Clutching at Straws

9 Dec

Mercopress reported this week that the Presidents meeting at the MERCOSUR summit in Brasilia had rejected the anticipated 2013 referendum by the Falkland Islanders on their future. The news report also stated that the United Nations had rejected the concept of self-determination for the people of the Falklands in 1985.

This is the second time in recent weeks that Argentina has made a claim that the right of a people to determine their own future, as enshrined in the UN Charter in 1945, was dismissed in 1985. Which would have been, on the face of it, a flagrant breach of the principles underlying the United Nations Organisation and its founding Treaty.

However the UN General Assembly did, in 1985, issue a Resolution on the Falklands Question –

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and having received the report of the Secretary-General,

Awareof the interest of the international community in the peaceful and definitive settlement by the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all their differences, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Taking note of the interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in normalising their relations,

Convinced that such purpose would be facilitated by a global negotiation between both Governments that will allow them to rebuild mutual confidence on a solid basis and to resolve the pending problems, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

1. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made in paragraph 1 above, and to take the necessary measures to that end:

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-first session a report on the progress made in the
implementation of the present resolution;

4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-first session the item entitled “Question of the Falkland Islands

This Resolution (40/21) twice uses the phrase; “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” and contains no mention of removing the right to self-determination from the Islanders. So what is Argentina talking about when it makes the bold statement, supported by its neighbours in MERCOSUR, that the UN has taken the Falklander’s right to self-determination away?

Enlightenment appears in the UN Yearbook for 1985, where two failed Amendments, proposed by the UK, are mentioned.

‘The Assembly rejected, by recorded votes requested by Argentina, two amendments proposed by the United Kingdom. By 60 votes to 38, with 43 abstentions, it rejected a proposal to insert a new second preambular paragraph, by which the Assembly would have reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination and “by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Another proposal, to add the phrase “and the right thereunder of peoples to self-determination” at the end of paragraph 1, was rejected by 57 votes to 36, with 47 abstentions.’

Argentina apparently believes that their success in getting these proposals voted down, amounted to a recognition by the General Assembly that the Falkland Islanders had no right to self-determination as stated in the UN Charter. Even though the proposed Amendments did not name the Falklanders and used phrases such as “all peoples,” and “peoples.”

It would seem that the recent interview in which the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, dismissed Argentina’s claims that Britain was in breach of UN Resolutions rattled a few cages in Buenos Aires and so a new strategy is required.

Convoluted interpretations of this nature are really clutching at straws.


69 Responses to “Clutching at Straws”

  1. lordton1955 December 9, 2012 at 1:55 am #

    But then in 2008 –

    “The omnibus text achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions. …….. The amendment, which struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph, had been tabled by the United Kingdom, which argued today, as it had last week, that, not only was the new language inapplicable to the 11 Territories targeted in the resolution, but that it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications. As action was taken, delegations were clearly split between those that supported the text, which had been approved by consensus in the Special Committee in June, and those that did not.”

    Now, using Argentina’s convoluted thinking, that would mean that sovereignty disputes are not relevant to the exercise of the right of self-determination. But then we knew that.

    • Elessar December 10, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

      art.2 – 4. Los Miembros de la Organización, en sus relaciones internacionales, se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o en cualquier otra forma incompatible con los Propósitos de las Naciones Unidas.
      Llama la atención que el secretario general diga que Gran Bretaña no viola principios de Naciones Unidas cuando es evidente la violación al principio de la integridad territorial consignado más arriba.

      Podrían decirme cuándo, desde esta resolución, el gobierno de Gran Bretaña aceptó resolver de manera pacífica y definitiva la cuestión de soberanía de Malvinas – Georgias – Sandwich…???

      • lordton1955 December 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

        Territorial integrity requires that you once owned the territory. In the case of the Falklands, they have never been a part of Argentina’s territory.

