Argentina Claims Falklands (again)

Spencer, Read the Post.

I did not say that Britain did not give them the choice. I simply pointed out the UN position on Self-determination as it regards to the Falklands. Since this is a decolonization issue and the population of the colony has been artificially maintained through exclusion, the issues of self-determination has deliberately been left out in the UN call for the hand back of the Islands.

Again... I never said that Britain did not give them the choice, just that it doesn't apply according to UN standards. These standards have been used in other situations and are nothing new. Feel free to read the UN position on this yourself and see. I am just reporting them, not making them up.

Terapin please go to www.falklands-malvinas.com... and tell the FIG you believe they belong to Argentina.

The Falklanders are a nation same like the Scots, the Welsh or the English -- or the people of Tokelau for that matter. Moreover, their right to self-determination has already been officially and formally recognized and guaranteed by the British Government through the process of enacting the 1985 Falklands Constitution. This act of transfer of prerogatives from London to Stanley entails that any future decisions regarding the sovereignty of the Islands would be up to the Falklanders alone to make, and this is irreversible. Once recognized/granted, the self-determination cannot be taken away.

Originally posted by Terapin
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.

Lox? The names devilwasp mate...
Yes you are, you are telling them they belong to another government and hence lose the right to self determination.

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.

A) We didnt invade....stu and several others have shown this historical fact...
B) If it was to be given back to anyone it would have to be given back to the french.....
en.wikipedia.org...
Look at the timeline.

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.

Are they? To be one you need to become a british oversea territory citizen....do you have evidence to support that certain groups are being discriminated?

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.

I'll take that with a very large pinch of salt, its less than 30 years ago they tried to annex it and impose thier law on the people. That cannot be disputed, frankly if the islands want to live there they have the right to under UN human rights law. There are no living ex residents of the island are there to make a case against the peopel living there? If you can find me one yes atleast one 100 plus year old person willing to make a claim I'll bow to your logic...

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...

I strongly urge people to go and read the material for themselves as this is nothing I have invented. I am simply reporting on the data as it stands. I avoid citing material from any Argentinean source as it might appear to be bias, and I also do not cite material by any source from the Falkland Islands as again, it might appear bias. I only cite historical documents that have been verified, or have other credible supporting material that confirms the data. If you look, you will see that there is a great deal of documented evidence which shows that even Britain agreed that the land legally belonged to Argentina when the British invaded. There is significant material to show that there was indeed a legitimate Argentinean presence on the Island at the time of the British invasion. There is significant material which shows that the British government has indeed negotiated on decolonization and it even shows that they have negotiated on terms somewhat similar to the Hong Kong hand back with a possible short term 'Condominum' situation.

If you disagree with the data then please offer credible, verifiable, data to support your position and which refutes the official British government documents I have mentioned. I listed 12 items and you should start there if you wish to deny the evidence I have presented. I understand why the British feel the way they do about the fate of the islands particularly after suffering losses in a senseless war. I understand why the Argentineans feel the way they do as well as the Falkland islanders. They all have legitimate reasons. As we all know, laws are not based on feelings and in this case they are quite clear. The UN continues to call for negotiations on the decolonization of the Falklands.

Finally, Devilwasp. I apologize for using the wrong screen name for you in my previous post. I was studying Mandarin Chinese at the time and had the ATS screen partially scrolled up when I inadvertently jotted down the wrong title. I noticed the error once I had posted my comments, and intended to correct it, but ATS has removed the edit button and I was unable to. I figured you would recognize whom I was addressing, and I will endeavor not to make this error again.

Terapin

Will say this once and only once, those Islands, Falkland Islands will never be given up, anmd not matter what Nutied Nations Doctorine youpost on here. Simple fact is those isalnd will not go back to argetina why, cause they do not belong to them in the first place....



Go ahead an try and try and remove them uder the UN... Maybe the next UK Gov will have the bolocks to release our nukes on Argentinia.....

Since the UK have ignored the UN before what makes you think they will listen tothem now?? And you an hit me withUN doctorines all you want, things change when there is a chage off Gov in the UK..

[edit on 3-7-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by Terapin
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.

What locals? It was abandoned! The only people there were french naval forces when the british arrived!

1764: Louis de Bougainville (France) founded a naval base at Port Louis, East Falkland
1765: Ignorant of de Bougainville's presence, John Byron (Great Britain) claims Saunders Island and other islands for Britain.

From en.wikipedia.org...
The first settlers where french and british (only a year between them) and even then the french left a year later.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Terapin
Simple fact is those isalnd will not go back to argetina why, cause they do not belong to them in the first place....

Spencer, could you explain by what reasoning you claim that Argentina does not have a legally recognized case for sovereignty of the islands? The evidence clearly shows that even the British government fully and publicly recognized Argentinas sovereignty over the Falklands. I pointed to two specific documents that you can examine for yourself and see.

I am not saying that any change of hands is at all likely in the near future. All I have stated, is that there is plenty of evidence which supports Argentinas position, not that change will happen in our lifetime. This thread topic is about Argentina's claim. I have pointed out the sound legal reasoning and historical facts behind said claim.

The Falklands war set any possibility of decolonization back for generations.
The war created significant social concern on the topic and that must be kept in mind. I would guess that any change is highly unlikely to happen so long as anyone who participated in the war is alive, or any of their immediate descendants. At least two generations would have to pass before the social upheaval, that the war caused, would subside. If you look at the world history of decolonization, you can see other instances where tragic events, such as wars, set back timetables for decolonization. Eventually however, things change. Britain said that they would never give up India, yet a little lawyer in a robe brought about that change in time. The same can be said for many former colonies around the globe.

Yes, Argentina has a legal claim to the islands. Is anything likely to happen in our lifetimes? I'd say, not a chance at all.

Devilwasp, I am referring to the invasion of 1833 which is after Britain had recognized the full legal ownership of the islands by Argentina. There was indeed an Argentinean settlement there at the time which was expelled. Lt. Col. José María Pinedo was in charge of the Argentine settlement and you can check that fact easily.

[edit on 4/7/07 by Terapin]

[edit on 4/7/07 by Terapin]

I mentioned the negotiations that have occurred where in Britain has considered a deal much like the Hong Kong situation.

Many people misunderstand the history of British rule in Hong Kong and describe it as being leased from China as though it was some sort of a rental agreement. That is not the case and the term 'leased' has an entirely different meaning in this context.

Hong Kong became the full property of Britain in 1842 with the Treaty of Nanking after the first Opium war. Britain was reaping great profits from drug pedaling opium and went to war over Chinas refusal to participate. When the British won the war they also gained the land.

The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, was the most humiliating defeat China ever suffered. In European history, it is perhaps the most sordid, base, and vicious event in European history, possibly, just possibly, overshadowed by the excesses of the Third Reich in the twentieth century.

By the 1830s, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality.

-wsu.edu Richard Hooker

In 1860 after the second opium war, the Convention of Peking was held in which Hong Kong was ceded 'in perpetuity' (forever) to Britain. In both these treaties history shows that the results were entirely one sided, going towards Britain, as they had the bigger guns.

There was a second Convention of Pekingin 1898, in which Britain agreed to a lease back deal in which they would return the ceded land after a 99 year time period. This was not a rental agreement as some assume. It was an agreement to give away property belonging to the British Empire, back to it's former owners, namely China.

Later in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 the hand back to China was ratified regarding the pending return of Hong Kong to China.

This has been the model which Britain has used in negotiations for the return of the Falklands to Argentina. Official British government documents prove this. A 99 year time period gives everyone time to be used to the change as it is never good to rush change. As to when such a deal might be made, all bets are off, but the negotiations, while slow, are ongoing.

Oil found

The British company Rockhopper announced today that they have found oil


Oil explorer Rockhopper reveals Falklands discovery

British oil and gas exploring company Rockhopper announced Thursday that it has discovered crude oil in a deep well off the coast of the Falkland Islands.

[---]

Britain successfully reclaimed the islands following an Argentine military invasion, but Buenos Aires has never abandoned its ownership claim and has raised its affirmations of sovereignty amid the prospect of a major oil find.

Originally posted by malganis
If UK and USA enter a large war with Iran, and then the Argies decided they wanted to use that time to retake the Falklands, what the hell would we do!?
And if China decides it wants Taiwan at the same time, were all pretty screwed. It's either let our allies/territory be invaded or divert our efforts away from Iran.

We have 4 Euro fighter Typhoons present in the Falklands, these aircraft will dominate any Argentine force in the event of a war.
China will never take Taiwan either, China is a different beast now as to what it was 30+ years ago.

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by malganis
If UK and USA enter a large war with Iran, and then the Argies decided they wanted to use that time to retake the Falklands, what the hell would we do!?
And if China decides it wants Taiwan at the same time, were all pretty screwed. It's either let our allies/territory be invaded or divert our efforts away from Iran.

We have 4 Euro fighter Typhoons present in the Falklands, these aircraft will dominate any Argentine force in the event of a war.
China will never take Taiwan either, China is a different beast now as to what it was 30+ years ago.

Besides Barlcays might decide they can't complete the debt swap their working on for Argentina as it would be at war with the UK..

My best guess is that the Falklands was the leverage Argentina used to get a British bank to help them sort out their debt issues before they went bust.

The rest of this is all fluff to hide that...


[edit on 6/5/10 by thoughtsfull]