Puricelli’s expectations on the Falklands

5 Jul

Argentina’s Defence Minister, Arturo Puricelli, currently visiting China for a series of talks on defence matters, appears intrigued by the possible application of the ‘one country, two systems’ solution that was applied to Hong Kong when its 99 year lease to the United Kingdom ran out in 1999.

Speaking at a Press Conference in Beijing, Puricelli said; “The invasion of the Falkland’s United Kingdom occurred in 1833, Hong Kong in 1838, five years later. We want to follow this path to retrieve our Falklands,” adding, “The experience of China in negotiating the recovery of Hong Kong is a relevant precedent for the dialogue we are expecting to have on the Falklands in the near future”.

He also offered his hosts Argentina’s full support in China’s claim to the island of Taiwan, and applauded the two countries recognition of the importance of ‘territorial integrity’, rather than the acknowledged human right of, ‘self-determination’.

Although the obscure sub-sub-Committee at the United Nations, known as the Special Committee on Decolonization, calls every year for negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands no talks are planned. Indeed, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has made it very plain that no talks will ever take place unless the Falkland Islanders ask for them. The Defence Minister’s expectations are unlikely therefore, to be met.

Unlike Hong Kong, the vast majority of which was under a 99 year lease, the Falkland Islands have been owned by Britain since 1765. In 1833 a small British force removed a trespassing Argentine garrison which Buenos Aires had sent, in spite of being warned against such a move in 1829.

Britain always recognised that the New Territories of Hong Kong were the sovereign territory of China, whereas Britain has never acknowledged Argentina’s claim to the sovereignty of the Falklands.

24 Responses to “Puricelli’s expectations on the Falklands”

  1. Joe Thorpe (@JoeThorpe1963) July 5, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Its time we wrote to the UN to negotiate the hand over of Argentina to British control, we would do a much better job running the place & we would allow much greater freedoms of movement & capital unlike the introverted lunatic that is in the Casa Rosada at the moment & while we’re writing lets do the same with Rhodesia which too clearly needs a fresh start without lunatics wrecking the country!

  2. CLopez July 5, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    The Falkland Islands can’t be British since 1765 because from 1774 to 1829 (55 years) they made no claim or assertion of sovereignty, effectively losing any rights over them. Argentina, on the other hand, considered the Malvinas as part of its territory since the first days of the revolution in 1810 (and this is a proven fact), because at that time it was still occupied by a Spanish garrison.

    • BMR July 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

      Cession of territory on independence – not without a treaty.
      Succession of states – not without a treaty. And not until mid-20th century.
      Argentine Declaration of Independence – 9 July 1816.
      First argentine claim to the Islands 1820 – by a pirate.
      British sovereignty NEVER relinquished.
      Arana-Southern Treaty 1850.

      Try again.

      • CLopez July 6, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

        LOL how ironic you despise pirates now –you invented the whole concept!

        Yes, it was relinquished by not saying anything for 60 years, like I noted above.

      • lordton1955 July 6, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

        Never relinquished. Never abandoned. Lost? Well that would be a case for a court – such as the ICJ

        And who says we left ??

        1786 – Lt. Thomas Edgar of the British Navy, in the whaler Hope, surveys West Falkland. [ A Chart of West Falkland Island from an Actual Survey by Lieu. Tho. Edgar of the Royal Navy in the Years 1786 & 1787 London: Published by A. Arrowsmith 1797. Port Edgar is named in honour of this work.]

        Or weren’t administering the Islands ??

        1788 – July 16th, Captain Leard writes to Charles Jenkinson, Lord Hawkesbury, the President of the Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations, suggesting seal conservation measures for the Falkland Islands and South Georgia.

    • paul July 5, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

      we haf asserted a claim 51years b4 argintina existed and never gave that up u were warned in 1828 not to land there and we kicked out your army garrison we let the people stay all but four did spain have never gave u their clam they gave it up in thr 1860s and reconized british sovernty so what if its closer we start cutting up the world like that wed all b up the creek give your land back u stole from the rest of SA since 1833 then the galklands still wouldnt b yours x

      • paul July 5, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

        argintina have considered lots of land to be theres that wasnt and just took it on their own genocidal colonial murderous land grab so why the hell shud we give it up affter 179years of administration to a country that has such disregard for its own people its neighbours any other non hispanic community u want it u cant have it you says its yours and u bare faced lie to the world u try to humilate the goverment of the uk into giving it to u not back to u as it was never yours just because u would leave a community of people to isolation u think that we the british should do this your claim is based on the bullshot that u pass generation to generation distorting histiry mapsbu sre the laughing stick of the diplomatic and economic community u resind or break every treaty u have ever entered u deny the people who have lived on the island for generstions

    • lordton1955 July 5, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

      Your facts are unproven. The act of withdrawing the garrison was not sufficient for England to ‘lose’ title. The United Provinces neither inherited not gained their own title. BA’s first attempt was 1829. It failed.

      • CLopez July 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

        Shame on you, liar
        * Not the act of withdrawing, but the time passed without complaints;
        * If the UP didn’t inherited title, how come we have the whole continent came to be after all those independence revolutions? Uti possidetis. The Falklands were Spanish, they should be from some country in Latin america now.
        * BA’s first attempt was in 1823. And possession act was in 1820.

        Shame on you.

      • lordton1955 July 6, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

        You didn’t have the whole continent after Spain. You had to conquer Patagonia. Revolting colonies can only claim what they can hold or they can conquer. You did not own the Falklands.

        BA’s first attempt to conquer was 1829. This is proven. It failed.

    • GF July 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      C. Lopez, certainly you do not understand the political status of South America in 1853. The Argentine Confederation did not even include Patagonia until Argentina undertook the “Conquista del Desierto” that slaughtered and took the land of more than 300 thousand Indians and effectively incorporated Patagonia to Argentina. You can corroborate this information researching any map of South America for the period of 1820 through 1895. I do not know about what inherited rights you talk about, since all rights arose from the slaughtering of American Indians. The only right we are talking about today is the right of the conquerors. I would recommend that you research German, Dutch and Austrian maps of South America from 1820 through 1880.

      • CLopez July 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

        And your point is, what? That we killed indians? I already knew that, in fact 99% of Argentinians know that, it is taught at schools roughly in the same words you used. I hope you were instructed on the horrors of colonialism too.

        My point is that you don’t have in the whole continent a place where a third European power took advantage of the situation and took a piece of land from the new-born states. Yes, those new-born states fought each other and moved the frontiers several times. But on independence, America (the continent) should had been left to the Americans. You had no rights after 60 years of silence, after 40 years of solid Spanish ruling, to go back and take them.

      • lordton1955 July 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

        We did not take advantage. We reclaimed what was already ours. There were, according to the Americans, a nest of pirates there. When you get complaints, you must do something about it.

      • GF July 6, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

        CLopez… you are unrepentantly vindicating “rights” inherited from the horrors of colonialism incurred by Argentina after it became a nation. Let me tell you that Argentina did not “inherit” the “right” to massacre Indians in the 1870’s to conquer Patagonia. until them mostly Chilean, or nobody’s land, and to massacre 900 thousand Paraguayans in 1865-1870 to divide their land with Brazil. Argentina was not a peaceful law abiding nation, but an expansionist nation who do not hold any moral high ground on the colonization issue. And, if you cared to check German, Dutch or Austrian maps of the times… Nobody recognized any Argentine or Confederation rights to the Falklands in 1820 or 1853, not even to the Patagonia… Even “Gobernor” Vernet, asked for permission to the British Consul in Montevideo to build a ranch in the islands, not an act of “independence”. Show me some European map from South America in the 1820 that could validate your claim. Don’t tell me that they do not exist. Furthermore you appear to forget you lost a colonial war in 1982.

      • lordton1955 July 6, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

        Vernet did ask for British protection for ‘his’ colony.

      • CLopez July 7, 2012 at 3:52 am #

        Did Pacheco ask for British protection in 1823? Did Vernet asked for British protection in 1823? Or he did it after the British diplomats found their history books?

        GF, by misusing the term “colonialism” you’re spitting on millions of souls who lost their lives to colonialism. At least we’re very conscious and ashamed of what happened to the Indians. You (and Cameron) are being SOBs.

        “a nest of pirates” my gosh…

      • lordton1955 July 7, 2012 at 6:33 am #

        Pacheco was merely an associate of Vernet and in 1824 (not 1823) there was a very tentative expedition that failed. The last Gauchos had to be rescued by British ships. Please note that – BRITISH ships.

        1824 – February 2nd, Pablo Areguati, with 25 gauchos, arrives on East Falkland.

        February 12th, Areguati writes, “We are without meat, without ship’s biscuits, and without gunpowder for hunting. We support ourselves by chance captures of rabbits, since there is no fat meat since we cannot go out to slaughter as there are no horses. I have resolved to tell you that we are perishing.”

        April 8th, the Captain of the British ship Adeona, threatens to denounce Areguati’s party as ‘pirates.’

        June 7th, Areguati abandons the settlement and returns to Buenos Aires in the Fenwick. He leaves 8 gauchos behind, including the foreman Aniceto Oviedo.

        July 24th, the remaining gauchos are taken off East Falkland by the British sealer, Susannah Anne.

        Vernet appears to have been unaware that the islands were owned by Britain in 1823. When he became aware, he sought British protection.

      • GF July 9, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

        C Lopez… as your President, when confronted with lapidary facts, you resorts to insults. Reasoning and rationalism are not part of your strengths. If that is the argument Argentina is going to use to claim the islands you know you are in a failing enterprise. Cameron is right in not talking to Argentina.

      • CLopez July 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

        Lapidary facts? Only if you’re naive enough. If you read carefully, Mr. Lordton contradicts himself. (“BA’s first attempt to conquer was 1829” — “1824 – February 2nd, Pablo Areguati, with 25 gauchos, arrives on East Falkland”)

        As I’ve said, you’re spitting on the memory of millions of worldwide victims of colonialism. Excuse me if I take a hard stance on that…

      • lordton1955 July 11, 2012 at 1:15 am #

        Arequati was not acting in any ‘official’ capacity for the Government of BA. He carried no title. One had been sought for him but not granted. Merely a business venture that failed.

        After 1825 all business ventures in the Falklands had Britain’s consent.

        BA’s FIRST official attempt at a sovereignty claim was 1829

      • CLopez July 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

        If you believe that British consent is important, then you should acknowledge that Pacheco & Vernet had Argentine consent by 1823, and even the grant of wild cattle and land (an official grant BTW).

        You’re exposing your bias.

      • lordton1955 July 11, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

        The difference is that BA had no authority or right to give permission. Britain did.

  3. GF July 6, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    How can Argentina expect the Falklanders to rely on an agreement with Argentina for anything when Argentines since 1930 can’t afford to trust their own government? Who wants their politicians and institutions in the Falklands ever? Who wants the Montoneros, the Campora, the Triple A and the Peronist party ever to ruin and corrupt all institutions in the Falklands such as they did in Argentina? Who wants Buenos Aires to colonize the islands and confiscate its resources such as they do with the Argentine provinces? Today Argentina is an example for nothing. A decaying colonial-structured country with an extremely corrupt culture at all levels. Nothing good could come out of any association with Argentina.

  4. LINCOLN ARIEL July 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    el nido de piratas sigue estando en malvinas hoy!

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: