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.
