MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Our future is for the people who live here to decide,” Falklands Assembly tells Milei
The Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly issued a statement on Friday in response to Argentine President Javier Milei's address, maintaining that the archipelago's future is for those who live there to decide. “The Falkland Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, and our future is a matter for the people who live here to decide,” the text says, adding that this is “a right grounded in international law” and that “it is not altered by the statements of any other government.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThere is not right of self determination for squatters. The self determination is for all peoples, and the islanders are not people, are inhabitants (with another fundamental rights).
Sep 05th, 2026 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse -6There is an open territorial dispute according the UN. And its imposible know if those inhabitants had that supossed right without solve where sovgerany lies.
Argie Zit aka Emiliano, the UN begs to differ, ALL people have the right to self determination without exception, the only squatters are you Spanish and Italians living on stolen land on the American mainland, you might not like the truth, you might deny the truth. but the facts say different.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse +4oh and by the way. you can wait and watch and wait and watch and wait and watch till the cows come home, the only change will be from a BOT to a sovereign nation,
grow up you silly little boy, you embarrass yourself,
Yes mr foster, all peoples had the right of self determination, but the islanders dont fit on peoples definition. All peoples had the right or self determination but none defined the legality of that word.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse -3In international law, there is no single supreme authority, court, or institution that holds a monopoly on deciding who constitutes a “people” and who is entitled to the right to self-determination.
Instead, it is a decentralized, complex, and highly political process determined by a combination of United Nations resolutions, international jurisprudence, recognition by other States, and doctrinal criteria.
How is a “people” defined?
While the most important international treaties—such as the UN Charter and the 1966 International Covenants on Human Rights—guarantee that “all peoples have the right of self-determination,” they deliberately avoid providing a strict legal definition of the word “people”.
Because there is no “supreme judge” for this issue, the status of a people and their right to self-determination are practically confirmed through the following actors:
The UN General Assembly: Historically, the UN was the primary actor. During the decolonization era, the UN determined which colonized territories were “peoples” entitled to independence from their colonizers.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ): Through advisory opinions requested by the UN, the ICJ has legally recognized certain groups as peoples with the right to self-determination, such as the Sahrawi, Palestinian, and Chagos populations(evicted by the uk)
The International Community (States): In modern international law, mutual recognition is crucial. If a group declares independence, it is the political recognition (or rejection) by other sovereign nations that ultimately validates or frustrates their status on the global stage.
3. Internal vs. External Self-Determination
Sep 05th, 2026 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse -5The biggest debate over who determines this right arises because it directly clashes with another fundamental principle of international law: the territorial integrity of States.
To resolve this conflict, contemporary international law makes a strict distinction:
External Self-Determination (Secession): The international consensus dictates that the right to form a brand new, independent country generally only applies to peoples under colonial rule, foreign military occupation, or severe racist regimes (like Apartheid Made by the UK in suth africa)
Argentine_Cityzen
Sep 05th, 2026 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse +3You claim, 'The self determination is for all peoples, and the islanders are not people'...
Maybe you should do a bit more research: People Self -determination (1 pg) https://www.academia.edu/41941566/People_the_Falklands_and_Self_Determination
Argie Zit, your interpretation of the UN declaration of the right to self determination is wrong, and you know its wrong, Argentina objected, the objection was REJECTED, you can live in the fantasy you create in your head but its not reality and its not fact.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse +5You silly silly boy, Apartheid was not created by the British, it was created by the Afrikaaner, the descendants of the DUTCH, this proves how ill informed and uneducated you are,
you have no understanding of anything political,
the islands where and are British, it is your country that invaded British sovereignty twice, your diatribe about state integrity is laughable to the point its bonkers,
grow up you silly little boy,
It is remarkable how few words they devote to what is supposedly Britain’s main argument by which the current present de facto situation, and the opposition to engaging in negotiations with Argentina, are justified. It is interesting to observe that they suffer the same shortcoming as the British thesis: they fail to point out the reasons why the islanders should be considered a separate people entitled to the right of self- determination.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -6The principle of the right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental principle of contemporary international law. Thanks to this principle, numerous oppressed peoples were able to create their own independent States during the process of decolonisation that took place in the second half of the 20th century. For a number of years, the United Kingdom and other colonial powers denied the legal – and therefore binding – nature of the principle of self-determination. They only recognised the importance of this right in the 1960s, when the independence process of their ex-colonies was essentially over. In the case of the United Kingdom, this recognition had the aim of justifying its position with respect to the cases of the Malvinas. This is the view of the principle of self-determination that the British government itself gave in the arbitral proceedings brought by Mauritius against the United Kingdom in the case of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: “In November 1965, there was no rule of international law concerning self-determination (and a fortiori no such rule of jus cogens) binding on the United Kingdom such as would have precluded the establishment of the BIOT [British Indian Ocean Territory]”.They explain their position as follows:
The United Kingdom had consistently, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, objected to references to a “right” of self-determination in United Nations instruments, including in the drafts of the International Covenants of 1966.
Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations was adopted in 1970 and contains the Declaration on Principles of International Law. Among these principles, it includes that of the right of peoples to self-determination. At the time, the British position was as follows:
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -6although the principle of self-determination is a formative principle of great potency, it is not capable of sufficiently exact definition in relation to particular circumstances to amount to a legal right, and it is not recognized as such either by the Charter of the United Nations or by customary international law.
In the case of the Malvinas, the principle of the right of peoples to self- determination is manipulated and wrongly invoked by the British government with two main objectives: to maintain Britain’s presence in the South Atlantic and to avoid settling the dispute over sovereignty with Argentina that has existed since 1833.
In international law, not every human community established in a given geographical territory holds the right of self-determination. This is why the law distinguishes between “peoples” and “minorities”, no matter whether national, religious, linguistic, ethnic, etc. While the first group is entitled to the right of self-determination, the second is not, although minorities are entitled to a set of rights aiming at guaranteeing and preserving their identities within the territorial context of the State they live in.37 Indigenous peoples are also distinguished as a separate category to whom the Declaration of the United Nations recognises a right to self-determination,38 but only in its internal aspect. The self- proclamation of a “people” and a subsequent claim of entitlement to the right to self- determination are also insufficient.
In this regard, the International Court of Justice, in the Western Sahara case, stated that:The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of people, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a 'people’ entitled to self- determination, or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -5None of the more than 40 resolutions passed by the General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations40 has recognized the existence of a separate people on the territory of the Falklands/Malvinas, and these resolutions have therefore taken other paths regarding the manner in which to proceed to the decolonization of the islands. The position of the United Nations as to how to put an end to the colonial situation is negotiation between Argentina and the United Kingdom to solve the dispute over sovereignty, taking into account the INTERESTS of the population of the islands. Not only, but it is worth remembering that when the United Kingdom attempted to incorporate an express mention of the right to self-determination in what a posteriori became Resolution 40/21 of November 27th, 1985, the General Assembly REJECTED it outright. The reason is simple: unlike ordinary cases of colonialism, that is, the oppression of an entire people by a European power, the Falklands/Malvinas case concerns the eviction of a newly born independent State from an insular, scarcely populated portion of its territory lacking any original population, by the most powerful colonial nation of the time.
The fact that the present-day inhabitants of the Falklands/Malvinas do not constitute a separate people holder of the right of self-determination does not mean they do not enjoy other rights. They are of course entitled to human rights, both individually and collectively. Argentina has committed itself in its Constitution to respect the inhabitants’ way of life.42 Quite simply, sixteen hundred and fifty British citizens do not have the right to decide a dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom which involves more than three million square kilometres of land and sea, a surface bigger than continental Argentina and twice as big as the United Kingdom.Many territorial disputes exist throughout the world, many of them involving inhabited territories. Some have been brought before the International Court of Justice. The Court has decided the sovereignty of these territories on the basis of the titles invoked by the parties, and not their inhabitants’ nationality or wishes. In the El Salvador/Honduras case, between 10.000 and 30.000 Salvadorean citizens found themselves on the Honduran side of the boundary laid down by the judgment.43 In the case of Cameroon v. Nigeria, more than 100.000 Nigerians inhabit a territory which the Court recognized as belonging to Cameroon. The Court did the same in its judgment in the Burkina Faso/Niger case.In all these situations, the Court reminded the parties of their obligation to respect the rights of the inhabitants of the territory in dispute, but never subjected its decision to the will of the inhabitants. Other examples may be given. At the end of World War I, France asserted that it was not required to hold a referendum in Alsace-Lorraine, since from 1871 – the year the territory was transferred to Germany – thousands of French residents had preferred to leave the territory rather than live under German sovereignty, while thousands of Germans had settled in the territory.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The British pamphlet mentioned in passing the principle of territorial integrity. It recognizes that the Declaration on decolonization contained in Resolution 1514 (XV) “also contains a limitation”: paragraph 6, which condemns any attempt aiming at disrupting national unity and territorial integrity. The pamphlet states that Argentina’s argument “is weak”, and reiterates its historical manipulation of the absence of Argentine sovereignty or its “concession” [sic] by means of the Arana-Southern Treaty.46 Britain’s official position has recognized the importance of paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV). In its Counter- Memorial in the aforementioned Chagos case, the United Kingdom affirms that this paragraph “was aimed at securing the political objective of precluding demands for decolonization leading to the dismemberment of the territory of a sovereign State”.47 If neither the General Assembly of the United Nations, nor its Decolonization Committee have applied the principle of self-determination to the current inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands, is precisely because they have correctly interpreted the applicability of Resolution 1514 (XV) to that particular case. On the one hand, they take into consideration the respect for Argentina’s territorial integrity; on the other, they do not determine there is a human community entitled to the right of self-determination in the case of the Malvinas.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -5If the United Kingdom wishes that its citizens in the Falklands should decide the fate of the territory they inhabit, that territory should be British. On the contrary, there is a dispute over sovereignty with Argentina. According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination”.In other words, according to the distinguished British jurist, the Anglo-Argentine territorial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory. This clearly means that the alleged “self-determination” of the British inhabitants cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The British argument of self-determination in the case of the Malvinas is also seriously undermined by the United Kingdom’s indisputably inconsistent policy. There was no “self-determination” when they expelled two thousand native inhabitants from the Chagos archipelago. In 1966, the British government leased Diego García Island in the Chagos archipelago to the United States, for it to build a military base on the island. In 1967, the British government bought most of the plantations on the island, closing them down soon after and depriving the population of basic means of survival such as food and medicine, forcing them to leave the island. Then, the inhabitants were informed that they would be evicted, with no prior notice or consultation. Armed men organised the islanders and these were sent in groups to Mauritius and the Seychelles. In 1971, the United Kingdom ended this process by issuing an Immigration Ordinance forever prohibiting the Chagos islanders from returning to their homes. The British diplomat Colin Roberts, “Governor” of the Malvinas since 2014, said to America.
There was also no “self-determination referendum” when Margaret Thatcher’s government returned Hong Kong to China, its legitimate owner. Even less did it grant full British citizenship to the five million Chinese residents in the territory, as happened with the two thousand inhabitants of the Malvinas whose origins were European. In other words, self-determination is a specious argument being used to maintain one of the last vestiges of the British Empire, with no legal basis whatsoever. The population is a simple adjustment variable to maintain their colonial remnants around the world. When the population becomes an obstacle, it is expelled, as occurred in Diego García and Banaba Islands; when it can be used as a tool to legitimise occupation, a supposed right to self- determination is invoked, as in the case of the Malvinas.Britain’s manipulation of the principle of self-determination is clear for a number of reasons: 1) because the General Assembly of the United Nations, and not the colonial power, is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation, and the highest organ of the United Nations has never applied such a principle to the current inhabitants of the islands; 2) because this is a special case of colonialism in which the victim of the colonial action was a recently established State; 3) because after the dispossession of Argentina, the British government established their own settlers; 4) because since then, it has controlled the migration policies of this isolated and scarcely populated territory; 5) because the current residents do not constitute a separate “people” who is a victim of colonial actions; 6) because the United Kingdom, after evicting Argentina and introducing its own settlers, rejected all proposals to negotiate and arbitration put forward by Argentina, while consolidating its presence in the islands.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Accepting that the British subjects living in the islands may the
The jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.” 1
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +31. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
What a joke. Multiple handles to spam a thread? Sounds like abuse...
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2What a load of irrelevant distorted long winded waffle Zit, if you really believe everything in that diatribe then you need professional help, a troll a bot a fantasist , you are not even worth a reply to the rubbish false propaganda and lies you have posted, OMG.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3no @TH, according Higgins she is agree that the islanders don't had the right of self determination until see where sovgerany lies (we agree at that) and according Higgins the uk had more valid title (we disagree, and that's why its an open dispute), Protest vs. Unilateral Title Creation: Higgins points out that while protest prevents a state from consenting, protest alone does not automatically invalidate or destroy an opposing title if that title is grounded in other valid legal bases.
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Acquiescence in Operational Governance: The UK's argument for sovereignty relies heavily on continuous administration, long-term effective control (effetités), and the principle of self-determination of the islanders over nearly two centuries. Higgins implies that protest cannot single-handedly dismantle an established title built on sustained administration, especially when Argentina's historical inaction during specific critical windows allowed the UK to establish and consolidate effective control.
I look forward to the day that the Argentines are once again torturing and murdering each other. Hopefully it will all fall apart and the whole territory divided among its neighbors...
Sep 05th, 2026 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Zit you are reading things in to UN declarations that simply do not exist, Britain does not rely on the sole argument of self determination, it has the history and recorded historical facts that preceded any other countries, the only dubious claim you have is the so called inheritance which is a sheer fantasy, you where a break away part of the Spanish empire, Spain did not even recognise you until the late 1800s, no new declarations from the UN for many years, since then Britain has fulfilled its obligations and all its ex colonies are no self governing, Britain gets nothing from any of them, you are either a very delusional man who has tunnel vision and sees what he wants to see, or so badly indoctrinated that you cant and will not accept facts, their is no open conflict, just Argentina wanting something it can not have and never has had, TH opinion is irrelevant, self determination is guaranteed by the UN , it is not a special case despite your claim it is ,and before you go on about implanted stock rubbish. you are the implanted stock in Argentina. you are not native, period,
Sep 05th, 2026 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Your countries politicians and you especially need to grow up
I have a question: If Argentina pursues the case, accepts the ICJ's jurisdiction, and proposes to the United Kingdom that the dispute be brought before the Court...
Sep 06th, 2026 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse -4Would they accept a transfer of sovereignty in the event of an unfavorable outcome?
How many accounts does Arg Zit actually have Mercopress? And why do you allow him to get away with it?
Sep 06th, 2026 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse +3Rogers, only one account associated to the email, I appreciate that historical truth is a pimple stuck under a fingernail and that you cry desperately to silence the voices of truth.
Sep 06th, 2026 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse -4Britain abides by international law, Argentina does not, the UN general assembly voted overwhelmingly that all people have the right to self determination that is a fact, despite your fantasist silly denials ,voices of truth ? you wouldnt know the truth if it bit you on the back side, we dont cry, we laugh at you, but you never stop crying and moaning.
Sep 06th, 2026 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse +3grow up you silly little boy.
The jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.” 1
Sep 06th, 2026 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +31. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
Zit, you have still not admitted you where wrong about apartheid, you still have not explained how its ok For Argentina to steal Patagonia, or how you wanted to steal parts of Chile,
Sep 06th, 2026 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Still not answer the question, If Argentina pursues the case, accepts the ICJ's jurisdiction, and proposes to the United Kingdom that the dispute be brought before the Court...
Sep 06th, 2026 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Would they accept a transfer of sovereignty in the event of an unfavorable outcome?
He did answer, Britain abides by international law. now explain how stealing Patagonia is ok. and how wrong you are about apartheid ?
Sep 06th, 2026 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentine citizen
Sep 06th, 2026 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Come back when you can identify one piece of international law that Argentina can put before an international court that supports her spurious Falklands' claim.
The UN General Assembly passed the international law that all people have the right to self determination, no exceptions no special cases. your case would be thrown out in 5 minutes. you are like a mouse stuck on a wheel that cant get off.
Sep 06th, 2026 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Still not answer what will the uk do in the case the court say the self determination dont apply to the islanders
Sep 06th, 2026 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -4For the information of sane contributors -
Sep 06th, 2026 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2ICJ Opinions - Self-determination - The International Court of Justice has confirmed in a judgment and five advisory opinions that 'the right to self-determination applies to all non-self-governing territories. (Legal Consequences for States of South Africa's Continued
Presence in Namibia 1971, pp. 31-32; Western Sahara Advisory Opinion 1975, p. 68, para. 162; East Timor Evidence for 1995, p. 102, para.
29; Legal Consequences of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory 2004, p. 171-172, para. 88; Kosovo Advisory Opinion 2010, p. 37, para. 79) and Chagos Advisory Opinion 25 Feb 2019 Para 161. No exceptions were given. Compelling Law - In the light of the ICJ 1995 East Timor Judgment, the United Nations International Law Commission and the UN Human Rights Commission regard the right to self- determination as ‘jus cogens’ (compelling law). (ILC Report Fifty-Third Session, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supp N0 10 A/56/10, 23 April – 10 Aug 2001, pp, 208, 284.& UN Commission on Human Rights Report, Fifty-Eighth Session, 18 March-26 April 2002, Official Records 2002, Supplement 3, p41).
The ICJ does not make the law, it acts on it. the UN general assembly makes the laws for the world to follow. self determination can not be over ruled. it would need a second vote on the issue, and that is rarer than rocking hose poo, you had the chance to go to court for years before the law was passed, you never did. that says everything,
Sep 06th, 2026 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Higgins she is agree that the islanders don't had the right of self determination until see where sovgerany lies”
Sep 07th, 2026 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Specific ONLY to Western Sahara, 1975 case. Kohen's attempt to relate to the Falklands is absolute sophistry.
Which preceded her later comments on the Falklands 2 May 1982. As is further reiterated here.
https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/video/professor-rosalyn-higgins-interview-on-legality-of-the-news-footage/2226501494
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to GB results in a different conclusion. It involves possession,...However, since this was such a period of time, exceeding eighty years, one could conclude that this sufficient to extinguish Argentina's claim
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
The United Kingdom made it clear that 59 years of silence between 1774 and 1829 did not constitute acquisitive prescription through silence.
Sep 07th, 2026 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Argentina maintained a continuous protest, keeping the dispute open.
Once we expel the squatters there will be self-determination for the Argentine citizens who inhabit the islands once again—descendants of those you forcibly expelled in 1833.
“Argentina maintained a continuous protest, keeping the dispute open.”
Sep 07th, 2026 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2No they didn't according according to the highest legal determination made by an official US international law expert.
”The establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985“
”Would they accept a transfer of sovereignty in the event of an outcome“
”It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
Just stop with your silly immature garbage troll, you are making a complete fool of yourself, repeating the same lies that you have posted 100s of times . Argentina did not continuously protest, 90 years of silence you lie until Peron made up the fantasy of a mythical Malvinas, second you can keep your fairy tail claim open for a thousand years. the only difference is you will be pushing up daisies. your squatters comment is the most childish of all. you are too immature to see that you are indeed the squatters yourselves . living on stolen land, and squatted on British sovereign territory, twice, removed peacefully the first, and removed quickly a second time where nearly a thousand deaths happened because of idiots like you believing a lie, finally you will never evict the islanders from UK sovereign territory, your military will be obliterated, that shows what type of person you wanting more of you country men to die, a single nuke will wipe BA out, one hypersonic missile would destroy your ships, its a pure fantasy world you live in. still you have not responded to Jack about your apartheid lie, still you havent responded to the stealing of Patagonia, you are nothing but a bag of hot air that has floated in to a different universe, a very sad and twisted hypocritical person. you are not a serious poster but a D P L.
Sep 07th, 2026 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2no foster, The United Kingdom is a signatory to the NPT; it cannot use nuclear weapons against Argentina, nor use them to threaten the country. This is similar to the situation with Russia and Ukraine, where Russia is barred from using the bomb despite desperate attacks on Moscow.
Sep 07th, 2026 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Abaut the 90 years, is irrelevant, the uk made it clear that long period of times like from 1774 to 1829 of silence mean nathing., finally once a protest its firmly stabilished its not necesary renew it evry year.
abaut the sudafrican segregation, the uk laid the political and legal foundations that enabled apartheid in South Africa by handing over control of the country to the white minority in 1910. The system's origins (1910): The United Kingdom united the region's colonies, creating the Union of South Africa as a self-governing territory (a British dominion). (1913) Under this British structure, the Natives Land Act was passed. This law prohibited Black people from buying or renting land in 93% of the country and forced the Black population to live in separate, impoverished areas. This measure served as the initial model for future segregation.
The Union of South Africa as a self-governing territory (a British dominion). (1913)”
Sep 07th, 2026 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The majority Afrikaans(Boers) population inflicted their racist apartheid views on the country. The UK through the agency of the UN was able to inflict crippling tariffs. Which led to the democratising of SA.
Of course the treatment Black Argentinians was much worse.
People in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones.
”At the end of the colonial period, Blacks constituted approximately a third of the urban population. According to the census of 1887 and the opinions of contemporary observers, the urban Black population declined numerically to roughly half its colonial size and fell to an inconsequential 2 percent of total population by the end of the century. How did the Black population of Buenos Aires disappear?
It is widely reported that president of Argentina from 1868 to 1874, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, undertook a ‘covert genocide’ that wiped out the Afro-Argentinean population to the point that by 1875, there were so little Black people left in Argentina that the government didn’t even bother registering African-descendants in the national census.
https://afropunk.com/2018/07/argentinas-black-population-has-been-systematically-erased-removed-in-whitewashing-effort/
Troll you really do not know what you are talking, nobody is banned from using nukes, another one of your many lies, if Putin wants to use them then he will, if Trump wants to. he will , if Kim wants to use then he will, 90 years of silence is most certainly relevant, a friendship deal was signed that put away your Malvinas nonsense for good and you know that, another whopping lie about apartheid, Britain laid no lines for it at all. the Cape Province had a non racial policy while the Brits controlled it, unfortunately the Afrikaaners outnumbered them in all 4 provinces and its their policies that governed them, you really are one ill informed person. when Verwoerd came to power he created it, apartheid is a Dutch word, British settlers where against it ,Apartheid was nothing to do with Britain now getting back to Argentina which you again ignore. the only protest was from your fake governor, and a few words from BA, then nothing other than the friend ship treaty, in what is now Argentina. the black population was significant % of the population as where the natives whose land you stole, now Argentina is 97% white. mainly Italians and Spanish who settled on land already owned by the natives, their numbers declined massively because of you and your ancestors. genocide rape murder all done in your name. D P L is the exact words that describe you, grow up you silly little boy. you embarrass yourself.
Sep 08th, 2026 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse +2That is irrelevant; the friendship agreement makes no mention of the Malvinas anywhere—it only covered the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata.
Sep 08th, 2026 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Argentina did nothing to the Black population; the reason they are a minority today is that they intermixed with white people and assimilated into the general population.
Argentina abolished slavery in 1813, whereas the United Kingdom did not do so until 1834.
The main driving force behind slavery was Elizabeth I, alongside John Hawkins (a name that likely sounds familiar to you);
they were evil people who created the South Sea Company to traffic slaves.
Only in your deluded warped mind. you twist and distort everything.
Sep 08th, 2026 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1absolute garbage. inter mixed ,? the black population of Argentina was treated horribly. their where none left to enslave. just the same as the natives where almost wiped out, assimilated they where not, Argentine racism was as bad as anyone other country, 97% white just more lies from yourself,
the main driving force behind slavery, ? you complete fool , slavery has been around for as long as man as existed, the Romans, enslaved millions, as did the Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Japanese, Russians, Chinese, Spanish, French. Dutch etc. in fact the Portuguese transhipped more slaves across the Atlantic than any other country. Britain itself was enslaved by the Romans Saxons and Vikings,
never have i read so many lies, distortions, fabrication and utter garbage from one single poster. the same garbage that i have seen you post on other forums.
grow up you silly little boy, D P L,
Oh yes there was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, 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:
Sep 08th, 2026 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1LAWS 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 afterwards 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.
Additionally supported by Argentine subsequent acquiescence.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
”ls 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).
Horse feathers; Argentine Blacks “constituted approximately a third of the urban population. According to the census of 1887 and the opinions of contemporary observers” Otherwise there would be other countries that would show a similar pattern. In fact Argentina prides its 'whiteness, and Argentinians are regularly convicted in Brazil for racist offences. Against Black citizens, in the form of 'monkey imitations'.
Briton never had slaves in the UK ever, it was banned.
It
As late as 1947 Rincon Bomba, Argentina in a savage act of colonialism massacred a 1000 indigenous people , rape theft and geocide..
Sep 09th, 2026 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse +2Irrelevant
Sep 09th, 2026 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Another massacre in 1921. and many more. it is totally relevant, assimilation it was not. it was more like extermination, or does it not count because they are not white Italians or white Spaniards. sorry Zit, but your posts are full of lies. distortions and fantasies. and because of that rubbish nearly a thousand people died unnecessarily. shame on you,
Sep 09th, 2026 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Briton never had slaves in the UK ever, it was banned.
Sep 09th, 2026 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It was the British navy that stopped the transportaion of slaves to the America's
More irrelevant, and the 1200 killed its an invention of rick d philips, try to dont read people with no academic reputation and TDP
Sep 10th, 2026 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -2Zit, denial is not a river in Egypt, you have zero credibility what so ever.
Sep 10th, 2026 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1in fact you have become a complete joke, the DPL comment fits you to a tee.
“dont read people with no academic reputation”
Sep 10th, 2026 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well you most certainly lack the credentials to make such an evaluation.
Ricky D Phillips is a nine time #1 Best Selling Military Historian & Author specialising in the Falklands War with other books covering the history of Hannibal and Napoleon. He is best known for Six Time International Best Seller The First Casualty, the official history of the Falklands Invasion of April 2nd 1982 and the 2021 follow-up Last Letters from Stanley.
https://uk.linkedin.com › in › rickyphillips
Irrelevant, is not academic, no reputation
Sep 10th, 2026 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Argentine citizen
Sep 10th, 2026 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Irrelevant, is not academic, no reputation”
You certainly are, Ollie.
While the guy your trying to slag “is a nine time #1 Best Selling Military Historian & Author specialising in the Falklands War with other books covering the history of Hannibal and Napoleon. He is best known for Six Time International Best Seller The First Casualty, the official history of the Falklands Invasion of April 2nd 1982”
Yes you are irrelevant, just another clueless fanatical fantasist, that neither understands history. or accepts historical facts because they dont support the ludicrous Argentine claim to the Falklands, i bet you believe only one soldier died in your illegal invasion in 82. i bet you also believe that the Invincible was sunk 6 times, your country and yourself especially desperately needs to grow up,
Sep 10th, 2026 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!