In 1790, upon the signature of the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial, Great Britain undertook not to establish any settlements on either the Eastern or the Western coasts of South America or on the adjacent islands already occupied by Spain, with was the case of the Malvinas Islands. Spain appointed a succession of 32 governors until 1811, when the garrison at Puerto Soledad was required from Montevideo to defend the Monarchy at the beginning of the War of Independence. The first autonomous government of the United Provinces of the River Plate referred to the Malvinas Islands in various administrative acts. Malvinas were integral part of their territory, inherited from Spain by succession of States under the utis possidentis juris principle of 1810.
Officer Jewett took possession of the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the United Provinces of the River Plate at a public ceremony in Puerto Soledad, which was attended by sealers and whalers of different nationalities. There was no official comment from Great Britain, as Argentina´s possession was public, effective and peaceful.
In 1829, the Duke of Wellington stated: “I have perused the enclosed papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all those islands. The Convention certainly goes no further than to restore to us Port Gumont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
In reality, Great Britain never possessed the totality of the archipelago.
Argentina´s officials had never had any doubt that the islands belong to Argentina. During the XIX century, Argentina´s maps reflected Argentina´s sovereignty over the islands. Among others, the 1882 Latzina Map depicts the islands as “Islas Malvinas” and part of Argentina. The islands are colored in the same pale beige used for Buenos Aires (this map depicts different opportunities for immigrants; regions apt for farming in whole Argentine territory are depicted with different shades of color). In 1886, Argentina´s Geographical Institute published a map depicting Tierra del Fuego Governance which included Malvinas. In 1918, the islands are presented as “Islas Malvinas” and hence part of Argentina on a map issued by the Agricultural Ministry that depicted the whole Argentine territory in different shades and colors according to degree of agricultural development and availability of railroad networks.
30 September, 2015 at 3:00 am
In many ways you are correct. Britain claimed the whole, but when the garrison left, the notice left on the blockhouse door claimed only Egmont. But then the same can be said of Spain, when they left, the notice nailed to the church door only claimed the enclave at Soledad. If there was any usurpation in 1833 by Britain it was against Spain. Spain maintained its own claim until 1863 when Admiral Pinzon saluted the Union Jack.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:05 am
Forgot to say that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata carried out administrative acts in Malvinas and England did not oppose.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Incorrect, when Vernet was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander the British protested immediately, When Mestivier was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander the British protested immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 11:20 pm
What administrative acts? Buenos Aires did not claim the archipelago until 1829. Claims over territory are required to be overt not covert. Britain warned Buenos Aires in 1829 and 1832. The “critical date” for legal hearing/arbitration was set at 1829. You need to learn some international law.
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:54 pm
You seem to forget 1820, at the least, and all the administrative acts by Buenos Aires. Do you know who Don José de San Martín was? Then, study kid.
LikeLike
23 October, 2015 at 11:33 pm
Administrative acts like removing your shitty plaque and taking it to Buenos Aires. And visiting Port Egmont once a year to check that the British were not there.
LikeLike
17 October, 2015 at 11:32 pm
We know who you are: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Latzina map does not show Falklands as an Argentine possession, in fact the opposite, its shaded in a different colour. However, the map has been digitally manipulated in an attempt to make the colours the same.
Funny that faking images again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 October, 2015 at 2:57 am
No. In fact, that manipulation was made by the British.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 6:20 pm
Thats a photograph of the original map, taken by a friend of mine from the copy in the British library. Its rather obvious that it hasn’t been manipulated, in fact the meta information on the image is intact and shows it hasn’t been manipulated.
The second image when compared to the first shows it has been manipulated to try and make the colours look vaguely the same but even then its failed if you look closely in an image programme such as GIMP the colours are different. Further, if you look at the file all of the meta information has been stripped out.
You’ve just been caught telling a blatant lie.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:07 am
Ridiculous, but hey – where is your evidence?
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:11 am
Fortunately, I know where an original is 🙂
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:01 pm
You can also check this out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/10965578/Britain-should-open-talks-with-Argentina-over-the-Falklands-says-Vladimir-Putin.html. And probably this too: Letter from the Duke de Wellington to Sir George Murray (Foreign Offi ce), in WELLESLEY, Arthur Richard, 2nd Duke of Wellington (Ed.), Dispatches, correspondences and memoranda of fi eld marshal Arthur Duke of Wellington, vol. VI, New York, Kraus Reprint Co, 1973, pp. 48-49.
LikeLike
17 October, 2015 at 11:33 pm
he British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands — also known as the Malvinas — since 1833, has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty. Worried that Argentina, emboldened by international opinion, may attempt to retake the islands diplomatically or militarily, JTRIG and other GCHQ divisions were tasked “to support FCO’s [Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s] goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands.” A subsequent document suggests the main FCO goal was to “[prevent] Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands” and that new offensive cyberoperations were underway in 2011 to further that end. https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Photoshoped maps.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Justin’s is the original. Easy to prove.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 7:20 pm
Since mention Nootka, signed in 1790, repeating the usual false claim that under Nootka the UK renounced any claim, allow me to demolish that particular lie.
The only two nations to sign that agreement were Britain and Spain. Neither have ever applied it to the Falklands, only 3rd parties like Argentina have tried to use it to infer Britain gave up the Falklands – I’ll come back to that.
If you refer to Hansard from 1790, when the convention was ratified in the house, it is clear that as far as the UK was concerned that the 1771 agreement was still extant – ie that Britiain was entitled to settle in the Falklands (and by the way, the British South Atlantic Fishery was in full swing exporting oil to Europe). Hence, it is clear that Britain did not consider it applied to the Falklands and that has always been the British position.
Nootka included a secret agreement, which states:
“Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.”
The moment Argentina intervened, Britain was no longer bound by the convention. This of course presumes it applies, it doesn’t.
The claim that under Nootka Britain abandoned the Falklands hinges upon a creative interpretation of the VI article. This refers to islands adjacent to the coast, by no stretch of the imagination could islands >300 km off the coast be considered adjacent and if you refer to article IV, they refer to 10 leagues – so its clear what they had in mind. Neither Britain nor Spain have ever accepted that interpretation.
There is already a precadent set in the ICJ over islands 100 km from the coast, in that case it was ruled that this was not adjacent.
Further it was Spain who unilaterally repudiated the treaty in 1795. It is alleged that the treaty of Madrid in 1814,implicitly resurrected it but that is perhaps stretching matters.
1. A treaty that when signed was clearly not intended to be applied to the Falklands – Hansard
2. A treaty that became invalid when Argentina intervened.
3. A treaty unilaterally repudiated by Spain.
4. A treaty that only 3rd parties have claimed as relevant, on the basis of an argument already destroyed by the ICJ.
Nice try, no cigar, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Jewett in 1820.
Mmm, where do I start.
First of all, 1820 was one of the most anarchical years in Argentine history, where there was twenty-four Governments in one year; three in one day. That one of those Governments thought to send Jewett to the Falklands seems fanciful. Which is reflected in the fact that not one shred of documentary evidence can be produced by Argentina to show he was ordered to go to the Falklands.
You claim it was public, effective and peaceful is simply untrue. No one had any idea it had happened till way after the event, at which point, Jewett had abandoned his command to work for Argentina’s rival Brazil and his replacement Mason had left the islands. The Argentina government did not gazette the sovereignty claim in the Gazeta de Buenos Ayres or make any public pronouncement.
The way it came to be known in Argentina is also rather strange, it was first reported in the Salem Gazette of 8 June 1821, it was then picked up and repeated in the Times of 3 August 1821, It was then picked up by the Cadiz Redactor the following August and reported in Buenos Aires as a foreign news story nearly 2 years later.
The declaration often touted as the declaration Jewett made is a half-truth. That is in fact a letter that was given to Weddell that he published in his book of 1828. However, if you read Weddell’s account two facts are plain. Firstly, Jewett only put into the Falklands as his ship had been wrecked in a storm and his crew were half-dead from scurvy. Secondly, Jewett made the claim as part of his attempt to claim exclusive salvage rights on the wreck of the Uranie.
Jewett didn’t got to the Falklands straight away either. Neither was Jewett an officer in the Argentine navy, nor was the Heroina a ship of the Argentine navy. Jewett was in fact a privateer employed by Patricio Lynch, the Heroina the former French armed merchantmen Braque outfitted as a corsair by a group of Argentines lead by Patricio Lynch hoping to repeat the success of Hippolyte Bouchard and make a fortune. Jewett’s voyage was a miserable failure, in 8 months he had only managed to seize one ship the Portuguese ship Carlota (piracy by the way). The Carlota was lost in the same storm that nearly wrecked the Heroina. So when he put into the Falklands he had nothing to show for an 8 month voyage – to any reasonably minded person its clear he concocted the declaration so as to have something to show for a failed 8 month voyage.
Jewett in his 13 page report did not mention the Falklands once. Rather strange that don’t you think?
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 8:03 pm
Oh and you’re quoting the Duke of Wellington out of context. And falsifying the quotation.
1829 July 23rd, the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, writes to the British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington:
“It appears to me that the interval between the cessation of the power of old Spain and the consolidation of that of the new governments in South America would be the best time for our resuming our former possession of the Falkland Islands…. I have not spoken with Lord Melville on the subject, but I believe he is very sensible of the importance in the naval point of view of the occupation of those islands.”
1829 July 25th The Duke of Wellington RESPONDS:
“It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
Wellington continues his remark, ending with:
“That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King’s acknowledged right of sovereignty. I think that this is all that can be done at present. It will have the effect of impeding any settlement or cession by Buenos Ayres and as we may suppose that the French and Americans will hear of this communication they will not be disposed to act in contravention to it unless determined upon a quarrel with this country.”
1829 July 28th, Sir Herbert Jenner’s legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”
Farewell to “not clear to him”.
Note by Wellington, 25 July 1829, in ‘Correspondence and Memoranda of the Duke of Wellington’, Vol. 6 (London 1877), p. 41
So basically, you take a quote out of context from a series of letters in which a legal position was in the process of being formulated. This culminates in the legal opinion of Sir Herbert Jenner, which is the opposite of what you claim.
I once saw a review of a play in the Times, it was short and pithy and simply said “Not one of Lord Olivier’s best performances”. The theatre next day splashed a quote from this review “…one of Lord Olivier’s best performances”. Which is pretty much what you’ve tried to do.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 1:06 am
The Latzinia map calls the islands Malvinas, not Falklands, and colour used is same as in other parts of Argentina. In any case, supposing your argument might be valid, why did UK take so many years to claim this, if it ever did actually. And UK negotiated sovereignty as of 1966, a bunch of years later than the map you distort.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 8:38 pm
Rather obviously the colours in the Latzina map as originally printed do not show the Falklands as part of Argentina. Its a lie, its untrue and only a rabid Malvinista would deny evidence right in front of their face.
And no the UK was not negotiating to hand the islands over, yes I know you said sovereignty but we both know what you mean. The UK was prepared to transfer sovereignty if the islanders agreed but typical of Argentina you managed to cut your nose off to spite your face with the attitude you displayed to the islanders making that impossible.
And no its not that the UK had doubts over sovereignty, it was simply because the UK was seeking to withdraw from its overseas possessions.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:00 pm
Your Government did not think the same. Check the meetings in 1968 and then, get back to us. You need to study the case better.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:02 pm
You know what Senor Ruda, I am very familiar with those documents, you’re telling lies again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 10:06 pm
So familiar you have to accuse of liar instead of going to Court.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:06 pm
If you were so familiar, then you will know what I am talking about Sir.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:14 pm
Did you read also the document Henderson to Eden, dated 1-26-1937? Read it carefully: PRO/FO (A 1665/1665/2).
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:10 pm
So if you’re familiar with them, you can post copies online then.
We’re waiting.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:09 am
Marcos/Mara is particularly ill-informed with regard to the negotiations between 1966 and 1982. Full details can be found here – https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/10-1966-to-1981.pdf
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 1:07 am
And that CIRCULAR in The Times? Any reaction between 1820 and 1829?
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 8:39 pm
No one noticed it, it was a tiny comment buried on the bottom of page 2. Thats why Senor Ruda is using the bigged up fake version.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:10 am
The UP did not exist in 1820. Even Buenos Aires did not recognise Jewett’s action until the Vernet Report of 1832. Why don’t you people even know your own history?
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:41 pm
Do you know your country’s history? I am not so sure. You can also read this, in case you missed it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg#/media/File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 12:06 pm
look Junius, see 1820 Times paper relevant page and explain then why you took so many years to “remember” the Spanish-rhen-Argentine islands! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:44 pm
Who should we have complained to in 1820. Argentina did not exist, and Spain was still trying to invade the Rio de la Plata.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 6:24 pm
spain trying to invade the rio de la plata? no. spain was defeated. the 1820 article in the times is true. why don’t you accept the facts instead of accusing all the time and leaving tousand messages here? lets go to court. oh wait: the uk will not hire you, becuase your arguments are false. try in your next life.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:15 am
You really need to study some history https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/5-1823-to-18326.pdf
Spain maintained its own claim to the falklands till 1863
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Not only they never possessed, but also: they cannot continue pretending they do. The information revealed by Snowden shows the doubts UK has and how it needs to shape public opinion. Read: https://www.eff.org/document/20150402-intercept-gchq-operation-quito-shape-falklands-public-opinion
Trying to persuade and change facts in Argentine national history is cheap.
LikeLike
11 November, 2015 at 2:01 am
It is a settled fact that Spain was never able to exert control over the whole archipelago, but was limited to its enclave at Soledad.
LikeLike
11 November, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Roger, it’s time you learn how to read in Spain before you make more mistakes. You are seriously making your government look awful.
LikeLike
23 November, 2015 at 8:06 pm
ALL YOU copied and pasted makes no sense, the truth is here, right here and not in your prpaganda blog.
LikeLike
19 November, 2015 at 12:51 am
Oh Junius, what a big problem for you then that only “controlled” Port Egmont, not even on one of two “big ones”! Your own Duke of Wellington in 1829 stated: “I have perused the enclosed papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all those islands. The Convention certainly goes no further than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
LikeLike
19 November, 2015 at 1:04 am
I found the reference! “In order to unmask the fictional history of the United Kingdom’s alleged titles over the Malvinas, let us recall the words of British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, who wrote in July 1829: “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these Islands. The Convention [of 1771] certainly goes no further than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago. […] I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly every valuable post and colony in the world, and I confess that I am anxious to avoid exciting the attention and jealousy of other Powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case, in which our right to possess more than Port Egmont is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desirable to avoid such acts” (Letter from the Duke de Wellington to Sir George Murray (Foreign Office), in WELLESLEY, Arthur Richard, 2nd Duke of Wellington (Ed.), Dispatches, correspondences and memoranda of field marshal Arthur Duke of Wellington, vol. VI, New York, Kraus Reprint Co, 1973, pp. 48-49).
LikeLike