Falkland Islanders do not exist – claim Argentina

6 Feb

During his current visit to the United Kingdom, Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Hector Timerman, has claimed that the Falkland Islanders do not exist. Vehicle passes by a sign that reads "The Malvinas (Falklands) are Argentine" on Route 136, near the Argentine city of Gualeguaychu

Speaking at a news conference, Hector Timerman said; “The Falklands islanders do not exist. What exists is British citizens who live in the Islas Malvinas.”

The Foreign Minister is in London to hold a number of meetings to expound Argentina’s theory that the Falkland Islands should belong to them, rather than to Britain which first claimed the South Atlantic archipelago in 1765. Timerman also hoped to meet Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, but backed out when he discovered that the Foreign Secretary intended to invite Islanders along to the meeting. In fact the meeting between Mr. Hague and two representatives from the Falklands took place but with Hector Timerman’s chair remaining empty.

Sr. Timerman has argued the United Nations only recognises two sides to the long-standing dispute – Britain and Argentina – and does not recognise the Falkland Islanders as a people. This is despite the fact that the United Nations’ Decolonisation Committee listens to the views of the Islanders every year at its annual meeting on the ‘Falklands Question’.

The Falkland Islands will be holding a referendum in March to determine the future status of the Islands, a method the UN recommends as the best way of determining a peoples wishes in the decolonisation process. Self-determination is a human right enshrined in the UN Charter.

Speaking after her meeting with the Foreign Secretary, Jan Cheek, representing the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, said: “We are disappointed, but hardly surprised. Argentina prefers to disregard our existence, rather than engage constructively with the people who have lived on the Falkland Islands for so many generations. We know that the Argentine Government is deeply worried about our referendum, which is why they spend so much time dismissing it.”

Britain claimed the Falkland Islands in 1765, 51 years before Argentina threw off the yoke of the Spanish crown from which it controversially claims to have inherited the Falkland Islands. Argentine forces have twice attempted to take the archipelago by force – 1832 and 1982. In both cases British forces removed them.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Falkland Islanders do not exist – claim Argentina”

  1. Joe Thorpe February 7, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    Its time the BBC added CFK & Timmerman to their program Who do you think you are & follow their ancestry back to wherever they came from. Have to ask why they harbored so many Nazis after WW2? they seem to have some of their jackboot blood swilling around their brains!

    • Fernando February 9, 2013 at 2:19 am #

      y tambien tuvimos inmigracion inglesa, italiana, española, siria, holandesa, belga, tendria que preguntarse quien recibio mas nazis que nosotros??. Usted no sabe que es el nazismo sino no diria lo que esta comentando.

      • Don Alberto February 17, 2013 at 2:40 am #

        Exactly – an implanted population, Argentina’s

      • Fernando February 20, 2013 at 1:59 am #

        Argentina no es una poblacion implantada!, las malvinas si, por que??, bueno, en malvinas habia poblacion argentina y fueron eyectados (eject like say lordton1955) por tropas inglesas que si implantaron colonos, la diferencia con esto es que Argentina tuvo un adecuado crecimiento poblacional y se mezclo con los pueblos originarios, luego tuvo inmigracion mayormente de Europa, que aumento ese poderoso crisol de razas que es mi pais. Podriamos discutir que llevo con todo ese potencial de ser uno de los paises mas prometedores para el mundo a lo que somos ahora, pero seria desviarnos de nuestra charla sobre la soberania. Igual le digo, estamos relativamente mejor que en otras epocas y somos un pais que no ABANDONAMOS a los nuestros. Las Malvinas.

      • Don Alberto February 20, 2013 at 4:20 am #

        “en malvinas habia poblacion argentina y fueron eyectados (eject like say lordton1955) por tropas inglesas”

        Ni un solo colono “Argentino” (en realidad de la provincia de Buenos Ayres, ninguno de las otras provincias tampoco) fue expulsado.

        Once more: Tell us the names of the settlers whom you imagine were expelled by the British.

        You can find them in this official Argentine document from pinedo’s trial (Archivo General de la Nación, Sala III, 16-6-5, doc. 1320):

        ”Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas”

  2. Bongo February 8, 2013 at 1:19 am #

    Has someone tried to paint the word “NO” on that roadsign?

  3. lornefirth February 8, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    is that Hector Timerman of the SS Timermans?

  4. Fernando February 9, 2013 at 2:26 am #

    Por supuesto que si hace el mentado referendum, unaninemente la poblacion de Malvinas va a dar un rotundo Si a que quedarse como esta, si son todos ciudadanos Britanicos!!, pero lamentablemente el territorio es Argentino y la poblacion fue agregada luego de usurpar mediante la fuerza y sacar a la poblacion Argentina que estaba hasta 1833, a partir de ahi, comenzamos a reclamar nuestro derecho a soberania del archipielago. He leido conciendudamente y profusamente su historia en el archivo pdf y mas apoyo mis argumentos de que la isla es territorio Argentino.

    • lordton1955 February 9, 2013 at 5:06 am #

      Then you read your history wrong – try here – http://www.scribd.com/doc/103755318/Falklands-War-The-First-400-Years-PDF

    • Don Alberto February 17, 2013 at 2:50 am #

      Fernando, you claim that “a la poblacion Argentina” was evicted from the Falkland Islands in 1833.

      Tell us the names of the settlers who were expelled by the British.
      You can find them in Argentine documents here:
      ” Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas”

      Only occupying troops and a coule of prisoners were expelled, 4 settlers chose to leave, the remaining app 23 preferred to stay under British rule.

      Fernando, learn a little of your own history.

      Argentina did not exist as a state in 1833.

      Before 1853 a lot of small “states”, led by caudillos (warlords) for each other in a protracted civil war. The dictator Rosas was able for a short span of years to keep the others at bay, but when he was kicked out the civil war went on.

      Rejecting the constitution of 1853, Buenos Aires seceded from the Confederation and became ‘Estado de Buenos Ayres’ (the State of Buenos Aires) with its own government and constitution (1852-1861), a move which restarted the civil war.

      The war between the Confederation and Buenos Aires lasted nearly a decade until, in the 2nd Battle of Cepeda (1859), the Argentine Confederation army defeated Estado de Buenos Ayres’s army, following which Mitre ultimately abrogated the Pact of San José, leading to renewed civil war.

      These hostilities culminated in the 1861 Battle of Pavón, and to victory on the part of Bartolomé Mitre and Buenos Ayres over Urquiza’s national forces. President Santiago Derqui, who had been backed by Urquiza, resigned and the Argentine Confederation was replaced by the Argentine Republic on 17 December 1861.

      • Fernando February 20, 2013 at 1:51 am #

        Su Argumento es totalmente falaz, argumenta que no se puede reclamar nada porque no habia una “Nacion Argentina” y detalla nuestra historia a partir de 1833, lo que no indica es que el acta de independencia 9 de julio de 1816 fue firmada por todos los representantes de las provincias (state you mencioned in your phrase) y eso da certera legitimidad a reclamar por nuestros derechos soberanos en todos los territorios donde estuviera el adversario de ese entonces (españa) incluyendo nuestras islas malvinas, sin mencionar el incidente con la invasion de las tropas inglesas ocurrida en Buenos Aires en 1806 y 1807, tendria que preguntarse como su nacion a la que todavia considero un gran pais tuvo y tiene estos continuos avasallamientos a soberanias de otros paises a lo largo de todo el mundo, si le gusta tanto la historia de nuestro pais, lea otro hecho del combate de la vuelta de obligado en 1845, en la cual hubo una segunda incursion de las tropas inglesas y francesas (dos potencias de entonces y de ahora). Nosotros no SOMOS LOS INVASORES. Ni mencionar el incidente de 1952 en la base esperanza de la antartida tambien con Inglaterra. Quien es el Agresor?.

      • Don Alberto February 20, 2013 at 4:13 am #

        Las luchas entre unitarios, Buenos Aires federales y federales condujeron a la Argentina a una larga serie de sangrientas guerras civiles entre facciones y provincias (1820-1861).

        Three factions were fighting a bitter civil war, with side shows where individual caudillos (war lords) were fighting each other for power and dominance over provinces.

        The three factions were:

        1. ‘Unitarios’, ‘Unitarians’, mainly from the province of Buenos Aires (and to some extent, the city of Buenos Aires). They wanted to nationalize the city of Buenos Aires (especially the port), strip it of its autonomy and make it into a base, from which they would reduce the provincial barriers to trade, thus opening the entire country to international commerce. (García, Agüero, Castro y Zabaleta)

        2. ‘Federalistas’, ‘Federalists’, from the interior. They also wanted to nationalize the city of Buenos Aires, because they wanted to distribute the income from its custom and distribute it to all the provinces. They also wanted, however, to preserve the autonomy of the individual provinces in order to levy taxes and tariffs of interprovincial trade, to protect local industry. (Elías Galisteo (de Santa Fe), y Manuel Dorrego (porteño))

        3. Buenos Aires ‘Federalistas’ (Federales Porteños), ‘Federalists’, from the province of Buenos Aires. They wanted completely free trade, were strongly opposed to nationalisation of the Buenos Aires port, because that would mean loss of the province’s monopoly on international trade and thus its customs revenues. (Juan Manuel de Rosas).

        Very, very brief summary of the history of what became Argentina in 1861:

        01. War between ‘El Director supremo de las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata’ and ‘La Unión de los Pueblos Libres’ (1814-1820)
        02. 1st Battle of Cepeda (1820)
        03. Conflicts with La Rioja leader Facundo Quiroga (1826-1835)
        04. ‘El Pacto Federal’s war against ‘Ligas Unitarias’ (1831)
        05. Revolution of ‘Los Restauradores’ against Buenos Aires Governor Juan Ramón Balcarce (1833)
        06. Conflicts with La Rioja leader Ángel Vicente Peñaloza (1835-1845 + 1860-1863)
        07. Los ‘Libres del Sur’s revolt, quelled at the battle of Chascomús 7 November 1839
        08. Pedro Ferré’s Corrientes revolt (1839-1842)
        09. Rosa’s war against the La ‘Coalición del Norte’ (1840-1841)
        10. Revolt by Juan Lavalle against Juan Manuel de Rosas (1841)
        11. Defeat of Unitarios’s forces in Corrientes (1841)
        12. The brothers Joaquín and Juan Madariaga’s Corrientes revolt (1843-1847)
        13. Battle de la Vuelta de Obligado (20 November 1845)
        14. Entre Ríos leader Justo José de Urquiza’s break with Rosas (1851)
        15. Battle Batalla de Caseros (3 February 1852)
        16. Revolution of 11 September 1852, creating the State of Buenos Aires
        17. Siege of Buenos Aires (1853)
        18. La segunda batalla de Cepeda (1859)
        19. Batalla de Pavón (1861) – Argentina finally came into existence.

        Argentine sources show a total of 415 civil war battles in the years 1814-1880.

        Propongo que lea p.ej. José Luis Romero: “Historia de la Argentina”.

      • Don Alberto February 21, 2013 at 5:50 am #

        Fernando,

        if Argentina existed as a state before the battle of Pavón (La Batalla de Pavón), how do you then explain, that as late as 17 September 1861, there were

        two capitals (Paraná and Buenos Ayres)

        two constitutions (the one of 1 May 1853 accepted only by the Confederation and the one of 12 April 1854 accepted only by Buenos Ayres)

        two de facto presidents (Justo José de Urquiza and Bartolomé Mitre)

        and two governments?

  5. Clematys February 11, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    After this one, there’s another possible “referendum” to be ignored by the Free World.
    Many generations of Israeli settlers on the West Bank are to be asked the following question:
    “Do you wish the West Bank settlements to retain their current political status as a Territory of Israel?”

    • Clematys February 11, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

      The first ones to ignore such “referendum” will be the Palestinians, and the rest of the World will follow suit, and it must be said, including Britain.

    • Clematys February 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

      And mind you, the West Bank settlements are territories usually contiguous to the Israeli one, not 8,000 miles away, on the other side of the World.

    • Don Alberto February 21, 2013 at 5:20 am #

      Clamatys, you may not be aware of it, but Scotland is to have its own referendum – deciding if it shall continue to be a member of the United Kingdom. If they say no, England and Scotland will become separate states.

      How is that for self-determination?

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: