US will recognise Falkland Islanders referendum

26 Feb

Will they or won’t they? John Kerry, the USA’s recently appointed Secretary of State is visiting Britain, his first stop on a tour of other nations to discuss a wide range of foreign affairs, including Syria.JK

Questioned on his country’s position over the Falkland Islands and its forthcoming referendum, John Kerry said; “First of all, I’m not going to comment, nor is the President, on a referendum that has yet to take place, hasn’t taken place.”

So – no comment on the referendum, at least not till its all done and dusted.

The Secretary then went on to say; “Our position on the Falklands has not changed. The United States recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the question of parties’ sovereignty claims thereto.”

So – no change in America’s desire to stay out of the discussion; but then no indication that some future change is ruled out either.

And yet, the Buenos Aires Herald’s headline is – “US won’t recognise Falkland Islanders referendum,” a headline repeated in many other Spanish language newspapers. Accurate? Hardly.

The USA has maintained its neutral position since the 1840’s. Even during the short war that followed Argentina’s invasion in 1982, the USA maintained its neutral position on the issue of sovereignty. To claim that the USA does not support Britain is merely as valid as saying that the USA does not support Argentina. In fact, the Americans quite clearly do not wish to give an opinion either way.

Will the USA recognise the result of the referendum? Have they much choice?

The referendum itself will be held according to the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter. It will provide a clear statement of the wishes of the Falklanders and such a clear statement cannot be ignored by the UN or any of its members even if many of them would prefer to do so. Why not? Because every time Argentina raises the issue, the referendum result will be thrown in its face. A clear expression of self-determination. An undeniable human right recognised by ALL members of the UN.


14 Responses to “US will recognise Falkland Islanders referendum”

  1. omar February 26, 2013 at 2:01 am #

    Research by Telam revealed that among the more than 40 million digitized historical pages in the British Library (BL), there are notes that speak Spanish sovereignty, the inauguration of Buenos Aires after independence and rapid protests made after the formal English usurpation of 1833.

    Spanish rights over the archipelago were expressly recognized by France in 1764, he ordered the sailors of Saint-Malo (hence the name Malvinas), led by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, the transfer of the first settlement established in the territory.

    This was reflected Leeds Intelligencer newspaper: “It ratified the treaty that Malouines Islands are ceded by France to this kingdom (Spain). Bougainville soon will embark from Ferrol to these islands, with a Commissioner and Spanish settlers, who were supplied in the form of sovereignty. ”

    However, soon after, Britain surreptitiously erected a small fort called Port Egmont, prompting protests from Spain and the expulsion of its occupants in 1770.

    On December 14 of that year, the publication information reproduced Derby Mercury of the then British War Office, which stated that “a Spanish fleet, sent by the governor of Buenos Aires, took possession of Port Egmont,” adding that in February already had claimed the territory “for the King of Spain.”

    For the incident was expected, as noted a Kentish Gazette editorial of 1771, “a war between Spain and Britain”, however an agreement was signed where the Iberian country did express reservation of its sovereignty over the entire archipelago.

    As part of the negotiations it was agreed that Britain would withdraw from Port Egmont in the near future and he did.

    Several newspapers like the Oxford Journal and the Derby Mercury, said in July 1774: “It is certain that our people left the island.”

    Since then and for the next six decades, the United Kingdom stepped islands nor protested the authority exercised Spain from Puerto Soledad.

    In 1790 the two countries signed the Treaty of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, in which London agreed not to establish any settlements on the coasts of America or Spain occupied the islands as the Malvinas.

    The Caledonian Mercury, in a brief note entitled “Peace with Spain” in November of that year, held that the agreement “is perfectly satisfactory for Britain”.

    From the May Revolution of 1810, the first Argentine governments considered the Falklands as part of the territory inherited from the mother and a decade later, Marine Colonel David Jewett, took possession of the archipelago on behalf of the United Provinces of South .

    The last public event received coverage in the British press of the time, with notes in August 1821 appeared in The Times, the Intelligencer and Leeds in the Morning Chronicle (daily where Charles Dickens worked).

    The United Kingdom continued without staging protests and in 1825 recognized the nascent Argentine State signing the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, which made no reference to any claim to the Falklands, and under clear jurisdiction of Buenos Aires.

    An article in May of that year the Morning Post (acquired after publication by The Daily Telegraph), reproduced the speeches of the signatories of the agreement, the Minister of Government of Buenos Aires, Jose Manuel Garcia, and the British consul general, Woodbine Parish.

    The British diplomat said the treaty puts Argentina “in the range of recognized nations in the world” and hoped that “this friendship is everlasting.”

    But eight years later, in 1833, a corvette of the Royal Navy expelled by an act of force to the Argentine authorities and the garrison was in the Falklands.

    Again, the Morning Post, in May of that year, said: “British forces took possession of the islands. It is a curious circumstance many years after they have been abandoned. Once were in dispute with Spain, in the hands of the left who was then appended to Buenos Aires. ”

    Argentina never gave to claim their rights and well demonstrated as the London Standard newspaper and the Royal Cornwall Gazette, which in November 1833 stressed that the then Argentine representative in England, Manuel Moreno, younger brother of Mariano, “protested formally against occupation. ”

    In December of that year, the Morning Post reprinted a letter from the governor of Buenos Aires, Juan Ramón Balcarce, and Cabinet Minister, Vicente Maza Manual, addressed to the British Parliament, which stated that demanded “reparations for the damage , the return of the islands and the recognition of our right over them. ”

    Thus, the press of the time, with official and historical documents, which prove reconstructs a chronology Argentine rights over the islands and forced to continue the claim for all diplomatic channels.

    • lordton1955 February 26, 2013 at 10:56 am #

      Now if you want to know what really happened.

      Argentina has NO claim. Argentina has NO rights …….. Argentina has NO chance !

    • clairesindiablog February 26, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

      Just a few corrections and additions:
      * The British were the first to set foot on the islands in 1690, and named them thereby giving them the first, albeit tenuous claim to the islands.
      * The French were the first to settle on the islands in 1764, followed by the British a year later on a different island. France subsequently sold its settlement to the Spanish. In the 1770s Britain and Spain nearly went to war over the islands but eventually came to an agreement to tolerate each other’s claim without relinquishing their own.
      * Britain evacuated the islands following the American War of Independence. They did not relinquish their claim though and left behind a plaque to that effect.
      * Spain continued to inhabit the islands until 1810, when they evacuated them and left behind a plaque just as the British had.
      * Argentina never inherited Spain’s claim to the islands for the simple reason that Spain kept it for itself (in the much the same way as, say, Canada remained British after the American War of Independence).
      * Neither did American born David Jewett ‘claim the islands for Argentina’ in 1820 – he was not acting in any official capacity for the Argentine government nor did he officially report any claim back to them. The islands were already claimed by two countries (Britain and Spain) and Jewett wasn’t even the only person on the islands at the time – it was frequented by sealers, sailors and explorers from many countries, not least Britain and the US.
      * Later civilian settlements were there with Britain’s permission and were required to provide annual reports to the British government.
      * The only Argentine presence on the islands was a penal colony set up in 1832. Britain formally protested to this and sent a ship to recover the islands in 1833. At this point the (largely lawless) Argentine garrison was evicted without a shot being fired. The settlers were encouraged to stay however, most did so and their descendents remain on the islands to this day.
      * Argentina dropped its claim to the islands in 1850 when it signed a treaty of perfect friendship with Britain. It immediately ceased all protests to Britain’s occupation of the islands (something it had been doing annually until then), whilst subsequent official statements reiterated that there were no issues between the two nations and official maps showed that the islands were not part of Argentina.
      * In 1863 Spain acknowledged Britain’s sovereignty of the islands and dropped its own claim, making Britain the only country with a viable claim to the islands.
      * In the 1870s Argentina invaded Patagonia, wiping out the local population and bringing its borders up to the coast facing the Falkland Islands.
      * In 1941 Argentine leader Peron reinvented his country’s claim to the islands when it looked like Britain would lose the war. Since then generations of Argentine school children have been indoctrinated with the myth and populist leaders have used the islands to distract from domestic difficulties.
      * Britain has offered several times to take the matter to the International Court of Justice but Argentina has always refused, knowing it has no case.
      * In the modern era the islands belong to the people living there and they will make their feelings known in the forthcoming referendum.

      • Don Alberto February 28, 2013 at 12:32 am #


        this has been told time and again on the Falklandsnews site, with links to official Argentine documents, which show that:

        1. 23 out of 27 South American settlers preferred to stay on the Islands under British rule in 1833 (commander Pinedo’s trial in buenos Aires); only the Buenos Aires *garrison* was expelled.

        2. Argentina ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain in 1850, and that two Argentine presidents and a vice president confirmed it in 1865 (Mitre), 1869 (Sarmiento) and 1866 (Paz) respectively.

        No amount of facts bite on the Malvinistas.

  2. Clematys February 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    Britain will recognise West Bank Settlers referendum…

    Will they or won’t they?

    • Kai February 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

      You keep on spouting about the west bank & obviously have no idea about the Uks position.

      Didn’t your Arg propaganda/ sorry education cover international politics ?

    • Mike February 26, 2013 at 5:19 pm #

      Britian agrees with a two state solution which includes the West Bank just like it agrees the Falkland Islanders also have rights.

      You seem to be pro the Westbank but not the Falklands … definatly a more ironic stance

    • Don Alberto February 28, 2013 at 12:24 am #

      Is Argentina now also claiming the West Bank as inherited from Spain?

      How does the West Bank relate to this article and the Falkland islands?

      • Jib Halyard March 9, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

        Why not? Argentina would have about as much claim to the West Bank as it does to the Falklands…

      • Don Alberto March 10, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

        You got a point there, Jib 😀

        However, when Spanish America revolted, the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, later the ‘Gobernación del Río de la Plata’ included the today sovereign states Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia plus a part of Brasil (and app one third of present day Argentina).

        Why doesn’t Argentina claim those countries?

  3. Andy February 26, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

    This problem is clearly all down to an evil unpopular woman by the name of Kirchner who is desperately trying to live her dead husbands dream.
    Madame Kirchner try dealing with your own internal problems like most of your people want,why should anyone believe anything from your evil tongue when you can not even tell the truth to many international organisations like IMF printed below is a true account of the type of person you are.

    Cristina Kirchner / Official
    •Even before she was elected president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner carried the haze of corruption. In the most famous case, an emissary from Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, was discovered at the Buenos Aires airport carrying a briefcase stuffed with $800,000 in cash, destined, he later told the FBI, to support Kirchner’s presidential bid. Kirchner denied the allegation. Within Argentina, many question the huge fortune Kirchner and her late husband Nestor amassed since taking public office. Her declared personal wealth stands at $13.8 million, up from $500,000 when the couple first entered national politics. Kirchner cites income from real estate and hotels the couple had purchased to explain the 2,600 percent return on the couple’s investment purse. Corruption watchers complain that her government has neutered government oversight, giving auditing posts to cronies compromised by conflicts of interest. The result: corruption cases take an average of 14 years to work through the system, according to the non-profit Center for the Study and Prevention of Economic Crimes, and only 15 in 750 cases have led to convictions.

    • Mike February 26, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

      $500,000 to $13.8 million in just a few years … thats crazy!!

      I bet Clematys thinks thats all legit to.
      Taking bets that most of that is not in Argentinan currency aswell

      • Fernando March 2, 2013 at 2:11 am #

        Los Estados Unidos de America, no van a reconocer el referendum por la simple y sencilla razon que a lo largo de los años (salvo en el periodo de la guerra de 1982) mantuvo una posicion “neutral” sobre la disputa entre el gobierno de su majestad y la Republica Argentina, a la vez, esta en la disyuntiva, puesto que U.K y la Republica Argentina son paises en los cuales tiene profundos lazos de Amistad, comercial y financiero. No creo que “borren con el codo lo que escribieron con la mano”. El referendum carece de legitimidad porque no tienen categoria de “ciudadanos isleños” sino que son “ciudadanos britanicos”. Asi, con este sencillo argumento, La Republica Argentina puede, debe y seguira reinvindicando su Soberania sobre las Islas Malvinas y todo el territorio Circundante, usurpado por el gobierno de su majestad.

      • Don Alberto March 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm #


        what are Argentona’s plans for giving the Formosa and Misiones provinces back to Paraguay? – usurpados por Argentina 1870.

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: