Argentina celebrates its illegal invasion of the Falklands

21 Sep

Argentina has issued a 2 peso coin commemorating the illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982; the first step in what became the Falklands War and saw the loss of nearly 1000 lives.

Nearly five million of the coins have been issued with two dates on the reverse; 1833 and 1982 – 2012.

Argentina spuriously alleges that the British took the Falklands from them by force in 1833, ignoring the fact that the British claim goes back to 1765, and that they had been warned to stay away in 1829. The Argentina invasion and occupation, 150 years after their first attempt to forcibly take control of the archipelago in 1832, lasted for 74 days and saw Britain send a Task Force which ejected the trespassers from the British Overseas Territory.

Argentina has studiously avoided the realities of history in its claims to the Falklands which are based on a supposed ‘inheritance’ from Spain, and the proximity of the Falklands to the Argentine coast (400 miles). Neither is accepted in international law and Britain has made it clear that it has no doubts about its sovereignty.

The Falkland Islanders are holding a referendum in 2013 to decide their status. They are currently a protected Non-Self Governing Territory under the United Nations Charter, with Britain as the ‘Administering Power’.


26 Responses to “Argentina celebrates its illegal invasion of the Falklands”

  1. alister mac intyre September 21, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    A lot of good men died to satisfy an ignorant indoctornated population who would wave a flag at the drop of new coin. theres not a independant thought amongst them ,

  2. Don Alberto September 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    – this is equal to celebrating the Galtieri dictatorship, ain’t it?

    Many happy returns – hoped for, obviously.

  3. eric (@realaleisbest) September 21, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    The botox queen is still living the the great Argentinian lie, the Falklands are not a province of Argentina. They are the Falklands.British and proud to be british.

    • alister mac intyre September 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

      spot on Eric

  4. CLopez September 23, 2012 at 12:48 am #

    Dear Lorton, you are the indisputable master of “ignoring the fact”.

    * You ignore the fact that Spain controlled BOTH islands from 1774 to 1811, without British protest;

    * You ignore the fact that in 1820, David Jewett took possession of these islands in the name of Argentina, and that this event reached HBM, without British protest;

    * You ignore the fact that the first expeditions to the islands started in 1824, without British protest;

    * You ignore the fact that Vernet’s “enterprise”, as you like to call it, was an Argentine settlement, therefore saying that the attempt “lasted for 74 day” is a very badly biased remark.

    • lordton1955 September 23, 2012 at 9:37 am #

      If Spain controlled both islands, why did she never raise her flag there ? Why did she not stop the whalers and sealers? Why didn’t she prevent the Royal Navy survey of 1786?

      David Jewett acted without authority. His action is amusing but legally ineffective.

      Difficult to object when you are not aware. Even more difficult to object when the ‘offender’ does not exist. Fortunately, the British recognised BA’s de facto existence in 1825 (not de jure) and allowed such enterprises as Vernet’s in the Treaty of that year. Vernet then obtained further British permission in 1828.

      Vernet’s enterprise, was Vernet’s settlement – not an Argentine one. BA started that nonsense in 1829 and the British rightly protested.

      74 days was the length of the 1982 war! You need to read that sentence again 🙂

      • CLopez September 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

        No need to rise a flag when you can simply destroy the British fort and watch for any attempt to re-settle.

        David Jewett acted without authority? You got to be kidding me. Are you saying he wasn’t an officially appointed officer? Do I really need to copy-paste the decree for you?

        Jewett’s possession was printed in newspapers, and reported by Wedell. It is difficult to sustain that British government didn’t read the newspaper, not in London, not in Spain, not in the US, and not in Buenos Aires.

        And the “offender” did exist, even if you don’t like it. It wasn’t only the province of Buenos Aires, it was actually many of them (the ones that existed at that time, at least) which had delegated powers to BA government.

        As for the 74 days — you’re correct, I needed to read that again. 😛

      • lordton1955 September 23, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

        Every need to raise a flag when you are aware of an outstanding and conflicting claim. And the fort was not destroyed. It’s remains can be seen today.

        Yes please – post the Decree that instructed Jewett to claim the Falklands. What he did, he did for his own purposes and failed to mention it in his detailed 13 page report submitted to BA on his return. The Government in BA did not follow the action up with a proclamation. As I said – amusing, but unimportant.

        BA, nor the UP existed in British eyes. Nor anyone elses at that time. Any complaint would have been forwarded to the proper, recognised, authority – Spain. But then Jewett’s act was not note worthy. It still isn’t.

      • CLopez September 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

        No: I mean the Decree that appointed as naval officer of the government of Buenos Aires/Argentina. Even if the orders are lost, or were never written down, that doesn’t change the fact that he was an officially acting officer whose actions were never condemned by his superiors (in fact, he was congratulated, and by a government that was enemy of the government that appointed him).

        Note that you have no way of proving that “he did it for his own purposes”. A lack of material evidence is no proof that they didn’t exist (specially when he didn’t gain anything from it). This is pretty basic. Perhaps you need more mathematics in your life?

      • lordton1955 September 24, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

        I do know which Decree you mean, because I also know that Jewett’s Orders do not exist. The fact that he was a commissioned officer, acting under a privateer licence, is not sufficient. The privateer licence only gave him permission to pursue Spanish vessels.

        I would like to see some proof of his being congratulated; particularly as he never mentioned the claim in his 13 page report. Who congratulated him, and when? I do know that he assisted the Commander of the Lexington a decade later!

        Proof is always better than no proof; and may indeed evidence that they didn’t exist. No orders = no proof that he was not acting on his own behalf. Weddell certainly thought that was the case and he was there – now that isn’t bad evidence at all 🙂

        I have a Masters in a Research Degree, so I fully understand the order of these things. Not Mathematics, but sufficient I feel.

      • Don Alberto September 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

        My dear CLopez,

        your claims involve the government of Buenos Aires in three clearcut acts of piracy in 1820, when Jewett was the captain.

        1820 03.21: Colonel David Jewett, privateer, takes command of the Heroina, and sails after Spanish prey.

        1822.03.20: The Heroina is challenged by the Portuguese frigate Pérola off Gibraltar which forces Mason to surrender. The ‘Case of the Heroina’ reveals:

        1820.08: “early in August, 1820 in the latitude of La Isla de Flores, they met a Portuguese vessel, called the Carlotta, bound with a cargo from Bahia to Lisbon, which they captured, after an action of two hours. … The captain of the privateer afterwards had two officers and four sailors shot.” [Jewett is the captain]

        1820: “Towards the close of 1820, being at the Falkland Islands, an American schooner entered, which they captured, and sent to their consignee at Buenos Ayres.” [Jewett is the captain]

        1820: “In the latitude of Cabofrio, they chased the Portuguese brig, Infante Don Sebastian, firing at her, but being unable to come up with her, they chased a Portuguese galley to leeward, and the captain having come on board the Heroina, near Cape St. Vincents, accompanied by a slave, the pirates had the latter hung up to compel him to declare where his master kept his money.” [Jewett is the captain]

        1821.03: Capt. Guillermo Mason takes over as commander of the Heroina. Jewett returns to the mainland.

        Are you still claiming Jewett didn’t do it for his own purposes?

      • CLopez September 25, 2012 at 12:21 am #

        Well, actually it is bad evidence because Wedell thought he was doing it to claim the remains of a wreckage, which didn’t happen.

        So tell me again, what is your PROOF that he was acting on his own? (And mind you, a philosophical debate is not a PROOF)

        Please tell us about this “assistance” to Duncan. I think I know what you’re referring to.

        The decree of the Governor of Buenos Aires, Martin Rodriguez, dated Nov. 6th, 1821, regarding the journey of the Heroina and the troubles she suffered, says: “avísese al Comandante de dicha Fragata Coronel D. David Jewett cuya conducta en aquella causa se aprueva, para su inteligencia y satisfacción”

        Congrats on your degree, very impressive. You still need some mathematical tinkering in that brain. And less passion in that heart. 😉

        Don Alberto, the Decree above shows that his acts were approved by the government. The case of the Carlota was the one being revisited. The American ship carried Spanish cargo, so there’s nothing objectionable about its capture (this was stipulated in the letter of marque issued by BA). And about the last ship, I really don’t have any info on it. These last two ships are not addressed in his report.

        Anyways, I don’t see the relation between the captures and the act of possession, so these thoughts are really meaningless (well, they do serve the purpose of depicting yourselves as “the good guys”, but nothing else) 😉
        Would you care to explain yourself?

      • lordton1955 September 25, 2012 at 5:05 am #

        Sounds like a standard form reply ( if it is not a forgery?) – and no mention of his amusing claim. Rather short for a Decree too. The new official Gazette perhaps, which was introduced that August? Do you have a source ??

        I should add that the news of Jewett’s claim was not reported in BA until the 10th of November. Or can you show me otherwise 🙂

        As for proof – I am not required to prove the negative; but you do need to prove the positive. No positive, then the negative must be assumed 🙂

        The assistance given by Jewett to the Lexington is mentioned in a letter by Baylies to Livingston –

        1833 – January 1st, the American ex-charge d’affaires, Francis Baylies writes a private letter to Edward Livingston; “ The document which I have transmitted to you with the despatch 12. was obtained through the intervention of Mr Slacum from John Wyatt Lt. .. on board the Heroine. Wyatt is now at Buenos Ayres conducting himself reputedly, although formerly in danger of being hung as a Pirate. Although I am under no restriction as to the exposure of his name yet I could wish unless it is necessary that it be disclosed, that it might be concealed.
        Jewett, Pirate as he is, having a deadly quarrel with the Govt. of Buenos Ayres on our side, and has given Captain Duncan much valuable information respecting the waters of the Rio de la Plata and the best mode of annoying Buenos Ayres. “

        Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Inter-American Affairs: Argentina 1831 – 1860

        Sadly there was no trace of the ‘document’ being referred to when the Correspondence was published. Or at least, I haven’t found it yet.

      • lordton1955 September 25, 2012 at 5:06 am #

        Do you have the letter of Marque ?

      • lordton1955 September 25, 2012 at 6:44 am #

        Oh dear. This Decree is starting to look like a forgery … or something you made up? My sources have never heard of it. I think that you need to provided a proper reference.

      • CLopez September 26, 2012 at 12:56 am #

        The objective truth is that (for now) I can’t prove the positive and you can’t prove the negative. Yet, I am not claiming that “he had” those orders, and you “are” claiming that he didn’t have those orders. See the difference?

        Whether he has those orders or not, it was an official act that was never reproached by the Argentine government, and it was in fact confirmed a few years later when it started to grant lands and cattle.

        The quote above is not the whole decree, just the last part. It is in Da Fonseca Figueira’s book, page 122:

        “Visto este proceso seguido con motivo del intentado levantamiento y conspiración a bordo de la Fragata Corsario Heroyna y Corbeta presa Carlota, conformandóse en su mérito con el dictamen del Auditor General de Guerra […] vengo a confirmar y confirmo la sentencia pronunciada por el Consejo […] imprímase para noticia de los interesados y avísese al Comandante de dicha Fragata Coronel D. David Jewett… ”

        You cut the letter on purpose. It said “the best mode of annoying Buenos Ayres in the case of a naval war” or something similar. If so, the information wasn’t really used. And to be honest, there are many things that could be objected or noted about this story (for example: the document wasn’t obtained on board of the Heroina, as your scissors had made look like), but I’ll just put an end to it by repeating what I’ve said to Don Alberto: I don’t see the relation between this and the act of possession, so these thoughts are really meaningless!!

        It’s just more and more demonization, it’s the only thing you can do against the act of possession of 1820 😉

        Don Alberto, may I ask for your sources on what happened on the last two ships? Do note however, that’s it is just demonization and doesn’t affect the proclamation of possession. I’m interested in knowing, tho.

        Regarding the wars –that’s a whole different conversation. But do note that from Argentina’s point of view, the Falklands were always part of its territory and they were occupied (in 1833) without declaring war. In 1982 we did exactly the same that you in 1833.

      • lordton1955 September 26, 2012 at 1:09 am #

        The Decree does not appear to exist. But I will check – I know a man heading to BA very soon and he’ll check the archive. But thankyou for the reference – I doubted that you made it up. I will pass your quote on – and when an answer arrives, I’ll let you know. It’ll take some time I’m afraid. My contact is efficient – but not quick 🙂

        The Decree you quote only praises Jewett for his dealing with the mutiny I note ??

        And no – I didn’t cut the letter. Part of the problem with scanned documents in the archives is that they were done huredly, or in some cases, the material is damaged. That is all that appears in Manning. I didn’t say it was important, I merely though it was interesting. If you have the whole letter then I’ll add it to the history.

      • lordton1955 September 26, 2012 at 7:54 am #

        I take it back – on this occassion, my contact rose to the challenge rather quickly. This is his response –

        “I have got Fonseca Figueira’s book.What is being referred to is the trial of some mutineers – Jewett had two mutinies. And I don’t think it’s really a decree; it’s a partial confirmation of sentence, addressed to the court.

        It looks to me as if someone has taken words that clearly referred to Jewett’s actions over mutineers, and is trying to pretend that they refer to his claim of the Falklands, which Jewett never referred to in the documents in his file in the National Archives – it only became known from Weddel’s book, and the letter Jewett wrote to Captain Orne, which was published first in his his home port Salem, and later in other papers. Jewett’s long report (and request to be repaced as Captain) dated the 1st February 1821, when he was in the Falklands, has a lot about the main mutiny, but nothing about his claim to the Falklands. If he had been ordered to go there to claim the Falklands, he would clearly have reported that he had carried out his orders.”


      • Don Alberto September 26, 2012 at 9:26 am #

        CLopez: “you can’t prove the negative. Yet, I am not claiming that “he had” those orders, and you “are” claiming that he didn’t have those orders.”

        CLopez, you owe me 42.320 Argentine pesos.

        Prove that you don’t owe me the money. Which is exactly why, in a court of law, you always have to prove the positive, never the negative.
        – – –
        Do note that from Paraguay’s point of view, Formosa and Misiones were always part of its territory and yet they were occupied and kept as provinces of Argentina.
        – – –
        What you claim to “don’t see the relation between the captures and the act of possession” and call “demonization”, is very much part of the discussion of whether Jewett did it for his own purposes and benefit or not. His piracy exposes his character and one must be very naive not to recognise that Jewett did everything for his own purpose, i.e. to enrich himself.
        – – –
        CLopez: “And about the last ship, I really don’t have any info on it. These last two ships are not addressed in his report.”

        Jewett murdering 2 officers and 4 crew members. p. 252 in the pdf, left coloumn: “… o Cammandante da Heroina, David Jeevitt classificon este procedimento da sua tripolacão como hum levantamento, e mandou fuzilar dois Officiaea, e quatro Marinheiros n’hum Domingo de manhã …”

        Source: The official Portuguese “Diário do Governo”, Issues 77-151, Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa, p. 752ff (p. 251ff in the .pdf file) “Noticias nacioães, Lisboa 6 de Maio [1822]”

    • Don Alberto September 25, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

      Dear CLopez, did you overlook:

      Towards the close of 1820 [Jewett is the captain], the American schooner: The captain of the privateer afterwards had two officers and four sailors SHOT.”.

      1820: “chased the PORTUGUESE brig, Infante Don Sebastian, firing at her, but being unable to come up with her, they chased a PORTUGUESE galley to leeward, and the captain having come on board the Heroina, near Cape St. Vincents, accompanied by a slave, the pirates had the latter hung up to compel him to declare WHERE HIS MASTER KEPT HIS MONEY.” [Jewett is the captain]

      Clear acts of piracy and according to CLopez the Buenos Aires government’s decree shows that these acts were approved by the government.


      On another note.

      It seems to me, that Argentinos have a severe bias in the question of sovereignity, as in:

      Paraguay started a war in which we conquered the Formosa and Misiones provinces. Argentina won the war, so they are ours.

      Argentina started a war in which we lost the Falkland Islands. Argentina lost the war, so they are ours.

      A case of ‘they are ours, because they are ours, because they are ours’.

  5. alister mac intyre September 23, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    the JAPSand the CHINCS are fighting over some islands shouldent theARGIES have a claim’

  6. Bloke September 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Hmmm, didn’t President Kirchner complain at the C24 about the Falklands flag flying from 10 downing street on the anniversary of the Argentine surrender this year?

    Hilarious episode of Argentine hypocrisy and a telling insight into their national psyche. The British government commemorates a liberation and Argentina complains…then Argentina celebrates a glorious (if shortlived) invasion and subjugation of defenceless populace.

    It’s almost like they’re TRYING to make themselves look stupid and malevolent.

  7. CLopez October 8, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Lordton, did you delete some of the comments? I believe we had a pending conversation here… and I see my post quoting the decree and its source is gone.

    • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 3:01 am #

      Yes – I’m having a problem with the web site. There was a comment showing up on the counter but I couldn’t find it so I eliminated blocks until it was gone. Sadly it hasn’t solved all the problems. Some kind of glitch which is preventing me uploading photos and adding tags. Never mind, after the 4th Committee meeting I shall be moving on to pastures new.

      I think this fight is won 🙂

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 3:43 am #

        Maybe I spoke too soon. The glitch appears to have partially resolved itself. A WordPress issue perhaps. Still, providing the UN doesn’t shock us all and come up with a new Resolution, this news blog will slow down to just report the unusual, rather than repeat itself year in and year out. All comments will be tidied up. After all – it is my blog 🙂

        Hasta la vista – as Arnie would say.

        If I get any news on your suspicious decree I’ll let you know.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: