Posts Tagged Falkland Islands
Would they say that if they got the result they wanted?
Argentina has adopted a very odd position on the question of self-determination for the Falkland Islands. The referendum that will be held on the territory’s political status on Monday is simply “illegal” and “irrelevant”, says Alicia Castro, the Argentine ambassador in London. When she set out this position on Monday, I asked whether Argentina would take the same view if the Islanders were to vote to be governed from Buenos Aires. “Yes”, was the unequivocal answer.
The ambassador was joined by Prof Marcelo Kohen, an Argentine international lawyer, who confirmed that the “outcome” of any referendum is “irrelevant” to the question of its legality. All perfectly true and logical.
But think this through for a moment. If some future generation of Falkland Islanders were to vote to unite with Argentina, Buenos Aires would have to denounce that as an illegal verdict. Ms Castro says that Argentina prides itself on its adherence to international law, so the country could not possibly take possession of a territory as a result of an illegal referendum.
If the Islanders ever decided to be part of Argentina, the British Government would have to hand them over, in line with its own commitment to self-determination. But Argentina would be compelled to turn this down, given that it believes the Islanders’ views are “irrelevant” and any expression of them via a referendum is “illegal”. On Argentina’s current position, a transfer of sovereignty by the consent of the Islanders – as registered in a referendum – would be illegal and therefore unacceptable. The only way that Buenos Aires could gain possession of the Islands would be if the inhabitants were not consulted. If they were asked to join Argentina and the answer was “yes”, Buenos Aires would have to reject this verdict just as surely as if the outcome was “no”. As I say, this is a very odd position.
During her press briefing on Monday, Ms Castro also voiced her indignation about the treatment of the Chagos Islanders back in the 1970s. If you remember, they were shifted off their home on a British territory in the Indian Ocean to make way for an American base. Two big countries – Britain and the US – decided the fate of this island people without any reference to their wishes. How strange that Ms Castro should sound so irritated by this. That is exactly the same approach – if not, in fairness, the same outcome – that Argentina favours in respect of the Falklands.
I know logic can be annoying. But I’d respectfully suggest that Argentina’s government is a bit confused on all this.
But the Argentinians are behaving likes despots!
Falkland Islanders ‘must decide own future’, says Hague
It must be up to the people of the Falkland Islands to “decide their own future”, William Hague has said after meeting islands’ representatives.
The foreign secretary said he welcomed the results of the islanders’ referendum on sovereignty in March.
He earlier met Jan Cheek and Dick Sawle, of the islands’ legislative assembly, at the Foreign Office.
He added it was a “shame” Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman had declined to attend that meeting.
Mrs Cheek and Mr Sawle said they were “disappointed but hardly surprised” at his absence.
“Mr Timerman dismisses us as ‘settlers’. Well, we are settlers. Like countries across the continent of the Americas, we came into existence through waves of settlement from Europe and elsewhere,” said Mrs Cheek.
“Indeed, we Falkland Islanders settled in our home long before many parts of Argentina were settled by the Argentines,” she continued.
“Mr Timerman knows full well that it is simply untrue to say that we have fewer political rights than anyone else, or that the United Nations has said that self-determination does not apply to the Falklands, or that UN resolutions preclude Argentina from sitting down with us.
“Repeating these misrepresentations doesn’t make them any truer, however inconvenient for Argentina.”
Buenos Aires was “deeply worried about our referendum”, she said, “which is why they spend so much time dismissing it”.
“Talk of the Falklands being Argentine in 20 years makes for good headlines – but smacks of desperation.
I think, yes.
Given the threatening authority of Argentina and the determination of Britain to maintain island security, I believe there is a middle ground.
Britain needs to give the Falkland Islands their independence, in much the same way as Jamaica achieved the same in 1962 while maintaining a Commonwealth Realm hold on the islands as protection against any military incursion.
Once independent and with a flag of their own, the next step is for the United Nations to accept admission.
This as a solution would protect the islands and any further claim by Argentina would in fact be a declaration of war on another country.
Personally I see Hellerick’s flag as a compromise between the flags of Britain, retaining the Coat of Arms, and Argentina’s colours, given that the bottom bar is in the form of waves; all highly appropriate, given their geographic location, which is a part of Argentina’s grief. I see such a vexillographic compromise as a vital part of the solution.
At the moment, the Falkland Islanders are British. With Independence they would become Falkland Islanders, neither British, nor Argentinian.
Any success by the Argentinians to make the Falklands a part of Argentina has clearly been soundly rejected by the people who have collectively determined that they don’t want any part of Argentina or it’s corrupt government. They, at least the majority, are of British stock and should not be obliged to change their heritage, customs, language or form of governance by anybody.
The Falklands would have their own maritime exclusive zone that would not conflict with that of Argentina.
The Falkland Islanders can be left in peace and be subjected to the capricious whims of neither the greedy British nor the Argentinians to form their own government and constitution.
Matters of oil exploration can then be decided by their own government, not the British who would obviously profit handsomely; nor the avarice of the Argentinians.
The Falklanders would be able to decide who explores, who drills and who their customers are. More importantly, it would give the Falklanders financial independence.
Basically, the answer to the conflict is, send both parties packing, or in more blunt language, “Sod off and leave us in peace!”
I think that this message is doubly important seeing that we are approaching the 30th anniversary of the sad state of affairs in 1982 and the possibility of matters coming to a head.
Who knows, perhaps in fifty years, like Jamaica, full independence can be considered and the links to Britain severed in safety.
Falkland Islands belong to you, Morrissey tells Argentinian fans
Diplomatic tensions between Argentina and the UK have been mounting ahead of the 30th anniversary of the invasion of the islands by Argentina on 2 April 1982. Last month British diplomats accused Argentina of trying to isolate the Falklands by putting pressure on Chile to end flights there. On Monday, two British cruise ships were prevented from docking at an Argentinian port.
Morrissey’s comments follow similar endorsements by the US actor Sean Penn and the Pink Floyd bass player Roger Waters. “The Malvinas Islands, everybody knows they belong to Argentina,” Morrissey said from the stage of the Orfeo stadium in Córdoba. “So please don’t blame the British people, we know the islands belong to you.”
The comments brought enthusiastic cheers from the crowd before he launched into the 1984 Smiths track Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want.
Source: The Guardian Read more
Another third rate wanker (Penn, Waters & now Morrissey) pushing his ticket sales in Argentina by siding with them on the Falklands story.
I would almost guarantee that none of these three has beens has even taken the trouble to look up Falkland Island’s history before frothing off at the mouth.
These people are making me very angry simply because they are using the situation for their own ends and self-promotion without having any iota what they are talking about.
Roger Waters says Falklands should be Argentine, attacks Cameron’s ‘bullshit’
Chilean TV airs interview in which Pink Floyd founder condemns British policy on islands contested by Argentina
Chilean television has transmitted the controversial interview with Roger Waters in which the former Pink Floyd rock star says he believes the Falkland Islands, claimed by Argentina as “Las Malvinas”, should ultimately be considered Argentine.
To the question: “Falklands? Malvinas? What is your take? Is it British or is it Argentine?” by Chilean journalist Amaro Gómez-Pablos, Waters replies: “I think it should be Argentine.
Source: The Guardian Read more
Another failing artist sticking his beak into something he knows absolutely nothing about, is nothing more than a publicity stunt to ensure the Argentine fans buy tickets to their shows and they are a sell out.
I have just erased all references to and music of Pink Floyd from my archives.
And, call on all patriots who support the self determination of the Falklands by the Falklands to do the same.
In a post on Tomus Arcanum, I outlined the history of the Falklands, after some considerable research. It is interesting to note, that I can find no other reference to the claim on a BBC News time line by: “The Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations says (pdf) the Malvinas were discovered by members of Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition in 1520, and that he was navigating at the service of Spain. However, he did not land on the islands.”
In the Ferdinand Magellan page time line there is no reference to his sighting of the Falklands on the 1520 expedition. As he came south from Rio de Janeiro to Puerto San Julian (southern Argentina), where he wintered over, there is no reason to assume that he would have even seen the islands some 300kms off course.
History has been recorded as the first British sighting (not landing) was in 1592; and the first landing in 1690.
The French were the first to have a settlement on the islands in 1794, the British, unaware of the French, arrived in 1795, a year later.
1766 saw the French sell the islands to Spain.
1771 Serious diplomatic negotiations involving Britain, Spain and France produce the Exchange of Declarations, whereby Port Egmont was restored to Britain.
Exit the Spanish, and thereby the Argentinian claim they inherited the islands from Spain.
Argentina only became independent in 1816, so Spain could not have ‘given’ the islands to Argentina, because they weren’t theirs to ‘give’ having ceded control to Britain in 1771.
It wasn’t until an Argentinian privateer tried to claim the islands in 1820 some 50 years after they were already British, in an act that was considered illegal at the time even in Buenos Aires.
Historically and factually, Argentina is clutching at straws.
Two cruise ships carrying almost 3,000 passengers have been turned away from an Argentine port, apparently because they had visited the Falklands.
The Adonia and the Star Princess had arrived off Tierra Del Fuego, on the country’s southern tip, on Monday but were prevented from docking in Ushuaia.
British diplomats in Argentina are trying to clarify what happened.
Tensions have risen recently, as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war approaches.
Argentina claims ownership of the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, but the UK has rejected calls for talks on the archipelago’s sovereignty.
Around 3,000 people live on the islands, most of whom are British citizens.
The Adonia and the Star Princess, which are both operated by the Carnival Group, arrived off the port of Ushuaia on Monday morning.
The BBC’s World Affairs Correspondent Peter Biles said both ships are reported to have been denied entry and both vessels had just visited the Falkland Islands.
Jane Archer, one of the passengers on board the Adonia, told the BBC: “It’s simply the fact that we were in the Falklands.
“They said the fact that we’ve been there means that we can’t come in to Ushuaia.
“I’ve not heard of anything like this before and I don’t think anybody had any inkling at all that this was going to happen.”
She said: “Everything was planned, we were all going to be going on excursions from Ushaia today. I don’t think anybody knew anything was going to go wrong, certainly not the captain as far as I’m aware.”
The Foreign Office said it was very concerned to hear the two ships had been refused access to Ushuaia.
A spokesperson said there could be no justification for interference in free and legitimate commerce.
It is understood the two vessels are now heading for Punta Arenas in Chile.
Okay, if Argentina wants it that way, cancel all organised tourism to the country.
In this case the Chileans benefited from the tourism revenue.
Argentina intellectuals query Falkland Islands policy
A group of Argentine intellectuals has challenged the government’s ambition to take control of the Falkland Islands from the British.
The 17 writers urged the government to recognise the right of the islanders to decide their own future.
They also say Argentina’s demand for negotiations with the UK contradicts its insistence on sovereignty.
Tension has been rising in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the war the two countries fought over the islands.
The intellectuals issued a joint statement titled An Alternative Vision of the Malvinas (Falklands).
Among the signatories are the journalist Jorge Lanata, historians Luis Alberto Romero and Hilda Sabato, cultural critic Beatriz Sarlo, and constitutional law expert Daniel Sabsay.
They argued that the government’s actions were out of proportion to the importance of the issue, and had little relation to the “major political, social and economic problems” the country faces.
Source: BBC News Read more
Yes, a voice(s) of reason, certainly they did not come from a politician. Politicians are incapable of reason.
As I see it; ALL the aggression and demands over sovereignty have originated in Argentina, and yet they say the British are the aggressors. The futile accusation that Britain is militarising the South Atlantic is a load of old bollocks, Britain militarised the South Atlantic 30 years ago after the Argentinians foolishly attacked the Falkland Islands. Maybe that point was missed by Argentina, well, at least Kirchner.
It is noted, that Argentina has not considered, nor mentioned, nor given any guarantees over the people who live there. Argentina therefore, can be considered in breach of the human factor.
There is also the high possibility that Kirchner is using the Falklands issue and stirring up the people to mask internal government goings on that the Argentine people may not be all that thrilled about.