Puricelli accuses Britain of having nuclear weapons on the Falklands

13 Aug

Argentina’s Minister of Defence, Arturo Puricelli, speaking at the inauguration of a new Puma II aircraft in Cordoba, described the members of UNASUR as;”.. working together to ensure the defence of our region.”

He went on to call for the United Kingdom to sit and negotiate the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, describing as “worrying” the presence of a military base in the archipelago. “It’s the only militarized place in the region. The presence of military forces in the Falkland Islands is to enforce the usurpation. They do not have any other reason and we do not know whether they have weapons with nuclear charges, or a highly destructive power.”

“Once again I’m calling on the UK to sit at the table so that we can discuss Falklands sovereignty,” he added.

Britain has traditionally kept a few Marines on the islands since Buenos Aires attempted to seize them in 1832, although a garrison has not always been maintained there. However, since Argentina invaded the British Overseas Territory in 1982 only to be evicted, once again, by British forces, a military base has been maintained for security purposes.

The Falkland Islands have been British territory since 1765. Britain also owns South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which, together with its Antarctic territories, provide a presence for Britain in the South Atlantic. A presence viewed with distrust by Argentina which would like to claim all those islands as her own.

Advertisements

36 Responses to “Puricelli accuses Britain of having nuclear weapons on the Falklands”

  1. wallace ellis August 13, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    The man`s an idiot.

  2. compareandy August 13, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    Its about time Argentina stopped causing problems for the falkland islanders and started sorting their own country out.

    Argentina had signed an agreement that they agreed to UK’s claim on the islands, but as always have u-turned on this.

    Argentina claim Falklands are militarizing the area, strange when it is them purchasing new aircraft and admitting if it was not for the UK defending the islands, they would take them by force.

    It’s about time the international community took a long hard look at Ms Kitchener and how she rules what is essentially a rouge nation that makes not contribution to world affairs and put some serious sanctions on them.

    The Falklands islanders wish peace, but are under treat all the time. What does it take for the world to listen to them. Why should they seek indepence if they don’t want to, and even if they did, would Argentina recognise it. Probably not, as they wish to convince the populace that they have not lost the plot.

    UN preaches self determination, and yet denies this of the Falklands. Dual standards

  3. CLopez August 13, 2012 at 12:03 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: http://www.escolares.com.ar/historia/oficio-de-cornelio-savedra-sobre-las-islas-malvinas.html
    because at that time it was still occupied by Spanish troops, many of them ‘criollos’ of the borning countries.

    In 1820 they were formally taken possession of and in 1823 first attempts were made to establish an Argentine colony, by Pacheco and Vernet.

    • lordton1955 August 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

      As you know very well, Britain did not abandon the islands between 1774 and 1833. British business interests continued to use the islands throughout that period, and the Royal Navy surveyed West Falkland in 1786.

      Argentina has no proof that it considered the Falklands as part of its territory. Argentina’s first public act of sovereignty was in 1829, and that was properly protested by Britain. The letter that you quote merely passes the responsibility for payment back to the Spanish in Montevideo. The Spanish troops on Soledad stayed loyal to Spain.

      Nothing happened in 1820 of any note. Vernet’s attempt in 1824 (not 1823) failed.

      Argentina should have heeded the warning of 1829. 1833 was merely a police action to eject a few trespassers.

      • CLopez August 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

        The passing of responsibility is part of a quote previous to the Revolution. The intention of the note is at the end: to repeat the request for documentation related to Malvinas, specially the ones on payments. See:

        “Y habiendo ocurrido ahora al señor comandante de Marina manifestando no haberle ustedes pasado todavía las referidas copias, incluye a ustedes esta Junta Gubernativa el oficio del expresado señor comandante de Marina, para que con su vista y devolución pasen a esta misma Junta las indicadas copias.”

        “Las copias” refers to “copias certificadas de las Reales Ordenes que haya en la misma Tesorería General sobre asignaciones o algunos otros puntos de Malvinas”.

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

        I’ve had it checked. The full story is about one man’s back pay from before May 1810 and the request was passed back to Montevideo which was loyal to Spain. It doesn’t assist BA’s case at all. But then, it’s all you have apparently.

        Page 48 http://www.scribd.com/doc/100579714/The-Falkland-Islands-History

      • CLopez August 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

        @Lordton: Hardly 😉
        Yes, it was about the pay for the last or next to last Spanish Governor on the islands. I bet he never saw a penny, the poor guy…

        @Phil Foster: I know the drill, thank you. To me, it’s just as irrelevant as your 55 years of silence to you. I guess we should test our arguments in court, uh?

      • lordton1955 August 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

        He was not quite the last Commander in the Island.

        I too doubt that he got paid. The important point is that Government’s generate paper. All bureaucracies produce huge amounts of paperwork. Especially new ones, or those in turmoil. My point is that Argentina has managed to find one piece of paper regarding an outstanding wage in 1810 and, 5 years later, a suggestion that the prisoners in the penal colony should be brought into the army. Two items between 1810 and 1816 do not a good argument make !

      • CLopez August 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

        Even if there were only those two items in that period, is much more than any assertion made by British government in your 55 years of silence (1774-1829). You are just downplaying the other point of view, because of your inner feelings about this (aka. bias).

      • lordton1955 August 14, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

        You never have explained the Survey completed by the Royal Navy officer in 1786.

        So, please, how does that fit in with your ’55 years ??

    • Phil Foster August 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

      Ah bless. Keep talking, you should be able to blart out something vaguely sensible eventually. I mean you do realise of course that were your utterances accepted as factual they would invalidate your own claims to the islands. Off and on, Argentines or random folk who you and your fellow Malvinistas claim to be Argentines but generally were not, have occupied the islands off and on for a total of about one year out of the better part of 200.

      In that time some of your own cartographers have produced maps of Argentina that do not include the Falkland Islands and you have had several presidents implying very strongly that Argentina has no outstanding claims with the UK.

      I am not going to suggest that you know all this and I am not going to implore you to accept it. I’m just saying like.

      • CLopez August 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

        “Random folk” who had an Argentine flag on their mast and celebrated Buenos Aires’ Independence Day. They were there for about 4 years, and after 5 years of failed attempts the colony was finally looking good.

        Until cannons arrived…

    • nigelpwsmith August 14, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

      >CLopez
      Still putting out your ridiculous and disproved propaganda I see. You know full well (because we’ve discussed it before) that the Spanish (still loyal to Spain) occupied the Islands until 1811. When they left, they invalidated the sovereignty transfer conditions imposed by the French in 1767, to prevent the British gaining full title to the islands.

      The British claim to sovereignty never lapsed. The British left behind a plaque, declaring that the claim to the Islands was still valid. The Spanish agreement after the Falklands Crisis of 1770-1 clearly states that the matter of sovereignty had not been resolved. However, not only was the French transfer condition broken, but the Spanish accepted British sovereignty in 1853. In between 1774 & 1833 British vessels were regularly visiting the Falklands for whaling & sealing & to replenish their stores of beef.

      When Argentina declared independence in 1816, the Falkland Islands were no longer occupied by Spain. So you cannot inherit something from Spain, which Spain itself did not possess.

      As for David Jewett’s declaration of 1820, it was made by an actual pirate (something you accuse the British of being) & the Argentine Government was not even aware of it, until a year later. Jewett made the declaration to add legitimacy to a piratical raid on an American ship carrying Spanish cargo.

      As for Pacheco & Vernet, their venture was founded in 1823, but they did not land on the Falkland Islands until February 1824. Even so, the people that did were asking to be removed within 11 days & all were removed within 6 months. The second venture in 1826 was only slightly more successful. However, Vernet was aware of British sovereignty & asked for (& received) British permission to be on the Islands. Vernet lost the right to be on the Islands by being declared the military & civil commander & then acting (as a pirate) by seizing the American sealing ships. This brought in United States who acted to protect their interests.

      The majority of Vernet’s colony left after the Lexington raid. However, it was only the murderous Argentine garrison & their families that were told to leave in 1833. The civilians stayed on the Islands & continued their business.

      The Islands had been British since 1765. Even though the French arrived in 1764, they passed their sovereignty to the Spanish who did not dispute the British claim (after 1770-1 & 1853) & the Spanish lost sovereignty in 1811 because they broke the conditional transfer agreed by the French.

      At no time in history has Argentina ever held legitimate sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. They may have invaded in 1982, but their occupation was illegal and an unwarranted act of aggression condemned by the United Nations.

      Argentina has never had the courage to present their claim in the International Court, because they know their claim would fail. They tried to quietly capture the Islands during 1826-33, by not announcing any acquisition.

      Vernet was greedy. He could see the American ships loading up with seals & he considered that these seals belonged to him & were being stolen. Vernet demanded that the Argentine Government act to prevent the seals being taken by the American ships. Vernet did not demand that they stop the British ships, because he knew that this would crystallize a conflict between Argentina & Britain, which Argentina would lose. The Argentine Government could not afford to provoke a war with Britain & could not even afford to send a warship to aid Vernet. They rightfully believed that an Argentine warship in Falklands waters would force the British to send a warship as well. So instead, they declared that Vernet was the military & civil commander and that he had the right to take whatever action he liked to seize the American ships & their cargo.

      Vernet’s act, precipitated the intervention of the US Navy. The arrival of the US Navy precipitated the intervention of the British Royal Navy and forced Britain to re-assert British sovereignty over the Islands.

      • CLopez August 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

        LOL propaganda? This blog is the very definition of it.

        Some counterpoints:

        * ” When they left, they invalidated the sovereignty transfer conditions” First, you’d have to prove those transfer conditions you’re talking about, and demonstrate that under international law they have a meaning, specially after 1774-1829. Second, you have to realize that it’s isn’t fully correct to label the guys who left in 1811 as Spaniards. They didn’t sailed to Madrid, they went back to Montevideo. In those days, the distinction between Spain and its colonies wasn’t clear cut as it is now. As I said, in 1810 the rebel government in Buenos Aires was already worrying about the expenditures of the garrison at Malvinas.

        * “The British claim to sovereignty never lapsed. The British left behind a plaque” — a nice detail, but of no weight under international law. A plaque can’t prevent estoppel from happening.

        * “you cannot inherit something from Spain, which Spain itself did not possess” so you’re saying that Argentina and Uruguay and Chile etc only came into existence when Spain acknowledged their independence? The territories were “inherited” from the moment that the revolution sparked, against the will of Spain.

        * “the Argentine Government was not even aware of it, until a year later” you don’t have any proof for what you’re saying, and even so it is meaningless. What’s next, Jewitt had herpes? LOL not relevant, you’re just throwing mud. “Jewett made the declaration to add legitimacy” you can’t prove that either, it’s your word against mine. What we know for sure is that a) he was an Argentine officer; and b) he took possession of the islands on a public ceremony in 1820..

        * “The civilians stayed on the Islands & continued their business” Not exactly true, some civilians stayed and some civilians left. And the whole garrison left, of course.

        * “In between 1774 & 1833 British vessels were regularly visiting the Falklands for whaling & sealing” so did the Americans, and many others. That’s not a sovereign act of a government.

        * “Argentina has never had the courage to present their claim in the International Court” FALSE, this is where I really feel sorry for you. In the 1880’s Argentina offered mediation and it was refused. The UK only offered to discuss the other islands, not the Falklands themselves, therefore assuming they are British. YOU ARE THE ONES WHO RUN AWAY.

        * “They tried to quietly capture the Islands during 1826-33, by not announcing any acquisition.” I refer you to “the pirate” who in 1820 made a public ceremony, echoed in American and British newspapers. No reclamation whatsoever.

        * “The arrival of the US Navy precipitated the intervention of the British Royal Navy and forced Britain to re-assert British sovereignty over the Islands.” Yes and no, because the British hinted the Americans their plans to occupy them. It isn’t a cause-consequence matter, they are part of one same move.

      • lordton1955 August 14, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

        1. How do you know that they did not return to Spain with de Elio ?
        2. A plaque was certainly enough in 1774 and perhaps even in 1811 when Spain did the same.
        3. There was no automatic inheritance. A revolting colony can only claim that which it can hold. BA did not hold the Falklands.
        4. BA did not even react when news of Jewett’s claim appeared in the newspapers. Jewett’s report did not confirm the newspaper reports, and so they were ignored. Regardless, Jewett didn’t do enough to establish a claim under accepted international practice of that time.
        5. 4 civilians left in January 1833. Only 4.
        6. Use remains a good indication of sovereignty. Once established sovereignty is not easily lost. The whalers may well be enough, even though others came too. And then there was the survey. I am trying to access the RN logs, although few appear to be on-line. I have little doubt that the Royal Navy stopped over as well.
        7. Argenetina never made a formal offer to take the case to mediation. There were odd references, but no diplomatic note asking for it to happen. In the 1950’s Britain went as far as to submit their paperwork to the ICJ with regard to the Dependencies. Now that counts as a really forceful invitation. Argentina never made any such advance. Moreover, that was a perfect opportunity for Argentina to expand the case to cover the Falklands. They did not do so. So no, there was never any serious attempt by Argentina to place the matter before a formal arbitration panel.
        8. As stated above Jewett’s claim was insufficient. Neither was it an official act. BA has never produced any evidence that Jewett had any orders, and his made no mention of the event in his 13 page report.
        9. Contrary to the conspiracy theories the British and American acts were unconnected. The timing of the orders clearly shows that. Wellington had expressed a fear that either the USA or France would stake a claim, but the Clio would have been dispatched regardless of the Lexington.

      • nigelpwsmith August 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

        >CLopez

        Your reply of 7:20 is still full of misleading statements.

        1. As I’ve mentioned before, the transfer condition has already been documented. France was unhappy at having to transfer title to Spain, but the last thing they wanted was for the Spanish to leave and let the British gain full title.

        2. It’s immaterial where the Spanish went to in 1811. The fact remains that Spain continued to claim the Falklands as theirs until 1853. Argentina did not declare independence until 1816. Any attempt to maintain a claim was made in 1810 is to circumvent the ‘inconvenience’ that the Islands were still occupied by Spain and that by leaving in 1811 lost sovereignty under the transfer agreement.

        3. A plaque is all it takes and the claim was recognised by Spain in 1853. Estoppel works both ways and in the case of the Falklands, the work done on the Falklands by Britain since 1833 estops Argentina from claiming them now.

        4. You cannot inherit something that Spain did not possess and Spain did not possess the Falklands. There were no Spanish on the Falklands in 1816.

        5. The Argentine Government found out about Jewett’s declaration thorough the reprint of the story. Captain Orne gave Jewett’s letter to the local paper, the Salem Gazette, which published it on 8 June 1821, and it was reprinted by The Times in London on 3 August 1821. If it had not been for the publication of that letter, and an account in a book by James Weddell five years later, the Jewett claim would be unknown today. The Times reprint of the Orne letter was then repeated in a Gibraltar paper and was picked up by the Spanish paper Redactor de Cádiz. It was only when the Cadiz report reached Buenos Aires, as a foreign news story, that Jewett’s claim to the Falklands became known in Argentina. It was published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821, over a year after the event. The only conclusion is that the Argentine Government was completely unaware of Jewett’s claim. There was no mention of it in his letters to BA requesting his replacement when he was in the Falklands.

        Logically, the only reason for making the declaration was to legitimise the attack on the American Schooner Rampart. Even Weddell did not believe him and no Governments took his statement seriously, as he was a pirate and pirates have no force in law. In fact, they were frequently executed for being outside international law.

        6. Only 4 civilians left. 2 men and their wives and neither was Argentine. 22 civilians remained and of these 12 were Argentine. Yet the Argentine Government continues to (falsely) claim that they were all evicted.

        7. British & American ships continued to exploit the island’s resources because the Islands belonged to Britain. Any vessel exploiting the resources of another country would be risking a war with that country. The fact that these ships were not challenged by any nation shows that they were exhibiting their sovereign right to be there. I do not know whether any British warships visited the Islands during that period. However, in the absence of any positive proof, I would believe that they did, as we know that there were expeditions travelling that way, because Darwin visited the Islands on HMS Beagle later on.

        8. Britain has repeatedly offered to take the matter of sovereignty to the International Court and Argentina has refused to do so. Argentina is only exhibiting cowardice by refusing, because they know their claim is so weak and so foolish, that they would be humiliated before all other countries for even trying.

        9. Nobody believed the statement of a pirate in 1820. Jewett was a discredited pirate and declared so by the Portuguese. Indeed he even aided the war against Argentina whilst an officer of the Brazilian Navy. Shows how much contempt Jewett had for Argentina.

        10. The British were prepared to evict Vernet when they heard about the 3 US ships being pirated. However, the Americans had a warship much closer in Sao Paulo and they saved the British the trouble of rushing a warship down there. However, when the harassment of US ships continued, the British became aware that an entire squadron of US warships would be sent this time. To prevent there being a dispute with the Americans, the British acted to quickly remove the Argentine garrison and this resolved the problem. A permanent British presence was only necessitated when Vernet’s men were murdered by Argentine gauchos in a dispute over pay. These Gauchos were removed from the islands, but the remainder of the people stayed and more joined them to form the present population of the islands. These people have been on the Falkland Islands longer than Argentina has been a recognised nation. The Falklands belongs to them and Britain would use every power at our hands to prevent Argentina taking them against the will of the Islanders. That includes levelling Buenos Aires, if Argentina were to murder Falkland islanders.

      • lordton1955 August 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

        Did you know that Vernet had a 3rd partner – an Englishman ?

      • CLopez August 15, 2012 at 12:07 am #

        “However, in the absence of any positive proof, I would believe that they did” — That summarizes how your mind works, Nigel. Your last phrase is shocking, how in the world can you even think of such a scenario?? You’ve done a lot of research evidently, but the glass you’re looking through is waaaay too thick.

        @lordton: surprise me.

      • lordton1955 August 15, 2012 at 12:45 am #

        Boo

      • lordton1955 August 15, 2012 at 12:50 am #

        Oh sorry – you are refering to the English partner. I now understand that Vernet effectively subcontracted his 1824 expedition to an Englishman by the name of Robert Schofield who purchased the vessels and paid for much of the expedition’s costs. It’s failure broke him. Already a sufferer of TB he turned to alcohol and died shortly after the last gauchos were rescued from Soledad. It’s beginning to look like he had the land grant as part of the deal. Amazing what you can find in old books 🙂

        “An Englishman has lately undertaken a speculation which has cost him a considerable sum, to have the exclusive privilege of taking cattle in the Falkland Islands – in fact to be sole proprietor for a term of years. He has forwarded to his new sovereignty a small colony of settlers, servants, &c.; the chances of his success are very doubtful. Buenos Ayres claims the jurisdiction of these islands, and those claims will not cause such a dispute as in the year 1770. The voyage to them is made in about fourteen days.” Five Years Residence in Buenos Ayres during the years 1820 to 1825 … George T. Love 1825

        The British wouldn’t object if there was an Englishman involved ?

      • CLopez August 15, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

        Very interesting! I’ve seen that book quoted in some History magazines here in Argentina, because it contains trivial details of daily life in Buenos Aires at that time, not easy to find in Argentine literature.

        They refer to Schofield as a man from Montevideo of British origin.

        “those claims will not cause such a dispute as in the year 1770” — he had no idea!

      • lordton1955 August 15, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

        The author forsaw a few problems? Pity he didn’t stay longer.

        I am still working on Schofield; without much success it has to be admitted. I suspect Peter Pepper has more but if he does he’s not giving it away. One of these days he’ll finish his own work and then maybe we’ll find out.

      • lordton1955 August 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

        An intriguing response from a knowledgeable source;

        Re Schofield, I don’t have the contract between him and Vernet, although I have got some information about it – Vernet’s grumbles about it not being kept, and about how Schofield’s reckless spending ruined everything. It destroyed Schofield, who sought refuge in drink, and then bailed out from the Falklands taking one of their ships to the Rio Negro to try and make some money fom cattle there. I have heard that the agreement with Schofield was signed the very next day after Pacheco and Vernet got their concession from the BA government to make use of East Falklands, which was granted on the 23rd August 1823. I don’t know if Vernet thought having a Briton involved would be a good idea then – but he certainly did think like that later on.

        Which Briton – Bisbane … or maybe Parish ??

  4. Don Alberto August 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    ‘compareandy’ hit the nail on the head: “Its about time Argentina stopped causing problems for the falkland islanders and started sorting their own country out.”

    Problem is, that the incompetent Argentine government with their ‘Yes-man’ (or Yes mam) ministers and corrupt and incompetent civil servants cannot solve the internal problems caused by mismanagement over the past 60 years. Their only option to stay in power is to inflame nationalism so the Argentines forget their real problems for a short while.

    Las Malvinas son británicas 😀

  5. nigelpwsmith August 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    The Argentine government knows full well that the British government has announced that our sole nuclear deterrent is carried on submarines of the Royal Navy.

    In contrast with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom operates only a submarine-based delivery system, having decommissioned its tactical WE.177 free-fall bombs in 1998.

    The Royal Navy also states that this nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard class SSBNs based at Faslane. These submarines carry around 160 thermonuclear warheads out of a stockpile believed to number 225.

    As the vessels are assigned to the NATO they remain in the North Atlantic close to the European continental shelf. However, even so, they are perfectly capable of striking targets in the Southern Hemisphere should the need arise.

    The Royal Navy also has attack submarines (SSNs) armed with cruise missiles, which have been used to attack targets successfully in Serbia, Afghanistan and most recently Libya.

    Cruise missiles were originally developed by the United States and can be armed with thermonuclear warheads. However, the Royal Navy cruise missiles carry conventional warheads – just delivered VERY accurately!

    The Royal Navy does not make any statement about the deployment of their SSNs. You never know where they are until the torpedo explodes against the hull!

    If the Argentine government was foolish enough to engage in hostilities over the Falklands, concerning the oil resources or the Islands themselves, then I am sure that the Royal Navy would equip their weaponry with the appropriate warheads.

    Until then, any claim by Argentina’s Minister of Defence, Arturo Puricelli, is purely to encourage support for Argentina’s illegitimate claims on the Falkland Islands. The Argentine government is pursuing a policy of gaining support for their claims, so that they can legitimise any military action they take in the future. The announcement of the new fast-jet trainer Puma II, is to bolster the military support by neighbouring countries that Argentina is preparing themselves for the coming conflict.

    The announcement shows 2 things.

    1. That Argentina is still afraid of the British nuclear deterrent, so they try to claim to others that we are in breach of the Treaty of Tlateloco, &,

    2. That if the British did not talk then the Argentines would go to war & the rest of the world would support them.

    Argentina’s minister of Defence called on the UK “to sit and dialogue” over the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty and warned that the British military presence in the South Atlantic “is the only element that upholds the usurpation of that part of our national territory”.

    In other words, if the British military were not on the Falklands, we would invade immediately.

  6. Don Alberto August 15, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    As response to nigelpwsmith: “The civilians stayed on the Islands & continued their business.”

    CLopez writes: “Not exactly true, some civilians stayed and some civilians left. And the whole garrison left, of course.”

    Here is the official document listing those who left the islands.

    [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.

    • lordton1955 August 15, 2012 at 12:44 am #

      Don Alberto – Would you have all of Simon’s letter by any chance – I’d love to include it in the history.

      • Don Alberto August 15, 2012 at 2:32 am #

        I have unfortunately been unable to find the entire text of Jean Simon’s (a Frenchman called Juan Simón in Spanish) letter to Vernet on the internet, but it has been printed in the series “Academia Nacional de la Historia”: “El Episodio Ocurrido en Puerto de la Soledad de Malvinas el 26 de Agosto de 1833: Testimonios Documentales”, Serie documental. Tomo III, Buenos Aires, 1967, 122-128, and of course the original can be found in Archivo General de la Nación, VII, 130, doc. 62 fol. 1 recto.

        A couple of goodies on the internet you may not have seen:

        Full text of “Mensaje del Presidente de la República Argentina, Bartolomé Mitre, ante la Asamblea Legislativa (1865)”
        http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.html

        (search: “no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar”)

        Full text of “Mensaje del Vicepresidente de la República Argentina, Marcos Paz, en ejercicio del Poder Ejecutivo, ante la Asamblea Legislativa (1866)”
        http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-vicepresidente-de-la_06.html

        (search: “Este mismo gobierno aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile”)

        Note authors for both: D[octo]res. Juan O. Pons y N. Florencia Pons Belmonte

      • lordton1955 August 15, 2012 at 2:40 am #

        Thanks – I’ll check those out 🙂

  7. Don Alberto August 15, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    Dear CLopez, you have been told on several occasions that in the peace treaty ratified in May 1850, Argentina ceded any claim to the Falkland Islands to Britain.

    Here it is one last time, in the future you must either refute the following (providing verifiable sources) or accept that this is the state of the dispite.

    In the years 1833 through 1849, Argentina protested regularly against British possession of the Falklands. A brief protest was made in the “Message to Congress” every year from 1833 to 1849 inclusive [1].

    After the peace treaty 1850 was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased, and the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were published in Argentina [2] and other countries including Britain (in English translation) [3].

    After the ratification of the peace treaty in May 1850 Argentina no longer claimed the Falkland Islands during the years 1850 to 1887 except for one diplomatic letter 20 January 1888 in which Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa protested to Britain against Britain’s possession of the Falklands but the subject was dropped again. After this single protest there was no diplomatic protest by Argentina to Britain for the rest of the 19th century and until 1941.

    Three official Argentina maps from the 19th century do not show the Falkland Islands as an Argentine possession: The Latzina Map[4], which uses one colour for Argentina and another for other countries’ possessions- the Falkland Islands are of a different colour than that of Argentina. The map ‘Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina’ [5] dated 1881 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina. The map of Argentina’s military regions [6] from 1905 doesn’t even show the Falkland Islands.

    The effect of the Convention of Settlement was also mentioned by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas, in a major debate on 19 July 1950 on Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands to Britain, and complained that the restoration of “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim [7].

    1. President Bartolomé Mitre’s message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865. Mitre said “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.” [8]

    2. Vice-president Marcos Paz’s opening speach to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1866: “Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” [9]

    3. In his Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869 President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento expressed satisfaction at the state of Argentina’s foreign relations: “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.” [10]

    As regards the presidential statements (Bartolomé Mitre in 1865, vice-president Marcos Paz in 1866, president Domingo Faustino Sarmiento in 1869), one has to take into account the following passus in ‘Constitución Argentina de 1853′: “El presidente gozaba de facultades colegislativas: … La firma de tratados con otros estados estaba a su exclusivo cargo”. Thus it is part of the constitution from 1853, that ratification of treaties with other countries is a presidential prerogative. Neither ‘Reforma de 1860′ nor ‘Reforma de 1866′ cancelled this prerogative.

    This means that Mitre and Sarmiento could discard or endorse/authorise any and all new and previous treaties. Their official Messages to Congress 1865 and 1869, as also reflected in VP Paz statement 1866, tell that both endorsed the 1850 treaty.
    ——
    Notes.

    [1] All the protests by letter are printed in full in Alfredo Becerra, “Protestas por Malvinas”, Buenos Aires, 1998.

    [2] All of the Messages to congress, dated 1810 to 1910 inclusive, were reprinted in full in Spanish in Heraclio Mabragaña: “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910. Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina (BNRA), Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    [3] Printed in the volumes of “British and Foreign State Papers” during the 1830s and 1840s.

    [4] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg?uselang=es

    [5] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/LaIlustracionArgentina.jpg?uselang=es

    [6] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Regiones.militares.arg.1905.jpg?uselang=es

    [7] Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Año del Libertador General San Martín, 1950, Tomo II, Período Ordinario, 6 de julio-10 y 11 de agosto, Buenos Aires 1951 pp. 1095-1096.). BNRA

    [8] Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, p. 227. BNRA

    [9] Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 238). BNRA

    [10] Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, pag. 286. BNRA

  8. agf August 21, 2012 at 1:28 am #

    There is no legal, nor geographical, nor historical, nor political reason for the UK to have a colony in part of Argentina’s territory.
    If you are so sure of the UK rights on the islands, then why don’t you obbey UN, OAS, UNASUR, CELAC, MERCOSUR, Cooperación SUR (Africa) – SUR (South America), ALBA resolutions?

    No one wants to expell the islanders, as Britain did back in 1833. Argentina wants it’s sovereingty claims to be respected. Argentina will respect the citizens interests and way of life. They could have a constitution, a real governor (not one put by the finger of any queen or prime minister), they will speak english, have tea at five, as the welsh actually do in the province of Chubut.

    • nigelpwsmith August 21, 2012 at 2:14 am #

      Absolute Rubbish. There is every legal right to the Falklands. We were the first to land, the first to colonise West Falkland and by peaceful prescription, we have maintained and cared for the Islands for the past 179 years. However, the British history on the Islands goes back 247 years. Long before Argentina even existed.

      Geography does not come into it. If you think that just because one nation happens to exist alongside another gives you the right to invade and take land belonging to the other, then you are a moron. Not only were we the first to step foot on the Falklands, but also discovered and set foot on South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and South Orkneys too. Why do you think they have British names? – because they were claimed by the crown of the United Kingdom long before Argentina even existed.

      As for historical rights, it is Argentina that are the pirates. The first ‘Argentine’ (actually an American) Colonel David Jewett was an actual pirate. He may have landed on the Islands in 1820, but he knew they were British and he didn’t even tell Argentina that he’d claimed them! The British were on the Islands in 1765 before the Spanish arrived. The Falklands Crisis of 1770-1 proved that both Spain and Britain had a claim to the Islands which had not been resolved. However, Spain acknowledged that the Falkland Islands were British in 1853. Furthermore, Luis Vernet also knew they were British, as he sought permission to be on the Islands.

      As for political reasons, well the Islanders have the right to their own government & the right to self-determination, as they are entitled to under section 1 of the United Nations Charter. They choose to be British and we respect that. If they chose to be Argentine, we would respect that too. But they despise the Argentines, because they tried to force them to be something they did not want in 1982.

      None of the organisations you’ve mentioned have ordered the UK to obey resolutions. They have no power to do so. Indeed, the UN cannot go against the United Nations charter and order the Islanders to endure a sovereignty that they do not want. Those resolutions have no authority & the Falkland Islanders disregard them.

      Britain did not expel the Islanders as you claim. You ought to read the truth, not the lies and false propaganda put out by the Argentine government.

      http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf

      The only people asked to leave the Islands were the mutinous & murderous Argentine garrison & their wives & children. The Islanders were invited to stay and 22 did, of which 12 were Argentine. Only 4 Islanders left with the garrison and neither were Argentine. A Uruguayan & a Brazilian & their wives.

      Argentina’s sovereignty claims are completely bogus. They are false. Argentina never had any sovereignty over the islands. They tried to steal them from the British between1826-1833. But because they engaged in piracy on American vessels, the Argentine ‘authorities’ (who had no right to be there) were asked to leave.

      Argentina does not respect it’s own citizens, let alone those of another country. Argentina is a colonial country, that was founded on land belonging to the Amerindians. These people were brutally murdered for their land in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries. They are the true owners of Argentina, yet they are treated as second class people. Their rights are disregarded. Argentina is one of the few countries in the world that has engaged in systematic genocide for the past 300 years. If they weren’t exterminating the Indians, they were killing political opponents by dropping them out of helicopters over the River Plate. And you consider that these same people, the people that stole YPF without any compensation to Repsol would take care of any foreigners? If you think this is true then you are very stupid.

      The Falkland Islanders have a real government. They have real leaders and manage their own economy. When they start extracting oil, they will be one of the richest nations on the planet for per-capita income. Even more so that the Arab nations.

      In short, you should visit the Islands, as a tourist, to find out more about the Islanders and discover that they are a real people with a history that extends back longer than Argentina was even a nation.

      They have the right to choose who they want to be and determine their own future. Not to have that future dictated to them from Argentina or Great Britain for that matter.

    • Don Alberto August 21, 2012 at 5:28 am #

      agf – yet another brainwashed Argentino.

      UN Resolution 2065 (XX), of 16 December 1965:

      “1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations”

      Note the wording: “invites” – this and similar resolutions are NON-BINDING.

      Read it yourself: http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html

      Argentina completely ignored UN Resolution 502, of 3 April 1982:

      which

      “1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

      2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);”

      Read it yourself: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/435/26/IMG/NR043526.pdf?OpenElement

      Did Argentina abide by the BINDING resolution 502?

      If not, then why should the UK respect the NON-BINDING Resolution 2065?

    • Don Alberto August 21, 2012 at 5:37 am #

      agf – above you have a text showing that the islanders were not expelled in 1833, on the contrary, most of them stayed on the Falkland Islands.

      **Argentine documentation** provided with precise references to where in Argentina, you can find it.

      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

      Don’t you trust Argentine sources?

    • lordton1955 August 21, 2012 at 6:59 am #

      We don’t have a colony in any part of Argentine territory!
      We are sure of our rights so why should be obey those obscure organisations that you mention?
      There was no expulsion in 1833. A small group of trespassers were ejected. They had been warned in 1829.
      I don’t think they have tea at 5 !!

  9. SteveU August 23, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    There always seems to be the misunderstanding in these sovereignty discussions about territories which have no or infrequent habitation. Just because the Falklands were not populated for a while does not affect their sovereignty status

    The island of Rockall is uninhabited and is yet British sovereign territory

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: