Argentina distorts resolutions and history for the C24

2 Jun

On the second day of the Regional Seminar on the Implementation of the Third International Decade for Eradication of Colonialism, there was a discussion on the challenges and opportunities in the decolonization process of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

When the discussion turned to the question of the Falkland Islands however, the Argentine representative, Gerardo Diaz, attempted to claim that the Falkland Islands was a case involving a “colonial situation and not a colonized people”. 

He claimed before the Committee that Argentina’s conviction of its sovereignty was rooted in rights inherited from Spain and asserted that the United Nations and the Organization of American States had recognized this as a; “special and particular colonial case”. 

Accusing Britain of distorting the historical facts, he reasserted Argentina’s erroneous claim that Britain had ejected a peaceful Argentine population in 1833 and replaced them with a; “.. bespoke community of settlers who came from the metropolis.” He added that Argentines were not given the opportunity to settle there and that United Nations resolution 2065 (XX), adopted in 1965, determined the non-applicability of the self-determination principle in that case and recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

Roger Edwards, a member of the Falkland Legislative Assembly, demanded that Falkland Islanders be; “accepted as a people with the very basic of human rights, the right to determine their own future, the right of self-determination”.  He further stated that they would be; “very alarmed if the Special Committee in any way weakened its commitment to self-determination” and “very concerned if General Assembly resolutions or Special Committee considerations were interpreted in any way that undermined the primacy of resolution 1514”.

“Today we are a modern Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, internally self-governing, and, moreover, self-financing,” he said, denouncing; “many aggressive attempts by the Argentine Government to impede certain sectors of our economy”.  He expressed his wish that; “this year, the Special Committee will recognise that the people of the Falklands will always be here, and as has been proven right across the globe many times before, self-determination is the only solution that will lead to a permanent, peaceful solution”.

Argentina’s claim that it inherited Spanish rights upon its declaration of independence in 1816 is questionable as Spain did not relinquish its own claim to the Falklands until 1863. In any case, the concept of such inheritance in international law is not well founded. Spain and Britain both contested the South Atlantic archipelago throughout the late 1700’s. Argentina’s first official attempt to stake a claim was in 1829 and this was protested by Britain. Buenos Aires sent an armed force to seize control in September, 1832, but this was peacefully ejected by a British Commander in January 1833.

Resolution 2065 recognised a dispute between Argentina and Britain but, contrary to Argentina’s assertion, made no decision on the status of the people on the Islands.  2065 called for negotiations but was killed off by Argentina’s invasion in 1982. Britain again sent a task force to eject the trespassing Argentine forces and the victory will be celebrated on June 14th; the next time, in fact, that Argentina will raise its own distortions in front of the Special Committee.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Argentina distorts resolutions and history for the C24”

  1. CLopez June 11, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    The absolute certainty that you have about “who’s lying” and who isn’t, and how you judge which pieces of history we must discard and which ones we must enshrine, shows black over white just how biased you are.

    You’re not trying to find the truth, you’re just looking for excuses.

    • lordton1955 June 11, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

      I do not need excuses. History is plain enough. The truth is plain enough.

  2. CLopez June 11, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    (I’m guessing you’re not going to quote the British liar in your timeline then)

    • lordton1955 June 11, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

      I quote everything I can establish as the truth, and yes, I’ve quoted Pitt too, why don’t you read it?

  3. CLopez June 12, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    “everything I can establish as the truth”

    why don’t you just show the facts and let the reader make its mind?

    The Earl of Chatham assuring that “the important condition, upon which this declaration was obtained, was not mentioned in the declaration” surely looks like an important point.

    For example: in your timeline you describe several times how the British were getting ready for war over the Falklands. Yet I see no comment on how Spain and France were doing the same years before the actual expulsion. Don’t you think that’s odd?

    • lordton1955 June 12, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

      Pitt was only one politician. One view. The overall picture is as clearly stated. His source is fully referenced.

      When were Spain and France getting ready to fight each other over the Falklands ??

  4. CLopez June 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    LOL fight each other?? Don’t play the fool, bad guy. You know the story quite well, but it seems you’re only interested in lying.

    Pitt’s version, coincident with that of the Count of Guines, is not present in your timeline. Yet, many authors consider them the explanation for British disengagement. But not you, no sir, you know how to tell a liar 250 years away.

    (well, actually you seem to know precisely when Earl Pitt lied and when he didn’t… amazing) 🙄

    • lordton1955 June 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

      As I said, Pitt was one politician and not even in Government at the time. I suggest you check out the work by the Australian historian G.W.Rice. He clearly shows that those in Government did not come to any agreement to leave. And your French Ambassador knew that, however you misinterpret him.

  5. Don Alberto June 15, 2012 at 6:33 am #

    CLopez, I have a couple of questions for you.

    Do you believe your government, when it tells you that inflation in Argentina is below 10 percent?

    If your answer is yes, then good luck to you – you’ll need it.

    If, on the other hand, your answer is no, then

    when your government tells you that the Falkland Islands are Argentine, why do you believe that, even though you have been shown – with references to Argentine sources – that they are British?

  6. CLopez June 15, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    I suggest you read Goebel again… you’ll find the outstanding amount of 170 pages devoted to the crisis of 1770, which show a picture entirely different of that of your timeline…

    • lordton1955 June 15, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

      I have a copy. Rice pretty well destroyed him with his two works. As Rice points out, Goebel did not have access to the Royal Archive at Windsor. That material is now available.

      Goeble is no longer considered a serious discussion.

  7. CLopez June 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    …according to biased authors wanting to rewrite history 😉

    • lordton1955 June 17, 2012 at 12:10 am #

      If you only accept the one view
      amongst a host of others yes – which is what you do!

  8. CLopez June 17, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    No sir, I accept that this secret pact may or may not have existed, but you don’t even consider the possibility, outright rejecting it on the grounds that “he was lying”. So you’re in fact the one arrogating the truth. Your timeline says nothing about this, hence, it is skewed.

    Goebel extensively researched the issue an sustains that idea, as a number of authors do. His work is probably the most cited source on the topic, so you’ll have to excuse me if I’m suspicious of your claim that “Goebel is no longer considered a serious discussion”.

    • lordton1955 June 17, 2012 at 8:46 am #

      There was NO secret pact. Nor any possibility of a secret pact. The evidence is quite clear. Rice’s work in the Royal archive destroyed that possibility totally. If there was such a pact, why was Masserano still trying to get talks months after the agreement was signed in the January?

      “1771 – March 4th, “ .. the French and Spanish ambassadors went to Lord Rochford, and demanded that a day should be fixed for settling the question of prior right to Falkland Island. Lord Rochford refused to name any day. The Spanish messenger, who brought the ratification and Masserano’s instructions to make this demand, set out this evening for Madrid.” [Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham W. S Taylor 1839]

      March 5th, Lord Rochford meets with Prince Masserano. Rochford declares that he is ready to treat on the matter of right; that any abandonment [mutual] in the manner suggested by Spain will not involve a loss of right and that Britain can return at any time.[Goebel 1927 p 388]

      March 7th, a messenger arrives back in London with an order for the Prince of Masseran to make a positive demand for the formal cession of the Falkland Islands to the King of Spain.

      March 8th, Lord Rochford informs Harris; “I think it right to acquaint you, that the Spanish ambassador pressed me to have some hopes given him of our agreeing to a mutual abandoning of Falkland’s Islands, to which I replied, that it was impossible for me to enter on that subject with him, as the restitution must precede every discourse relating to those islands.”

      March 11th, Prince Masseran sees Rochford and demands a date for the restoration of the Island to the “Crown of Spain.” Rochford refuses to enter in any discussion.

      March 14th, Rochford and Masserano meet again to discuss the issue of ownership. A heated discussion takes place where Rochford questions the ‘impertinance’ of Spain; Masserano responds; “ No more impertinent than the English pretension to something that belongs to Spain.” Lord Rochford retaliates; “ Be assured, that even if we go to war over it, it will be a big war and by no treaty of peace will we cede the island.”[Goebel 1927 p 398]

      April 7th, the Count de Guines receives a message stating that the Spanish Court will rely on England evacuating the Falklands.

      April 12th, Masserano responds to Minister Grimaldi, warning that the British insist that they have made no official promise.”

      Even your French Ambassador said that Spain had nothing but the hope that Britain lost interest.

      Geobel’s conclusions were flawed because of his lack of access to all the archives. This is now recognised as a result of Rice’s work. Geobel’s own work, when added to the new material, shows that there could not have been any such agreement.

      cf Great Britain, the Manila Ransom and the First Falkland Islands Dispute with Spain, G. Rice 1980.
      British Foreign Policy and the Falkland Islands Crisis 1770-71″ G.Rice, 2010.

  9. Ken Summers June 18, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Another interpretation of “El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.” could be that there was nothing to ask from other nations assuming their spirit of justice?
    That said, either way it changes nothing!

    • Don Alberto June 19, 2012 at 3:08 am #

      I see your point, as translation from one language to another is never 1:1.

      This expression, however, “Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas” is very clear and has only one interpretation “The other nations demand nothing of us: we have nothing to demand from them” and following this I find it difficult to interpret “sino es la continuación” as anything but “except/if not for the continuation [of]” – and as you write, this doesn’t really make any difference.

      One must, however, take into consideration not only this single statement, but the entire train of events:

      January 1833 HMS Clio arrived and expelled Pinedo and his garrison of 26 soldiers plus their families. At that time there were 33 civilians settled on the islands, 29 of whom preferred to stay under British sovereignity, 4 civilians preferred to leave.

      As previously mentioned,

      1. Commencing 1833 and through December 1849 the ‘Confederación Argentina’ regularly and officially protested British sovereignity in diplomatic letters and in the “Message to Congress”. (Source: “Alfredo Becerra, Protestas por Malvinas, Buenos Aires, 1998”).

      2. In 1849 the “Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation” was signed and in May 1850 it was ratified in Buenos Aires.
      Following the ratification, Argentina no longer protested and the Falkland Islands were not mentioned the “Messages to Congress” for 91 years until 1941, except for once, 20 January 1888, when Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa protested to Britain against Britain’s possession of the Falklands.

      3. in President Bartolomé Mitre’s message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865: “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.” (Source: Heraclio Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 227).” = “there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments [France and Britain].”

      4. Vice-president Marcos Paz’s opening speach to the Argentine Congress, 1 May 1866: “… perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” (Source: Heraclio Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 238) = “… damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, which has not yet been settled.” .

      5. President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento’s “Message to the Argentine Congress”, 1 May 1869 expressed satisfaction at the state of Argentina’s foreign relations: “… Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía …”
      (Source: Heraclio Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 286) = “Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere/(assuming their spirit of justice) in manifesting their sympathies …”

      6. 1881: The ‘Latzina’ Map, “Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina …”, Buenos Aires 1882 (dated 1881) shows Argentina in one colour and non-Argentina in another. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg?uselang=es )

      7. 1881/82: the map ‘Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina’ ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/LaIlustracionArgentina.jpg?uselang=es ) dated 1881 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.

      8. 1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Regiones.militares.arg.1905.jpg?uselang=es ) does not include the Falkland Islands at all.

      So we have a time line:

      1833: British sovereignity re-installed (or for the sake of argument: installed).
      1833-1849: Protests.
      1850-1887: No protests, no claim.
      1865: No protests, no claim, we have friendly relations.
      1866: The Argentine vice-president see only one dispute, that of
      1881: A map, which does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
      1881/82: A map showing one colour for Argentina and another for other countries’ possessions, including the Falkland Islands.
      1888: One single protest.
      1889-1941: No protests, no claim.
      1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.

  10. Don Alberto June 19, 2012 at 6:21 am #

    Correction – I missed the 1850 line:

    1833-1849: Protests.
    1850: Treaty ratified.
    1850-1887: No protests, no claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: