"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith. What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas? In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands. The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading.
For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case
Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata. The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile. In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical boundaries of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata (see map below and note).
The United Provinces of South America was the first country formed in the bottom half of South America after the Revolution against Spanish rule. The United Provinces were more Uruguay or Bolivia than Argentina and were based on the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata. The United Provinces were a foreign power under the Treaty of Utrecht so that Britain or Spain were entitled to intervene if the United Provinces attacked their interests in South America. The United Provinces in 1813 is shown below:
The United Provinces was also known as the Confederation of the Rio del Plata, shown below in 1816.
The United Provinces did not include Patagonia. Patagonia was an Independent State recognized by the Spanish. Notice how the Argentine map below has been drawn so that it now appears as if Patagonia is without government or even part of the United Provinces - although it was claimed by Chile and held to be self governing by the natives. Modern Argentina claims that in 1820 the United Provinces asserted sovereignty over East Falkland, which was part of the lands of Chile after the fall of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata in 1812.
Argentine maps, even to this day, portray Patagonia as ungoverned and unclaimed in the nineteenth century rather than claimed by Chile or self governing..
Incidentally, the early rebels against the Spanish were praised as "Men of Silver", Argentinos, in the National Anthem of the United Provinces from which the Argentines derived the name for their state in 1826. (Argentine in the anthem probably comes from an artistic interplay of men of the "Silver River" (La Plata) and an allusion to Plato's Republic where the men of silver or, men of spirit become the warriors and protectors of the society).
The United Provinces fell apart in the late 1820s and became largely the Confederation of Argentina after 1826 (called the Federal Republic of Argentina after 1853) plus the new country known as "The Buenos Aires".
Buenos Aires was the capital of the separate state called "The Buenos Aires", this had an independent foreign policy in 1827-1831 and even declared its own wars. Buenos Aires siezed the Falklands from the remnant of the United Provinces in 1829.
In 1831 Buenos Aires formed the Federal Pact with other States and defeated the League of the Interior to create the modern state of Argentina in 1832. The modern state of Argentina is a merger of the Federal Pact and League of the Interior. This is inconveniently late for Argentine claims on many fronts so they steadfastly maintain that Argentina has always existed (the conflicts were strictly "internecine" and Argentines declare that despite being at war, Buenos Aires set the foreign policy for all belligerents! This story of friendly mortal enemies is told because Buenos Aires, as a separate state, had no legal claim to Las Malvinas at all).
Notice how Chilean claimed territory is still shown to be free of government (Dominios aborigenes) in the Argentine inspired map above.
The State of Buenos Aires was largely independent between 1827 and 1832 and wholly independent from 1853 to 1862. The Argentines claim that Buenos Aires represented the Argentine Confederation between 1827 and 1832 but it must have been acting alone - there was a full scale war in progress between the two states in 1831-2. The Buenos Aires made Luis Vernet governor of the Falklands in 1829, not Argentina, and in doing so seized the Islands for itself. After the merger of Buenos Aires and Argentina in 1832 the Argentines occupied the Falkland Islands themselves and claimed sovereignty.
The three separate claims to the Falklands between 1820 and 1832, once by the United Provinces, once by The Buenos Aires and once by Argentina, show that these countries considered themselves to be separate political entities. If this were not the case then the first claim in 1820 should have been sufficient to seize the Islands from the Republic of Chile or Uruguay.
Only 18 years or so after the merger of The Buenos Aires and Argentina The Buenos Aires declared independence again but was attacked by the Argentine Republic in 1859 and annexed over the next couple of years. The Argentines describe these events as friendly tiffs between brothers to maintain the fiction that Argentina inherits the Falklands. The Argentine Confederation/Argentine Republic never had de facto sovereignty over the Falklands. Technically they would be "spoils of war" had the Republic of Buenos Aires had a legitimate claim to sovereignty in the first place.
The Spanish maintained that they had full sovereignty over East Falkland Island until the 1840s (they recognised British rights in West Falkland in 1771). However, the Spaniards left the Islands in 1811 and the Chileans were the natural inheritors of any Spanish sovereign rights to offshore islands south of the river Plate. Chile inherits a claim on the South American legal principle of "uti possidetis juris", according to proximity in 1811 and as a result of technically being in control of the East Falklands between the fall of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1812 and the 1820 invasion of East Falkland by the United Provinces.
Uruguay may also inherit the Spanish claim to sovereignty over East Falkland on the basis of the South American convention of "uti possidetis juris" because the Governor of East Falkland was appointed from and the Island was administered from Montevideo, and because they were assigned the Island by Spain in the Spanish-Uruguayan pact of 1841 . Argentina recognised the Uruguayan claim to the Falklands in 1974 when they accepted the Spanish-Uruguayan Pact. Spain did not relinquish its claim to sovereignty until over 10 years after full British rule. Incidentally, the recognition by both Uruguay and Argentina that Spain still retained sovereignty in 1840 shows that Argentina did not consider it had any sovereignty claim over the Malvinas until after this date.
At the beginning of 1831 the successor to the United Provinces, the Confederation of Argentina, scarcely had access to the sea. It was only with the incorporation of The Buenos Aires in 1831-1832 that Argentina could consider a claim over the Malvinas. 1831 was the year in which the Americans ejected the representatives of the Buenos Aires from the Islands and only 12 months before the British enforced their sovereignty in the Falklands and held it for the next 180 years. There can be no doubt that the only Independent South American country with a legal claim to the Falklands in 1831 was Chile, not Argentina, Spanish possessions being transferred to Chile after Uruguayan independence. The Chileans only relinquished Patagonia to the aggressively expansionist Argentines in the Boundary Treaty of 1881.
Notice how the Argentines expect the Chileans to live happily with the loss of over 50% of their surface area and expect them to forget about events of 100 years ago. But the Argentines themselves are happy to kill for dubious claims originating almost 200 years ago.
According to the 1850 Convention of Settlement "Argentina" agreed that it had settled all previous disputes with Great Britain. So events prior to 1850 are agreed to be of no importance in the relations between the countries. The 1850 Convention of Settlement is simply ignored by Argentina - this should be a warning to the Chileans who still have disputes with Argentina.
So why have the Argentines made sovereignty over the Falkland Islands their only foreign policy objective? After the Convention of Settlement the Argentines made no claims for decades. In the early twentieth century the bulk of the Argentine population was ill educated so a dreadful enemy that had wronged the state could be conjured up by the various despots who have ruled Argentina. It was the Nazi Juan Peron who fully re-awakened the spectre of the British enemy for his own purposes and those of the Axis powers in the Second World War. Poor little Argentina who must fight the British monsters to be avenged - sadly the vengeance is for a "crime" that was never committed against alleged victims who were not Argentine.
The East Falkland Islands were French, Spanish, then British. Generously East Falkland may have been French, Spanish, Chilean or Uruguayan then British. West Falkland has always been British.
In summary, the East Falkland Islands were Chilean between 1812 and 1820, seized from the Republic of Chile by the United Provinces in 1820, seized by the State of Buenos Aires in 1829 and captured by the British in 1832-1833. Under the South American interpretation of "uti possidetis juris" they were Uruguayan or Chilean. Argentina scarcely has a role in these events because it only incorporated the State of Buenos Aires to become a nation in 1832. On this basis the Argentines have persecuted the Falkland Islanders since 1941, originally to help the Axis powers in WWII.
By the way, the Falklands had no inhabitants before the Europeans arrived. Notice that in the years following 1832, when the British enforced their sovereignty over the whole Falklands, the Argentines truly colonised their way right through Patagonia, taking land from the indigenous people and from Chile as they went! This was the true crime in the region. If the UN ever awards the Falklands to Argentina it should return Patagonia to the natives or at least to the Chileans. If Britain or the Falkland Islanders decide to relinquish sovereignty they should pass it to the Chileans or Uruguayans, either of whom have more legal and moral right to the Islands than the Argentines.
Incidentally, Argentines are also taught that Patagonia has always been Argentine - see Conquest of the desert for the real story.
Argentina really is the "neighbour from hell". It is a pity that the USA and South American states keep supporting the Argentines whose claim to the Falkland Islands has lapsed after almost two centuries even if it were valid in the first place. In the article Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas it is shown how, on two occasions, even the British Government has tried to force the Falkland Islanders to submit to Argentina just to get rid of the "problem". Only the British people have insisted that it is wrong to just dispose of a whole Island population for political convenience. The British government is now unable to dispose of the Falkland Islands under British law because they have the constitutional status of Overseas Territories and are independent except for accepting a British Governor as titular head of state. It is forever to the shame of the USA and the UN that they do not support the Islander's case for sovereignty and keep this dangerous political impasse alive.
If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/bh7nvao ), and tell your friends! Help the Islanders.
Notes:
“ .. the viceroyalty of La Plata is represented as extending southward to the latitude of 41 degrees; and in the map accompanying it, a line drawn from the Andes eastward to the head-waters of the river Colorado, and down that stream to its mouth in the Atlantic, near the 40th degree, is given as the boundary between the viceroyalty and Patagonia.” [Revolucion Hispano-Americaux 1829 Mariano Torrente] The Falklands are not included in this zone.
1790 Nootka Sound Convention No.1 Forbids new settlements but by implication allows the Falklands and has a secret Article 6 that refers to coasts " actually occupied by Spain" - Patagonia was not actually occupied.
May 30th 1810 Government of Viceroyalty of Rio del Plata transfers to Montevideo
There was Spanish government of the Falklands from Uruguay. The last governor, Pablo Guillen, was appointed in 1810 and was controlled from Montevideo the abandonment of the Islands was ordered from Uruguay in 1811. Isles of Discord. A file on the Falklands (Malvinas). 1983. Eugenio A.L. Ravenal.p.127 Ventura Books
1856 Argentina-Chile Treaty - in 1810 governance of East Falkland transferred to Uruguay and Patagonia was nominally under Chile.
ARTICLE XXXIX Both parties recognize as limits of their respective territories, which had as such at the time of separation from Spanish rule in 1810, and agree to defer the issues that have been or may arise in this area to discuss peacefully and amicably after , without ever resorting to violent measures, should not arrive at a comprehensive settlement, refer the decision to the arbitration of a friendly nation.
POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine POLITICAL THOUGHTS!
See also:
Las Malvinas: The Legal Case
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas for a discussion of the UN Resolutions and history.
Colonialism? Its the Colonists Stupid!
The Falklands and Nazism
The Falklands: Negotiate now!
The Argentine case for Las Malvinas
The Falklands are Chilean?
An Open Letter to Argentina
Further reading: Argentina-Chile Relations - you have to sympathise with the Chileans who have an endlessly bellicose neighbour.
Note: The Falklands were originally assigned by the Spanish to the Viceroyalty of Peru and then passed to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate but along with Patagonia were later disputed by the Captain General of Chile and fell under Captain General of Chile's control from 1811 until 1818, being unclaimed by the United Provinces yet claimed by the Spanish Empire. On Chilean independence in 1818 they fell back under titular Spanish or Chilean control between 1818 and 1820 but neither country exercised physical control.
First published Feb 4 2012
For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case
Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata. The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile. In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical boundaries of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata (see map below and note).
 |
| Chilean proximity to the Falklands in 1810. |
 |
| The Falklands in 1794 - click on the map to enlarge it. Notice the text on this map. |
The United Provinces of South America was the first country formed in the bottom half of South America after the Revolution against Spanish rule. The United Provinces were more Uruguay or Bolivia than Argentina and were based on the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata. The United Provinces were a foreign power under the Treaty of Utrecht so that Britain or Spain were entitled to intervene if the United Provinces attacked their interests in South America. The United Provinces in 1813 is shown below:
 |
| United Provinces and Falkland Islands |
The United Provinces was also known as the Confederation of the Rio del Plata, shown below in 1816.
The United Provinces did not include Patagonia. Patagonia was an Independent State recognized by the Spanish. Notice how the Argentine map below has been drawn so that it now appears as if Patagonia is without government or even part of the United Provinces - although it was claimed by Chile and held to be self governing by the natives. Modern Argentina claims that in 1820 the United Provinces asserted sovereignty over East Falkland, which was part of the lands of Chile after the fall of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata in 1812.
Argentine maps, even to this day, portray Patagonia as ungoverned and unclaimed in the nineteenth century rather than claimed by Chile or self governing..
Incidentally, the early rebels against the Spanish were praised as "Men of Silver", Argentinos, in the National Anthem of the United Provinces from which the Argentines derived the name for their state in 1826. (Argentine in the anthem probably comes from an artistic interplay of men of the "Silver River" (La Plata) and an allusion to Plato's Republic where the men of silver or, men of spirit become the warriors and protectors of the society).
The United Provinces fell apart in the late 1820s and became largely the Confederation of Argentina after 1826 (called the Federal Republic of Argentina after 1853) plus the new country known as "The Buenos Aires".
Buenos Aires was the capital of the separate state called "The Buenos Aires", this had an independent foreign policy in 1827-1831 and even declared its own wars. Buenos Aires siezed the Falklands from the remnant of the United Provinces in 1829.
In 1831 Buenos Aires formed the Federal Pact with other States and defeated the League of the Interior to create the modern state of Argentina in 1832. The modern state of Argentina is a merger of the Federal Pact and League of the Interior. This is inconveniently late for Argentine claims on many fronts so they steadfastly maintain that Argentina has always existed (the conflicts were strictly "internecine" and Argentines declare that despite being at war, Buenos Aires set the foreign policy for all belligerents! This story of friendly mortal enemies is told because Buenos Aires, as a separate state, had no legal claim to Las Malvinas at all).
 |
| The state of "Argentina" during the period when sovereignty over Las Malvinas is claimed. |
Notice how Chilean claimed territory is still shown to be free of government (Dominios aborigenes) in the Argentine inspired map above.
The State of Buenos Aires was largely independent between 1827 and 1832 and wholly independent from 1853 to 1862. The Argentines claim that Buenos Aires represented the Argentine Confederation between 1827 and 1832 but it must have been acting alone - there was a full scale war in progress between the two states in 1831-2. The Buenos Aires made Luis Vernet governor of the Falklands in 1829, not Argentina, and in doing so seized the Islands for itself. After the merger of Buenos Aires and Argentina in 1832 the Argentines occupied the Falkland Islands themselves and claimed sovereignty.
The three separate claims to the Falklands between 1820 and 1832, once by the United Provinces, once by The Buenos Aires and once by Argentina, show that these countries considered themselves to be separate political entities. If this were not the case then the first claim in 1820 should have been sufficient to seize the Islands from the Republic of Chile or Uruguay.
Only 18 years or so after the merger of The Buenos Aires and Argentina The Buenos Aires declared independence again but was attacked by the Argentine Republic in 1859 and annexed over the next couple of years. The Argentines describe these events as friendly tiffs between brothers to maintain the fiction that Argentina inherits the Falklands. The Argentine Confederation/Argentine Republic never had de facto sovereignty over the Falklands. Technically they would be "spoils of war" had the Republic of Buenos Aires had a legitimate claim to sovereignty in the first place.
The Spanish maintained that they had full sovereignty over East Falkland Island until the 1840s (they recognised British rights in West Falkland in 1771). However, the Spaniards left the Islands in 1811 and the Chileans were the natural inheritors of any Spanish sovereign rights to offshore islands south of the river Plate. Chile inherits a claim on the South American legal principle of "uti possidetis juris", according to proximity in 1811 and as a result of technically being in control of the East Falklands between the fall of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1812 and the 1820 invasion of East Falkland by the United Provinces.
Uruguay may also inherit the Spanish claim to sovereignty over East Falkland on the basis of the South American convention of "uti possidetis juris" because the Governor of East Falkland was appointed from and the Island was administered from Montevideo, and because they were assigned the Island by Spain in the Spanish-Uruguayan pact of 1841 . Argentina recognised the Uruguayan claim to the Falklands in 1974 when they accepted the Spanish-Uruguayan Pact. Spain did not relinquish its claim to sovereignty until over 10 years after full British rule. Incidentally, the recognition by both Uruguay and Argentina that Spain still retained sovereignty in 1840 shows that Argentina did not consider it had any sovereignty claim over the Malvinas until after this date.
At the beginning of 1831 the successor to the United Provinces, the Confederation of Argentina, scarcely had access to the sea. It was only with the incorporation of The Buenos Aires in 1831-1832 that Argentina could consider a claim over the Malvinas. 1831 was the year in which the Americans ejected the representatives of the Buenos Aires from the Islands and only 12 months before the British enforced their sovereignty in the Falklands and held it for the next 180 years. There can be no doubt that the only Independent South American country with a legal claim to the Falklands in 1831 was Chile, not Argentina, Spanish possessions being transferred to Chile after Uruguayan independence. The Chileans only relinquished Patagonia to the aggressively expansionist Argentines in the Boundary Treaty of 1881.
 |
| The expansion of Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina#Historical_map) |
Notice how the Argentines expect the Chileans to live happily with the loss of over 50% of their surface area and expect them to forget about events of 100 years ago. But the Argentines themselves are happy to kill for dubious claims originating almost 200 years ago.
According to the 1850 Convention of Settlement "Argentina" agreed that it had settled all previous disputes with Great Britain. So events prior to 1850 are agreed to be of no importance in the relations between the countries. The 1850 Convention of Settlement is simply ignored by Argentina - this should be a warning to the Chileans who still have disputes with Argentina.
So why have the Argentines made sovereignty over the Falkland Islands their only foreign policy objective? After the Convention of Settlement the Argentines made no claims for decades. In the early twentieth century the bulk of the Argentine population was ill educated so a dreadful enemy that had wronged the state could be conjured up by the various despots who have ruled Argentina. It was the Nazi Juan Peron who fully re-awakened the spectre of the British enemy for his own purposes and those of the Axis powers in the Second World War. Poor little Argentina who must fight the British monsters to be avenged - sadly the vengeance is for a "crime" that was never committed against alleged victims who were not Argentine.
The East Falkland Islands were French, Spanish, then British. Generously East Falkland may have been French, Spanish, Chilean or Uruguayan then British. West Falkland has always been British.
In summary, the East Falkland Islands were Chilean between 1812 and 1820, seized from the Republic of Chile by the United Provinces in 1820, seized by the State of Buenos Aires in 1829 and captured by the British in 1832-1833. Under the South American interpretation of "uti possidetis juris" they were Uruguayan or Chilean. Argentina scarcely has a role in these events because it only incorporated the State of Buenos Aires to become a nation in 1832. On this basis the Argentines have persecuted the Falkland Islanders since 1941, originally to help the Axis powers in WWII.
By the way, the Falklands had no inhabitants before the Europeans arrived. Notice that in the years following 1832, when the British enforced their sovereignty over the whole Falklands, the Argentines truly colonised their way right through Patagonia, taking land from the indigenous people and from Chile as they went! This was the true crime in the region. If the UN ever awards the Falklands to Argentina it should return Patagonia to the natives or at least to the Chileans. If Britain or the Falkland Islanders decide to relinquish sovereignty they should pass it to the Chileans or Uruguayans, either of whom have more legal and moral right to the Islands than the Argentines.
Incidentally, Argentines are also taught that Patagonia has always been Argentine - see Conquest of the desert for the real story.
Argentina really is the "neighbour from hell". It is a pity that the USA and South American states keep supporting the Argentines whose claim to the Falkland Islands has lapsed after almost two centuries even if it were valid in the first place. In the article Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas it is shown how, on two occasions, even the British Government has tried to force the Falkland Islanders to submit to Argentina just to get rid of the "problem". Only the British people have insisted that it is wrong to just dispose of a whole Island population for political convenience. The British government is now unable to dispose of the Falkland Islands under British law because they have the constitutional status of Overseas Territories and are independent except for accepting a British Governor as titular head of state. It is forever to the shame of the USA and the UN that they do not support the Islander's case for sovereignty and keep this dangerous political impasse alive.
If you found this article interesting link to it, tweet it (TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/bh7nvao ), and tell your friends! Help the Islanders.
Notes:
In
1766 the British set up a colony on the Falklands and demanded that
the French leave. In 1766 Spain paid 700,000 francs for Las Malvinas.
Reference: The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the
Anglo-Argentine.Sovereignty Dispute. By Roberto C. Laver.
p.30.Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001
Masseran Declaration of 1771:
"DECLARATION OF SPAIN: .. Masserano Prince of states, while in name of your Lord the King, the commitment he has given His Catholic Majesty that reset to Her Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, can not and should have no effect on the sovereign right of the previous issue of the islands called Malouines Falkland Islands also ."
"DECLARATION OF SPAIN: .. Masserano Prince of states, while in name of your Lord the King, the commitment he has given His Catholic Majesty that reset to Her Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, can not and should have no effect on the sovereign right of the previous issue of the islands called Malouines Falkland Islands also ."
“ .. the viceroyalty of La Plata is represented as extending southward to the latitude of 41 degrees; and in the map accompanying it, a line drawn from the Andes eastward to the head-waters of the river Colorado, and down that stream to its mouth in the Atlantic, near the 40th degree, is given as the boundary between the viceroyalty and Patagonia.” [Revolucion Hispano-Americaux 1829 Mariano Torrente] The Falklands are not included in this zone.
1790 Nootka Sound Convention No.1 Forbids new settlements but by implication allows the Falklands and has a secret Article 6 that refers to coasts " actually occupied by Spain" - Patagonia was not actually occupied.
May 30th 1810 Government of Viceroyalty of Rio del Plata transfers to Montevideo
There was Spanish government of the Falklands from Uruguay. The last governor, Pablo Guillen, was appointed in 1810 and was controlled from Montevideo the abandonment of the Islands was ordered from Uruguay in 1811. Isles of Discord. A file on the Falklands (Malvinas). 1983. Eugenio A.L. Ravenal.p.127 Ventura Books
The
Spanish evacuated the Falklands in 1811. Reference: The Falkland
Islands: The political and economic aspects. The RUSI Journal Volume
131, Issue 1, 1986 Rex Hunt and David Bolton
The
last viceroy of the Rio del Plata resigned in January 1812, leaving
Falklands nominally under the Captain General of Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata
The empty Islands were either directly Spanish or under the control of Spanish Chile (after 1812) for the next 8 years
The
Spanish garrison left East Falkland in 1811 and in 1820 Colonel
Jewett claimed the Islands for the United Provinces. Reference:
Richard Ware, The Historical Journal / Volume 27 / Issue 04 /
December 1984, pp 961-967
In
1829 Louis Vernet was appointed governor by The Buenos Aires which
claimed the Islands. By 1831 there were 100 inhabitants. Reference:
Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine.Sovereignty Dispute. By
Roberto C. Laver. p.30.Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001
In
December 1831 the USS Lexington rendered the Islands free of
government and transported the greater part of the population.
Letter from Commander Duncan of the USS Lexington to the Secretary of
the Navy in Washington dated February 3rd 1832.
Convention
of Settlement 1850:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
1856 Argentina-Chile Treaty - in 1810 governance of East Falkland transferred to Uruguay and Patagonia was nominally under Chile.
ARTICLE XXXIX Both parties recognize as limits of their respective territories, which had as such at the time of separation from Spanish rule in 1810, and agree to defer the issues that have been or may arise in this area to discuss peacefully and amicably after , without ever resorting to violent measures, should not arrive at a comprehensive settlement, refer the decision to the arbitration of a friendly nation.
POLITICAL THOUGHTS click here to see the whole POLITICAL THOUGHTS magazine POLITICAL THOUGHTS!
See also:
Las Malvinas: The Legal Case
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas for a discussion of the UN Resolutions and history.
Colonialism? Its the Colonists Stupid!
The Falklands and Nazism
The Falklands: Negotiate now!
The Argentine case for Las Malvinas
The Falklands are Chilean?
An Open Letter to Argentina
Further reading: Argentina-Chile Relations - you have to sympathise with the Chileans who have an endlessly bellicose neighbour.
Note: The Falklands were originally assigned by the Spanish to the Viceroyalty of Peru and then passed to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate but along with Patagonia were later disputed by the Captain General of Chile and fell under Captain General of Chile's control from 1811 until 1818, being unclaimed by the United Provinces yet claimed by the Spanish Empire. On Chilean independence in 1818 they fell back under titular Spanish or Chilean control between 1818 and 1820 but neither country exercised physical control.
First published Feb 4 2012
Comments
1) When Argentina took possession of the islands in 1920 they were uninhabited for years. According to British law, that would be enough to claim sovereignty.
2) Argentinean administration ended abruptly by a British military invasion in 1833, which expulsed the Argentinean Governor Pinedo and replaced the Argentinean flag by the Union Jack.
It could also be added that the British had relinquished sovereignty on the Southern Atlantic in 1713 (Utrecht) and that they confirmed that in 1790 (Nutka conventions). So their settlement was illegal.
Finally, saying that the Provincias Unidas was more Bolivia and Uruguay than Argentina deserves no comments. Just take a look at a map (even without Patagonia) or at a list of the men who declared independence in 1816.
-Your map is (kindly speaking) highly debatable. You can find lots of maps where the whole Patagonia belongs to the Virreynato del Río de la Plata. But that is not the point. Neither Argentina or Chile had effective control over Patagonia. So, excluding Patagonia for both sides, the islands are clearly closer to Argentina.
The point is that the islands were uninhabited by 1820, when Argentina took possession of them. Had Chileans or Uruguayans (which began to exist that year) taken possession of them, they would be legally Chilean or Uruguayan. But they didn’t.
