General Assembly and other pertinent resolutions“
May 28th, 2025 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Only to be superceded by the later following.
”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
Note, UN resolutions cannot negate UN Charter articles 73, and 103.
UN Charter article 73.
“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, ...”
@Falklands-Free
May 30th, 2025 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2We are dealing with a people—subject to the right to self-determination—when, at the time of the colonial act, the inhabitants of the territory had some form of organization of their own and were dominated by the colonial power.
That is the spirit of the law. It is not about using the law to legalize an act of force like the one that occurred in 1833.
For this reason, the inhabitants of the islands do not have the right to self-determination.
-Unless they find undeniable proof that Spain actually gave them anything-
First of all, I regret to tell you that the irrefutable proof must be provided by the United Kingdom. The day they prove this, I will be the first defender of the inhabitants of the islands.
Secondly, you are saying that we have to prove that Spain gave us something. Therefore, you are acknowledging that the islands belonged to Spain.
Regards.
@Livepeanuts
I must tell you that the population is not there; it was evicted; in any case, the population of the occupying power is there.
Regards.
“irrefutable proof must be provided by the United Kingdom. The day they prove this, I will be the first defender of the inhabitants of the islands.”
May 30th, 2025 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination. The Falklands are on the list, so they enjoy the right to self-determination.
Ref.: 2225(XXI)
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the principle of non-intervention, proclaimed in the charters of the Organization of American States, … Recognizing that full observance of the principle of the non-intervention of States in the internal and external affairs of other States is essential to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,
Considering further that direct intervention, subversion and all forms of indirect intervention are contrary to these principles and, consequently, constitute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
…1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.Consequently, ..and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.
…6. All States shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure,
”Decolonization (American English) or Decolonisation (British English) is the undoing of colonialism ... The fundamental right to self-determination is identified by the United Nations as core to decolonization, allowing not only independence, but also other ways of decolonization. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no
oh dear Malvi welcome back
May 30th, 2025 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We have established with irrefutable evidence, there was no population in 1833, there was no act of aggression except by Argentina in October 1832.
Argentina in FULL knowledge of the British historic claim, reminded to them by Woodbine Parrish in writing, utterly ignored this claim and sent a militia to the islands to claim them by raising the UP flag.
It is quite clear that by sending Mestevier, Argentina was well aware that they did not have sovereignty and inherited nothing from Spain, as there Wass no population on the islands.
Argentina was the aggressor attempting to steal the islands and ignoring the British claim, and have made up a claim that Britain did the same.
Not one single person was evicted on January the 6th 1833 that wasn't already planning to leave on the 5th. This is clearly stated in Pinedos logs.
Every time you come on with your lies, I will point out the historic fact.
”Decolonization (American English) or Decolonisation (British English) is the undoing of colonialism ... The fundamental right to self-determination is identified by the United Nations as core to decolonization, allowing not only independence, but also other ways of decolonization. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer but to allow a process of self-determination.”
May 31st, 2025 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse +1I see Pinocchio is back again spouting his nonsense, such a sad little Buenos Aires boy,
May 31st, 2025 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1Humm, well Resolution 2065 (XX) actually says:
Jun 02nd, 2025 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee ... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);..’
No mention of ‘negotiating sovereignty’, or of S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
Also, the charter of the UN and of GA resolution 1514 (XV) say, the objective is self-governance and the provision is for self-determination, free from outside interference.
Anyway, doesn’t the Argentinian constitution say sovereignty is non-negotiable?
At least they got that bit right, sovereignty is non-negotiable.
And they do have the right of ‘innocent passage’ through the British S. Atlantic waters.
And , I must tell you that the population (of Argentina) is not there; it was evicted (or massacred); in any case, the population of the occupying (Criollo Conquistadors) power is there.
Thanks, Monkey.
Jun 03rd, 2025 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1....Argentina in FULL knowledge of the British historic claim, reminded to them by Woodbine Parrish...
The business representative of His Britannic Majesty, Woodbine Parish, following the instructions of his government, protested on November 19th, 1829 against the adoption of the decree dated June 10th of the same year, “which contains some measures for the government of the Falkland Islands.” According to the protest, the measure was incompatible with the sovereignty rights of His Britannic Majesty.
The British protest of 1829 may be said to be belated, limited and made in bad faith. Belated, because the British government knew of the previous acts of public power over the islands carried out by Buenos Aires between 1820 and 1829. Limited, because it is circumscribed to the decree of June 10th, 1829, without protesting against any previous acts. In fact, the reference to the acts having been made or being made against His Britannic Majesty´s rights is related to those carried out in the framework of the decree which was the object of the protest, and not in relation to acts occurring before the decree, to which Great Britain was not oblivious. And finally the protest was made in bad faith, because among the grounds for British sovereignty, Spain´s continuous presence in the islands until 1811 and Argentina´s subsequent acts are not mentioned, even though the British government could not have ignored both facts. This is proven by a note of Woodbine Parish himself preceding the Argentine Decree of June 10th. In his dispatch to London No. 17 of March 15th, 1829, Parish reminded his government that the Spanish had constantly maintained a garrison, a prison and a war ship in the Falklands/Malvinas until 1813 (sic) and that since that time the government of Buenos Aires had never stopped considering the territory as being its own, granting land, fishing and hunting concessions.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
Regards.
“The British government knew of the previous acts of public power over the islands carried out by Buenos Aires between 1820 and 1829.”
Jun 03rd, 2025 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He who asserts must prove; no proof no truth.
It was Argentina that knew full well of the UK'S claim which why she didn't answer the two diplomatic protests.
The consequences of such 'silence' is.
“In law, the silence of a party implies his 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.
“It is evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed.”
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928)
'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
Terence: Please read what you wrote above again.
Jun 03rd, 2025 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you mentioned applies to the United Kingdom.
The British protest of 1829 may be said to be BELATED, LIMITED and made in BAD FAITH.
“In law, the silence of a party implies his 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.
Regards.
Pinocchio, Kohen-Rodriguez are nobodies, what they say is not objective or truthful and nothing more than you read in a comic, if you want true historical facts contact Roger Lorton, stop embarrassing yourself, you have lost all credibility, i bet you believed your junta when they said you where winning the war too, so sad, so very vey sad,
Jun 03rd, 2025 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The British protest of 1829 may be said to be BELATED, LIMITED and made in BAD FAITH.”
Jun 04th, 2025 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, “”ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat (cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit)-the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies, (since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof). The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him. Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving. Upon the plaintiff rests the proving or the burden of proof,“
Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of .
He who asserts must prove; no proof no truth.
“... 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
Malvi
Jun 04th, 2025 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should not have needed to make any acts of sovereignty between 1820 and 1829 if unequivocally they inherited the islands from Spain as you have claimed.
Argentina knew then, as they know now (but contrary to your claim) that no such inheritance took place, that the only way to turn a sovereignty claim into unequivocal sovereignty was for a population to exist on the islands.
There has never been an Argentina population on the islands.
so therefore there has never been Argentine sovereignty.
Between 1810 and 1828 there was no discernable population at all.
Between 1828 and 1831 the was the Vernet business, known of by both Britain and Argentina and given permission by both Britain and Argentina,
In 1832 Argentina attempted to seize the islands by force, raising the UP rag, ignoring the British claim. This attempt failed with the murder of Mestevier.
When Britain arrived 10 weeks later, the Argentine usurpers, and the remnants of the Vernet business were already planning to leave their failed invasion.
The British population has remained ever since.
Sadly, you have invaded (twice), and the islands will never be yours without the consent of islanders. Thankfully your President knows this
@Terence
Jun 04th, 2025 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1”The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights....But the marks and signals of possession and property.....the British flag remained flying....
Lord Palmerston is either a liar like many Britons or ignorant of international law.
The British recognized Spanish sovereignty and then withdrew.
As you well know, Terence, because I'm sure you've read it, under the international law of the time, the act of symbolic possession does not create rights, especially because the
British government did not make any formal protest to the Spanish Crown.
They later recognized Spanish sovereignty again with the Treaty of Nootka Sound.
Regards.
“Lord Palmerston is either a liar ... or ignorant of international law.”
Jun 04th, 2025 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only proven liar is yourself as you fail to meet your obligatory burden of proof.
“under the international law of the time, the act of symbolic possession does not create rights”
You offer no proof, thus there is no truth.
“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
Moreover, Argentina is bound by the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain
ARTICLE VIII
“...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.”
Terence, please take the trouble to find and read what has been written on the subject, as Alexander Betts did.
Jun 05th, 2025 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Obviously, you don't know or you've run out of arguments.
However, I can offer you a little help:
The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.
Rudolf Dolzer.
Treaty of Madrid 1670.
His British Majesty has certainly agreed upon the promulgation of the strictest prohibitions and has subjected all his subjects to the most rigorous penalties in order to prevent any British vessel from crossing into the South Sea or trading in any other area of Spanish India, except for the company dedicated to the slave trade.
By charter issued on June 7, 1689, Nos. 26 and 27, Britain's possessions were Barbados, New England, parts of Saint Kitts, Canada, and Jamaica. In Richard Blome's work, English America, Amsterdam, 1688, it is also noted that four provinces belonged to Great Britain: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Nevis, Antigua, Saint Vincent, Dominica, Montserrat, Anguilla, Carolina, New Foundland, Tobacco, and later Providence. No possessions were named in the southern South Seas.
Peace Treaty of Utrecht 1713.Article VIII.
On the contrary, that the Spanish dominions in the West Indies may be preserved whole and entire, the Queen of Great Britain engages, that she will endeavor, and give assistance to the Spaniards, that the ancient limits of their dominions in the West Indies be restored, and settled as they flood in the time of the above-said Catholic King Charles the Second, if it shall appear that they have in any manner, or under any pretence, been broken into, and lessened in any part.
As you can see, the landing at Port Egmont and later at Port Soledad violated various treaties that Great Britain did not honor; the islands Falklands/Malvinas never belonged to Great Britain.
Regards.
“under the international law of the time, the act of symbolic possession does not create right”
Jun 05th, 2025 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! yes it does.
”Discovery followed by the performance of ‘taking possession’ through symbolic acts (planting of flags or crosses, reading of a declaration) were first deemed to be sufficient to create a title opposable(unassailable) to other colonial powers.“
https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1119
Peace Treaty of Utrecht 1713.Article VIII.
”...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.“
Thus the treaty explicitly bars any claim of an Argentine 'inheritance.”
So whatever claims Spain or the UK could have levied at the other. It has absolutely nothing to do with Argentina.
According to UN document A/RES/36/103 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States'
It states clearly ”Recognizing that full observance of the principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of sovereign States and peoples, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, is essential to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
No, Terence, leaving symbols and marks does not create rights.
Jun 05th, 2025 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It is well known that the English did not discover the islands.
It is well known that the English were not the first to occupy the islands.
It is well known that His Catholic Majesty reserved his rights of sovereignty; the English recognized Spanish sovereignty through a treaty and withdrew.
From the above, it can be inferred that leaving symbols and marks immediately after the signing of a treaty between the governments is void, not to mention that the alleged right is not perfected upon occupation.
The islands never belonged to the English.
Regards.
“Leaving symbols and marks does not create rights.”
Jun 05th, 2025 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your unqualified and unsupported opinion, are useless.
Particularly, when you are contridicted directly by Marcelo G Kohen.
Argentina has no legal standing in relationship to sovereignty of the Islands.
Pinocchio, your comments get more and more ridiculous by the month.
Jun 05th, 2025 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0only you say the islands where never British, but France acknowledged it, so did Spain, the opinion of an indoctrinated buffoon like yourself carries no weight what so ever, sighted and recorded by England in 1592 , claimed in 1594, and reasserted in 1690. both France and Spain new this, Britain never accepted the islands belonged to Spain, ever, you either know you are lying, and are nothing but a troll wanting a reaction, or you are so brainwashed that you only see what you want to see, the UP was never in the game, its time you and all you white Europeans left Argentina, return back to Europe and give the land back to its true owners, even if just 1% of what you say is true then that makes you nothing more than a hypocrite, but its ok to steal that land because they where not white people, you are no better than that other idiot that as wasted 15 years of his life on this stupid nonsense, a lie created by Peron to distract from his poor governance of the country,
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!