The Malvinas Islands are in a different situation from that of the classical colonial case. De facto and de jure, they belonged to the Argentine Republic in 1833 and were governed by Argentine authorities and inhabited by Argentine settlers. These authorities were ejected by violence and not allowed to remain in the territory. Most of them had been forced to leave after the 1832 attack. On the contrary, they were replaced during those years of usurpation, by a colonial administration and a population of British origin.
Thus there is no “people subjected to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation“, as required by the UN General Assembly 1514 (XV). Instead, there is a temporary population made up of British settlers that occupies the land and one that cannot be used by the colonial power in order to claim the right to apply the principle of self-determination. The basic principle of self-determination should not be used in order to transform an illegal possession into full sovereignty under the mantle of protection which would be given by the United Nations. To allow the British settlers on the Islands to decide on a sovereignty dispute to which their country is a party would distort the very noble spirit of self-determination of people suffering colonialism.
The inhabitants of the islands are British subjects who have stayed on the islands, under the protection a strict migratory policy that has discriminated systematically against mainland Argentines.
The unilateral act that only the UK describes as “referendum” and was held by the inhabitants that the UK settled in the Malvinas Islands was intended to ask them about questions that gloss over the true legal status of the islands. The predictable result confirmed that the subjects in question are British, does not modify the colonial nature of the issue and cannot bring an end to the dispute. Contrary to what the UK claims, there were not “international observers“, but eight individuals acting in their exclusively personal capacity. Neither the UN nor any other international organization recognized this illegal move.
The UN and several international bodies have continued to call both Argentina and the United Kingdom to solved the dispute pursuant to UN Resolutions.
Regional organizations, such as Mercosur, Unasur and Alba rejected the so-called “referendum” and reiterated their support for the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute.
Finally, in another move to distract the public opinion, the propaganda booklet that is being distributed on social media argues that the dispute is “settled”. This is false.
Malvinas Islands: Facts and Fictions 
29 September, 2015 at 11:26 pm
Referendums do not have to be recognised by the UN to be valid. Fact.
Click to access self-determination-points-to-ponder1.pdf
And the matter IS settled.
Click to access el-punto-final.pdf
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:13 am
Settled? Then do not spend time here, trolling my blog. Thanks, Roger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Settled.
1. Britain’s claim goes back to 1594 with occupation and declaration of sovereignty in 1765. That sovereignty was challenged by Spain but has never been lost. Spain formally recognised British sovereignty over the only island it still laid claim to in 1863.
2. Nothing that Spain did between 1767 and 1811 affords any advantage to Argentina as no concept of ‘inheritance’ is recognized or enforced in International Law. Uti possidetis juris cannot be applied as the Falklands archipelago has never formed a part of Argentina and cannot, in any case, be imposed on a State that has not accepted the concept as an applicable principle.
3. Argentina did not make a claim to the Falkland islands before 1829. That was 235 years after England’s first claim and 64 years after British occupation. Claims have to be overt, not covert. The actions of David Jewett (unrecognized by Buenos Aires until 1832) and Luis Vernet (in agreement with the British between 1826 and 1828) are irrelevant to Argentina’s first claim of 1829 as neither was in support of an overt sovereignty claim by Argentina.
4. Argentina’s claim of 1829 was immediately protested by Britain setting the ‘critical date’ for the purposes of any arbitration. Argentina’s actions after that date cannot now be considered unless they were a progression of overt acts of sovereignty commenced before that date. Britain’s ejection of a trespassing garrison in 1833 was an extension of the rights it established in 1765; and was itself an act of continuing sovereignty.
5. Argentina’s intermittent protests stopped after the peace treaty of 1850 and did not occur again until 1884 when informal inquiries and complaints were received by the British Government. No formal invitation to take the issue to arbitration has ever been presented to the UK by Argentina.
6. Although Argentina chose to reserve its position regarding the Falklands archipelago on the signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945, it has never attempted to invoke the UN’s court – the ICJ – to obtain an opinion with regard to its claim to the islands or its interpretations of UN resolutions. Nor has Argentina attempted to take the issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration which also sits at the Hague. With two legal options
available but unused, mere protests have not kept Argentina’s claims alive.
7. The United Nations has listed the Falkland Islands as a Non-Self Governing Territory (NSGT) for the purposes of decolonization under Article 73 of the 1945 Charter since 1947. It has more recently confirmed that in the process of decolonization of all the remaining NSGTs there is “no alternative” to self-determination by the peoples of those NSGTs. No exceptions to this are recognized by the UN.
8. No UN Resolution has ever attempted to identify any group of NSGT inhabitants as being excluded in any way from either the rights granted under the Charter, or those specifically granted to NSGTs by UN General Assembly (GA) Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960.
9. The UK has complied fully with its obligations under Article 73 of the 1945 Charter and has brought the peoples of the Falkland Islands to a full measure of self-determination as evidenced by the 2013 referendum conducted in the Falklands in compliance with UN GA Resolution 637 (VII) of 1952. In that referendum the Falkland Islanders chose to retain their links with the UK in accordance with the options offered in UN GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970.
10. The matter is now settled
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:53 pm
It is not settled and you know it. Make better arguments, but please stop lying and distributing propaganda over social media. Are you the spokesperson to the islanders? Is that the reason why you are trolling all day long here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
8 October, 2015 at 11:28 pm
settled and the UN says this: “A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd579.doc.htm
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:45 pm
UN hasn’t mentioned a sovereignty dispute since 1984. UN hasn’t mentioned any dispute since 1988
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 4:11 am
Matter settled? haahahhaha dream on, Lorton. Care to read something? Please do: https://factsandfictionsofmalvinasislands.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/booklet-argentinas-actions-at-the-united-nations/ and http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/falklands-vote-ruritanian-colonial-relic
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:09 am
Without a new UN GA Resolution the matter remains settled. Can Argentina get one this year? We’ll know on the 15th.
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 9:06 am
Please define ‘Temporary Population’, after nine generations as some can state, are they more permanent than temporary? Implanted? Isn’t that definition good for 97% of Argentina?
LikeLiked by 2 people
1 October, 2015 at 3:03 am
What does it have to do with the immigration in Argentina? You make no sense.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 8:53 pm
No old chap, its you that is not making any sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
3 October, 2015 at 1:12 am
You appear not to understand the meaning of the word “temporary”
LikeLiked by 1 person
12 October, 2015 at 4:13 am
you have no idea what is the population of argentina like. a good question might be: why did you guys make up a new etnicity for the kelpers? you are british, stay british. this is about the land, not the people. i am not sure if you get it.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:10 am
They are Kelper and British as I am English and British, as Justin is Scottish and British. Argentine’s ability to get confused is truly amazing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
13 October, 2015 at 9:15 pm
No. That’s what you want us to look like.
LikeLike
23 October, 2015 at 11:03 pm
Please indicate clearly how many people can claim nine generations on the islands.
Also, how many were born abroad (spoiler alert: more than half).
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 12:33 pm
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association did which consists of 54 nations.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:02 am
I’d like to know your name. Leaving anonymous messages shows how scared you are. I approve all messages.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 4:16 am
an association ruled by the Queen of England? You are really idiotic.
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Looks like you only allow pro Malvinas Comments, what are you afraid of?
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 1:00 am
Junius, the referendum was a stunt and no one recognised it. Despite UK efforts to the contrary. There’s a Mr Willet who knows about manipulation! And the matter si NOT settled at all as the UN and all international fora have nit changed their urging bith countries to settle the controversy through bilateral negtiations.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:15 am
Officially recognised by Canada and the UK. Referred to (de facto recognition) By Russia in a Security Council meeting in 2014. Prof Willetts now fully supports the reality that the Islanders have the right of self-determination. He changed his mind at the time of the referendum. His paper can be found on the South Atlantic Council website.
The UN has not recognised a sovereignty dispute since 1984; and has not recognised a dispute of any description since 1988. Please check
http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 7:45 pm
“de facto” recognized by Russia? http://www.telam.com.ar/english/notas/201504/4737-we-thank-the-russian-support-on-the-malvinas-issue-said-cristina.html . Can you read, Roger? https://www.rt.com/news/218371-sovereignty-dispute-argentina-aircrafts/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/10965578/Britain-should-open-talks-with-Argentina-over-the-Falklands-says-Vladimir-Putin.html You better read a bit, Sir.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 4:20 am
read for yourself, lorton: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html and http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/falklands-vote-ruritanian-colonial-relic. you are such a retarded.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:11 am
Quite so as the Russians compared their Crimea referendum with that of the Falklands in the Security Council in 2014.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 9:14 pm
False. Read, if you can: http://www.telam.com.ar/english/notas/201504/4737-we-thank-the-russian-support-on-the-malvinas-issue-said-cristina.html, http://www.telam.com.ar/english/notas/201507/5143-vp-8203boudou-thanked-the-russian-support-to-argentine-claim-on-malvinas.html, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/25/falkland-islands-fears-for-russia-backed-invasion.html (you didn´t know your government did this “in fear”?), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/11493134/Russia-questions-Britains-claim-to-the-Falklands-as-garrison-reinforced.html.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 1:45 am
The right of peoples to self-determination is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law. It is thanks to this principle that numerous subjugated peoples were able to create their own independent states during the decolonisation process over the second half of the 20th century. For long years, the United Kingdom and other colonial powers denied the legally binding character of the principle of self-determination.
They only came to recognise its importance in the late sixties, when the independence process of their former colonies had practically come to an end. The UK government did so in an attempt to use its settlers to hold onto those of its remaining colonial outposts existing in breach of the territorial integrity of other states. Argentina, on the other hand, was and is a faithful advocate of the principle.
As a state that emerged from an anti-colonial struggle, this fact should come as no surprise. Regarding the Malvinas Question, the British government has two objectives in invoking and distorting the principle of self-determination: to maintain a presence in the South Atlantic region, and to avoid resolving the sovereignty dispute with Argentina which has been ongoing since 1833.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Thank you for your comment. Very useful to destroy the trolls attacking my blog in defense of the memory of somebody who made history at the UN with regards to the Malvinas Islands
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Ah so anyone who responds to your blatant lies is a troll? Senor Ruda went to the UN and told a pack of lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 9:57 pm
Not all of them, but some. Apparently, your delegation did not think that Ruda was a liar. Neither did the UN. You should check with your own people what the Malvinas meant and how the UK was not sure of its own rights. I see your government is very disturbed too: the recent statements made in the Caribbean show that it is indeed a very weak case. If you renounce to the declaration made upon ICJ ratification (see the reservation your government made), I will see you in court.
Otherwise, Mr., go to your records and check the following: You should check the records of your own foreign office. I insist: Berhanrd 1910, FO 881/9755, Campbell FO 371/1288, Field 1928 FO 37/12735/1336, Orchard 1928 FO 371/12736, Fitzmaurice 1936 FO 371/19763, Memoradum “Very Confidential” by Torr from 1927 PRO/FO 371/11959, Annual Report of 1927 of Sir Robertson to Sir Chamberlain PRO/FC A.1312.1312/2), Sir Robertson to Sir Lindsay 1928 PRO/FO 371/12737. Just to name a few example. Maybe these are not longer public, who knows.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Wrong, the UK had an Empire, it chose to dissolve that Empire without any of the wars of independence that plagued other European empires. Since the second world war it progressively granted independence to any former colony that wanted it, since the 1960s the official policy of the UK Government was to grant independence on request, to assist any territory in the transition to independence and to confer the greatest degree of self-government possible in those territories that did not wish full independence at the time. The policy remains unchanged today, with the emphasis of self-determination being a key and fundamental principle.
The UK simply isn’t interested in holding onto territories. Your whole comment is an exercise in sophism to try and portray the UK as the bad guy here, when really when the UK says it is committed to self-determination, its because it is.
Your claim that Argentina values self-determination is nonsense. Argentina has supported communist China’s irredentist claim on Taiwan, Serbia’s claim on Kosovo, denying the people of those territories have a right to determine their own future. You’re so obsessed with your false claims that you’re prepared to sacrifice democratic principles and support morally bankrupt regimes that care more about territory than people.
Argentina would happily impose its will and subjugate the people of the Falkland, thrusting an alien culture upon them. Your claim to respect the islanders is patent nonsense, when in the next breath you turn around and say they are none people who don’t deserve a say in their own future.
The sovereignty dispute has also not been going on since 1833, Argentina dropped it with the signing of the Convention of Settlement in 1850. It did not raise the matter again till 1941.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 9:53 pm
Argentina respects the islanders. Check Chagos case and see how double standards work. You fury makes me happy: you feel touched, that’s the reason of your desperation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
3 October, 2015 at 1:17 am
You are in error.
1. The UN Charter Article 1:2 states that it is the purpose of the UN – “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
2. Art.73 of Chapter XI places obligations on Administering Powers regarding – “ .. territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government..” (NSGT) to; “ .. develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples…”
3. There are no NSGTs without a people in need of the attainment of a full measure of self-government. A territory without a people cannot be a NSGT. Resolution 567 (VI) (1952) states; “ The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
4. Self-determination of the people of NSGTs has been recognised as a right since 1952’s Resolution 637 (VII).
5. In 1960, Resolution 1514 (XV) confirmed the right to self determination of “all peoples” and required, in the case of NSGTs, that Administering Powers; “ .. transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, … in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
6. Resolution 2200A (1966) required Administering Powers to; “ .. promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and .. respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter,” within NSGTs.
7. Resolution 2554 (XXIV) (1969) reaffirmed; “.. the inalienable right of the peoples of the colonial Territories to self-determination and independence ..”
8. Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self determination and confirmed that a NSGT has; “.. a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter..”
9. In the Namibia case (1970), the International Court of Justice recognised that the principle of self-determination was applicable to ALL Non-Self Governing Territories.
10. At its Fourth Committee meeting in 2008, the UN rejected a draft-resolution which limited the right of NSGTs to self determination where there was a “sovereignty dispute.”
11. Every year the UN’s General Assembly reaffirms; “ .. that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights..”
12. Every year, the UN’s General Assembly confirms that there is “no alternative” to self-determination in decolonization cases.
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 7:43 pm
False. Distorted arguments. You will fail in Court.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 4:49 am
you are not a foreign alien domination: you are the UK, part of the colonization plan. so the self determination does not applly. you are so finished.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:12 am
Argentina has never had the courage to go to court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
13 October, 2015 at 9:11 pm
I think the other day Tururod, over Twitter, already explain this to you and you seem to forget. I pity you.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:12 am
UN GA resolution 2625 says that the Islanders are separate from Britain. I suggest that you read it.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:47 pm
1. The UN Charter Article 1:2 states that it is the purpose of the UN – “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
2. Art.73 of Chapter XI places obligations on Administering Powers regarding – “ .. territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government..” (NSGT) to; “ .. develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples…”
3. There are no NSGTs without a people in need of the attainment of a full measure of self-government. A territory without a people cannot be a NSGT. Resolution 567 (VI) (1952) states; “ The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
4. Self-determination of the people of NSGTs has been recognised as a right since 1952’s Resolution 637 (VII).
5. In 1960, Resolution 1514 (XV) confirmed the right to self determination of “all peoples” and required, in the case of NSGTs, that Administering Powers; “ .. transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, … in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
6. Resolution 2200A (1966) required Administering Powers to; “ .. promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and .. respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter,” within NSGTs.
7. Resolution 2554 (XXIV) (1969) reaffirmed; “.. the inalienable right of the peoples of the colonial Territories to self-determination and independence ..”
8. Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self determination and confirmed that a NSGT has; “.. a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter..”
9. In the Namibia case (1970), the International Court of Justice recognised that the principle of self-determination was applicable to ALL Non-Self Governing Territories.
10. At its Fourth Committee meeting in 2008, the UN rejected a draft-resolution which limited the right of NSGTs to self determination where there was a “sovereignty dispute.”
11. Every year the UN’s General Assembly reaffirms; “ .. that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights..”
12. Every year, the UN’s General Assembly confirms that there is “no alternative” to self-determination in decolonization cases.
The matter is settled.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Since the establishment of the UN, the British government has made tremendous efforts to show the British character of the population of the Islands. This was evident in the successive census in the Islands. Not even one Resolution adopted by the UN recognized the existence of self determination for the Malvinas Case. And that’s a fact. The manipulation you are making of the self-determination principle is evident, not solid enough to make a case in front of any independent court.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Every resolution on the Falklands invokes 1514, which clearly states self-determination is paramount. You can lie but you’re easily found out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
2 October, 2015 at 9:52 pm
Double Standards at its best and personal attacks shows how desperate you are. Apparently, everybody lies but you. You should check the records of your own foreign office. I insist: Berhanrd 1910, FO 881/9755, Campbell FO 371/1288, Field 1928 FO 37/12735/1336, Orchard 1928 FO 371/12736, Fitzmaurice 1936 FO 371/19763, Memoradum “Very Confidential” by Torr from 1927 PRO/FO 371/11959, Annual Report of 1927 of Sir Robertson to Sir Chamberlain PRO/FC A.1312.1312/2), Sir Robertson to Sir Lindsay 1928 PRO/FO 371/12737. Just to name a few examples.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 1:18 am
Marcos/Mara’s response regarding the views of minor civil servants from before the UN existed is quite laughable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 9:53 pm
Already have, I did in fact transcribe the Bernhardt memo onto a PDF so there was an online copy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 9:57 pm
So if you’re going to quite Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez’s book pretending its your own work, let me remind you of the review in the BA Herald.
“Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators’ historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…” “The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer’s publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer’s intended meaning….” “Even worse, ‘British’ sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as ‘British’ (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator’s level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez’s book” “This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…” “readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude’, whose research on the islands’ title deeds led him to conclude that ‘Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter’ (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985).
LikeLiked by 1 person
3 October, 2015 at 1:19 am
Nicely done
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 11:34 pm
Yes you and your fiend go and laugh. The documents are not from low level civil servant. was wellington one? also see in case you did not look it http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd579.doc.htm
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 2:54 am
Did I tell you should have a look at this too? “Argentina Enjoys Widespread Support over Question of Falklands (Malvinas) as Fourth Committee Begins Debate on Decolonization Matters” http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd580.doc.htm
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 1:26 pm
@Astor, so please tell us exactly what Wellington said and remember to include ‘all’ the words that were written. If for example you happened to miss out on small word it may give a very different meaning in this context.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 4:45 am
I have soemthing for you too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10740605/Britain-is-disappointed-with-America-over-Falkland-Islands-finds-Commons-report.html
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:13 am
Old news and not even true. US policy has been consistent since the 1940’s. Support Britain privately, but tell Argentina that they are neutral. Thought you’d have worked that out after 1982.
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Marcos, I think using the C24 as a marker for your support is ridiculous to anyone that knows about the UN and the Falklands. When was the last C24 resolution that got past the 4th Committee, let alone the GA.
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Are you referring to this: http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd580.doc.htm ? The matter is not settled. Then, self determination is something that should be taken very seriously. The inhabitants will be respected but it is not up to them to negotiate over the sovereignty. Finally, the bad use of the “self determination ” principle can lead to a disaster.
LikeLike
10 October, 2015 at 3:55 am
@BornFearless1 Argentina got widespread support on a dispute whose existence the UK denies. The UNGA (193 members) have heard about this and no one has ever supported UK lies. The world is changing and colonialism and imperialism are over. Decaying Britannia must come to terms with it. UN has NEVER accepted your views, let alone the referendum…
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 1:06 pm
@Alejandro…..Please link to a UNGA resolution that states that the 193 members of the UN support Argentinas claim to Sovereignty. I am not talking about UNGA documents that support peaceful negotiations, that does not show support one way or the other. Show us all where 193 members have stated that they do not support the UK but support Argentina.
I can show you a UN document where, in 2008 Spain and Argentina sponsored a motion to change the Right of Self Determination to those territories of NSGT’s that did not have an on going sovereignty dispute. Guess how that one ended? So what you write is utter rubbish and purely your own interpretation and opinion rather than providing facts and documents that prove what you say.
If you can prove me wrong on the above statement and produce a GA resolution or document that states the Islanders are not entitled to self determination, that they are a special and exceptional case, then go ahead, I am waiting.
You must also remember that ‘negotiations’ do not mean sovereignty hand over, why do all Argentinians think that the result of peaceful negotiations regarding the Falklands means a sovereignty handover? The reason there are no new GA resolutions since the 80’s is precisely that, they were negotiating peacefully about all aspects of trade, economy, social and ecological matters. It was Argentina that decided it didn’t want to carry on as a friendly neighbour.and tore up the agreements. It is Argentina that does not want to negotiate unless the final result is the handover of sovereignty, that is not ‘negotiating’.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 8:40 pm
Negotiations mean negotiations, something UK should do. Period.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 1:22 am
A brief analysis of the demography of the islands clearly reveals the artificial nature of Britain’s claim that the settlers constitute a separate people and are thereby entitled to self-determination. In 1851, 18 years after the seizure of the islands, the total population was 287 –roughly the same number of inhabitants as there was at the height of the community’s development during the period of Argentine administration towards the end of the 1820s. For a century, the number of inhabitants remained between 2,272 in 1911 and 2,841, according to the latest census in 2012. There were peaks, as in 1931 (2,392 inhabitants), and after generally remaining stable, this figure began to decline in 1962 (2,172 inhabitants) reducing to 1,813 inhabitants by 1980. Following the war in 1982, the population grew by almost a third in just thirty years. The reason for this was the economic boom produced by the granting of fishing licenses. These figures demonstrate that the demographic growth of the population is not natural.
The number of inhabitants on the islands is essentially dependent upon the economic and administrative needs of the colonial power. The population primarily comprises civil servants of the Crown, landowners and business men and women. Today, the second major “village” on the islands is made up of the civilian staff at the Mount Pleasant military base. They represent 15% of the islands’ population. The less well paid jobs are done by immigrants from Chile and Santa Helena. And yet the British citizens alone have the right to vote. Added to this there is also discrimination towards the Argentine citizens. Immediately after the end of the 1982 war, the resident Argentine citizens working for the fuel and transport provision services were expelled. For 17 years Argentine passport holder were banned from the right to visit the islands, even as tourists. An unwritten law prohibits Argentines from owning real estate, to the extent that those inheriting such properties were forced to sell them.
The manipulation of the latest census is blatant. As the majority of the inhabitants were not even born on the islands, the British authorities did not provide this information initially. In place of this, they provided information on how individual islanders identified themselves in terms of their “national identity”. The “result” was that 59% responded “Falkland Islander” and 29% “British”. This clearly shows that many of those who define themselves as “Islanders” are in actual fact British citizens having arrived from the United Kingdom. Indeed, many of them are the supposed “spokespersons” for the inhabitants, either as governmental or legislative representatives or as opinion makers in the islands’ media.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 8:33 pm
The manipulation is shocking. I read about the control they have over the population and how Argentinians have no right whatsoever. And I speak about civilian population: even if a retiree Argentine wants to move, he/she cannot.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Usual propaganda which Argentina can never prove. Allow to educate you:
1) there is a small population on the islands that originated from argentina. They have all take Islands citizenship and all voted to retain the islands link with Britain in the referendum. There is no coershion – that only happens in argentina.
2) there is a population of 53 people on the NSGT of Pitcairn island. they have the right of self-determination. Numbers are irrelevant.
Hope that helps 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
15 October, 2015 at 6:31 pm
6th generation Falkland Islander, MLA Mike Summers
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/legislative/assembly-members/the-honourable-gavin-short-mla/
Gavin Short – born in Falklands
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/legislative/assembly-members/the-honourable-phyl-rendell-mbe-mla/
Phyl Rendell – born in Falklands
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/legislative/assembly-members/the-honourable-jan-cheek-mla/
Jan Cheek – born in Falklands
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-governance/legislative/assembly-members/the-honourable-ian-hansen-mla/
Ian Hansen – born in Falklands
Only 2 members of the current government were born outside of the Falklands.
So the spokespersons for the islands, were born there.
When you lie and the facts are on the web, its quite easy to show you’re lying.
Now the reason why the Falklands economy and population were falling pre-war was down to the fact that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office resisted any investment in infrastructure in the islands whilst negotiations to resolve the dispute were ongoing. Now the brakes have been removed and the islands have been able to exploit natural resources for their benefit the population has grown rapidly as the economy expanded. No population can grow like that and since the population has virtually doubled it is unsurprising that a significant portion is not native born.
Lie and spread malicious lies about the population if you like, you merely demonstrate the hatred and racial prejudice in our society toward the islanders.
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 7:59 pm
So? This does not mean that these people were not implanted population. There is not hate or prejudice towards islanders. It’s about the land. You do not seem to understand yet what’s going on here. The sovereignty dispute exists, whether you like or you don’t and the matter is still being dealt at the UN, it’s a matter that is being reflected in several resolutions and statements from international and regional organizations- and a matter of public debate. See: if it wasn’t, then why would this exist anyway: http://tn.com.ar/politica/snowden-s-documents-the-internal-manual-that-explains-how-to-manipulate-people-through-internet-oper_592092
Regarding the exploitation of the natural resources, you see: the islands are in Argentina’s platform. Whether you like or not, that’s where they are. Despite the fact that you came out with a very bizarre story that the islands do not belong to Argentina’s continental platform, a theory that not even your closest allies buy (maybe you former colonies do buy it because they are obliged to). What you are doing, is illegal, and accusing Argentina of being hostile is seriously stupid.
Stop spreading lies on line and live!
LikeLike
14 October, 2015 at 9:21 pm
Estimado Marcos: me da mucho gusto leer algo tan bien escrito. Lo cuelgo acá porque veo que hay muchos que discuten y creo que esto puede servir para embellecer el debate.
Queria contarte que en Uruguay se armó lio cuando Trobo fue a participar. El publico no lo quiere mucho a Trobo y mucho menos, después de eso. Salió en muchos diarios de Argentina y del Uruguay, porque entiendo que no vivis en el Rio de la Plata, te los paso:
En Argentina fue asi: http://www.cronista.com/internacionales/Segun-un-diputado-opositor-a-Mujica-las-Malvinas-son-una-gran-oportunidad-para-Uruguay-20140218-0105.html
Pero en el Uruguay pasó esto tambien:
http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/islas-malvinas-nuevo-traspie-argentina.html
Algunos extractos para que se vea bien lo que pasó:
Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro, ministro de Defensa Nacional, calificó de “cipayos” a los legisladores blancos que asisten de veedores en el acto eleccionario en las islas británicas, mientras que el líder de AN, Jorge Larrañaga, afirmó que “el Partido Nacional no apoya el plebiscito”. Ya el sábado pasado comenzó una fuerte polémica por la decisión tomada por algunos nacionalistas de participar en calidad de observadores de la consulta popular a los “kelpers” sobre el status político del archipiélago. Fernández Huidobro hizo fuertes declaraciones a medios de prensa internacionales, afirmando que nuestro país “respalda la soberanía” argentina, y por lo tanto, la posición oficial es la de “no reconocer los resultados del referéndum”, algo que “no es partidario, sino institucional”. http://eldiario.com.uy/2013/03/11/fernandez-huidobro-y-malvinas-nacionalistas-siempre-fueron-cipayos-de-la-causa-latinoamericana/
El Movimiento de Participación Popular (MPP) no habilitará una exposición de los diputados nacionalistas José Carlos Cardoso y Jaime Trobo sobre el viaje que realizaron como observadores en el plebiscito de las Islas Malvinas. El tema fue planteado en la última sesión de la bancada del Frente Amplio por el diputado Martín Tierno en nombre del MPP. El legislador dijo que el sector consideraba que no era conveniente “distraer la atención” en un tema como la disputa por las Islas Malvinas. La bancada frenteamplista resolvió comunicar la posición de no acceder al pedido de los nacionalistas en la próxima reunión de coordinación interpartidaria. De todos modos, Trobo y Cardoso pueden plantear el tema en sala como una “cuestión política”, pero en este caso solo cuentan con tres minutos para fundamentar su posición.
Los diputados nacionalistas viajaron los días 10 y 11 de marzo a las Malvinas para participar como observadores del referéndum, por el cual el 99% de la población se expresó a favor de que la isla continuara bajo administración británica. Tras las críticas recibidas de parte del gobierno, Trobo y Cardoso aclararon que el hecho de concurrir como observadores en un proceso electoral no significa convalidar nada. “La intolerancia y el debate político menor, parecen haber atrapado buena parte de la política uruguaya, algunos de los que practican ese estilo salieron a destilar intolerancia e insultos”, dijo Cardoso en referencia al ministro Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro, quien había dicho que la actitud de los diputados era “vergonzante”. http://partidonacional.org.uy/portal/index.php/2015-08-18-23-09-35/comision-de-etica/9-noticias?start=1810
Los únicos legisladores uruguayos presentes son los diputados del Partido Nacional, Jaime Trobo y José Carlos Cardoso. Ambos han viajado, por invitación y a título personal. Desde el Partido Nacional se ha aclarado que no existe posición oficial al respecto. http://www.uypress.net/uc_38247_1.html
Una fuerte polémica se generó este sábado por la decisión de algunos legisladores nacionalistas de participar como “veedores” durante la celebración de la consulta popular a los habitantes de las islas Malvinas sobre el estatus político del archipiélago. La delegación del Partido Nacional está integrada por el diputado Jaime Trobo, afín al sector político del ex presidente, Luis Alberto Lacalle.
El primero en pronunciarse en forma rotunda contra los parlamentarios blancos fue el ministro Fernández Huidobro, quien explicó a la agencia de noticias TELAM que la posición oficial del gobierno uruguayo es la de “respaldar la soberanía” del país vecino y, por lo tanto, “no reconocer los resultados del referéndum”, algo que “no es partidario, sino institucional”. “Van a convalidar con su presencia este disparate que es el referéndum de los ocupantes. Nos tienen acostumbrados a estas actitudes vergonzosas”, cuestionó el secretario de Estado. http://www.lr21.com.uy/politica/1092095-gobierno-y-alianza-nacional-rechazan-que-legisladores-blancos-participen-de-veedores-en-referendum-en-malvinas-sobre-su-estatus-politico
Los diputados del Partido Nacional (PN) Jaime Trobo y José Carlos Cardoso viajaron este fin de semana a las islas Malvinas para participar como observadores del referéndum que se está llevando a cabo ayer y hoy, en el cual los habitantes decidirán si quieren o no seguir siendo parte del Reino Unido. En conversación con En Perspectiva, Trobo explicó que en su caso viajó respondiendo a una invitación de una ONG canadiense y aclaró que su presencia “no tiene nada que ver con el tema de la soberanía argentina” sobre las Malvinas “y la posición que Uruguay ha tenido históricamente” al respecto. Indicó que su rol se limita a observar que se cumplan “plenamente” los procedimientos electorales que los kelpers mismos han fijado. “Escuchar y ver qué es lo que ocurre no significa legitimar nada” http://www.espectador.com/politica/260268/jaime-trobo-pn-viaje-a-las-malvinas-como-observador-electoral-del-referendum-no-significa-convalidar-su-resultado
El senador Jorge Larrañaga aclaró que el viaje del diputado Jaime Trobo es título personal. Larrañaga afirmó que el Partido Nacional no apoya el plebiscito en las Islas Malvinas. http://www.uypress.net/uc_38237_1.html
Cariños, Adri.-
LikeLiked by 1 person
14 October, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Señora Adriana, le agradezco a sobremanera.
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 3:01 am
Tanto es así que la ONU hoy menciona la existencia de la disputa de soberanía cuando el Reino Unido menciona el “referendum” ilegal. Debate de hoy en http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd585.doc.htm
So much so that UN mentions today that there exists a sovereignty dispute when the UK refers to the illegal “referendum”. Check today’s debate at http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd585.doc.htm
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 9:14 pm
The matter is not settled: not at all. The problem is that the kelpers are spreading that in order to gain support from non-experts and public opinion. It’s their strategy. You can also see it here, or every time Dr. Kohen publishes articles on Malvinas.
The matter is not settled and they can call another referendum, but it will not resolve the dispute. The UK has to negotiate with Argentina. Full stop.
LikeLike
19 October, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Wrong yet again..the UK doesn’t have to negotiate anything with Argentina….u need to discuss things with the FI’s…simple really..and they don’t want to talk to you..so..busted..lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
11 November, 2015 at 2:02 am
The matter has been settled since 1988. If it were not, the UN would issue a GA Resolution on the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
11 November, 2015 at 7:15 pm
Wait wait wait. Now you say that it’s been settled since 1988? You cannot even follow your own words.
It’s been fun, Roger. Retire, my friend, it’s about time.
LikeLike
13 November, 2015 at 1:13 pm
How can the matter be “settled” when Great Britain signed a “sovereignty formula!” with Argentina in 1989 on the Malvinas and South Atlantic islands? Not only did GB acknowledge that the dispute was (1) over SOVEREIGNTY and (2) BILATERAL, it also recognised its geographical scope: (3) MALVINAS, SOUTH GEORGIA AND SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS AND THE SURROUNDING MARITIME AREAS!
LikeLike
15 November, 2015 at 12:46 pm
lordtrash is not EVEN SMART!Totally illogical….lordtrash ARGNETINA best friend!
LikeLike
19 November, 2015 at 12:49 am
Matter is settled? Don’t forget both UK and Argentina informed UN Secretary General of their agreed “sovereingty formula” in 1989 thereby renewing the existence and bilateral nature of the sovereignty dispute whose territorial scope was spelled out: Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. Crystal clear. No way back.
LikeLike