    • Elessar December 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

      La integridad territorial es un principio de Derecho internacional que evoca el derecho y deber inalienable de un Estado de preservar sus fronteras de toda influencia exterior. Implica, por lo tanto, que los Estados no deben promover movimientos secesionistas o cambios en las fronteras de otros, cambios que se consideran actos de agresión.
      El reclamo de soberanía sobre Malvinas por parte del Estado argentino es histórico e imprescriptible.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

        And totally imaginary. Argentina has never held the Falklands as part of its territory, so territorial integrity does not apply 🙂

  2. Clematys December 9, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    Mercosur would reject any referenda that could jeopardize territorial integrity.

    And, surprise surprise, Britain would also reject any referenda that could jeopardize territorial integrity.

    It would be nice to hear from the colonialists presently living in the Malvinas if they would be willing to give this same opportunistic referendum to smaller groups of islanders who would most likely choose Argentinian sovereignty. They wouldn’t of course, because that could jeopardize the territorial integrity of the islands. Go figure.

    The fact remains a territorial dispute is in course, and won’t go away, because neither Argentina nor South America will go away.

    And the British Empire has a sure appointment with its day of reckoning, and the fate of all empires will also fall upon mighty Albion.

    • lordton1955 December 9, 2012 at 9:13 am #

      You are becoming tiresome Clematys. The Islanders are likely to vote for the status quo – ALL of them. there are no smaller groups that would vote to go to the pariah next door.

      • Clematys December 9, 2012 at 10:55 am #

        Wouldn’t you like to have enclaves in the Malvinas Lord? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        Let’s say… what about letting those islanders who wish to be Argentinian use their self-determination and decide for themselves?

        Hasn’t mummy Albion been telling you to promote self-determination?

        Life has been waay too easy for the colonialists to live under imperial wings. Someone has to ask them the difficult questions, because that lot seem not to be able to foresee the consequences of their own actions.

      • lordton1955 December 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

        From what I hear – there are no islanders who would wish to become Argentine. The couple that liked the idea left long ago.

      • Clematys December 9, 2012 at 11:19 am #

        Let’s have a thorough, comprehensive and fair referendum Lord, and divide the territory equally between those who wish to be Argentinian, those who wish to go independent, and those who wish to be British.

        Now you should know why most people around the World think this referendum has no value and won’t change anything. They know there’s a territorial dispute and a history behind that, and they know the British empire is at its deathbed.

      • lordton1955 December 9, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

        No problem – there are no islanders who wish to be Argentine. And there is no territorial dispute. We have no dispute at all. We won that one in 1833 🙂

  3. democrat December 9, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Like CFK and her government you are totally out of touch with reality. The British empire is not on its deathbed. It is over. It finished a long time ago. you are correct when you suggest all empires fail, they do and, the British empire was no different to other empires in that respect. It did differ in the manner of its “failure”. The British empire “failed” because of its greatest export….democracy. That is a concept that CFK has yet to come to terms with.The Falkland Islanders have used their democratic right remain British. The referendum in a few months time will reaffirm that decision.It is time that Argentina recognised that and, that the Falkland islanders have the right to self determination.

    • Clematys December 10, 2012 at 4:10 am #

      The British empire will be over only when it is over, and that includes the territories it has invaded and occupied are duly decolonised.

      “Out of touch with reality” are those who worship and pay loyalty and tribute to the queen of imperialist and colonialist Lan-gLa-land.

      This is reality for the South American islands:

    • Clematys December 10, 2012 at 5:21 am #

      Los Hermanos by Atahualpa Yupanqui

  4. CLopez December 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Lord Ton, you’ll have to admit that the rejection to amend the resolution is a clear indication that the “right” to self-determination is not as clear-cut as you like to advertise here. Clematys hit the nail in the head.

    • Clematys December 10, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

      Denial is their only real defense mechanism. Other Brit nationalists are right now creating riots because they want to wave their flags 24/7 in another of their invaded territories in Ireland. They really think they can avoid the inevitable, and when the toys they have stolen are taken from them, they throw tantrums like spoiled brats.

      • lordton1955 December 10, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

        Northern Ireland belongs to the Northern Irish – they did not invade it.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 2:03 am #

        Yes, the Irish were invaded by the Brits. In fact Ireland has been one of the first territories to be invaded by Brit nationalists, who are right now throwing tantrums because they can’t wave British flags 24/7 in Irish territory.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 3:31 am #

        The demonstrators are Irish. Northern Irish. Perfect examples of a people who have exercised their right to self-determination. We would have been just as happy if they’d opted to join their southern neighbour. Happier probably. But they opted to remain British. their choice as enshrined in the UN Charter – that Argentina signed in 1945.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 10:27 am #

        The rioters are British, LordTon. Repeat after me: British.
        That’s the whole point of their riots.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

        No – they’re Northern Irish first, British second – something you Argies have always faied to understand.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

        Tell that to them, Lord, and they’ll come to riot and wave their flags in front of your house, just to let you know they are British first and only. That’s the whole point of their riots.

        But of course you are trying to distance yourself and your nationalism from their antics. It doesn’t look good does it?

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        You are not bright are you Clematys ?? I am English first and British second. They are Northern Irish first and British second. As I said – Argies just never understand this concept.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

        And I told you to tell what you think, but not to me, to them.

        Just tell them you think they are Irish.

        They have been burning Irish flags in front of television crews.

        It definitely doesn’t look good for your nationalistic self, does it, Lord?

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

        I have spent time in Northern Ireland – and yes, they think that they are Northern Irish … and then British too 🙂

        Looks good to me 🙂

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

        It may look good to you, but the World is seeing what they are doing. The beeb has been beaming their riots accross the Globe, and the image they are seeing is ugly, it doesn’t look good. Ouch!

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm #


    • lordton1955 December 10, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

      CLopez – Quite wrong I’m happy to say; territorial integrity only applies to land that was once a part of the territory claiming it. As the Falklands were never a part of Argentina, territorial integrity is not relevant.

      The defeat of a proposed amendment is such a minor thing as to have no real meaning. But then, on Argentina’s argument, Britain’s winning amendment in October 2008 destroyed Argentina’s claim that a sovereignty dispute can affect a people’s right to self-determination.

      ” …The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of 11 of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination by an “omnibus” draft resolution it approved today………
      The omnibus text achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions. …….. The amendment, which struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph, had been tabled by the United Kingdom, which argued today, as it had last week, that, not only was the new language inapplicable to the 11 Territories targeted in the resolution, but that it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications. As action was taken, delegations were clearly split between those that supported the text, which had been approved by consensus in the Special Committee in June, and those that did not.
      Differences centered over the new wording, which, as Bolivia’s speaker said, acknowledged that there were two guiding principles in the decolonization process — that of self-determination and of territorial integrity — and those that believed the phrasing was unnecessary, as the representative of the United States said, …
      By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right. ….”

      As I said – clutching at straws.

      PS. Note the last sentence – written in the same year as Castellino’s opinion piece.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 2:15 am #

        There’s almost no point in arguing with LordTon. Just a few hours ago he was denying a territorial dispute. Now his goalposts are all over the place again…

        The very bottom line is LordTon is just another Brit nationalist waving flags in other people’s lands. They’ve been in Hong Kong, in India, in fact mostly everywhere.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 3:32 am #

        What dispute? Spain could have argued up until they recognised British sovereignty in 1863. Argentina was never in the game. As far as we are concerned there is no dispute. Just Argentina whinging as usual!

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 10:42 am #

        If you use documents and declarations recognising the dispute in favour of your argument, you are basically recognising the dispute as well. But now you are in denial again. The dispute appears and disappears from your rhetoric at your convenience. Quelle surprise… in the meantime the rest of the World is evolving and dealing with the real questions, they are not in denial, and the decolonisation process will continue, and you can carry on waving your imaginary flag.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

        There is no dispute. Any dispute with Argentina was finished in 1829. The dispute with Spain lingered on until 1863. Do try to keep up with tha facts Clematys !

        You are correct about the Decolonisation process. The Islanders have the final choice. The referendum will be good for that 🙂

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        Keeping up with the facts Lord… Both European imperial powers can keep babbling about their imperial spoils between themselves. The World has moved on, and the decolonisation process will deal with their consequences of their wrongdoings. The territories these powers have invaded are being decolonised and the disputes are being dealt with… and that doesn’t include letting the invading powers keep their status quo, for obvious reasons.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

        Wrong again Clematys – keeping the spoils, provided the people vote for that, is EXACTLY what will happen 🙂

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

        We already know you are trying to keep the imperial spoils Lord, but that won’t happen. Just look at Belize, Rhodesia, Hong Kong, etc etc etc. The South Atlantic islands are a few of the very last cases, and it is taking some time but at the end they will be surely decolonised, and the current status quo is not an option.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

        I give you a guarantee Clematys – neither you, nor your children, nor your children’s children, nor your children’s, children’s children will see Argentina colonize the Falkland Islands.

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

        Argentina won’t colonise their own islands. They’ll just govern them, and that is sufficient. The current islanders are already regarded as British-Argentinians, and they will finally have access to the rest of South America, just as the other South Americans do. And they will keep their right to be British as well, if they so wish, as the other British Argentinians do.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

        Argentina does not have any Islands in that area. The rest of your post is much the same – fantasy 🙂

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

        “That area” is South American and Argentinian. It is not European or British. You can keep the imperial spoils in your wishes and imagination.

      • lordton1955 December 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

        Sorry lad – the Union Jack flys over the Falklands. British since 1765. That is a FACT

      • Clematys December 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

        So predictable. You can join your friends in Belfast.

    • TheJudge December 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

      The fact wealthy migrants can carve out a decent life in your worthless third world cesspit is of zero consequence, as it happens in just about any third world nation where wealthy migrants can go to.

      The islanders have zero reason whatsoever to associate with your crumbling joke of a nation, and Britain has every incentive to continue treating you with the contempt you deserve. Your country is nothing but a joke to them and the rest of the world, fated either to be entirely annexed by Brazil or to disintegrate into nothing as your failing economy and society rips itself apart.

      Your self important delusions of owning the Falklands (as well as south georgia/sandwich and Antarctica) have precisely zero legal, historical, moral, or geographic legitimacy, (hence your cowardly refusal to take the issue to any international court) and the fact your scumbag ancestors stole what is now argentina by way of genocide, ethnic cleansing and hideously violent suppression makes you even more of a spineless hypocrite.

      In short, rant all you want. Your pathetic country’s utter and irreversable impotence and your continued miserable failure at even functioning in the 21st century world is all the answer we will ever need

      • Clematys December 16, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

        You seem to have a very poor grasp of interpretation and statistics.

        You criticize the British going on their own volition to live freely in Argentina, but are you aware that poor British people also migrate? In fact most British migrants are considered poor in Britain, and that’s the precise reason they migrate to Argentina.

        And to your chagrin and surprise, Argentina is more than happy to welcome them with open arms.

        Oh … just in case you didn’t notice … we are well aware you nationalist flag wavers want a piece of Antarctica, and your claims overlap that of Argentina and Chile as well. And Brazil is also aware of that, and wants a piece of the same cake.

        Now let’s get down to logistics. Do your lot already speak Portuguese and Spanish?

  5. Islander December 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm #


    I am a Falkland Islander, and my family has been in the islands since the 1870s. I have absolutely no wish for the Falklands to be governed by Argentina. Under that scenario, we wouldn’t be governing ourselves and we would become a colony of Argentina (an alien and foriegn administration governing a territory against the will of the people who reside there). At the moment, we have our own democracy and civil service that makes decisions on it’s own. The Governor’s role has been severely diminished since the new Falklands’ Constitution.

    But in the end Clematys, your opinion does not matter as it will never be considered in this arguement, so I take your ignorance with a pinch of salt. Only the opinions of the Islanders matter. So you can continue in vain to post your opinion on the matter online, but in the end, the islands will only ever belong to its rightful owners…the Islanders themselves. If you fail to comprehend this, that is your problem and not ours.

    • Clematys December 18, 2012 at 12:48 am #

      But you are in Argentina, there’s no other way around that. If your lot doesn’t want to be governed by a South American country, you can freely go and live in Britain or somewhere else in Europe, if that is your wish.

      The opinions of the whole World matters, including mine, otherwise your lot wouldn’t be forging a referendum stunt that will have no value due to the longstanding territorial dispute and decolonisation process.

      There are many communities, much larger than yours, throughout South America, that have their own internal governmental rules. There is a whole town in Southern Brazil, for example, who think they are Germans. They don’t even speak Portuguese or mix much with their surroundings. Does that mean they are in Germany? A resounding NO.

      The British Empire will be over in a matter of a few decades, and your lot still have some time to adapt yourselves and make a few friends, but first have a long and deep look at yourselves in the mirror, because you are just another bunch of South Americans.

      You are definitely not British, and you should just come down to reality.

      • lordton1955 December 18, 2012 at 6:41 am #

        They are not in Argentina. Argentina is a foreign country 400 km away

        And the opinion of the world matters not one jot!

      • Clematys December 18, 2012 at 11:13 am #

        They are and have always been British-Argentinians, and they are definitely not living in Britain, a foreign country 12,000 km away. The opinion of the World matters enormously, and when a very small community living in a few small South American islands, listed by the UN to be decolonised, are being used by the imperial and colonial European power for geopolitical and militarisation purposes, the World’s opinions matter even more.

      • Islander December 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm #


        We are not living in Argentina, we are living in the Falkland Islands. A country that we have populated through natural immigration and we have created ad currently sustain its community despite the best efforts of Argentina.

        If the Falklands are Argentine, why does Argentina treat us with such hostility? Why does Argentina try to prevent air and sea links to the Falklands? Why do you attack cruise ships to attempt them visiting the Falklands? If we are a part of Argentina, why do you treat us so badly? Or is that how Argentina treats its people?

        Your arguement is seriously flawed. If I am living in Argentina why is our culture and idenitity nothing like yours? And why has Argentina only controlled the Falklands very briefly through invasion and aggression?

        The Falkland belong to the Falkland Islanders. You fail to comprehend this. We do not bow down to Britain, we are our own people, and until you can comprehend this, you fail to understand the full picture.

      • Clematys December 18, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

        What do you think your own government would do if an Asian country 12,000 miles away, with expansionist interests, financed military undertakings and sent vessels with colonists to invade and populate a few of your empty islands?

        What would you do if they managed to settle it and started claiming territorial allegiance to their Asian sponsors?

        Would you or your government just send them letters of congratulations for their choices and welcome them to the neighborhood? Would you or your government respect their claims of self-determination? Of course not.

        Argentina is not treating you badly. Not anymore than you yourself would, if the above happened to you.

        At the end of the day, you are a small community caught in an bilateral territorial dispute stemming from past imperial and colonial transgressions. There are many others around the World.

      • lordton1955 December 18, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

        The only invasions of the Falklands have been by Argentina – firstly in 1832, and again in 1982. As there is no basis for Argentina’s claim, the rest of your argument collapses.

      • Islander December 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

        A bilateral territorial dispute? Are you joking? So you are saying the very people directly affected get no say in what happens? That is like Brazil and Spain arguing over who controls Argentina, with the Argentines having no say.

        I am washing my hands of you. You are too idiotic. And when I submit my vote during the refendum in March, I will win this debate against you. You can sit 500+ miles away shaking your fist in anger in the direction of the Islands, while the Islanders reaffirm their right to determine their political, democratic, cultural and economic future. The exact same right as anyone on the planet has.

      • Clematys December 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

        Of course the current islanders have their say, as always, but they must be aware the land they are living on is in a long standing territorial dispute, and the majority of American countries support Argentina’s claims. So if you want to keep yourself in the long side of history, tough luck.

      • lordton1955 December 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

        There was a dispute over East falkland – between Spain and Britain. Argentina was never a player. The support of Argentina’s neighbours is as tangible as fog.

      • Clematys December 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

        “Long side” should read “wrong side”. You are not different or more important than any other South American community. There are thousands upon thousands of them, and many are descendants of European settlers, including British ones.

      • Islander December 18, 2012 at 7:12 pm #


        I don’t care if South America supports your claim, what difference does that honestly make? That doesn’t make it right. Self-determination applies to everyone, and it has been made clear, and even clarified recently by the Secretary General of the UN. Game over.

        I won’t be checking on here for your replies, because you are wasting my time – I have already won this arguement.

      • lordton1955 December 18, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

        The Falklanders have history on their side. They also have the multi-lateral Treaty known as the UN Charter. Argentina signed it and the right to self-determination is therefore enshrined in stone. That right has more than one option and remaining as part of the UK is perfectly acceptable.

        Britain will support that right. Argentina cannot even honour the Charter it signed. Argentina is not relevant to what the Islanders’ decide.

      • Clematys December 19, 2012 at 12:59 am #

        It is not only South America. In fact many independent nations around the World are supportive of Argentina’s claims. They understand the UK’s role has been one of an invasive, imperial and colonial power. They know some day, not far in the future, the islands’ sovereignty is going to be transferred to Argentina as an act of decolonisation.

      • lordton1955 December 19, 2012 at 1:03 am #

        Not far in the future ?? You appear to be living in some fantasy world Clematys 🙂

  6. Islander December 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Sorry I mean “sustain its economy” and “attack cruise ships to prevent them visiting”.

  7. Bongo December 20, 2012 at 12:38 am #


    What if the Islands sovereignty isn’t transferred to Argentina?

    The British government have said they will never do so without the Islanders’ consent.

    The Islanders are unlikely to give that consent.

    So what exactly are you going to do about it?

    • Clematys December 20, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

      There’s potencial for the dispute to escalate at any time as it has in the past. What you need to know is that the South American states will always support South American interests. Those countries are also integrating and the dispute has already escalated to the subcontinental level. The islander who want to keep playing the British colonial game, is responsible for its consequences.

      • Bongo December 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm #


        Escalate into what?

        The islands won’t be handed to Argentina so what is going to happen?

        What are these “consequences” going to be?

      • Clematys December 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

        I’ll leave that to your imagination.

      • lordton1955 December 20, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

        In other words – he doesn’t know! Argentines use a lot of imagination, but little in the way of fact. For all the rhetoric, your neighbours will not follow you into a war over the Falklands. That’s pure fantasy.

  8. Terry Hill December 21, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    What is it Carlos Escudé wrote about the islands from an Argentean perspective.
    Ah! yes “imaginary territory”

  9. timpany January 4, 2013 at 2:12 am #

    I fully agree with the decolonisation of all South American territories, including the return of the Territories sized from the thirty five native people’s by Spain under Papal decree (that’s Argentina). The people’s should be allowed to determine their own future to remain part of Argentina or form there own separate states, under the self- determination decree by the United Nations.

  10. Biguggy June 7, 2013 at 12:39 am #

    The conclusion in the article that it was the rejection of the proposed amendments that has given the RG’s the impression that the right to self-determination has been removed from the Islanders is confirmed. Please see the third paragraph in the section 4. PERIOD 1982-1989 of the following document:

    Please note that this is a Government of Argentina website!

    Should this ludicrous interpretation be ‘fact’, why did Argentina, in 2008, try and introduce amendments that would strip the Islanders of the right to self-determination, it would have been superfluous. Not only that but by the Argentine deductive process its rejection has confirmed that self-determination does apply to the Islanders, as lordton1955 stated.

    • Biguggy June 25, 2013 at 10:48 am #

      Timerman (Timberhead seems more appropriate) trotted out this same ludicrous ‘fact’, amongst his many other lies, at the C24 committee meeting last week. Surprisingly he did not mention that the attempt by Spain and Argentina in 2008 to remove the Islanders right to self-determination was also voted down thereby confirming, according to his logic, that they do have that right. This has of course been recently confirmed by General Assembly Resolution 67/134, available here:
      Which in paragraph 7(c), states:
      “To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”
      Now as many RG supporters have long maintained that the Islanders do not have the right to self-determination due to the fact that GA Resolution 2065 described them as a ‘population’ and not a ‘people’ as per the UN Charter. This Resolution clarifies the point that they do have that right.
      Further more as the Islanders very definitely, as per this Resolution, do have the right to self-determination this will also put down the claim by many RG supporters that only the ‘interests’ of the Islanders, as per 2065, need to be taken into account and not their ‘wishes’ the Islanders can now decide if they ‘wish’ to be associated with Argentina or do they have any ‘interest’ in being associated in any way with Argentina. I believe the answer is a resounding ‘NO’ in both instances.

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: