United Nations debates the Falkland Islands

9 Oct

At the annual meeting of the United Nations Fourth Committee yesterday a number of issue concerning Decolonization were considered including the Falkland Islands. A number of speakers representing South American countries and Organisation reiterated their support for Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

SÉRGIO RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS ( Brazil), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and associated States asked that the dispute be settled as soon as possible in accordance with United Nations resolutions. Five decades had elapsed without a solution to the dispute, and negotiations should resume between Argentina and the United Kingdom.

OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin-American and Caribbean States (CELAC), reaffirmed its support for the decolonization process. Along those lines, he reaffirmed the Community’s strong support for the legitimate rights of Argentina, and called upon both parties to resume negotiations and to find a peaceful and definitive solution as soon as possible. 

ENRIQUE ROMÁN-MOREY (Peru), speaking in Peru’s capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), stated that the question of the Falkland Islands, a case of special importance to UNASUR, had historic and legal circumstances that excluded the possibility to solve it under the exercise of the principle of self-determination.

MATEO ESTREME ( Argentina) called the persistence of colonial cases in all its manifestations “a crime” and reaffirmed the strong commitment of Argentina to fully achieve the decolonization mandate.  However, resolution 1514 made it clear that there existed more than one form of colonialism and it established two principles to address the diversity of cases:  self-determination and territorial integrity.  The principle of self-determination could not be distorted to such an extent as to force an argument in favour of the continued existence of an “anachronistic colonial sovereignty dispute, which mutilates the territorial integrity of Argentina”.  Mr. Estreme stated that there was in fact a “colonial situation”, but not a “colonized people”.  To allow the British population on the Islands to become the arbiter of a dispute to which their own country “distorts the right of self-determination of peoples because there is not a people subject to the subjugation, domination or exploitation of a colonial Power”.  In that sense, the announced “referendum” was an “illegal, spurious and tautological exercise as it is promoted by the British to ask the British citizens if they want to continue to be British”.  Argentina regretted that the British Government distorted historic facts instead of honouring its commitment to resume efforts to find a just and lasting solution to the dispute.  The principle of self-determination of peoples was totally and clearly inapplicable to the dispute between the two countries. Further, he said, it was regrettable that the United Kingdom was irresponsibly generating expectations among the inhabitants of the Territory by a referendum.  The solution to that sovereignty dispute did not depend on a referendum. 

The representative of the United Kingdom stated that her country attached great importance to the principle of self-determination.  There could be no negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands until the inhabitants of the islands wished.  The United Kingdom’s relationship with its overseas Territories was a modern one.  The democratically elected representatives of the Falklands Islands had asked the Special Committee to respect the principle of self-determination and reiterated the historical fact that the Islands had no indigenous people.  They confirmed that the Falklands Islands had been peacefully settled over a century and a half by their ancestors and they had no desire other than to be left to live in peace. She said the representatives had also expressed their disappointment after the President of Argentina had refused their invitation to meet and listen to their views. 

The Fourth Committee’s deliberations continue later today.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gaspd504.doc.htm

87 Responses to “United Nations debates the Falkland Islands”

  1. lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 4:15 am #

    Looks like next year’s referendum has got Argentina rattled🙂

    • Don Alberto October 9, 2012 at 4:45 am #

      Of course the referendum has Argentina rattled, she has a real problem with the UN,

      It is not difficult to see what wold happen to the indigenous people of the Falkland Islands, were they to become Argentine.

      “UN calls on Argentina to stop eviction of indigenous peoples from their lands” http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/19/un-calls-on-argentina-to-stop-eviction-of-indigenous-peoples-from-their-lands

      Definition: Indigenous peoples, the original peoples of a region.

      • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

        Great, now you’re trying to redefine “indigenous people”…

        Do you realize you’re just doing rhetorics? And sinister ones…

      • Don Alberto October 9, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

        My dear CLopez, this is the STANDARD definition: Indigenous peoples, the original peoples of a region.

        In case you have another, you are very much alone with it.

      • Don Alberto October 11, 2012 at 2:49 am #

        Clematys write:

        “For the islanders to become ‘a people’, you’ll need to come back here in a few centuries time, perhaps, a big perhaps, then you you may be able to call them ethnic malvineros.”

        Tell me, do ethnic Argentinos exist?

        Tell me, how long does it take to become ethnic ?

        Tell me, how long has Argentina existed?

        – Argentina, mind you, not the colony owned by Spain and not the many separate provinces and petty states fighting each other in a prolonged civil war, lasting until the Battle of Pavón in 1861.

        Explain the (strongly biased) difference in perception.

  2. Clematys October 9, 2012 at 7:30 am #

    “The UK attaches great importance to the principle of self-determination”.

    Really????????????

    Is that the reason why it expelled the Chagossian islanders from their homeland? Is that the reason why it is to this very day preventing their return?

    The UK is a sad joke and a failed State, and is creating big problems for the future of the population of the Malvinas. Today’s anachronistic problems will seem trivial in the future, and all because the UK insists in keeping colonial holdings where they don’t belong.

    • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 7:45 am #

      But so much better than being a ‘Banana Republic’.

      The Falkland Islanders will go from strength to strength.

      Argentina cannot change that.

    • Don Alberto October 9, 2012 at 9:31 am #

      The expulsion of the Chagos islanders, which happened 40 (forty) years ago, is indeed a black spot on British colonial history, no doubt about that.

      Argentine sovereignity over the Falkland Islands is also against the will of the population.

      Does two wrongs make a right?

      Besides: “David Cameron to discuss Chagos Islands sovereignty with Mauritius” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/david-cameron-chagos-islands-mauritius – the Chagos question is now getting closer to a solution.

      The Chagos question also poses a problem for Argentine malvinistas.

      If the people from the Chagos atolls is an indigenous population, then the Falkland Islanders also constitute an indigenous population, as neither of the island groups had a population before the first Europeans arrived.

      The UK may be a failed State.

      Tell me, Clematys, what is the real inflation level in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

      – also, what is the GDP per inhabitant in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

      What does that make Argentina in comparison to the “failed state”?

      • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

        “In 2010, in a move described by Geoffrey Robertson QC, an international constitutional expert and former UN appeal judge, as an “act of environmental imperialism” and by Ramgoolam as “a policy of deceit”, the UK established a 200-mile “marine protected area” around the Chagos.

        The move was exposed by WikiLeaks and the Guardian as the latest ruse to prevent the Chagos islanders from ever returning to their homeland.”

        Reminds me of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area, established Feb 2012…

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

        Apart from the small fact that South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are uninhabited and Argentina has never even established the sort of spurious claim it shouts about for the Falklands.

      • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

        PS: no wonder why you hate Assange so much😉

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

        Assange is suspected of rape. He needs to go and face that charge !

      • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

        Re. “indigenous population”: neither the Falklanders or the Chagossians are indigenous population as it is usually understood; i.e. they were not there before European “colonization”. They both lived on an island for 200 years; in one case the British expelled the families, in the other one the British refuse to even talk about sovereignty (and nobody is saying anything about expelling a population, on the contrary). Double standards.

        As such, without indigenous people self-determination is ruled out, and territorial integrity should be considered.

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

        You are wrong. Britain is quite prepared to talk about sovereignty with the only other legal claimants – the Falkland Islanders.

      • Don Alberto October 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

        My dear CLopez, the Chagos incident happened 40 (forty) years ago. Much has changed in the world since then – and the error is about to be redressed, as shown in the article I linked to.

      • Don Alberto October 9, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

        The term “indigenous” has nothing to do with European colonization.

        As we all know, the indigenous people of Argentina were victims of a genocide, called “el blancheado”, primarily performed by Julio Argentino Roca (El Asesino) following debates in the Argentine congress, where the expression ‘exterminación’ was used.

        The people of the Chagos atoll were not butchered by the British.

      • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

        Don Alberto, the expulsion was 40 years ago, but the people were there long before… some of them since the 18th century. Whether or not you’re going to redeem yourselves is yet to be seen –Wikileaks cables suggest otherwise. But we’ll see.

        Regarding “el blancheado” (I’ve never heard of that expression, to be honest), we’re also getting there with respect to indigenous’ rights. Still, we are very aware of our crimes, which incidentally happened through THE WHOLE CONTINENT and was initiated by SPAIN, BRITAIN, FRANCE, etc. We merely continued YOUR work, if you think about it.

        Pointing at someone else’s fault when they criticize yours it’s plainly childish… besides, you really don’t want us to start talking about all the crimes of the Empire throughout the globe…

      • Clematys October 9, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

        Don Alberto, the principle of self-determination cannot be applied to either the expelled population of the Chagos or the South Atlantic islands, because neither are ‘a people’, but ‘populations’.

        I have mentioned the Chagossians to sarcastically highlight the ‘in your face’ doublespeak and double standards applied by the UK.

        The UK is trying to avoid negotiations over the Chagos islands because it uses them as a strategic geopolitical colonial holding, and this is the exact same motives behind their lies to keep their hands on the South Atlantic islands.

        The UK has never been and will never be interested in the real principle of self-determination. This noble principle is, for them, just a tool to try and manipulate situations or public opinion, according only to their own self-serving interests and convenience.

        The only difference between the Chagos and the Malvinas islanders is that one population descends from British settlers, while the other descends from a different ethnic group. We all know how the British treat what they perceive as a different ethnic group, don’t we?

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

        Please indicate where the right to ‘self-determination’ has been defined or limited in international law. You merely spout Argentina’s opinion. Britain’s opinion is different. The only legal course would be to ask the ICJ for its opinion.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 2:00 am #

        CLopez,

        “Pointing at someone else’s fault when they criticize yours it’s plainly childish”

        You must address this to Clematys – I responded to HIS/HER post about Chagos, which is exactly what you are criticizing.

        “we’re also getting there with respect to indigenous’ rights.”

        Really?

        “UN calls on Argentina to stop eviction of indigenous peoples from their lands”
        http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/19/un-calls-on-argentina-to-stop-eviction-of-indigenous-peoples-from-their-lands

        Well, if evicting indigenous peoples from their lands is “getting there”, then you are right – business as usual.

        “Whether or not you’re going to redeem yourselves is yet to be seen”

        It would interest me to know why you address this “you” and “yourselves” to me.

        At least as far back as the 1680s there are no British ancesters in any part of my family and as far back as the 1440s there are no British ancesters on my father’s side.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 2:13 am #

        Clematys writes: [the people of the Falkland Islands] “descends from British settlers”

        Interesting news. The people of the Falkland Islands descends from Britain, Argentina, Chile, Norway, France, and several other countries, same as the population – not people? – of Argentina.

        Also: “The UK has never been and will never be interested in the real principle of self-determination. This noble principle is, for them, just a tool to try and manipulate situations or public opinion, according only to their own self-serving interests and convenience.”

        Argentina has almost exclusively used the “Malvinas Argentinas” to raise nationalistic fervor when the country was in severe internal trouble.

        The inflation is above 25 per cent: “Malvinas Argentinas!!”

        We are running out of foreign currency: “Malvinas Argentinas!!”

        The country’s resources are mismanaged: “Malvinas Argentinas!!”

        etc.

        For unknown ,-) reasons you forgot to answer my questions:

        The UK may be a failed State.

        Tell me, Clematys, what is the real inflation level in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

        – also, what is the GDP per inhabitant in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

        What does that make Argentina in comparison to the “failed state”?

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 2:26 am #

        Re. negotiations over the Falkland Islands.

        I may be completely wrong, but negotiations, as I understand them, is more or less ‘I give and get something and you give and get something and in the end we agree on a solution’.

        What can Argentina offer, which the Falkland Islanders want?

        As seen from the Falkland Islanders’ point of view, the Argentine proposal would be “we get the islands and you get a completely erratic government, cleptocratic politicians, a very high degree of corruption, mismanagement of resources, a miserable educational system, a much lower standard of living, high inflation, a possible future dictatorship as Argentina is used to with the last one in living memory, … – isn’t that in your best interest?”

        What can Argentina offer, which the Falkland Islanders want?

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 2:53 am #

        Don Alberto, the population of the Malvinas are not ‘a people’, as in ‘colonized indigenous people’. The South Atlantic islands have a population. The principle of self-determination does not apply to populations, otherwise populations everywhere in the World could claim self-determination and the whole World map would change beyond recognition. Self-determination does not work like that. That’s the reason the UN does not apply this principle to the population of the Malvinas.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 4:03 am #

        The principle of self-determination actually applies to ‘peoples’ as laid down by the UN Charter. The peoples of the Falkland Islands therefore have that right. The UN has never denied that the principle of self-determination applies to the Falkland Islanders.

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 3:06 am #

        The vast majority of the population of the Malvinas is ethnically British. There are very few other ethnicities that managed to enter the population pool, in spite of the strict colonial and immigration controls enforced by the British. That’s the reason there are very few Argentinians to this very day.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 4:07 am #

        Immigration is controlled by a UN Resolution.

        1980 – UN Resolution 35/118 adopts a ‘Plan of Action for the Full Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.’
        Annex – 9. ‘Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic composition of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self determination and independence by the people of those Territories.’

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 3:12 am #

        Failed State, as in the case of a State that cannot live in peace with other countries in the World. A State that is constantly in war, and goes around stealing other people’s lands and natural resources.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 4:10 am #

        A failed state is a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. The definition of a failed state according to the Fund for Peace is often used to characterize a failed state:
        loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
        erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
        an inability to provide public services
        an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community

        Hmm .. sounds a little like Argentina ?
        A failure as regards the Falklands🙂

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 4:07 am #

        Clematys,

        “A State that … goes around stealing other people’s lands and natural resources.”

        How come Argentina isn’t Spanish anymore?

        What did the Argentinos do?

        If we are to follow the Argentine view of the falkland Islands, then this is a case of the armed robber complaining of being robbed of part of his booty.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 4:12 am #

        Argentina attempted to ‘steal’ the Falklands in 1829 (by Decree), 1832 (by use of an armed force) and 1982 (by invasion).

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 4:15 am #

        Clematys,

        “There are very few other ethnicities that managed to enter the population pool”

        Some of the Falkland islanders descend from the settlers Luis Vernet brought in 1829.

        They were not expelled, as the official Argentine lie tells, of the civilians only two Uruguayanos and two Brasileros left, all the other settlers preferrred to stay under British rule.

        From the Pinedo trial (note the Argentino author): Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas

        On the Falkland Islands you’ll find a not inconsiderable number of South Americans, e.g. Chilenos.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 4:45 am #

        Clematys write: “The principle of self-determination does not apply to populations, otherwise populations everywhere in the World could claim self-determination and the whole World map would change beyond recognition.”

        Not only has the whole World map changed beyond recognition within the last century, but presently we are awaiting plebiscites in Cataluña this year and in Scotland (2014).

        It may interest you to watch this “Time-Lapse of Europe”, showing perpetual changes

        the whole map is changing beyond recognition.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 4:56 am #

        Regarding “el blancheado”

        in the 1880s Domingo Sarmiento prodly wrote that the banners of the African nations that one used to see at the old carnival celebrations now had been replaced by the flags of the various French, Italian and Spanish clubs and societies.

        (George Reid Andrews: “The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires: 1890-1900”, University of Wisconsin Press, 1980, p. 106)

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 11:44 am #

        Don Alberto, both Catalonia and Scotland are recognised nations and have their own ethnic ‘peoples’. The South Atlantic islands don’t have a people, but a population made of descendants of British people and a few other ethnicities.

        For the islanders to become ‘a people’, you’ll need to come back here in a few centuries time, perhaps, a big perhaps, then you you may be able to call them ethnic malvineros.

        The World map changes of course, but not always because of self-determination. This principle, I repeat, cannot be applied in every case, otherwise the World map would change beyond recognition. Even in the UK, certain pockets of population could just declare independence or allegiance to another nation according to your interpretation of self-determination, and hey presto…

        It doesn’t work like that. That’s the reason the UN will never apply this concept to the case of the Malvinas.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

        Never ?? The peoples of the Falkland Islands have been there for over 180 years. Time enough.

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

        Don Alberto, the living descendants of Louis Vernet reside in Argentina, and their history documents the expulsion of the Argentinian population, and subsequent replacement with British settlers. Do you really think the British would let the Argentines stay? Do you really think the World will buy into this concocted story? Look at what they have done to the Chagossians just a few decades ago. In the 1830s it was thousands of times worse, at the height of the British empire, ethnic cleansing was a widely accepted practice in Britain, all in the name of the empire.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

        The descendents of Vernet’s employees are there now. There was no expulsion. The historical record clearly proves that. The only concocted story is that which Argentine shouts. The world does not believe them, which is why the Falklands are still British.

      • Clematys October 10, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

        Argentina isn’t Spanish anymore because they have fought against Spanish rule and declared independence.

      • lordton1955 October 10, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

        Correct – but this has nothing to do with the Falklands. The Spanish claim lasted until 1863 at which time Spain recognised British sovereignty.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

        Clematys, if you don’t read Spanish let me know, I shall then translate the text in the official Argentine document I linked to – the one which lists the only 4 (four) South American settlers who chose to leave, when the British regained command over the Falkland Islands.

      • Don Alberto October 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

        Clematys, present day Argentina is no longer Spanish, because the people who lived there stole it at gun point – exactly what Argentina is accusing Britain of doing in the Falkland dispute.

        Had you known your own history in detail, you would have known that Argentina ceded the Falkland islands to britain in the peace treaty of 1850, something which was confirmed by the Argentine presidents Mitre and Sarmiento in 1865 and 1869 and by vicepresident Paz in 1866.

        This has been documented several times on this site (and elsewhere) – again using official Argentine sources.

      • CLopez October 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

        Don Alberto, “Some of the Falkland islanders descend from the settlers Luis Vernet brought in 1829” — please tell me who! How many of them? I’m trying to find this information, and so far I believe your statement is incorrect.

        “only 4 (four) South American settlers who chose to leave” — you are incorrect, settlers can be military officers and prisoners, there’s no reason why they have to be civilians only. Think about the Spanish ones that settled the islands from 1770s–1811, think about the prisoners sent to Australia, etc.

      • lordton1955 October 11, 2012 at 12:20 am #

        The garrison was a security force, not a settlement. They were sent in an attempt by BA to impose its authority on the Falklands. Hardly settlers. There was a penal colony at Soledad; not a settlement as such. The penal colony at Botony Bay only became a settlement when it prisoners were released.

      • Don Alberto October 11, 2012 at 1:39 am #

        Golly! why didn’t I think of that?

        What happened in April 1982 wasn’t an invasion, it was a settlement, was it? and the Argentine navy just helped moving them there.

        While military personel can be part of a settlement, as has been seen on many occasions, they are there as an occupation force, in this case 9 of them mutinied and murdered their Captain, Mestivier, 30 November 1832.

        Pinedo himself in his logbook distinguished clearly between militaty personel “tropa”, settlers “peones” and “Individuos de la isla” and prisoner “el preso”. Quite naturally the British expulsed the occupying armed forces and what was left of the penal colony in 1833, same as it’s done everywhere when you retake your possession. You are pretty far out with this feeble suggestion.

        As for who and how many, about a year ago I read a list given by one of the islanders, it summarised known descendents of the Vernet settlers, don’t remember who she or he was, and I didn’t save it as it was of no interest to me. Today I should have to spend many hours to locate it again. I suggest you ask the Falkland administration or locate and contact an amateur genealogist on the islands.

      • Don Alberto October 11, 2012 at 1:53 am #

        CLopez, you may start here: http://falklandia.com/YForum/YaBB.pl?board=general as this is a forum for Falkland islanders (and the usual number of brainwashed Argentinos).

      • Don Alberto October 11, 2012 at 2:15 am #

        Clematys,

        “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” is not my definition, it is ingrained in “Charter Of The United Nations And Statute Of The International Court Of Justice – San Francisco, 1945” Chapter I – Purposes And Principles.

        The Falkland Islands have their own ethnic ‘peoples’, quite different from Argentinos.

        You may as well say that Argentina doesn’t have a people, but a population made of descendants of Spanish and Italian people and a few other ethnicities.

        “Even in the UK …” Yes, IN the UK, but the Falkland Islands are in no way IN Argentina, they are more than 400 km away. Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brasil and Uruguay are much closer – why don’t you try to claim their territory?

        After all, you have already stolen the Formosa and Misiones provinces from Paraguay using armed force.

        As usual this cleptocratic Argentine bias:
        We WON the war so Formosa and Misiones are ours.
        We LOST the war so the Falkland Islands are ours.

      • CLopez October 12, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

        “Peones” means “pawns, workers”, not settlers. Mestivier was not their captain, but the new Military and Civil Commander of the Malvinas and Staten Island, a charge to which Vernet had renounced. That’s why presenting Pinedo expedition as an “invasion” is ill-intended: it was a continuation of Vernet’s settlement, which dated several years.

      • lordton1955 October 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

        When did Vernet renounce?? Any proof ?? Sending an armed force in place of a peaceful settlement that already had British permission was an invasion. There is no other word.

      • Don Alberto October 13, 2012 at 1:29 am #

        Clematys writes:

        “the principle of self-determination cannot be applied to either the expelled population of the Chagos or the South Atlantic islands, because neither are ‘a people’, but ‘populations’.” and

        “the population of the Malvinas are not ‘a people’, as in ‘colonized indigenous people’. The South Atlantic islands have a population.”

        The official title of the UN decolonisation committee is:

        “The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial COUNTRIES and PEOPLES.”

        http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/specialcommittee.shtml

        If the Falkland Islands situation belongs under this committee, then the committee acknowledges them as a country, a people, or both.

      • Don Alberto October 13, 2012 at 1:43 am #

        CLopez writes: “Peones” means “pawns, workers”, not settlers.”

        In the document from the Pinedo trial, the title ONLY mentions “la TROPA, SUS FAMILIAS y PEONES de la isla de Malvinas”, so if you are right, there weren’t any settlers on the island at all when Clio arrived.

      • Don Alberto October 13, 2012 at 1:50 am #

        Outstanding questions, which are still waiting for an answer.

        Set 1:

        Do ethnic Argentinos exist?

        How many years does it take to become “ethnic”?

        How many years has Argentina existed?

        How many years have the Falkland Islands been inhabited under British sovereignty?

        (By “Argentina” is meant THE COUNTRY, not the colony owned by Spain and not the many separate provinces and petty states fighting each other in a prolonged civil war, lasting until the Battle of Pavón in 1861.)

        Explain the (strongly biased) difference in perception.
        – – – – – – – – – – – –
        Set 2:

        The UK may be a failed State.

        What is the real inflation level in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

        What is the GDP per inhabitant in Argentina, on the Falkland Islands and in the UK?

        What does that make Argentina in comparison to the “failed state”?
        – – – – – – – – – – – –

        Set 3:

        What can Argentina offer, which the Falkland Islanders want?

      • CLopez October 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

        Don Alberto, they were ALL settlers, that’s my point. Also, you’re not entitled to define our nationality: we are the only ones that can define how and when we “were born” as a country, because we are the only ones to which this is important. It would be like me saying that there’s no continuity and relation between England and the United Kingdom. Nonsense.

        “Please indicate where the right to ‘self-determination’ has been defined or limited in international law”

        The very same UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) says: “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
        http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement

        “Argentina attempted to ‘steal’ the Falklands in 1829 (by Decree), 1832 (by use of an armed force) and 1982 (by invasion)” / “Sending an armed force in place of a peaceful settlement that already had British permission was an invasion.”

        Usual rubbish (pardon me) trying to deny the fact that Vernet’s settlement had an Argentine flag and celebrated Argentine holidays.

      • Don Alberto October 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

        So you claim, CLopez, that the United Kingdom was the United Kingdom when they were separate kingdoms – interesting suggestion and complete nonsense.

        This follows from your claim that Argentina existed as a nationality, even though the separate regions of present day Argentina were ruled by caudillos and/or one of the three competing and warring factions (Unitarios, Federalistas and Buenos Aires Federalistas) and although it was split in Liga Federal = Unión de los Pueblos Libres, Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (Uruguay + Bolivia + half of present day Argentina), Primer federalismo cordobés, República de Entre Ríos, Liga Unitaria = Liga del Interior, Liga del Litoral, Confederación Argentina and Estado de Buenos Aires. Nonsense.

        When you write: “you’re not entitled to define our nationality” I’ll take you on your word, which means that when the Falkland islanders say they are a people, then they ARE a PEOPLE, and if they say they are a country they ARE a Country, as you are not entitled to define their nationality.

      • Don Alberto October 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

        CLopez writes: “The very same UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) says: “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.””

        When do you stop trying to disrupt the national unity and close ties between the UK and the Falkland Islands?

      • Don Alberto October 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

        CLopez, I think you should listen to this speech in C24. It is precisely in line with the position of the Falkland Islands vs. Argentina, especially as regards Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – in the speech, replace “Spain” with “Argentina”.

        http://webtv.un.org/watch/fourth-committee-3rd-meeting-67th-general-assembly/1889626362001

      • lordton1955 October 16, 2012 at 12:21 am #

        Invaders are not settlers !

        Vernet’s settlement was there with British permission as outlined in the 1825 Treaty. And Vernet is recorded as having flown the Union Jack too – a man who hedged his bets ??

      • Don Alberto October 19, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

        CLopez writes: “Don Alberto, they were ALL settlers, that’s my point.”

        Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, is it not strange, then, that Manuel Moreno in his complaint of 1833 writes:

        “the crew of the British sloop-of-war Clio, commanded by Captain Onslow, … unceremoniously and forcibly took possession of the Malvinas, tore down the glorious standard of liberty which floated on its rightful pinnacles, compelled the ship-of-war Sarandi, belonging to the republic, and stationed off the islands, to depart, and expelled the garrison and colonists; who arrived at Buenos Ayres on the fifteenth of the same month, to narrate this unprovoked and unexampled infringement of the rights of nations to their astonished and almost incredulous countrymen!”

        “expelled the GARRISON and COLONISTS” – didn’t Moreno know what he was talking about?

      • lordton1955 October 19, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

        The garrison and their hangers on were NOT settlers. They were there to secure BA’s pretensions. They would likely have then been withdrawn. BA did not have the resources at that time to establish and maintain a permanent garrison.

      • Don Alberto October 19, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

        As regards arbitration.

        When the UK in 1955 unilaterally brought the Falkland dependencies dispute before the International Court of Justice, Argentina beforehand rejected the arbitration by ICJ.

        The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Public Worship of Argentina to the Registrar, set out in a letter to the Registrar of August 1st, 1955, from the Ambassador of Argentina to the Netherlands, it is stated:

        “… the Argentine Government has several times had occasion to indicate in notes addressed to Her Britannic Majesty’s Embassy in Buenos Aires that it cannot consent to the question of sovereignity over the Antarctic territories of Argentina which it is sought to raise being referred for decision to any international Court of justice or Arbitration Tribunal. By this present note, my Government reaffirms its refusal in the most express way with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court and with regard to any possibility that it should be seised as such to deal with this case”

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/2157.pdf?PHPSESSID=511094a6c0e1ba7bbbd2a83f9c3c9e36

        One may argue that Argentina’s position is understandable, as the UK brought the dependencies dispute alone before the ICJ.

        What is important in the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Public Worship of Argentina, however, is not Argentina’s refusal, but what Argentina’s letter to the Registrar does NOT say.

        Argentina did not suggest to include – or separately request – the Falklands dispute to be settled by the ICJ.

      • Don Alberto October 19, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

        The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a forum on decolonization

        “It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.”

        http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says
        http://www.un.org/sg/statements/?nid=4547

  3. Robin Goodwin October 9, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    “MATEO ESTREME ( Argentina) called the persistence of colonial cases in all its manifestations “a crime” and reaffirmed the strong commitment of Argentina to fully achieve the decolonization mandate. ”
    #
    So it is a crime to be an Islander but in Argentines eyes not a crime to come to our country and provoke the killing of inocent people from all sides and turn our lives upside down.
    The Falkland islanders have total rights to determine their own future and if we want to remain British so be it we will.
    It is also very interesting to see that any Falkland Islaner who comments on these issues are totally ignored by Argentines because they refuse to talk directly to us. It is like talking behind ones back in their case. How childish is that.
    Falkland Islanders are a proud people and are not afraid to tell the world how proud to be British we all are. We are also willing to talk to the Argentines on any subject of economic developments but NOT our Sovereignty . We don’t challange Argentinas existance even though we know they took their land from an indigenous people.

    • CLopez October 9, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

      Hi Robin, of course we can talk😉

      Argentine government doesn’t want to talk to FI government because that would be some kind of acknowledgment as an independent nation, something that (for now) you are not.

      You don’t have to lose your British citizenship or the freedoms you have now in order to come to a compromise solution. I understand that you were “brainwashed” or incorporated into a nationality since you were a kid, like we all have been. But you need to acknowledge that your presence on those islands doesn’t emanate from any lawful right.

      • lordton1955 October 9, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

        ‘Brainwashed’ from an Argentine – love it🙂

      • Lindsay October 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

        “”I understand that you were “brainwashed” or incorporated into a nationality since you were a kid,””

        Now that is funny.

      • Deanstreet October 11, 2012 at 3:08 am #

        CLopez,

        you’d better understand that yes for all intents and purposes we are independent..

        If you want to talk, I agree with Robin – we’ll talk about anything except sovereignty..

        How’s the weather with you..?
        Getting a bit hot..?

        By the way, sooner or later your government will have to talk with ours (FIG)…

        You can’t keep running from it…

        Brainwashed..? I think you’d best come and visit us to find out…

        When are you going to try the legal route in your attempt to steal my country and my home..?

        You do know what I mean by the “legal route” – I mean the United nations International Court of Justice…
        Or will you run again, like you did in the 1940s and the 1950s when the UK tried to get you to settle your South Georgia/Sandwich etc islands claim..

        I suspect you will not, because you’d have to have your beliefs fully investigated – “and argentina can’t again be exposed as a fraud”, can it..?

        Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands

      • CLopez October 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

        Lindsay & Deanstreet, religion and nationality are forced into us when we are children… if you don’t know that then I feel sorry for you.

        Deanstreet stop lying, we all know that the UK is the one running away from court. In the 40s and 50s, as you said, the Falklands were out of the question. In 1880’s and 1910’s we got tired of proposing arbitration…

        I repeat: you’re not a country (yet), just an “overseas territory” (aka 21st century colony)

      • lordton1955 October 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

        There was no official proposal for arbitration at any time. Please produce the diplomatic note addressing this if you believe otherwise.

        ‘Yet’ is correct

      • CLopez October 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

        Oh and the weather is lovely🙂

        I’m sure it’s getting better for you too. We have that in common, opposed to northern climate😉

  4. Deanstreet October 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Perhaps clopez you’d like to provide an element of proof, to back up your:

    “Deanstreet stop lying, we all know that the UK is the one running away from court. In the 40s and 50s, as you said, the Falklands were out of the question. In 1880′s and 1910′s we got tired of proposing arbitration…”

    So how about it clopez, can you provide the evidence..?
    I dare you to provide evidence…!

    Or, will you be like the usual poster all gas and nothing else – a windbag..

    Provide the evidence please…

    Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands

    • Lindsay October 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

      Hmm, I don’t seem to recall discussing religion with anybody. Care to elaborate?

      • CLopez October 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

        Lindsay, you may start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

        Religion and nationality are the kind of things we are teached “to love” and even “to give our life for” when we are kids. If you control the educational system, you get to decide the children’s nationality feelings.

    • CLopez October 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

      E.g. in 1888, Foreign Minister Quirno Costa made explicit proposals for arbitration to British diplomats in Buenos Aires. They were ignored.

      • Deanstreet October 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

        clopez,

        now why is is that you cannot provide hard and factual evidence to back up your claim of arbitration in the 1880s..

        Additionally, if what you say is correct, then why did argentina stop requesting arbitration..?

        Supply the documentary evidence please…

        Now whilst you mentioned it, why hasn’t argentina used the International Court of arbitration which was formed in 1923, then in 1945 the United Nations International Court of Justice..?

        So again, for the last 90 years why hasn’t argentina used the courts – especially when “argentina has such a very strong case”..?

        Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands

      • lordton1955 October 16, 2012 at 12:20 am #

        Or even the first Court of Arbitration ??

        1899 – the Permanent Court of Arbitration is established by the ‘Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes’, concluded at The Hague during the first Hague Peace Conference.
        Convened on the initiative of Czar Nicolas II of Russia; “with the object of seeking the most objective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments.”

      • lordton1955 October 16, 2012 at 12:21 am #

        Please supply a copy of the official Diplomatic Note.

      • CLopez October 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

        “Documentary evidence”?? Yes, I have it right in front of my eyes, give me your address Deandstreet and Lordton and I’ll send it to you.

        Irony aside, just google “1888 Foreign Minister Quirno Costa” and you can find your answer.

        Deanstreet, we never stopped requesting dialogue, but the UK wouldn’t even speak about the subject, let alone go to court.

      • lordton1955 October 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

        Produce the Diplomatic Note. Come one – evidence is required !!

      • Don Alberto October 18, 2012 at 1:51 am #

        CLopez writes: “we all know that the UK is the one running away from court. In the 40s and 50s, as you said, the Falklands were out of the question. In 1880′s and 1910′s we got tired of proposing arbitration”

        Why doesn’t the UK consider arbitration?

        Because there is no reason to expect that, after a lenghty and costly arbitration process, Argentina will abide by it.

        Why? because:

        Beagle Channel Arbitration

        On 22 July 1971 Salvador Allende and Alejandro Lanusse, the Presidents of Chile and Argentina, signed an arbitration agreement. This agreement related to their dispute over the territorial and maritime boundaries between them, and in particular the title to the Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands near the extreme end of the American continent, which was submitted to binding arbitration under the auspices of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

        On 2 May 1977 the court ruled that the islands belonged to Chile. On 25 January 1978 Argentina repudiated the arbitration decision and on 22 December 1978 started (and a few hours later aborted) military action to invade both those islands and continental Chile.

        Report and decision of the Court of Arbitration: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf (arbitration agreement of 1971 on p. 64)

      • Don Alberto October 18, 2012 at 2:05 am #

        CLopez writes: “Irony aside, just google “1888 Foreign Minister Quirno Costa” and you can find your answer.”

        I did and there was no answer, only Roberto C. Laver’s secondary source “The Falklands-Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute”, which I have already read. No documentation (the text of the alleged protest), only Laver’s claim.

        Show us the alleged protest itself – the actual text, preferably in both Spanish and English.

      • CLopez October 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        Both of you, I don’t have it and I don’t need to, because there are several authors stating that. Between published historians and two unknown British-biased individuals hidden behind a nickname claiming that the published historians are liars –well, excuse me if I laugh. Still, it would interesting to find the document, so if I get it I’ll let you know.

        Don Alberto, the Beagle arbitration is a perfect example of how we respect arbitration. Have you seen an Argentinean map lately? Have you heard any complaint about the dispute lately? (you’re citing events in the 70s). In the 90’s we also put an end to the dispute about Laguna del Desierto. Those are closed chapter in the Argentina-Chile relationship, and that’s why they can now stand by us regarding the Malvinas issue.

      • lordton1955 October 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

        No evidence then ??

      • Don Alberto October 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

        Hilarious, CLopez! argument by appeal to authority

        and ad hominem: “two unknown British-biased individuals hidden behind a nickname” from an unknown Argentine-biased individual hidden behind a nickname = pot, kettle, black.

        On the reliability of published historians.

        I once spent a whole week checking quotes and notes in a published work, which took a considerable part of its contents from quotes in other published works. The lesson from that exercise is that one must use primary sources whenever possible.

        An example re. the Falkland Islands dispute and the reliability of published historians:

        The Duke of Wellington’s remark.

        Freedman: “The Official History of the Falklands, Vol. 1”, p. 9:

        “Having perused the papers in 1829, the Duke of Wellington as Prime Minister remarked that it was not clear to him ‘that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of these Islands.’[7]”

        [7] Peter Beck: “The Anglo-Argentine Dispute Over Title to the Falkland Islands: Changing British Perceptions on Sovereignty since 1910” from the (generally pro-Argentine) ‘Millennium: Journal of International Studies’, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 18.

        i.e. Freedman had not read the Duke of Wellington’s remark himself, only Peter Beck’s reference.
        – – – – –
        Peter Beck: “The Anglo-Argentine Dispute …”:

        “the Duke of Wellington, the Prime Minister, was unimpressed by the British claim. Thus he wrote, in July 1829 that ‘I have perused the papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.’ [67]

        [67]. Note by Wellington, 25 July 1829, in ‘Correspondence and Memoranda of the Duke of Wellington’, Vol. 6 (London 1877), p. 41

        This remark is quoted as if the Duke of Wellington only wrote one single sentence.
        Freedman never read it himself, he just quotes Beck.

        Wellington’s remark is taken out of context.
        ————————————————-
        Lowell S. Gustafson, “The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands”, p. 32
        – quoting Peter Beck, same as Freedman above.

        Out of context.
        ————————————————-
        What really happened re. the Duke of Wellington:

        1829 July 23rd, the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, writes to the British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington:

        “It appears to me that the interval between the cessation of the power of old Spain and the consolidation of that of the new governments in South America would be the best time for our resuming our former possession of the Falkland Islands…. I have not spoken with Lord Melville on the subject, but I believe he is very sensible of the importance in the naval point of view of the occupation of those islands.”

        1829 July 25th The Duke of Wellington RESPONDS:

        “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”

        Wellington continues his remark, ending with:

        “That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King’s acknowledged right of sovereignty. I think that this is all that can be done at present. It will have the effect of impeding any settlement or cession by Buenos Ayres and as we may suppose that the French and Americans will hear of this communication they will not be disposed to act in contravention to it unless determined upon a quarrel with this country.” [N001]

        1829 July 28th, Sir Herbert Jenner’s legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.” [N002] Farewell to “not clear to him”.

        [N001] Note by Wellington, 25 July 1829, in ‘Correspondence and Memoranda of the Duke of Wellington’, Vol. 6 (London 1877), p. 41

        [N002] International Law Opinions, Cambridge 1956, quoted in R. Ware: “The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands 1984”, 1984.

      • CLopez October 19, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

        Don Alberto, although I can’t understand what you see wrong in the quotations by secondary authors of your example, I do get your point. I guess I shall dig for the original source for you; I’ll let you know when I have it. Laver’s book should point to it in the footnotes at the end of that chapter.

        Regarding the arbitration and Res. 502, you’re talking about a military government which we despise. As I said, in the 90s we submitted to an arbitration with Chile and accepted the outcome. None of the democratic governments that followed challenged the agreement reached with Chile regarding the Beagle conflict, and I believe that that agreement is pretty close to the “rejected” arbitration ruling (correct me if I’m wrong).

        And we are definitely not repeating the sad stunt of 1982..

  5. Don Alberto October 18, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    CLopez writes: “the Beagle arbitration is a perfect example of how we respect arbitration.”

    Pouting Argentina repudiated the arbitration decision and on 22 December 1978 STARTED (and a few hours later aborted) MILITARY ACTION TO INVADE both those islands and continental Chile.

    In a way one must regret that Argentina did not attack Chile. That would almost certainly have prevented the Falklands war in 1982, because it is very doubtful if Chile, in possession of all of Patagonia, would have attacked the islands.

  6. google.com July 2, 2014 at 8:50 am #

    I rarely write comments, however i did a few searching
    and wound up here United Nations debates the Falkland Islands | Falklands News.

    And I actually do have a few questions for you if
    you do not mind. Is it just me or does it look like some of
    these comments come across as if they are written by brain dead people?😛 And, if you are writing at additional places, I’d like to keep up
    with everything fresh you have to post. Would
    you make a list of every one of all your communal sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

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: