Argentina Claims Falklands (again), page 9

There are a lot of statements and misrepresentations being made but it seems that no one wishes to look at the actual data. I suggested that people go and read the relevant documents for themselves yet this doesn't appear to be happening. My personal position on the matter is not based on anti or pro stances towards either nationality. It is on the side of the historical facts and evidence as it stands.

Devilwasp, you claim that Stu has 'proven' that Britain did not invade. Where did he prove it and with what data? He simply made statements without pointing to any specific credible data that supports his statements. I offered a good deal of data that you can go verify for yourself. I outlined 12 specific items that everyone here should look at. Even several official historical British government documents clearly state their recognition of Argentinean sovereignty of the Falklands dating from the time Argentina became independent.

You may also wish to consider a statement made by Richard Davies in front of the UN. Who is he? He is a resident of the Falklands, but not just any resident, he is a Falkland Islands Counsel, legally representing the islanders, and is perhaps the most vocal supporter of the Islanders right to determine their own fate. In front of a UN committee, which is a matter of public record that you can read for yourself, he fully admitted that there was indeed an Argentinean settlement on the islands, not just criminals, when the British invaded, and yes he did say, 'invaded.' He isn't the only source and there is other evidence that demonstrates that there was indeed an Argentine presence. I pointed to several items from credible sources and there is a great body of evidence to cite. You may also wish to consider, that many nations have territory where no one at all lives, yet no one disputes their legal ownership simply due to lack of population. Some Hawaiian Islands have no inhabitants for example. That doesn't mean that they are not part of the US.

Some claim that Britain did not invade. What do you call it when an outside government expels the local population at gunpoint, or in this case with gunships, and then imports their own population? Generally, that is called an invasion, and as I mentioned above, even a Falkland Island government representative made an official public statement to the fact in front of the UN. There is a good deal of supporting evidence to confirm the invasion, and I have pointed to some in previous posts. Even British judges of the day refused to hear cases as they stated that they had no legal jurisdiction.

Stu focuses on the Idea that Argentina violated the Nootka treaty and thus the land claim was forfeit, but this is incorrect. First, the Nootka treaty primarily between Spain and Britain, was mostly about land in North America, but there is a section where Britain ceded all rights over the Falklands to Spain. There are no conditions which state that Britain forever gets the right to hunt and fish there, or if such hunting/fishing rights end then Britain gets the land back. There is no condition that if Spain gives the islands to someone else then Britain gets the land back. There are no conditions what so ever. Britain officially ceded all legal rights to the land 'without proviso' and I urge you to go and read it for yourself. Sure, Spain allowed them to fish and hunt, but it was not a legal condition of ownership, it was a friendly gesture common between two nations. They also agreed to use each others ports in the same spirit of cooperation.

In addition to this, the Nootka treaty was between Spain and Britain, and Argentina was under no legal obligation to follow any deals made by them as third parties. Like any nation they have the right to make their own deals, and Britain did indeed make new deals with Argentina when it gained independence. The Treaty of Trade and Friendship is one example that I mentioned, which specifically confirms Britons agreement that the land belongs to Argentina. Again you can go read it for yourself but here are other similar examples that you can consider. When India and the US became independent from Britain, they were not obligated to follow any deals made by Britain with other countries. Anyone wishing to do business with India or the US had to make new deals and many nations did so in short order. Look at Yugoslavia. Britain had trade deals with them, and when the country disintegrated, the new nations which now make up former Yugoslavia were not obligated to follow any previous deals Britain had made. Britain has new deals with the new nations of former Yugoslavia. The same holds true with Argentina. They were not legally obligated to allow the US and the British to fish and hunt on the islands and thus, there was no violation when they told the Americans to stop the wholesale slaughter of seals on the islands, as Stu claims. The data, and international law, do not back him up. Like any sovereign nation they had the full legal right to control who does what on their territory.

People also do not seem to understand, and clearly have not read, the UN position on Self-determination, and many misrepresent its meaning as well as what I have said about it. You can go read it for yourself but I will clarify. Keep in mind that the UK is a very important member of the UN and since its inception, has actively participated in its formation and regulations. The UN is specifically charged with negotiating decolonization around the globe. In the case of Self-Determination there are two basic types of colonies to consider. One, in which the locals are subjugated by the new colonial powers, such as in the case with India, and two, where the locals are expelled and a new population is transplanted, as in the case with the Falklands The UN rules on Self-determination, which the UK helped to write, very clearly state that in the case of a transplanted population, the right of self-determination does not apply. Self-determination only applies in the case of a subjugated population. These are not my definitions but those of the UN which you can go and read for yourself. These rules have been used in other cases and the UK agreed to such use. I never said that the British refused to give current islanders the choice, I simply offered the facts of UN decolonization rules which the UK helped to write. According to the UN, granting the inhabitants the right to self-determination would allow the colonial power to justify its usurpation of the territory.

Puzzled2, The material you offered only demonstrates that the British government wont publicly make any move on the matter without hearing the wishes of the Islanders. It does not refer to any international bodies position or international legal principle. Sure, the British government publicly state that they will follow the wishes of the islanders, but legally, it is not their decision to make, and in fact they indeed have previously negotiated in the direction of a lease back agreement much based on the Hong Kong deal. I pointed to that information in an earlier post and you can go read the official documents yourself and see.

Yes Devilwasp, I offered evidence in an earlier post that certain groups are excluded from immigration and thus there is not a free and open immigration policy in the Falklands. You can go and look at the Falklands and the British official position on this matter and see for yourself but all of the original Argentinean inhabitants, their descendants, and in fact any Argentinean has been prevented from settling on the islands since 1833. You can read what the UN has stated about it. There are groups that are excluded and those allowed are clearly designed to give a pro British position. This is one reason why the UN deliberately leaves out Self-determination when it calls for progress on decolonization. If only those who fit into party goals are allowed to immigrate, then any vote would be bias and thus not applicable. Remember that the UK helped craft these UN rules.

Yes, less than 30 years ago a very stupid and arrogant Argentinean President, running a military government, started a foolish war and I agree that it was wrong. It was very stupid and indeed, the worst thing that could have happened. He was soundly kicked out of power by his own people in the next election, and rightfully so. However, the Argentinean people do not officially demanded the removal of all Falkland islanders as some have claimed. The Argentinean government has repeatedly offered guarantees of continuation of lifestyle and residency to all Islanders. They specifically mention that they are interested in sovereignty and not forced population change. Again, this is a matter of well established public record which anyone can go and see for themselves. They have made several statements to this effect in front of the UN, to the British Government, to the US, as well as the European Union.

As for the Airport I mentioned, you can check for yourself. Prior to Argentina building the airport, the only regular way to get to the island way by an arduous sea journey. Medical emergencies could be quite problematic. The British and Argentinean government, in the spirit of promoting a better connection with the mainland and improving the lives of the islanders, decided on a joint venture to build an airport. When the time came to start the project, the British decided that it wasn't worth the effort to help out the islanders and chose not to participate in funding the project. Argentina went ahead and built the airport on their own, and continue to support air service to the island. This has been a major improvement for the lives of the islanders.

TO be continued in my next posting shortly...