Flying Pigs

11 Jul

The push by Argentina to convince the region, if not the world, that their claim to the Falkland Islands is not just an attempt by the South American government to obtain a colony, but is, in reality an issue that concerns the whole of the South Cone, continue apace.

This picture was repeated recently by Argentina’s Defence Minister in China when he said; “We’ve taken great strides in the conviction that today the independence of the Argentines is also the independence of the region. .. We must also underline the commitment from our Unasur brother-countries in support of Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.”

Today, the theme was taken up by Argentina’s Ambassador to London, Alivia Castro; “Jose de San Martin and Simon Bolivar conceived the well-being of our peoples based on two correlated achievements: independence and unity. Once we achieved the first from the Spanish empire, the concept of unity vanished …but in South America things have changed: we celebrate together, and as our President Cristina Fernandez likes to say “we are celebrating a second independence,” adding  “ .. Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands is done in regional terms,” and that the Region was increasingly aware of,  “the significance of territorial integrity, control over natural resources and sovereignty.”

Having failed for 179 years to convince Britain to abandon the sovereignty it gained in 1765, it would seem that Argentina is hoping a regional approach will increase its chances.

On a poor day for Falklands sovereignty news , the BBC carried a story about pedigree pigs being flown to the Islands to assist with the local swine gene pool.

South American unity and flying pigs, all in one day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-18782129

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Flying Pigs”

  1. CLopez July 11, 2012 at 7:38 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 alleged 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 Spanish troops, many of them ‘criollos’ of the borning countries.

    • lordton1955 July 11, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

      The claim and assertions had all been made.

      Withdrawing the garrison did not affect that. Sovereignty had already been established.

      And we still administered the islands. A survey was completed in 1786,and consideration was given to protecting the seal fisheries. Acts of sovereignty.

      Buenos Aries, whatever it considered, never established a sovereignty claim. And Argentina is not and was not Spain!

  2. Deanstreet July 11, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    CLopez,

    i suggest you take a look at :

    HMS Dolphin - Log Book

    and

    HMS Dolphin - Log Book - January 1765 to June 1766

    Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands

    • CLopez July 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

      I’m not contesting the 1765 claim, it’s just that the claim didn’t survive the gap of 60 years without exercising or claiming sovereignty, while the Spanish were at large occupying the islands. Port Egmont was even destroyed by them, and the plaque claiming sovereignty was taken to Buenos Aires.

      • lordton1955 July 12, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

        Please offer some evidence as to why the sovereignty claim could not survive. West Falkland was regularly visited by British sealers. It was surveyed by a Royal Navy officer in 1786 and consideration was given in London to controlling the sealing grounds in 1788.

        Spain never placed a settlement on West Falkland and when they left, the Spanish only claimed the Island of Soledad. Why?

      • CLopez July 13, 2012 at 4:40 am #

        Spain destroyed Port Egmont, took away the plaque to Buenos Aires and regularly kept an eye on the remains to prevent re-settlement. If that is not possession of West Falkland I don’t know what it is.

        My “evidence” is Christopher Bluth in The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982: International Law and Just War Theory. (1987) Journal of Peace Research, vol.24, no.1. He argues that most writers on international law hold that 50 uninterrupted years of occupation is necessary for prescription to occur. That is, *uncontested* occupation, of course. If you compare it with Argentina’s attitude towards the UK in the last 180 years you’ll see the difference.

        “Consideration was given to Lodon”…. geez

      • lordton1955 July 13, 2012 at 5:58 am #

        No, that is not possession. Nor did they ‘regularly keep an eye on’. The only evidence of Spanish ships from Puerto Soledad warning fishing vessels comes from Vernet’s ‘Report’. He provides no locations. What warnings were given may only have been to vessels near East Falkland. There is no evidence of anything else.

        Spain did not announce its acts of wanton destruction at Egmont, and Britain was unaware of the trepass. If Britain had been, some action or protest may have been made.

        Britain exercised at least 3 acts of sovereignty between 1774 and 1790.

        Spain confined itself to Soledad and when they left, only claimed Soledad. If they thought that they had West Falkland they should have put a settlement on it to prove a point. Even Argentina, in 1834 adjusted its claim to just East Falkland.

        And East Falkland was not a part of the Viceroyalty that BA claims to have inherited from.

        I should add that you are incorrect. There was in fact no resident British garrison in the Falklands between 1874 and 1854 – that’s 80 years not 60. And the point is, that you don’t need a garrison to be present. Just acts of sovereign authority.

        Nipping over and stealing a plaque are not that!

        As for prescription, the Falklands have been ‘uncontested’ for 179 years by the only other legitimate claimant – Spain! Oh – and your evidence is merely an opinion. Untested in any court.

      • CLopez July 13, 2012 at 5:48 am #

        It’s almost funny how you refer to Vernet’s settlement as a private endeavor and yet you consider the presence of British sealers an act of sovereignty. In that case, Americans should get at least one island, right?

      • lordton1955 July 13, 2012 at 6:01 am #

        An extension of the political tenet, uti possidetis juris to fishing rights? Interesting idea – the Americans included Staten Land in that claim, so maybe they should get that one?

        Vernet’s expeditions were private, just as the sealing ventures were private. It is acts of sovereign authority that count.

        Try reading the Decrees (1828 & 29) – they make it quite clear that before 1829 there was no sovereign authority on East Falkland.

        The British acts of sovereignty were 1) an application of the law to the Southern Fishery at the Falklands in 1776 2) the survey of West Falkland in 1786 and 3) the consideration of creating fisheries protection laws for the Falklands in 1788

  3. agf July 13, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    The islands were discovered by Spain in 1520 and inherited by Argentina in 1816, when it become independent. 1833, the islands were invaded by the UK and the civilian population was murdered and expelled. That’s why Argentina does not stop in its claim. Truth will prevail and the islands will be recovered.

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

      Truth will prevail. The Portuguese knew about the Falklands 20 years before Magellan set out.

      And there was no inheritance. Nor any murders or expulsion.

      May I suggest – http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

    • Don Alberto July 17, 2012 at 4:29 am #

      You must be completely off your rocker.

      Read the Argentine documents from the sources given below.

      No one were killed by the British – none – cero
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
      [Document]

      Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas, que vienen de pasaje en la “Sarandi”.

      Capitán: D. Juan Antonia Gomila.
      Cabo 1°: Miguel Hernández y su mujer María Romero.
      Cabo: Daniel Molina.

      Sargento + Soldados y sus mujeres:
      (21 names + hijos (unnamed))

      [civilians]
      Individuos de la isla

      Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana.
      Mateo Gónzales, su mujer Marica.

      (Acuña was a Brasilian and González an Uruguayan, Source: Their affidavits: Archivo General de la Nación, Buenos Aires, Sala VII, legajo 136.)

      Extranjeros:
      José Viel.
      Juan Quedy.
      Franscisco Ferreyra.

      Y el preso:
      Máximo Vbarnes [Warnes], que fue destinado.

      Mujeres pertenencientes a los militares que vienen presos en la goleta inglesa “Rapid”, y que vienen en dicha “Sarandí”
      (5 names + 4 hijos)

      Militares que vienen en la goleta inglesa “Rapid”
      Cabo 1°: Francisco Ramírez.
      Soldados: (7 names)

      The rest of the civilians stayed on the islands.

      [Sign.] José María de Pinedo, Buenos Aires, enero 16 de 1833.

      Original source: Archivo General de la Nación, Sala III, 16-6-5, doc. 1320

      Photocopy of Pinedo’s printed statement: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
      “… el Comandte Pinedo dixo á la gente qe el qe quisiera ir pa Bs ays. qe lo llevara y llevo algs peones…”.
      “Commander Pinedo told the people that anyone who wished to go to Bs ays., he would take him, and he took some gauchos…”

      Source: Jean Simon’s letter to Vernet, 2 April 1833 (dictated at Port Louis to Ventura Pasos, who was from Buenos Aires), AGN VII, 130, doc. 62 fol. 1 recto. Printed in ‘El Episodio Ocurrido en Puerto de la Soledad de Malvinas el 26 de Agosto de 1833 …’, Buenos Aires, 1967, 122-128.

      • Don Alberto July 17, 2012 at 4:32 am #

        AGN is of course the previously mentioned ‘Archivo General de la Nación* in Buenos Aires

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: