Argentina Claims Falklands (again)

Originally posted by Terapin
Britain is still desperately trying to hold on to the scraps of it's former empire. The islands should go back to their rightful owners, Argentina.

I saw that Argentina should have the land back. England does not belong in that neck of the sea. Let the locals have it. The sun has long set on the British Empire.

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion:

New Zealand vacated and returned to the Maoris.
Australia vacated and returned the aboriginis
US vacated and returned the indians
Canada vacated and returned to the indians
South Africa vacated and returned to the zulus and incarta

All ex british, yes even the US! The UK queen is still the queen of 3 of the above!

That last one is very very interesting as i have also heard alot about teh US meddling (and attempts to derail) the UK effort in 1982 - as has been said , there are no friends only interests.

Malcr... Have you read this thread? Those points you brought up were well covered in here. I guess you missed it. Perhaps you should read the entire thread to catch up on the discussion rather than repeat previous postings.

The Falklands is British , they have split their blood for it , its up to the Argies how bad they really want it.

The Argentines have bled for the islands as well, in fact they were attacked when the British invaded the islands in the first place. Either way, International law clearly demonstrates afull and legal claim by Argentina. Britian has long been considering an eventual hand back, and documented evidence shows this quite clearly. The British Occupation of the Falklands will eventualy come to an end. History marches on.

Originally posted by Terapin
The Argentines have bled for the islands as well, in fact they were attacked when the British invaded the islands in the first place.

The British Occupation of the Falklands will eventualy come to an end. History marches on.

There will be alot more bloodshed if the islands are reclaimed by Argentina.. my dead body for one.

The British Occupation of the Falklands will eventualy come to an end. History marches on.

Occupation??????????

Lets see, most of the Population on those Islands are what? British.

Do you reall think those people are going to decide to not be british?

I do not think so. And if you think Argentina will force them out, not in my lifetime they wont. Those islands are british simple... And nothing Argentina says is going to change that...

I guess you folks have not read this thread so I will go over it again. The British illegally occupied the islands. This is a historical fact, not opinion. They populated the islands with British subjects. They do not allow open immigration. The British have also for quite some time been planning on decolonizing the Islands and returning them to Argentina. There is a significant body of documented proof of this fact. Even the UN calls the Islands a colony and it is on the UN Decolonization list.

Please, go back and read the thread. All the facts and details are there. Your statements seem to be based on opinion and personal feelings. The facts speak for themselves.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

Do you reall think those people are going to decide to not be british?

The occupants do not get the right to choose who controles the islands in this situation. Since the British controle immigration, there is no free and open voteing right. Please, read the thread as this has been discussed before.

unfortunately the above poster has decided to ignore a previous claim - he denies this claim and thus ignores it at his will - the islands were abandoned and thus legally settled by the british but increduosly he ignores this and continues in verbatum to deny the truth.

he is following his own agenda and ignoring reality.

take the red pill it will make you feel better.

Originally posted by Terapin
The British Occupation of the Falklands will eventualy come to an end. History marches on.

So your saying that its legally ok not to mention morally ok to remove people from the land they own by force?

The UN human rights charter article 21,

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Guess that shows how much the argentians value freedom huh, its only one step taking someones freedom from having your own removed from you.

Originally posted by Terapin
The British illegally occupied the islands. This is a historical fact, not opinion.

It's actually opinion. There was no international law in the nineteenth century. So it wasn't technically illegal. If it happened today then yes, it would most certainly violate international law. But it happened 1833, and there were British claims before that (and that is historical fact).

OK, I'll go over this again as it is clear that some here have not read the thread. I suggest that you begin on Page five, the fourth post from the bottom and read on as all the details are there for all to see.

The UN charter just mentioned does not apply in this instance as it is the WRONG section. If you look closer you will find that the UN clearly states that since free immigration does not exists in the Falklands, the occupying individuals do not have a say in the mater. You simply cannot stack the deck and only allow pro British citizens to vote on the issue and the UN is clear about this. The rule of self-determination, according to the UN, does not apply.

As for international law not applying at the time of occupation, you are incorrect. There was indeed international law at the time of British invasion of the Falklands. International laws go back much much farther in fact. There was a legally recognized treaty between Britain and Argentina. Britain recognized the legal ownership of the islands by Argentina. Britain broke the treaty and illegally occupied the islands by force. They were not abandoned islands and saying so is a clear indication of historical ignorance. Again. I outlined all the relevant treaties and specific details earlier. You can check them for details.

It is also quite clear that Britain has indeed kept the idea of an eventual hand back on the table and British documents prove this.

As for the moral question of removing the islands inhabitants by force... Isn't that exactly what the British did??? The Argentineans are not at all calling for the forced removal of the current inhabitants. In fact they clearly state that they intend to allow the current lifestyle and culture to remain intact.

All of this is factual and I gave specific details previously. Thus far no one has been able to refute these facts with anything substantial. People come into this discussion with a pro British slant yet fail to address the facts. I offered clear and concise details yet it seems as if no one has read the thread. I see a lot of Pro British opinion, but no detailed historical facts. Please offer some to support your claims. Back up to page five, fourth post from the bottom, and read on up to this current page. Give me some facts that support your claims. I have offered a significant amount of factual data. No one has offered anything to support British ownership other than personal opinion.

I had given up in this thread, as I got sick of repeating the same old line, but hey ho, here I go again...

Originally posted by Terapin
The UN charter just mentioned does not apply in this instance as it is the WRONG section. If you look closer you will find that the UN clearly states that since free immigration does not exists in the Falklands, the occupying individuals do not have a say in the mater. You simply cannot stack the deck and only allow pro British citizens to vote on the issue and the UN is clear about this. The rule of self-determination, according to the UN, does not apply.

What garbage. So because we don't allow foreign individuals to settle in our territory, then we don't have a say about it's governance? I think your barking up the wrong tree, mate. One could use that argument all over the world, yet it wouldn't hold water.

Using that logic, one could argue that ALL countries should allow open immigration otherwise the people within that country have no right to self determination.

That is what you just said.

Originally posted by Terapin
As for international law not applying at the time of occupation, you are incorrect. There was indeed international law at the time of British invasion of the Falklands. International laws go back much much farther in fact. There was a legally recognized treaty between Britain and Argentina. Britain recognized the legal ownership of the islands by Argentina. Britain broke the treaty and illegally occupied the islands by force. They were not abandoned islands and saying so is a clear indication of historical ignorance. Again. I outlined all the relevant treaties and specific details earlier. You can check them for details.

Utter bollocks again. I've lost track of how many times I have said that when the British moved in 1833, the islands were occupied by pirates and criminals .
The Argentines were evicted by US forces, not British, because the reneged on the same treaty your quoting as the grounds for their claim.

British claims go back further than Argentine claims.

They were given up to the Spanish in return for guaranteed access to whaling and fishing grounds, which were denied by Argentina, who inherited the claim from the Spanish. So, in return, they gave up any claim they had to the islands. They cannot pick and choose which part of the treaty they want to follow. If they wanted to claim the islands, then they should have stuck to the terms of the treaty.

Just how many times do you need to be told, Terapin? I've done this one to death....

Originally posted by Terapin
It is also quite clear that Britain has indeed kept the idea of an eventual hand back on the table and British documents prove this.

Ha. No. Shared revenue, maybe, but Argentina pulled out of this earlier this year. The only way the UK would hand over the islands is by referendum. To hand back the islands by any other means would be political suicide to whomever did it.

Originally posted by Terapin
As for the moral question of removing the islands inhabitants by force... Isn't that exactly what the British did???

No. Your talking out of your bum. The US evicted the tiny Argentine settlement. We evicted Pirates. Besides, we had the first EVER colony there and were evicted by the Spanish.

Originally posted by Terapin
The Argentineans are not at all calling for the forced removal of the current inhabitants. In fact they clearly state that they intend to allow the current lifestyle and culture to remain intact.

Couldn't give a monkeys what the Argentines think, to be honest.

Originally posted by Terapin
All of this is factual and I gave specific details previously. Thus far no one has been able to refute these facts with anything substantial.

Me and you were going round in circles and I gave up talking to a wall. Doesn't mean you won, just means I got tired of repeating myself.

Originally posted by Terapin
People come into this discussion with a pro British slant yet fail to address the facts. I offered clear and concise details yet it seems as if no one has read the thread.

You seem to willfully ignore salient points in the discussion and repeat the same old tired line.

Originally posted by Terapin
I see a lot of Pro British opinion, but no detailed historical facts. Please offer some to support your claims.

HA! I've offered a whole plethora of facts throughout the thread but you keep repeating the same old "Argies were there first", when quite clearly they weren't AND they broke the treaty which gave them claim to the islands.

Originally posted by Terapin
Back up to page five, fourth post from the bottom, and read on up to this current page. Give me some facts that support your claims. I have offered a significant amount of factual data. No one has offered anything to support British ownership other than personal opinion.

Bollocks. Utter Garbage. Keep blowing your own horn mate, as I and others have engaged you on this and gave up, because you just ignore what we say and repeat the same tired old tripe.

The fight is over oil in the southern seas.
Just can't get it out yet.

Originally posted by puzzled2
The fight is over oil in the southern seas.
Just can't get it out yet.

There are exploratory drills being done as we speak.

Originally posted by Terapin
The UN charter just mentioned does not apply in this instance as it is the WRONG section. If you look closer you will find that the UN clearly states that since free immigration does not exists in the Falklands, the occupying individuals do not have a say in the mater. You simply cannot stack the deck and only allow pro British citizens to vote on the issue and the UN is clear about this. The rule of self-determination, according to the UN, does not apply.

The UN charter ALWAYS aplies, you cannot disregard it one moment then regard it another. Free immigration does apply, anyone with a british offshore territory friendly visa or passport you can happily immigrate there and naturalise to citeznship. You cant allow people who live there to vote on who will govern them? Exscuse me but isnt that a bit orwellian...?

Then again we are talking about forcibly removing a people from an island that they live on, never mind, afterall the decleration of human rights can be ignored when and it suits people....

Stu, I respect your right to have an opinion on the subject but I am a bit puzzled about why you choose to deny the factual data and offer none to support your position.

I spoke in detail about why the belief of some that the Nootka treaty was violated by Argentina, is a false assumption. Again, I gave detailed documented historical data. Can you offer any data that differs from this? Thus far you have claimed that I am wrong but have not offered anything to back up that claim. I gave very specific details, dates, treaties, specific laws, names and locations. Please offer some recognized data that backs your claim. There is a great deal of incorrect assumptions on the web being passed off as factual but if you dig deep and look at established credible sources, all the relevant data is available, You can read all the treaties, see the dates, and time lines. It isn't that difficult and I have outlined them in previous posts. Britain ceded the islands to Spain without proviso. Spain later turned over the islands to Argentina when it gained independence. With this independence, due to the internationally recognized rule of Uti Possidetis Juris, their territory included the Falklands. I explained what this rule means quite specifically for those unfamiliar with it and that fact that it dates back at least as far as Roman times. Britain recognizes this rule and has on a number of other occasions. Of that there is no dispute. Here once again are some specific dates and events:

In the Nootka conventions of the 1790s, Britain 'cedes' (gives away all legal rights to ownership of) the islands to Spain 'without proviso' (without conditions).
Argentina gains independence from Spain in 1816. At the time of Argentinean independence Britain officially recognized the sovereignty of Argentina and specifically mentions Argentinean sovereignty of the Falklands. If you remember your history you will recall that Britain and Spain were not on the best of terms at that date, and Britain jumped at the chance to congratulate Argentina on it's new found independence, and they did so with much public fan fair. When Argentina became the new owners they were not required to uphold any previous treaties, made by other nations, but were free to make their own deals and in 1825 England signs with Argentina a 'Treaty of Friendship and Trade' in which, among many things, she implicitly recognizes Argentina's sovereign territory including the Falklands. This important fact, which many seem to deny, was even published in the "Times" of London. I never stated that Argentina claimed the Nootka treaty as the reason why they owned the islands and in fact the Nootka treaty had nothing to do with Argentina at all. Since Argentina had nothing to do with the Nootka treaty they could not have broken it as you repeatedly claim. Any agreements regarding hunting and fishing were null and void the second Argentina became independant and the British/Argentinean Treaty of Trade and Friendship proves the point. Go read the treaties for yourself and see.

US Commander Duncan, on December 28, 1831, attacked the islands and he arrested many of the settlers including the Argentine Governor Vernet, and took them to Montevideo. This action clearly was in violation of the American Monroe Doctrine and also proved that without a doubt, the islands did indeed have inhabitants other than pirates and criminals as some like to claim. Even Richard Davies, a Falklands Councilor agrees that when Britain invaded there was an Argentine presence on the islands and not just a bunch of pirates.

You claim, and I quote

Originally posted by stumason Utter bollocks again. I've lost track of how many times I have said that when the British moved in 1833, the islands were occupied by pirates and criminals

So you see, you are incorrect on this point as the evidence demonstrates.

Britain mounted an invasion of the Falkland Islands on January 22, 1833 after the destruction of the Argentine settlement, Puerto Louis. Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, was in charge at the time and he was forced to leave at gunpoint by the British. Further evidence that "pirates and criminals" were not in charge as you claim. In Fact, British courts in 1833 refused to accept criminal cases from the islands brought fourth by British occupiers, and pointed out that they had no jurisdiction on the matter as the islands were not legally British territory. All of these facts can be verified and I spoke about them in greater detail in earlier posts.

As for the UN position, I explained about the rule of self-determination, what it means, and why the UN states that it does not apply with transplanted populations. I even gave the specific UN resolution number and date, that deals with this issue. This is the UN position and I did not make it up. It is there for all to see. You can go to the UN Decolonization Committee and see for yourself exactly why they have repeatedly and deliberately left out any call for self-determination. The UN lobbies for decolonization of the Falklands and you don't have to take my word for it as you can go look for yourself.

You can also look at the data that shows quite clearly that Britain has indeed explored an eventual hand back of the islands. These are official British government documents and you can look at them going back for decades. I gave specific details in earlier posts about this.

It is good that people here on ATS are willing to discuss a variety of subjects and have different positions. It is even better when they offer concrete data to back up their positions. I have done so in detail several times thus far. You keep telling me that I am wrong, but I am only presenting the data as it stands. If I am so incorrect, then certainly you can post some specific, detailed evidence to support your position.

I suggest that you first read the following:
1.) The Nootka conventions, where you can see that Britain 'cedes the islands without proviso.' (They gave up all rights without conditions.) That whole fishing and hunting thing was a bit of friendly cooperation but not a requirement and in no way was any obligation legally transferable to the newly formed Argentina.
2.) Announcements made in 1816 by The British government, and the Times of London, regarding Argentina's new independence, where you can see that the British recognize the Falklands as belonging to Argentina. You can also read about this in "El Redactor” (Cádiz, Spain) from the same date.
2.) The British/Argentinian treaty of Friendship and Trade of 1825 where you can see that Britain once again officially recognizes the Islands as belonging to Argentina and makes no claims what so ever regarding the now meaningless Nootka treaties.
3.) British court documents from 1833 which demonstrate that the British judges returned the cases without finding as they had no legal jurisdiction in the Falklands.
4.) The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback."
5.) In 1965 the UN’s General assembly urged Britain and Argentina through Resolution 2065 to "proceed without delay" with negotiations. These negotiations began almost immediately and were kept mostly in secret and away from the public eye.
6.) The UN General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 confirmed "that the right to self-determination was not applicable to the islanders since they were a British population transplanted with the intention of setting up a colony."
7.) Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "Memorandum of Understanding" was in the final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as condominum. (That is a legal term and not a fancy apartment)
8.) Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was Foreign Secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."
9.) UN Resolutions from November 4, 1982, requesting a resumption of the negotiations for the eventual decolonization and hand back. (This was after the Falklands war)
10.) The legal definition of "Without Proviso"
11.) The legal definition of "Uti Possidetis Juris"
12.) The legal definition of "Condominum"

Perhaps these dozen items will give you something to ponder.

Originally posted by devilwasp

The UN charter ALWAYS aplies, you cannot disregard it one moment then regard it another. Free immigration does apply, anyone with a british offshore territory friendly visa or passport you can happily immigrate there and naturalise to citeznship. You cant allow people who live there to vote on who will govern them?
Then again we are talking about forcibly removing a people from an island that they live on....

Lox, I am not talking about forcing the islanders from their homes and neither is Argentina. You also misunderstand the Self-determination question and how it relates to the Falklands.

The UN very clearly outlines the meaning and why it cannot apply. Here is a simple, if not exact, example. Lets say that while you are away on vacation, I sneak into your house and begin to live there. When you return, I cannot say... OK, let everyone in the house vote on who gets to stay here, while you stand outside. When Britain invaded they imported a colonial population and have maintained that population through immigration exclusion to promote a pro British stance. The Falklands do not have free immigration as specific groups are excluded. Because of this artificially maintained colony population, the right of self-determination does not apply. This is the UN making this statement and not me, and you can verify that and read about it in more detail in UN documents. I am just reporting the facts. This self-determination rule has been applied in other instances and is not new.

Argentina has no intention of kicking people off the islands nor of changing anyone's way of life there. They have guaranteed that everyone who wishes to stay may do so. They even built the Airport there, even after the British failed to help in the project as they had promised to. It is sovereignty not population, that Argentina cares about, and they have stated this officially on numerous occasions.

As always, I urge you to check this out for yourself.

The occupants do not get the right to choose who controles the islands in this situation. Since the British controle immigration, there is no free and open voteing right. Please, read the thread as this has been discussed before.

They are not Occupants, they are Citizens of the Falkland Islands and are subjects of the UK.. And yes they would get the choice to weither or not they want to leave the UK and come under Argentinian Control. Which I can gurantee you will be big NOO. They already were asked anyways if they wanted to remain British and they all said YES. So I really do not know where you are getting the British did not give them a choice.


Dont patronize me with the comment you put at the end of your contribution, I read your comments. But I disagree with your comment oks.