Never has the UN accepted that the British settlers in Malvinas are a “party” to the dispute. The UN has always made it clear that there are only two parties to the dispute over sovereignty: Argentina and the UK. The UN has asked them both to duly take into account the “interests” of the inhabitants of the islands in their bilateral negotiations. No international organization or forum has ever accepted that the British subjects in the islands can be a party to the dispute different from their country of citizenship.
It is only now that the UK is forcing to present its citizens in the islands as someone different from the metropolis and a so-called “third party” in the controversy. Only now because islanders have participated in bilateral meetings with Argentina always as members of the UK delegation.
After the UK accepted to comply with resolution 2065 (XX) in 1966, Argentina and the UK held several discussions over the Islands over two decades. Both countries began a series of conversations and discussed different options to settle the dispute, including a transfer of sovereignty, joint administration or a leaseback of the islands. There were even draft documents in which Great Britain recognized the Argentine sovereignty over the Islands and, like the 1968 Memorandum of Understanding, were initiated by both delegations.
During the 70’s, while both countries negotiated over sovereignty and communications to and from the islands, islanders were part of the British delegation to the bilateral meetings. Meetings were always bilateral, as mandated by the UN, by that did not prevent islanders from being members of their country’s delegation. Argentina never opposed and favored their participation because their “interests” were always part of the aspects to take into account in the bilateral conversations. So much so that the Joint Statement of 1st July 1971 made it clear when it expressed that the two parties to the negotiations were “delegations of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Argentine Republic, THE FORMER INCLUDING PARTICIPANTS FROM THE ISLANDS”.
Successive Argentine-British meetings held in the 90 and 2000’s on several issues relating to the dispute included islanders always as part of UK delegations to bilateral meetings. Never has the UK presented these meetings as “trilateral”.
Argentina has always declared that it is committed to respecting the interests and the way of life of the inhabitants of the islands pursuant to the tenets of the successive resolutions adopted by the UN and international fora.
It is clear that the UK resorts to this new argument only to contradict its own behavior and to confirm its disregard of international law.
8 October, 2015 at 10:34 pm
The Falkland Islanders at the UN? This is reality.
1. In 1947, the British Government included the Falkland Islands on a list of Non-Self Governing Territories
demanded by the United Nations under Chapter XI of the Charter. The UN accepted the Falklands as a NSGT.
2. Resolution 637 (VII) (1952) demanded that the Members of the UN recognise the right of the peoples of the
NSGTs to self-determination.
3. Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) declared that, “All peoples have the right to self-determination;” and demanded
immediate steps be taken to transfer all powers to those peoples. 1514 noted NO exceptions and makes no
reference to “implanted” peoples. A term unrecognised by the UN.
4. Resolution 1541 (XV) (1960) identified the term, “a full measure of self-government” which NSGTs may
achieve by, “(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) Free association with an independent State;
or (c) Integration with an independent State.”
5. Resolution 2065 (XX) (1965) invited the UK and Argentina to negotiate the implementation of Res. 1514.
Negotiations commenced in 1967 and continued until 1982 when Argentina stopped negotiating and invaded the
Falklands – rendering Res. 2065 ineffective. The Falklands have never been described as a “special colonial
situation” by the UN at any time.
6. Resolution 2200 (XXI) (1966) confirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination and recognised the right
of such peoples to, “ freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” Subsequent resolutions confirmed
that the exploitation of a NSGTs resources could only be for the benefit of the people of a NSGT with the most
recent being Resolution 68/88 (2013).
7. Resolution 2625 (XXV) (1970) added a fourth option to Res. 1541 – “the emergence into any other political
status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that
people… “
8. Following Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands on April 2nd, 1982, the Security Council in its Resolution 502
demanded that Argentina withdraw. Argentina refused to comply with this mandatory resolution.
9. Resolution 39/6 (1984) made the last reference to Res. 2065 by the General Assembly. This marks the demise
of Res.2065 for the purposes of the General Assembly.
10. Between the surrender of Argentine forces in June, 1982, and 1988, the UN General Assembly made annual
calls for Argentina and the UK to negotiate an end to their differences. This was achieved in 1989. Resolution
43/25 (1988) therefore marks the last time that the General Assembly issued a resolution on the Falklands.
11. At the meeting of the Fourth Committee in 2008, the Decolonization Committee attempted to place a
condition on the inalienable right of the peoples of NSGTs to self-determination by adding, “and where there is
no dispute over sovereignty.” A British amendment proposing that this be removed was passed by the Fourth
Committee which reaffirmed, “that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of
self-determination, ….” This has been confirmed annually in the omnibus Resolution which deals with all
decolonization matters not subject to specific UN GA resolutions. The most recent was Resolution 68/95 (2013).
12. In an interview with the Argentine press in November, 2012, the UN Secretary-General confirmed that the
UK was not in breach of any “relevant” UN resolutions with regard to the Falkland Islands.
The matter is settled. The UN has confirmed that in decolonization cases there is now “no alternative” to self-determination.
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/2010-2019/
LikeLike
17 October, 2015 at 11:38 pm
Busted, Lorton. “Nobody knew about the existence of JTRIG until Snowden himself spoke about it in an interview he gave NBC in February, 2014. The documents revealed internal publications that made it clear that the group’s cyber offensive mission was to attack all sorts of enemies, from Iran all the way to hackers from Anonymous –or, in this case, Argentina-, “destroying, degrading, discrediting and misinforming” the adversary, through the infiltration of its communication networks.”
http://tn.com.ar/politica/snowden-s-documents-the-internal-manual-that-explains-how-to-manipulate-people-through-internet-oper_592092
LikeLiked by 1 person
11 November, 2015 at 6:57 pm
How long has taken you and your team at the MI6 to come up with these fake arguments? You stink. All is false and distorted.
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 11:21 pm
Thank you Marcos for your good blog. I believe the Islanders and putting the government under pressure and that is why they are doing this.
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 1:16 am
My dear, quote at least ONE UN resolution that suggests (at least) you are “right”, not one. ALL UN resolutions, declarations and documents on Malvinas (because that is what we’re talking about) state Argentina’s position, too late for you to try to change reality now. Comw to terms with it. NOT ONCE HAS THE UN SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:56 pm
There are no UN GA resolutions supporting Argentina’s position. Indeed there are no longer any “relevant” UN Resolutions at all – as confirmed by the Secretary-General in 2012.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Confirmed by the Secretary general in 2012? dream on, man. You are sick. regional groups from all around the world support argentina. Cameron had to go to Caribbean to put pressure there, because he knows your propaganda is failing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
12 October, 2015 at 4:30 am
And you rely in an article by Tiempo argentino? you are idiotic, Lorton. Go lie somewhere else. we do not even know if he said what you suggest. you are so fake the FCO does not even rely on your arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
12 October, 2015 at 10:01 am
The Secretary-General’s comments were widely reported. The FCO has a copy of my work.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 1:16 am
Indeed! Cool, tell the UN to change its mind then as they seemed not to have paid any attention as resolutions keep on asking for the bilateral settlement of the dispute through negotiations between Argentina and UK. Islanders are not a “people” but a “population” or “inhabitants”. Tell the UN before it is too late. And the FCO that keeps your “work” inspired by these two puppets
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 8:38 pm
I was actually trying to gather information about those who: they are not Academics. Shameful.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 10:44 pm
The UN believes the matter to be settled. Which is why Argentina has failed to get a new UN resolution since 1988
LikeLike
14 October, 2015 at 9:28 pm
Estimado Sr. Junius: la Resolución 2065 está viva. Por tal razón, las organizaciones regionales piden que se cumpla. El hecho que la AGNU no haya adoptado una resolución sobre Malvinas dede 1988 no quita la vitalidad de la 2065. Siga los debates hoy día. Atte, Adriana Constanzi.-
LikeLike
14 October, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Gracias, Adriana. Estoy totalmente de acuerdo. La saludo a Ud. Atentamente.
LikeLike
17 October, 2015 at 10:11 pm
2065 is long dead. Buried at Argentina’s request in 1985. You should read the UN’s documents.
LikeLike
22 October, 2015 at 2:57 am
lordy lordy…WHAT a LIAR!
LikeLike
11 November, 2015 at 6:55 pm
Lorton is out of control! After he was busted, this happened.
LikeLike
19 November, 2015 at 12:46 am
really? 2065 is alive and kicking! WHAT WAS DEAD IN 1985 WAS THE BRITISH DREAM OF FORCING SELF DETERMINATION IN MALVINAS CASE. In 1985 UNGA not only adopted a new resolution renewing 2065’s mandate but rejected two British attempts to introduce the principle of self-determination in this case. The UNGA was alert and did not accept such a distorsion as the inhabitants of the islands are a “population” (not a “people” as in the rest of NSGTs) whose “interests” (not “wishes” as in the case of the rest of NSGT).
LikeLike