Para el español, haga clic aquí: Las Malvinas - un análisis de la soberanía y el futuro y Las Malvinas son Argentinas
In this article I present the sovereignty claims of the British and the Argentines over the Falkland Islands (Las Malvinas). I also consider UN resolutions 2605 and 1514 and show that these forbid both Argentina and Britain from the ownership of the Falklands. If you disagree with this article please feel free to comment and put me straight.
Current facts about the Falkland Islands:
GDP per head $55,400 - 7th in the world
Revenues - mainly fishing, all oil revenues will go to the Falklands if they occur, not the UK - $164.5m
Inflation 1.2%
The Falkland Islands Government tax regime for oil extraction - 9% royalties payable to the Islanders.
The Malvinas is the Spanish name for the Falkland Islands. These are a group of islands, the East of which were settled by the French in 1764 (East Falkland Island) and the west settled by the British in 1765 (West Falkland Island). The British claimed sovereignty over the entire island group. The Islands may well have been first discovered in 1421 by the Chinese. The Spanish purchased East Falkland Island from the French in 1766. In 1770 the Spanish attacked West Falkland, taking control of the entire group but in 1771 they withdrew under threat from the British, recognising the right of the British to remain in West Falkland in 1775. The Islands are 460km away from the South American mainland, well beyond any normal territorial limits of any country. The Argentine claim to the Islands originates in a brief occupation of East Falkland 180 years ago by the State of Buenos Aires which was one of the states that claimed to rule the United Provinces of South America during the Civil War of the 1830s.
In the next few paragraphs I will discuss the basis for the Argentine claim but urge the reader to keep their perspective and remember that this claim is about events in East Falkland 180 years ago that occurred for a period of about 2 years.
In 1823 The United Provinces of South America, which claimed ownership of any Spanish territories within reach, granted land on East Falkland to a man named Luis Vernet. The British Consul was approached and also gave permission for commercial activity.
In 1823 the United Provinces of South America was a transient State consisting of Uruguay, much of Bolivia and a piece of northern Argentina. In the 1820s the United Provinces broke up into Bolivia, Uruguay and two sets of warring states, the Confederation of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires, which claimed sovereignty over each other. Vernet was proclaimed governor of the islands by The State of Buenos Aires (not the United Provinces or Argentine Confederation) in 1829. This was illegal because by then only Spain, Britain and, on the South American legal principle of uti possidetis juris, Chile and Uruguay had any justifiable claim to Las Malvinas.
"In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.[4] The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[5] and taken to Montevideo,[3] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[6]. The Lexington also removed the entire administration and most of the population of the Falklands [7].(Wikipedia)"
In 1832 the State of Buenos Aires sent a military governor to the Islands to found a penal colony but the troops under his command mutinied. The British military arrived on 20 December 1832 and re-established British rule and imposed order. Vernet was invited to return to the Falklands but, as the United Provinces had disintegrated, was unable to do so. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands because the State of Buenos Aires was in control of the Islands from 1829 to 1831/32 and the Argentines conquered the later Republic of Buenos Aires, who could resume the claim, in the late 1850s. The Argentine claim is a claim to "spoils of war".
In the early 1830s the Confederation of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires were at war. This alone would undermine the claim of the modern Republic of Argentina over the Las Malvinas. To support the modern claim to the Falklands Argentine children are taught that the Confederation of Argentina was happy to let the State of Buenos Aires deal with foreign policy such as weapons shipments from abroad, territorial claims and foreign military alliances despite the war. This does not fool foreigners but having been taught the story as children Argentines do not question this absurd "myth of common foreign affairs". Argentines get confused by the Federal Pact of 1831 between the rebel states of the Liga del Litoral who called themselves the "real" Argentina rather than the Argentine Confederation of the League of the Interior.
So, except for a few weeks of dubiously legal rule the East Falklands has not been Argentine but successive "Argentine" governments have claimed sovereignty over the whole Falkland Islands for almost two hundred years. The West Falkland Islands have always been British.
.
The Argentine case for sovereignty over the Falklands is extraordinarily thin. It amounts to a declaration that the Falklands has always been a part of Argentina. The Argentines then argue that the Falklands is like Israeli settlements in Palestine or like Gibraltar, a foreign enclave in the heart of the nation put there by a foreign power that must be de-colonised. To compare the Falklands with Goa or Hong Kong is particularly absurd, Goa being occupied by Indians and on the land of India whereas the Falklands are occupied by British people across an ocean. The occupation of Goa or Hong Kong were de-colonization whereas an Argentine occupation of the Falklands would be neo-colonialism. In reality the Falklands is the only "de-colonisation" case where a neighbour, almost 500 km away maintains that the natives of an island should be denied the right to self determination and simply absorbed: "We Argentines declare you are part of our territory so we will occupy you whatever you think". It is to the eternal shame of the UN that they are giving in to such outrageous arguments.
As can be seen from the above graphic, the East Falklands has been outside of what the Argentines claim was Argentine control for almost as long as Argentina has been a nation. Incidentally, it was the State of Buenos Aires which was at war with the Argentine Confederation, not the Argentine Confederation, that had de facto power in the 1830s. The occupation by Buenos Aires was illegal because, of the South American countries, it is Uruguay or Chile that inherit any legal sovereignty claim: East Falkland was administered by the Spanish from Montevideo and, in the 19th century, was nearest to Chile and after 1812 technically a part of Chile. Argentina has no legal claim at all.
The Argentines recognised the Uruguayan claim to the Falklands in 1974 when they accepted the the Spanish-Uruguayan pact of 1841 that recognised Uruguayan sovereignty over the Islands. Uruguay had a better historical claim in any case, the Falklands having been administered from Montevideo until they became nominally Chilean. The Argentines also relinquished all disagreement with the British over the Islands in the Treaty of Settlement of 1850.
In this article I present the sovereignty claims of the British and the Argentines over the Falkland Islands (Las Malvinas). I also consider UN resolutions 2605 and 1514 and show that these forbid both Argentina and Britain from the ownership of the Falklands. If you disagree with this article please feel free to comment and put me straight.
Current facts about the Falkland Islands:
GDP per head $55,400 - 7th in the world
Revenues - mainly fishing, all oil revenues will go to the Falklands if they occur, not the UK - $164.5m
Inflation 1.2%
The Falkland Islands Government tax regime for oil extraction - 9% royalties payable to the Islanders.
The Malvinas is the Spanish name for the Falkland Islands. These are a group of islands, the East of which were settled by the French in 1764 (East Falkland Island) and the west settled by the British in 1765 (West Falkland Island). The British claimed sovereignty over the entire island group. The Islands may well have been first discovered in 1421 by the Chinese. The Spanish purchased East Falkland Island from the French in 1766. In 1770 the Spanish attacked West Falkland, taking control of the entire group but in 1771 they withdrew under threat from the British, recognising the right of the British to remain in West Falkland in 1775. The Islands are 460km away from the South American mainland, well beyond any normal territorial limits of any country. The Argentine claim to the Islands originates in a brief occupation of East Falkland 180 years ago by the State of Buenos Aires which was one of the states that claimed to rule the United Provinces of South America during the Civil War of the 1830s.
In the next few paragraphs I will discuss the basis for the Argentine claim but urge the reader to keep their perspective and remember that this claim is about events in East Falkland 180 years ago that occurred for a period of about 2 years.
In 1823 The United Provinces of South America, which claimed ownership of any Spanish territories within reach, granted land on East Falkland to a man named Luis Vernet. The British Consul was approached and also gave permission for commercial activity.
In 1823 the United Provinces of South America was a transient State consisting of Uruguay, much of Bolivia and a piece of northern Argentina. In the 1820s the United Provinces broke up into Bolivia, Uruguay and two sets of warring states, the Confederation of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires, which claimed sovereignty over each other. Vernet was proclaimed governor of the islands by The State of Buenos Aires (not the United Provinces or Argentine Confederation) in 1829. This was illegal because by then only Spain, Britain and, on the South American legal principle of uti possidetis juris, Chile and Uruguay had any justifiable claim to Las Malvinas.
 |
| United Provinces and Falkland Islands |
"In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.[4] The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[5] and taken to Montevideo,[3] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[6]. The Lexington also removed the entire administration and most of the population of the Falklands [7].(Wikipedia)"
 |
| Report of the Lexington saying that the islands had been rendered free of any administration and of nearly all the people. Click on image to see full size. |
In 1832 the State of Buenos Aires sent a military governor to the Islands to found a penal colony but the troops under his command mutinied. The British military arrived on 20 December 1832 and re-established British rule and imposed order. Vernet was invited to return to the Falklands but, as the United Provinces had disintegrated, was unable to do so. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands because the State of Buenos Aires was in control of the Islands from 1829 to 1831/32 and the Argentines conquered the later Republic of Buenos Aires, who could resume the claim, in the late 1850s. The Argentine claim is a claim to "spoils of war".
In the early 1830s the Confederation of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires were at war. This alone would undermine the claim of the modern Republic of Argentina over the Las Malvinas. To support the modern claim to the Falklands Argentine children are taught that the Confederation of Argentina was happy to let the State of Buenos Aires deal with foreign policy such as weapons shipments from abroad, territorial claims and foreign military alliances despite the war. This does not fool foreigners but having been taught the story as children Argentines do not question this absurd "myth of common foreign affairs". Argentines get confused by the Federal Pact of 1831 between the rebel states of the Liga del Litoral who called themselves the "real" Argentina rather than the Argentine Confederation of the League of the Interior.
So, except for a few weeks of dubiously legal rule the East Falklands has not been Argentine but successive "Argentine" governments have claimed sovereignty over the whole Falkland Islands for almost two hundred years. The West Falkland Islands have always been British.
The Argentine case for sovereignty over the Falklands is extraordinarily thin. It amounts to a declaration that the Falklands has always been a part of Argentina. The Argentines then argue that the Falklands is like Israeli settlements in Palestine or like Gibraltar, a foreign enclave in the heart of the nation put there by a foreign power that must be de-colonised. To compare the Falklands with Goa or Hong Kong is particularly absurd, Goa being occupied by Indians and on the land of India whereas the Falklands are occupied by British people across an ocean. The occupation of Goa or Hong Kong were de-colonization whereas an Argentine occupation of the Falklands would be neo-colonialism. In reality the Falklands is the only "de-colonisation" case where a neighbour, almost 500 km away maintains that the natives of an island should be denied the right to self determination and simply absorbed: "We Argentines declare you are part of our territory so we will occupy you whatever you think". It is to the eternal shame of the UN that they are giving in to such outrageous arguments.
 |
| Who had de facto power over the Falklands and when - note that "Argentina" is used when United Provinces, State of Buenos Aires, Uruguay or Chile is meant and that the UK had legal possession of West Falkland throughout. |
As can be seen from the above graphic, the East Falklands has been outside of what the Argentines claim was Argentine control for almost as long as Argentina has been a nation. Incidentally, it was the State of Buenos Aires which was at war with the Argentine Confederation, not the Argentine Confederation, that had de facto power in the 1830s. The occupation by Buenos Aires was illegal because, of the South American countries, it is Uruguay or Chile that inherit any legal sovereignty claim: East Falkland was administered by the Spanish from Montevideo and, in the 19th century, was nearest to Chile and after 1812 technically a part of Chile. Argentina has no legal claim at all.
The Argentines recognised the Uruguayan claim to the Falklands in 1974 when they accepted the the Spanish-Uruguayan pact of 1841 that recognised Uruguayan sovereignty over the Islands. Uruguay had a better historical claim in any case, the Falklands having been administered from Montevideo until they became nominally Chilean. The Argentines also relinquished all disagreement with the British over the Islands in the Treaty of Settlement of 1850.
The Argentines claim that the British are depriving them of their birthright to gain financial advantage. This is also untrue. During the twentieth century the British granted independence to almost all of the countries that once formed the British Empire and this included numerous small islands. Where people wanted to be independent the British agreed and even encouraged the less willing. The South Americans who accuse Britain of keeping the last remnant of Empire because of greed are mistaken because nearly all of the territories that were granted independence had substantial natural resources (see Note 2). All oil revenues go to the Falkland Islands government. Britain will never recover the cost of defending the Islands and would not do so even if it did receive any oil revenues. The Falkland Islands have not asked for independence because they are under perpetual threat from Argentina. Britain tried to persuade the Islanders to accept Argentine sovereignty in 1968 and again in 1980 but they refused because of Argentine belligerency - this sign of accommodation by the British in 1980 was seen as weakness by the Argentines who promptly invaded in 1982, proving that the Islanders were right.
The Argentines have been vigorously pursuing the claim in the United Nations. The communist bloc in the Cold War realised that the Falklands were of strategic significance and that transferring them to Argentina would be a blow against NATO. In 1965, under pressure from Argentina and the communist bloc, the UN passed a resolution declaring that Britain and Argentina should hold talks over the Falkland Islands (Resolution 2065). This resolution says little except that talks should be held. Some talks were held, and the British Government tried to persuade the Islanders to accept Argentine sovereignty in 1980, but Argentina descended into a fascist dictatorship that eventually invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. They were ejected by the British.
Bizarrely, and beyond all reason, the harassment of the Falklands is continuing. The trading bloc, Mercosur (BBC News) has just passed a resolution banning Falkland Islands shipping from their ports on the pretext that the British have not complied with resolution 2065.
As you can see, the resolution is not a demand that the Falklands are given to Argentina, it is no more than a request for discussion. Notice that the resolution refers to resolution 1514 under which Argentina would be an offending colonial power, not Britain (see note below). The British can comply with the resolution by either talking to the Argentines or making the Falklands independent.
The action by Mercosur is peculiar because it is "justified" on the grounds that Britain is not complying with Resolution 2605 but we all know that any talks would go nowhere whilst Argentina demands sovereignty. Indeed, the "..cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism.." in 2605 is incompatible with the Argentine demand that they should be the colonial power. Britain can break the cycle by asking the Argentine Ambassador in London for talks. Britain can then declare that they have complied with 2605, ask Mercosur to end their action then announce that the Falklands must determine their own future as per Resolution 1514. Indeed, the only possible solution to the Falkland Islands problem is to make the Falklands Independent with a guarantee of British protection. Argentina and Britain are two competing colonial powers, neither can fulfill the terms of Resolution 1514. Once independent the Falklands' government would be able to ask the USA and Chileans for further protection and get the UK out of a delicate position that no-one in Britain desires.
The Argentines do not understand that the British electorate truly and deeply do not want to be involved in South American wars but are damned if they will tolerate naked aggression against their kinsmen. The British people would be happy to see an independent Falkland Islands that is guaranteed freedom from colonisation by Argentina, the guarantee being provided by the USA or other states.
The challenge for Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina is to behave like modern states and encourage security and prosperity in the Falkland Islands so that they can form closer ties with their neighbours. The resolution of the Falklands problem is a test of the maturity of these states and they are failing this test. The challenge is also for the United Nations to refuse to bow to South American pressure and guarantee a peaceful, long term resolution to this problem rather than giving in to Argentina's neo-colonial impulses.
The South Americans might reflect upon the fact that the Falklands was an essential naval station that helped to protect the world against domination by the fascists and anti-democrats of the past two centuries. The Argentines would still be ruled by a Junta and Brazil would still be a slaver state if these forces had triumphed.
If the Argentines would make a public declaration that they will never attack the Falklands and then embrace the Islands economically and culturally then federation becomes the obvious way forwards for the islanders. For goodness sake, if the Falkland Islanders were allowed free access to Argentina and felt secure that they would never be attacked, if a Milonga were opened in Stanley and the Argentines helped develop the country how long would the Falkland Islands want to stay isolated? The only obstacle is that the Argentines are using the Falklands to divert attention from their own problems and seem to be neo-colonialists who want to oppress others. The sad truth seems to be that there is scarcely a soul in Argentina who has rationally considered the problem of "Las Malvinas" and national advantage trumps any legal or moral considerations.
The USA may have exacerbated this problem by putting their trading interests with South America ahead of the moral and legal case but the real problem is the belligerent attitude of Argentina. However, the USA should stop backing the Argentine position at the Organisation of American States.
In August 1968 the British Government agreed the following memorandum of understanding with Argentina:
" The Government of the United Kingdom, as part of such a final settlement, will recognise Argentina's sovereignty over the Islands from a date to be agreed. This date will be agreed as soon as possible after -
(i) the two governments have resolved the present divergence between them as to the criteria according to which the United Kingdom Government shall consider whether the interests of the Islanders would be secured by the safeguards and guarantees to be offered by the Argentine Government, and
(ii) the Government of the United Kingdom are then satisfied that those interests are so secured.”
The memorandum failed because the Falkland Islanders made strenuous representations to the UK Parliament. The British cannot act without the agreement of the Islanders. Cannot do so under the terms of the UN Charter and through considerations of natural justice. It is on these points that the British are hung out to dry, being unable to avoid their obligations yet reviled by the South Americans for acting with honour. The British are not acting as the greedy imperialists portrayed by the South American press.
If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/bez2gbj ), and tell your friends! Help the Islanders.
As a member of the United Nations Argentina and the UK have agreed that:
Article 73:
'Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to
the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
2. 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 and their varying stages of advancement;
3. to further international peace and security;
4. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.'
Article 103
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Resolution 2065 uses resolution 1514 as its justification. However, UN resolution 1514 does not really apply to the Falklands which was unpopulated upon discovery, is largely populated by inhabitants of British descent and, being over 450 km from the mainland cannot be regarded as a natural part of Argentina. The declaration in resolution 1514 states:
"And to this end Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contraryto the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotionof world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educationalpreparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directedagainst dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercisepeacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and theintegrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without anyconditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed willand desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in orderto enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the nationalunity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with thepurposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions ofthe Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference inthe internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights ofall peoples and their territorial integrity."
Notice that clause (6), the clause used by Argentina to claim sovereignty, is in conflict with clause (1) and (2) - right to self-determination - in the case of the Falklands, however, the UN Decolonization Committee gives precedence to clause (6). In fact, if Argentina were to invade the Falklands again it would be a colonial power under resolution 1514, occupying a land that is well beyond any normal or legal territorial limits that is populated by people who have no natural cultural or linguistic affinity to Argentina.
The Argentines are unreconstructed colonialists, in the past they wiped out the indians to get resources. They tell themselves that there were not that many indians so it did not matter and use the same logic with the settlers in the Falklands.
The UN and the Argentines need to consider the fate of some of the small, distant islands that Britain inherited from the Empire. Take Tristan da Cunha for instance, it has 264 inhabitants, too few people to support even a hospital but Britain provides a reliable emergency lifeline. The entire population had to be evacuated when the volcano on the island became active, to be returned a year or so later. What of Montserrat, another island near South America, strangely no South American country is keen to claim it even though it lies off the coast of South America - why? - because it has a huge pyroclastic volcano and the greedy British provide emergency evacuation and relief facilities. What of Pitcairn? When the small population became warped, institutionalising paedophilia, Britain and its ally New Zealand were able to sort it out. Take the Falklands, a brutish neighbour actually invaded it! But Britain was there again as a mature ally and friend. When the islanders look around the world they are glad that they have a steady, reliable larger country to provide a lifeline. The big exception is the Chagos Archipelago where, at the height of the Cold War the British gave the Island to the American military for 50 years as a key base for intervening in the Middle East. The secrecy of the Chagos operations meant that the entire population was re-settled in Mauritius. World War III did not happen so we should now help any Chagosians who so wish to return. Perhaps the British should demand that the USA leave Chagos altogether if they will not step up on the Falklands, Britain did a terrible thing to help the US so perhaps the US can do the right thing in return.
As an afterthought, I noticed that numerous blogs in Spanish were talking down British military effectiveness. This is dangerous talk, Britain is the leading second rank military power and has battle hardened forces, only the USA or Russia could consider a war with Britain as an 'easily' winnable option. I remember in 1982 the loose talk by ordinary Brazilians, Americans, Argentines etc. about what an easy victory the Argentines would achieve against the UK and this misled the Argentines into folly. No-one should even be considering war as a way out of this problem.
See also:
The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas
An Open Letter to Argentina
Threats and friends of the English
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas
Colonialism? Its the Colonists Stupid!
The Falklands and Nazism
The Argentine case for Las Malvinas
The Falklands are Chilean?
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contraryto the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotionof world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educationalpreparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directedagainst dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercisepeacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and theintegrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without anyconditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed willand desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in orderto enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the nationalunity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with thepurposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions ofthe Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference inthe internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights ofall peoples and their territorial integrity."
Notice that clause (6), the clause used by Argentina to claim sovereignty, is in conflict with clause (1) and (2) - right to self-determination - in the case of the Falklands, however, the UN Decolonization Committee gives precedence to clause (6). In fact, if Argentina were to invade the Falklands again it would be a colonial power under resolution 1514, occupying a land that is well beyond any normal or legal territorial limits that is populated by people who have no natural cultural or linguistic affinity to Argentina.
The Argentines are unreconstructed colonialists, in the past they wiped out the indians to get resources. They tell themselves that there were not that many indians so it did not matter and use the same logic with the settlers in the Falklands.
The UN and the Argentines need to consider the fate of some of the small, distant islands that Britain inherited from the Empire. Take Tristan da Cunha for instance, it has 264 inhabitants, too few people to support even a hospital but Britain provides a reliable emergency lifeline. The entire population had to be evacuated when the volcano on the island became active, to be returned a year or so later. What of Montserrat, another island near South America, strangely no South American country is keen to claim it even though it lies off the coast of South America - why? - because it has a huge pyroclastic volcano and the greedy British provide emergency evacuation and relief facilities. What of Pitcairn? When the small population became warped, institutionalising paedophilia, Britain and its ally New Zealand were able to sort it out. Take the Falklands, a brutish neighbour actually invaded it! But Britain was there again as a mature ally and friend. When the islanders look around the world they are glad that they have a steady, reliable larger country to provide a lifeline. The big exception is the Chagos Archipelago where, at the height of the Cold War the British gave the Island to the American military for 50 years as a key base for intervening in the Middle East. The secrecy of the Chagos operations meant that the entire population was re-settled in Mauritius. World War III did not happen so we should now help any Chagosians who so wish to return. Perhaps the British should demand that the USA leave Chagos altogether if they will not step up on the Falklands, Britain did a terrible thing to help the US so perhaps the US can do the right thing in return.
As an afterthought, I noticed that numerous blogs in Spanish were talking down British military effectiveness. This is dangerous talk, Britain is the leading second rank military power and has battle hardened forces, only the USA or Russia could consider a war with Britain as an 'easily' winnable option. I remember in 1982 the loose talk by ordinary Brazilians, Americans, Argentines etc. about what an easy victory the Argentines would achieve against the UK and this misled the Argentines into folly. No-one should even be considering war as a way out of this problem.
See also:
The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas
An Open Letter to Argentina
Threats and friends of the English
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas
Colonialism? Its the Colonists Stupid!
The Falklands and Nazism
The Argentine case for Las Malvinas
The Falklands are Chilean?
Further reading: Roger Lorton. The Falkland Islands History.
NOTE THAT COMMENTS BELOW BY ADMIN ARE BY AN ARGENTINE NATIONALIST.
Comments
La usurpación de Malvinas y las
reclamaciones argentinas, según Paul Groussac
"Londres sabe desde 1910 que no tiene derecho sobre las Malvinas"
2 de mayo de 1982 - Hundimiento del crucero General Belgrano
Hundimiento del crucero General Belgrano - la posición de Gran Bretaña
Thank you for your previous comment.
Almost two hundred years! An active country such as the UK, France or USA could attack anywhere in the world if events from two hundred years ago were sufficient reason. This is madness. Do you want to kill people?
Las Islas Malvinas son argentinas, y la Argentina ha hecho reserva de sus derechos en todos los foros internacionales desde tiempos inmemoriales. También España ha dejado claro -cuando esta nación era una de sus colonias- a quién correspondía la soberanía de las islas.
¿Se prestó alguna vez Londres a establecer un diálogo?: nunca. Siempre esgrimió excusas.
NO JUSTIFICO EN MODO ALGUNO la guerra de 1982: fue un despropósito generado por una dictadura militar debilitada para perpetuarse en el poder.
¿Si quiero matar gente? Nunca lo he hecho ni lo haría. Respecto de la Argentina, es probablemente el país que menos dinero ha invertido en armas en las últimas décadas. Aquí, gracias a Dios, ni siquiera hay HIPÓTESIS DE GUERRA. Contra nadie.
No odiamos a Gran Bretaña: sólo tenemos una enorme controversia territorial con ustedes que -entendemos- amerita una conversación. Nosotros no tenemos un asiento permanente en la ONU, cuestión que -entre otras- nos coloca en desventaja.
Hago hincapié en el hundimiento del crucero A.R.A. General Belgrano, que navegaba en TERRITORIO SOBERANO ARGENTINO. ¿Si nosotros queremos matar personas? Pues quien dio la orden de hundir el crucero carga sobre sus espaldas el peso de la muerte de 368 seres humanos que EN ESE MOMENTO NO SE HALLABAN EN NINGÚN TERRITORIO EN DISPUTA. Defínalo como quiera, Sr. John. Personalmente, lo tengo claro.
Tampoco me parece que proceda aquello de los eventos acaecidos hace 200 años. Lo que es de mi propiedad me pertenece, así me lo hayan arrebatado hace un milenio.
Evidentemente, usted y yo hemos estudiado haciendo uso de libros diferentes, por lo que concluyo aquí nuestro intercambio. Dejemos que ambos países hagan -o no- sus arreglos en los ámbitos que correspondan.
Finalmente, debo aclararle que no es mi deseo generar una controversia: esta respuesta es para usted. Puede no publicarla.
Amigablemente y con mi mano extendida,
Julia
The history is clear, Spain and the United Provinces recognised British sovereignty in West Falkland. Britain governed East Falkland and took sovereignty when the United Provinces could not govern.
La historia es clara, España y las Provincias Unidas reconoció la soberanía británica en la Gran Malvina (Oeste Falkland). Gran Bretaña rige la Isla Soledad y tomaron la soberanía cuando las Provincias Unidas no podría gobernar.
Probablemente le resulte interesante leer el contenido del vínculo que le envié: "Londres sabe desde 1910 que no tiene derecho sobre las Malvinas".
Ninguno de nosotros convencerá al otro de nada, por lo que doy por terminado nuestro intercambio. La libertad de expresión y la historia que hemos estudiado nos dan el derecho de publicar -a conciencia- nuestra verdad.
Seguramente en algún momento, probablemente distante, en el ámbito de la ONU, los gobiernos británico y argentino se encontrarán y dialogarán sobre el tema.
Me despido agradeciéndole que me haya hecho conocer su blog.
En 1968 y 1980, el gobierno británico dijo: "ustedes a formar parte de la Argentina". Los habitantes de las Malvinas protestaron. El gobierno británico insistieron en. Los isleños pidió el Parlamento. Parlamento los apoyaron.
Si los isleños llegaron a Gran Bretaña, ellas se sorprendería. Gran Bretaña tiene la gente desde alrededor de el mundo. Hay 25 milongas en Londres! (Ver http://milongas-in.com/milongas-in-europe.php?c=United%20Kingdom&city=London). Ya no es como las Islas Malvinas. Las Islas Malvinas tienen su propia cultura.
En 1982 no había petróleo. 1982 fue sobre la libertad. El gobierno británico todavía se comporta como imperialistas. Ellos harían deportar a los isleños y dicen que el comercio con América del Sur es bueno. Es el pueblo británico que son el enemigo de la Argentina. No el gobierno británico.
In English:
This is the twenty-first century. How do you take the land from other people? No matter what happened in 1820-32 there are now people on the islands who have been there for 180 years.
In 1968 and 1980, the British government said, "you become part of Argentina." The inhabitants of the Malvinas protested. The British government insisted. The islanders asked Parliament. Parliament supported them.
If the islanders came to Britain, they would be surprised. Britain has people from around the world. There are 25 milongas in London! (See http://milongas-in.com/milongas-in-europe.php?c=United% 20Kingdom & city = London). It's not like the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands have their own culture.
In 1982 there was no oil. 1982 was about freedom. The British government still behave like imperialists. They would deport the islanders and say that trade with South America is good. It is the British people who are the enemy of Argentina. Not the British government.
I would like to read your answer
Tomas Montero
"our government was completely a servant of yours, cleaning the way for the British buisness"
If it was a servant why did it claim British territory? Argentina could not have been a servant and a master.
You say: "During the 1830's there were no federal government, but each province governed itself, but ALL OF THEM RECOGNIZED BUENOS AIRES AS THE ONE IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS"
No, the common Foreign Affairs story is a myth. In the article it says that the State of Buenos Aires (not the republic) was at war with the Confederation of Argentina in the early 1830s. You do not deny this. The later Argentine Republic maintains the fiction that, despite the war, the Confederation and Buenos Aires were a single country with single foreign affairs objectives. Do you really believe that Buenos Aires would be happy to guarantee foreign arms shipments to the Confederation or the Confederation would be happy to see a military treaty between Buenos Aires and a foreign government? In the early 1830s a war between Buenos Aires and the Confederation is happening. Is the Confederation happy that Buenos Aires occupies it's or any other territory? No, Obviously not. So the idea that the Confederation and Buenos Aires had a common foreign policy is nonsense, a fiction invented by the later Argentine Republic. Anyway, the events of 1831 are 180 years ago. They are now just a pretext for neo-colonialism, Argentina is indeed the neighbour from hell.
Incidentally, you are blaming the British Government for Las Malvinas but the British Government tried to force the Falkland Islanders to accept Argentine sovereignty on two occasions. It is the British people who you hate, they rejected the idea of forcing the Islanders into colonization by Argentina.
Yes, Kirchner is using Las Malvinas to hurt the people of Argentina. Does any Argentine truly believe that the oil companies will continue drilling for oil in the difficult South Atlantic if they ruled the Falklands as neo-colonialists? The companies will not even drill in mainland Argentina because they are afraid of nationalization.
Clearly the historical "facts" (or rather people's various interpretations of them) are complex and are a key issue for anyone seeking to understand the Malvinas/Falklands debate. Indeed, as Tomas Montero highlights, there are a number of areas where the Argentine and British views of history diverge very significantly.
Your attempt to wade into this conflict with your own supposedly authoritative interpretation of the history is undermined by your use of Wikipedia and unreferenced web sources, which leaves me unconvinced about the veracity of many of your assertions. In approaching such a complex and emotive subject, a little humility can go a long way.
a) "it is the British people who are the enemy of Argentina"
and
b) "it is the British people who you hate"
Are you presuming to speak for the British or the Argentinean people, or perhaps both?
My own experience in both countries suggests to me that the views amongst the general population are very mixed. While the majorities may follow the government line, there opinions which dissent from the prevailing national view in both countries.
As far as "hatred" is concerned, the Argentinian treatment of Las Malvinas is emotional at best and has led to a good deal of vitriol towards the "British". It cannot be the British Government that is the target for this condemnation, they have tried their best to comply with Argentine demands (The British Government is well aware that loss of trade far outweighs any oil revenues etc, especially as these revenues go to the Islanders).
Argentinian politicians only care about money and power and they have no scruples. The political system in Argentina, and the culture there, are designed so that only the most corrupt survive, let alone get into politics. If there is a good politician, it will most likely lose to the corrupt ones, because the corrupt will fool and brainwash Argentinians, and most Argentinians will be fooled, because they are naive, docile and incapable of escaping the trap of populism. Give them credit card discounts, cheap loans, and a growing economy, and they will listen you instantly. And when everything falls down they will think they learn, but the next one will give them free football, which destroys all the neurons in their reptilian brain.
What you propose won't work for now. Maybe once the people of Argentina evolve and get a mammalian brain instead of the brain of an amoeba it would work. But it's millions of years of evolution, despite there being no genetics involved.
I feel this is important for two reasons:
1. It introduces a 'fourth option' to the outright independence demanded by 1514 and the further two options, integration or absorption introduced by 1541 and that is any other political identity freely determined by the people of the territory.
2. It clarifies that any action which was legally acceptable prior to the regime of the UN Charter is not effected by the Charter. This means that acquisition of territory by force, as Argentina claims happened in 1833, is acceptable and further that paragraph 6 of UNGA resolution 1514 would only be effective for situations arising since 1945, as we have seen with the ICJ judgement on the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/94/7453.pdf)
The ICJ is a principal organ of the UN, see Article 7 of the Charter, and it stated in 1970 in its advisory opinion on Namibia (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf), paragraph 52:
'Furthermore, the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all
of them. The concept of the sacred trust was confirmed and expanded to all "territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government" (Art. 73). Thus it clearly embraced territories under a colonial régime.'
Four more times (3 opinions and 1 decision) the ICJ has reiterated that statement and not once have they ever put any limiting factor, condition, exclusion etc. on it.
As 2065 states that 1514 does apply to the Falklands (Argentina voted 'for' this resolution and the UK voted against it) it appears blatantly obvious that the Falklands are subject to Article 73 of the UN Charter and therefore have the right to self-determination as confirmed by the ICJ.
Further observations concerning Article 73 and UNGA resolution 2065 are these.
Argentina has has made much ado about the fact that 2065 speaks of the 'interests' of the 'population' of the Falklands and not about the 'wishes' of the 'people'. Article 73 states that the 'interests' of the 'inhabitants' are 'paramount'. I believe Article 73 is the only place in the Charter where 'inhabitants' is used, all the other references being 'people'.
UNGA resolution 2105, adopted only 4 days after 2065 states quite categorically that the 'populations' of small territories do have the right to self determination. In 1965 the Falklands were considered to be a 'small territory', UN document A/5800/Rev1 refers. Similar resolutions to 2105 have been issued annually, the last being in December 2013, 68/97 which, in item 7 (c) states:
"To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;"
It is of further interest to note that in its advisory opinion on the Western Sahara (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf) the ICJ uses three descriptions as the 'collective' for all the human beings living there, 'people', 'population' and 'inhabitants'. There does not seem to be any reason for the different 'collective' to be used other than simple variation. The opinion, on more than one occasion, does make reference to the fact that the decision making process has to include the 'indigenous people' .
The UN Charter does supersede previous treaties where they conflict with the Charter and Article 73, that enshrines the right to self determination, is part of the Charter.
Article 103
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
As far as the invasion of the Falklands by the United Provinces in 1833 is concerned, the only major legal effect of this was to free the British from the possible constraints of any previous treaty with Spain - the UP were at war with Spain in 1833 and were a foreign power that was far distant from the Falkland Islands in 1833. See Las Malvinas: The Legal Case
After 2065 was adopted by the UN the only debatable item was who/what gets to decide what the 'interests' (which are 'paramount') of the Islanders are/were. It is my opinion that in 1970 the ICJ unequivocally answered that question by stating that all NSGT's had the right to self-determination.
For Argentina to make any headway, in my opinion, they have to:
1. Get the UNGA to state that 1514 does not apply to the Falklands - good luck with that when they have already, supported by Argentina, said that it does.
2. Get the UNGA and/or the ICJ to state that there are exceptions to Article 73. Difficult for the ICJ have they have stated that it applies to ALL NSGT's five times, the last as recently as 2010 in their Opinion on Kosovo.
" Difficult for the ICJ as they have stated that it applies to ALL NSGT's five times, the last as recently as 2010 in their Opinion on Kosovo."
My apologies for any inconvenience caused.