by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
I have been trying to link in an article from a journal of international law - but have been unsuccessful
It is entitled
The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina oil dispute: Which legal regime?
it is available from academia.edu. In its 30 pages it also discusses some of the historical background that you guys are arguing over
thank you very much cofty.
Nice work s&g, I'm always in favor of more info to shed light on matters.
Cedars
After the Argentine failure to obtain a review of the situation in the Falklands/Malvinas, a new controversy with the UK started in 1884, when Argentina released a map in which the Islands appeared as a part of its territory.
The UK continuously rejected Argentina’s proposal to settle the dispute by peaceful means or before an arbitral tribunal.
Formally, Argentina protested again in 1908; and then, during the two world wars, the controversy over the Islands continued without any change in the attitudes of the parties.
Hence, after ineffective political pressure and fruitless negotiations, Argentina invaded the Falklands on April 2, 1982.
Wow! Was this written by a high school history student?
That does sound pretty lame, or "over-simplified".
Cedars
Chariklo - Anyone can indeed put up a flag. But since the British captain specifically asked for it to be pulled down, in essence he acknowledged there was a presence there. You are trying to skate by with a convoluted legality that Argentina wasn’t really there to begin with. The references to the United Federation of Planets is cute, but what has been the operating procedure of many here in support of the British claim, you bring up absurd and unrelated points and them equate them with the Argentine position. Did your neighbours own their property? Did they have security forces there to guard it? Did they have a huge amount of property there? Do you feel somewhat inclined to just head on over to your neighbour’s home who flies the American flag to rip it down and tell him to get out of town on the order of Her Britannic Majesty? See where I’m getting at?
deist – Short answer, no. To recognise a unilateral declaration of independence for the islanders would be to ignore the Argentine claim entirely. A proper analogy would be Serbia refusing to acknowledge Kosovo’s declaration after the UN took it from Serbia and ruled it for many years before they decided to take a vote. They view it as Serbian territory and do not regognise either UN, foreign, or an independent Kosovo administration. For them it’s a dispute, which needs to be resolved by a measure of autonomy for Kosovo within Serbia.
cedars – You are correct about the plaque being left at Port Egmont by the British. I have repeatedly stated that the plaque referred to Falkland’s Island in the singular tense. You and others keep on insisting on the plural. The point is that the British had already been evicted by the Spanish Crown, and knew very well about the settlement of Puerto Luis (Puerto Soledad at that time) when they placed the plaque. I have no idea where you are getting your information from. I have been mobile for several days, so now I have access to my own library. Let’s look at a source more qualified than wikipedia or a pdf found at random by some unaccredited ‘author’. “The Battle For The Falklands” was written by journalist Sir Max Hastings who accompanied the British troops from San Carlos to Stanley, and by Sir Simon Jenkins, a historian and expert on British foreign policy. The book is considered by many to be the authoritative source on the entire Malvinas dispute, and was written by two British subjects whose work was so respected that they had the honour of being knighted by the Queen. Since you all think I am a JW, then let’s open your Falklands book to page four, verse two. Sister Malvinas will read the verse:
A British expedition indeed returned to Port Egmont, but evacuated it three years later. A plaque was left which stated: ‘Be it known to all nations that Falkland’s Ysland, with this fort, the storehouses, wharfs, … are the sole right and property of His Most Sacred Majesty George III, King of Great Britain’. (Most British sources have made the ‘Ysland’ plural, thus extending the claim beyond West Falkland). There was never any suggestion that the Spanish should leave Port Soledad. Indeed, on a number of later occasions, the British effectively acknowledged Spanish jurisdiction on the islands. In 1790, the two nations signed the Nootka Sound Convention, by which Britain formally renounced any colonial ambitions in South America ‘and the islands adjacent’. [Bold print is mine]
Now Sister Malvinas knows what Brother cedars is going to say next. You can put your hand down. The agreement was with Spain, not that it could have been otherwise, since Argentina existed only in the souls of our young patriots to be. Argentina claims her rights as a sucessor state to the Rio Plata Viceroyalty, which the Spanish settlement of the Malvinas was ruled from. Much like Russia is acknowledged as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and keeps the Soviet seat on the UN security council as well as any Soviet era acquisitions (Wrangel Island). The beauty of Sir Jenkins’ research is that it completely negates Britain’s original claim itself. On page two (you don’t have to open your Falklands book since the quotation is long and I’ll only summarise it), Sir Jenkins’ alludes to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 where Spain’s possessions in the Americas, which ‘embraced the Falklands’, was formally confirmed by both Britain and France. Thus, the French foundation of Puerto Luis and the British station at Port Egmont was in direct contradiction of the prevailing international law at the time (Treaty of Utrecht). The French violation was rectified when they abandoned their claim and let the Spanish take over. The only compensation was for Bougainville’s property and buildings he erected, since the settlement and claim in itself was in violation for the Treaty. So much for the French having a better claim than Argentina, unless of course your position on international laws is that treaties are made to be broken. But anything is possible, especially since you admitted to a “finders keepers” logic in support of the current British claim. The British at Port Egmont was just as illegal as the French one, but it took a more direct threat of war to get them to adhere to the treaty. In 1769, the captain general of Buenos Aires, Francisco Bucarelli, got together a fleet of 5 ships and 1400 to evict the illegal British settlement at Port Egmont under direct orders from the Spanish Crown. After some heated diplomacy and threats of war, Spain got Britain to finally adhere to the Treaty of Utrecht. According to Sir Jenkins, “the British would be allowed to return to Port Egmont ‘to restore the King’s honour’. The Spanish maintained that the British return was only permitted as a result of a promise by Lord North that the British would subsequently leave again. The promise had had to be kept secret because of the outcry it might have produced from Lord Chatham’s opposition.” So we have strong evidence here that the British acknowledged their claim to the Malvinas was illegal, since they agreed to only ‘restore the King’s honour’. In other words, they didn't want to have the humiliation of the Spanish kicking them out. They would return for a short period of time, and then leave 'voluntarily'. This is more damning than any claimed period of Argentine ‘silence’ about the Malvinas. We also have evidence that the plaque at Port Egmont laid claim to only West Falkland, and British officials have engaged in a dishonest repackaging of history in adding the ‘s’ to ‘Ysland’. The modern-day reproduction of the plaque at Port Egmont reflects this deception. For them to go that far, it shows that the British knew that their claim was tenuous.
The Mexican analogy doesn’t stick just because you say it does. I have presented my reasons for thinking it a poor analogy and the only answer I get is that I’m wrong, you’re right, and the diversionary tactic of asking me if the USA should give back this territory to Mexico. You seem to have no regard for international treaties. So it’s pointless to argue about Mexico when you only seek to butter up your own position by bringing in unrelated historical facts like it makes you somehow very intelligent just because you can bring up a wiki article and type in the words ‘Mexican-American War’. Since we’re on JW references and this is your latest tactic in an effort to discredit me, Fred Franz used to do this a lot in his writings by playing around with the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words to support the NWT. It was meant for the reader to be impressed by the writer's apparent knowledge of the subject, but provided little else. Same tactics, different cause.
No, I don’t take it personal that you think of me as ‘deluded’ and as an ‘indoctrinated JW’. I have to look at the source of the accusations and make my own analysis. These labels are given to me in absence of further discussion in order to discredit both me personally and the arguments I present. You started this thread with the stated desire of input from ‘English speaking Argentinians’. Somehow I doubt you really wanted that or any logical discussion about this issue. You expected a few ‘atta-boys’ from your friends here, and you seem to resent being challenged, especially by a new user such as me. This of course would explain your heated behaviour toward me when all I was doing at the time was criticising my own government’s current Malvinas policy. Several times you have accused me of falling for my own government’s propaganda, being deluded or uninformed, and now you have taken to using the JW argument against me. It’s almost like you are repeating it if only to have it become somehow more true. You bring up my “compatriot” rowan as tool to further discredit me. What do you think your compatriot’s (Sir Jenkins) own commentary? Is he an Argie agent? If so, Her Majesty’s government might be well-advised to rescind his knighthood. He writes for the Guardian and argues for a UN leaseback to Argentina. His article for the Guardian entitled “The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain’s expensive nuisance” is nothing short of my precise position. The link is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
Sir Jenkins sums it up thus: Distant colonies are an anachronism. Military conquest does not establish legal title. Is Sir Jenkins deluded like I am? Nothing against rowan, but I’ll take Sir Jenkins’ ‘Falkands’ commentary over that, and you are the one who is using the “well they’re Argentine and even they disagree with you, so you must be wrong and that proves it”. Fair enough. You have given me rowan. I present to you Sir Simon Jenkins. Two can play at that game, cedars.
I am using Firefox. I tried using IE, but the posts show up blank. I apologise if this is messing things up, and I do assure you that I am not doing this on purpose to prevent discussion.
I’ll get off the podium now. Rest assured that I did wear a head covering, and that no qualified brothers were present and I was the only one present at my virtual Kingdom Hall. I hand the control over to you more qualified brothers now, and should you have any comments, please do raise your hands now. The brothers with the microphones will be pretty busy now and I look forward to your constructive comments. The Falklands book can be obtained at the literature counter from the brothers in back.
besty – ‘Existing differences’ is vague and is left open for interpretation. In hindsight, there should have been more definitely wording in there about the Malvinas. If Argentina was giving up on the claim, then it should have been explicitly worded that way. If you look at the Treaty, they covered a lot of subjects which were obscure and detailed. If wording about the British occupation of the island of Martin Garcia was mentioned, don’t you think they could have inserted a sentence or two in there about the Malvinas? I find the fact that they were not mentioned at all to be significant. Your interpretation of ‘existing differences’ claims that the Malvinas claim were ceded in perpetuity. Indeed, the existing differences were quite explicitly spelt out in the document. Why were the Malvinas not mentioned? No one can say for certain (and that includes both you and me) since no one who was there at the meeting is still alive to attest to it, nor has anyone written up their own commentary on the proceedings. My interpretation was and still is that the Malvinas were not mentioned due to an inability to agree on anything at the time. There were more pressing issues, and in the end, both parties just agreed to disagree. There was nothing done in ‘bad faith’ about it. There simply could not be an agreement, so it was intentionally omitted. The whole focus of the treaty was one of peace and cooperation. The Malvinas issue and disagreement regarding it would have collapsed the entire agreement. It just seems to me that you are inventing legalisms about what was not said in the treaty. Nowhere in there are the words that Argentina recognizes the British control of the islands, and frankly you are attempting to turn water into wine with this argumentation.
I am so glad you have admitted that the claimed 92 years of silence that you suggested is false. I have some more information for you which might be useful for you. In the book “The Battle For The Falklands” written by the historian and journalist Sir Simon Jenkins, and Falkands war correspondent Sir Max Hastings, additional information is added to this narrative. On page 7, Jenkins states:
“Argentina can at least protest that she has never allowed her claim to lapse. Buenos Aires objected when Britain formally declared a colonial administration in the Falklands in 1842. In the 1880s, when Argentina was being ‘rounded off’ to the south with Chile, she again asked for the islands back. In 1908, Britain unilaterally declared sovereignty over uninhabited territory south of the Falklands. South Georgia, the South Sandwich, Orkney, and Shetland Islands were all grouped under the Falkland Islands Dependencies. Argentina declared that they were firmly hers, and thereby began half a century of genteel squabbling between Britain, Argentine, and Chilean warships and scientists.”
By your own admission, Argentine issued formal protests to the British government up until the Convention of 1850. A little over thirty years later, Argentina made another protest to Britain over the Malvinas as fallout over its settlement with Chile, which you belatedly admitted to me and readjusted your number of years. '92 years' suddenly became 'well, it's still over 50 years'. In 1908, about 20 years later when Britain formally declared possession of South Georgia and nearby islands, Argentina protested yet again. The next British acknowledgement comes at their own admission in 1941, 33 years later. Thus we are left with gaps of 30+ years, 20 years, and the final gap at 33 years. Your 50 year old rule does not apply in this case.
The introduction of Chile into this is not constructive and is an attempt to weaken the Argentine claim by any means necessary. Chile never claimed the Malvinas, nor did they have a base anywhere in the islands. Chile is a Pacific nation, while Argentina is on the Atlantic side. To say Chile had a natural claim to Argentine Patagonia and thus the Malvinas is really playing around with facts and re-arranging them for your own purposes.
Jewett accepted a commission as Colonel with the United Provinces of the Rio Plata, the precursor to Argentina. It was based on the former Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata of Spain, out of which the Malvinas settlement of Puerto Luis was run out of. Francisco Bucarelli, who had ejected the British from their illegal settlement at Port Egmont in 1769 (see the Treaty of Urecht of 1713), was the governor of Buenos Aires. You criticize Jewett for being a pirate and privateer and the European nature of these governors. They were still given a commission by the United Provinces government, which is more than I can say for any British ‘governor’ during this period. They simply did not exist. So the British in 1833 decided to renew a claim they had previously renounced. Argentina (or the United Provinces, Confederation, or whatever is your fancy) never has. Let’s fast-forward to Vernet, whom you attached the charming moniker of “Seal Killer” to. Does the fact that he killed seals make him illegitimate as a constituted Argentine governor? He accepted this commission after all, and people addressed him as such. See what I am getting at? To further your argument, you seek to unfairly bias the audience by using such unflattering terms. If a British PM hunted foxes, does that tarnish his legacy any? Does it delegitmatise his administration any?
The Argentine Confederation was a blanket term for Argentina and existed between 1831 and 1861. Most power was exercised by its strongest and most dominant province, Buenos Aires. “Argentina” was used in the Constitution of 1826, but this was later evolved into the Confederation. De Rosas ruled as governor of the Buenos Aires province and was acknowledged as being in charge of foreign policy as well as de facto leader of the confederation. According to Jenkins and Hastings, Vernet was appointed by the United Provinces in 1829. In 1832, Mestivier was appointed by the newly established Confederation. I’m failing to see how this de-legitimatises the regime and the territories they control, but I suppose you’ll set me straight on that. All I see are a string of curious legalisms that fail to address the British renunciation of sovereignty over the Malvinas in 1713, 1774, 1790, and the subsequent renewal of claimed sovereignty in the 1830’s. Argentina has never renounced her claims to the islands, nor has let a gap of more than 30 or so years of official protest occur.
Emilie - I'm not playing with you on this thread tonight, I'm afraid. I have issues slightly more relevant to the JW world with which to occupy myself, such as writing an article for ex-JW.com on the Governing Body's plans for the new world headquarters. PM me if you'd like me to tell you what the Governing Body is!
I'll leave you in the more than capable hands of whichever poster has the patience or energy to do battle with you tonight.
I'm pretty sure that, however the argument develops over the next 24 hours, the Union Jack will still be flying high over the Falklands whenever it is that I can next be bothered to intervene on this thread!
Enjoy!
Cedars (AKA The British Lion) grrr
wow that is a powerful demolition job, Emilie. I guess if we want to argue with you we will have to read for ourselves Jenkins and Hastings' book which fortunately is avaiblable on Kindle very cheaply.
But the PDF, which you briefly mention and dismiss, where it touches on Argentine history does not contest any of your history lessons, sister Malvinas. It merely sets out briefly the historical aspects of the competing claims in order to discuss at some length how the sovereignty issues impact the oil dispute.
