Give the islands to Brazil!
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
The expulsion of an Argentine governor and settlers makes our rights inalienable since they were illegally taken from us. We do not recognize the authority of the invading parties and insist that our rights and administration of the islands remain.
The Nootka Conventions of the 1790s between Britain and Spain effectively settled all territorial disputes. Article VI prohibited either party (Britain and Spain) from establishing any new permanent settlement on any adjacent island to South America other than temporary fishing settlements. As the Puerto Luis settlement was already established on the Malvinas, this was exempt. At the time of this agreement, Britain had no presence or settlement on the Malvinas. As the hereditary power from Spain, Argentina acquired these rights to the Malvinas. In 1833, Britain abrogated the Nootka Treaty and established themselves on the Malvinas, making this settlement illegitimate and illegal.
Since the Nootka Treaty was abrogated, then this would give modern day Spain the right to plant settlements in modern-day British Columbia.
When I speak of ‘rights’ to the islands, I speak of the rights of Argentina afforded under treaty.
-
Chariklo
But Britain’s claim goes back to 1765. Spain recognised British sovereignty in 1863.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
How does Spain recognizing British sovereignty in 1863 have anything to do with Argentina’s claim? Spain and Argentina were already separated for 50 years by then and an Argentine settlement had already been in effect after independence. What the Spanish did was relinquish their own possible claims to the islands since the British were in control. It effectively informed them that the Spanish would attempt no further settlement there. British claims had lapsed when they abandoned their colony in Port Egmont in 1774. If anything, they had the right to re-establish themselves at Port Egmont. Instead they wiped out an Argentine settlement that had never been theirs in 1833, and then proceeded to claim the entire archipelago for themselves.
-
cedars
Emilie / LMSA
Now that you've demonstrated that reason and logic has nothing to do with the Argentinian claims and the islanders can all go jump in the sea as far as you care, please can you now answer some other questions....
Do you know what a CO is? What are your thoughts on the GB?
I notice you joined the forum very recently (last Monday in fact) and have pretty-much just exclusively commented on this thread. It would be nice to hear your JW experience and find out what makes you tick as an individual.
Cedars
-
cedars
Emilie
I've just noticed your "disfellowshipped" thread, which has reassured me that you have genuine JW connections! That's a relief. For a moment there, I thought a country that can recuit an air-head like Sean Penn as a spokesperson and make silly Olympic ads to get its message across would not be above hiring fake ex-JWs to state their case on forums such as this one! I'm glad I was wrong about that.
I'm looking forward to the day you shake free the influence of your country's propaganda in the same way as you have awakened from the Society's influence.
Long live the right of self-determination!
Cedars
-
besty
they wiped out an Argentine settlement
Incorrect - The British invited the civilians to remain, which they did, and they invited the Argentine military (mainly British mercenaries) to leave, which they did.
The settlement was of dubious authority as the British had asserted rights dating back to 1690.
Seems the British argument should be with France really ;-)
Why Argentina didn't accept the International Court of Justice offer by the UK in 1947 is a mystery.
-
cofty
besty that diagram makes Argentina's claim look tenuous in the extreme.
-
Chariklo
Hi there, Cedars, Emilie and everyone!
I'm enjoying this thread for a number of reasons, not least because it's prompted me to do a lot of research into an area and issue that has always interested me. I'm in the process of learning even more about it, and if there's one thing I really love it's historical research.
I'm very glad you're here, Emilie, because it gives us a chance to learn more about the Argentinian point of view and to see your reasonings and arguments, and understand your standpoint a bit better. So thank you for that.
I'm old enough to remember very well indeed the Falklands conflict. My youngest child was still two months off being born, and I remember joining the other mothers at the school gate as I waited for the older ones to come out, and watching the aeroplanes flying overhead out on their way south. We were glued to this issue, and discussed it in great detail.
Cedars, if you read the Disfellowshipped thread in close detail you may see something of a common thread running through both discussions. Emilie, you are clearly an intelligent woman, and you argue your case with passion, but you don't appear to like hard facts. You make great play of Britain apparently (so you say) turning out Argentinian settlers in 1833, yet you conveniently ignore the fact that Britain allowed them to stay and most (at least 20 as far as I can see) chose to stay. You ignore the fact that they were there anyway after an act of piracy in 1820.In your most recent post you've written
How does Spain recognizing British sovereignty in 1863 have anything to do with Argentina’s claim?
yet it was you yourself who spoke of Spain as your Daddy. (Can't right now find the remark in this thread but it is either here or in the Disfellowshipped thread.)
British involvement in the Falklands goes right back to 1592 and the first confirmed sightings of the islands by John Davis, captain of the Desire; two years later they were officially mapped by the famous explorer and navigator, Richard Hawkins. From the beginning of the 18th century they began to be occupied by various British, French and Spanish settlers. The French named the islands Iles Malouines after St. Malo, the port from which their expedition sets out; it's French nomenclature, as someone pointed out earlier, not Spanish, but only recognised by those countries. The subsequent transaction between France and Spain should be viewed within its background of growing Napoleonic territorial ambition preceding the Napoleonic wars.
Meanwhile Britain was already long firmly established in the islands, having officially claimed them for King George III in 1765. In 1776 British naval presence left the islands for the time being, leaving behind a lead plaque declaring British sovereignty over all the islands. In the same year,
Viceroyalty of Buenos Aries was established, with jurisdiction over the Islands, so that date really sets out for the record that the lands were disputed back then. It was in 1820 that Captain Jewett, an American citizen, and a pirate sailing under the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate, put into Port Louis (named by the French for King Louis of France.)In 1825, Britain and the Government of Buenos Aires sign a Treaty of Amity, Trade and Navigation which makes no reference to the Islands.
In 1828, Vernet led an expedition to the islands to exploit wild cattle, and in the same year The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata grant Vernet all of East Falkland and its fishing and sealing resources, and exempts him from taxation if he forms a colony within three years. Vernet, however, acknowledged the primacy of the British sovereignty claim and lodged with the British Consul General a request that his colony be taken under British protection. He returned to the Islands accompanied by his own family, Dutch and German families as prospective colonists, and his new British deputy, Matthew Brisbane.
Emilie, this puts a new light on your tale of the Argentinian colonists you say Britain "turned out" in 1833, doesn't it?
I haven't time to go on now, but it is perfectly clear that Argeninian claims to the Falklands are built upon wishful thinking and hot air.
Interestingly, everyone, the Argentinian newspaper La Nacion today has written about the same idea that Emilie has expressed here, namely that the Falkland Islands should be handed back to the Argentine in the same way that Hong Kong was handed back to China. There is no comparison. Hong Kong was on a lease. The Falkland islands are clearly British, historically and by self-identity.
The reality is that the Argentine has a poor case and so resorts to trying to pull the heartstrings of the world by complaining about "colonialism". It is just propaganda.
-
rowan
English speaking argentinean here. I was little when this happened. My view of it is the view of my family's, which of course still is tainted by WT thinking. Bear in mind that it was the military goverment who went to war, and it was the military goverment who persecuted JWs in Argentina. So we were no fans of them, and almost reflexibly ideologically opposed any of their initiatives.
We lost no family members in this conflict. We know of people who lost their children, or nephews. It was a gloomy time. (To add onto that, the dirty war against civilians was still going on). At that time, the general concensus was that the regime was crumbling down and this was a tactic to rile up the masses. It is said that General Galtieri was drunk (as usual) when he made the decision to invade.
My take of what is going on right now, is that this is still a distraction tactic. The corruption in Argentina is inimaginable (the vicepresident is now being investigated for an egrerious case of embellishment, and the judges and prosecutors are being turned over like pancakes, nobody expects him to step down, nor the president to remove him). Economy is always in the tank, if not in outright crisis with riots and social chaos. THe day right after the last train masacre, which costed 51 lives in March, Malvinas was front page on the 2 mainstreams newspapers.
The great Jorge Luis Borges, once said about the conflict: "It is like 2 boldies fighting for a comb". Of course, he was reviled for that.
Argentina: Siglo 20 Cambalache. "El que no llora no mama, y el que no roba es un gil", coarse translation to the Cambalache Tango: " He who not cries does not suckle, he who not steals is a fool"...