-The Spanish governor (later comandante) of Malvinas reported to Buenos Aires, like the other Spanish settlements in Eastern Patagonia, not to Lima or to Santiago. So the Virreinato del Perú and the Capitanía General de Chile have absolutely nothing to do here. It’s true the late Spanish settlement depended on the Governor of Montevideo, but this in turn reported to Buenos Aires.
-Trying to deny continuity between nowadays Argentina and the state who sent Vernet because of the civil wars is simply ridiculous. This means considering the North American Confederacy has nothing to do with the USA, or the Republic of Spain with current Spain, or the former DDR with Germany.
Oh, by the way, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nortern Ireland did not exist either by 1820. There was a state with a similar name but included many other territories. Actually, it was more Canada or India than the current UK.
The important point is that the Islands are inhabited and the inhabitants do not want to be colonised by Argentina.
The Argentines are truly the neighbours from hell, using claims from 180 years ago to harass other countries.
1. Anyway, if we are going over history, in 1820 (not 1920) as you say the British claimed the Islands at that time and Vernet asked the British Consul for permission to settle. The United Provinces did not openly claim sovereignty at this stage. It was Buenos Aires who appointed Vernet as Governor and claimed sovereignty.
2. The "invasion" of 1833 was as much in response to claims of piracy and disorder as anything else (especially by the USA). Vernet was invited to return but was unable to do so.
3. The Falkland Islands were not included in Nutka.
4. The map of the United Provinces shows a country that clearly encompasses modern Uruguay and two thirds of Bolivia.
5. "Neither Argentina or Chile had effective control over Patagonia. So, excluding Patagonia for both sides, the islands are clearly closer to Argentina. ". So you admit that until 1881 Argentina could not claim any continental shelf connection with the Falklands.
6. Your claim to continuity by comparison with other megastates is interesting. After the US Civil War the USA did not honour Confederate war debts, after German unification Germany did not honour political and trading agreements with Russia. Britain no longer claims Sri Lanka because it was part of India and India was part of the British Empire.
Why are you continuing to support a claim over the Falklands that is 180 years old ? Why wont Argentina allow the claim to be heard in an International Court? All countries have unresolved disputes from a century or more ago but nearly all of them move on. This ancient claim is just a device to provoke nationalism. Argentines should be ashamed that they would go to war to take the Islands from their present inhabitants and set up a new colony.
However, readers should realise that with Nootka we are talking about events over 230 years ago. It is 180 years since the Islands were settled permanently by the Falkland Islanders. It is brutal neo-colonialism to ignore these people. You all know this is the case.
These are the records,about NOOTKA...uk specifically mention and RELINQUISHED the MALVINAS
The document in question are session from the House of Commons, in which the Nootka Conventions are discussed. The link is:
books.google.co.uk/books?id=RR1OAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
TO WIT:
pp. 66/67, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Dundas, in addressing other House members' complaints of the delay to which Nootka negotiations were subjected:
“...that the sentiments of that House, and of the country, formed the dispute into matter proper for two negotiations; the first, and preliminary negotiation, was for reparation to the British flag: that negotiation was not concluded until July.
The other was immediately began; and of the 4th of November the country was acquainted, that
everything proposed to Spain had been acquiesced in. These two treaties had been obtained in
Six months; THE NEGOTIATION OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND, though that negotiation was carried on in London, lasted nearly the same time. It was commenced in September and ended in February...”
TWO stages of NOOTKA negotiations, ONE OF WHICH DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE FALKLANDS.
SECOND CITATION:
The Rt. Hon. Mr. Fox, pp 75:
“..Mr. Fox said, he would consider the Convention as founded on two distinct matters; the reparation for the insult and injury done the Crown, and the adjustment of our claims in the Pacific Ocean and on the Coast of South America. He would consider the reparation first, and that, he contended,
was by no means so complete as THE REPARATION OBTAINED IN THE AFFAIR OF FALKLAND'S ISLAND”
BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS SAW FALKLAND ISLANDS FALL UNDER NOOTKA - PERIOD.
Good day
Wrong Fist you have to settle the property.Now it is uk responsability that action...so IT IS ALL uk FAULT!! Sorry but I FEEL NOTHING for a terrorist country like uk.......MALVINAS ARGENTINAS>....uk IS FINISHED,both economically and morally...
This is the neo-colonial position of Argentina - first to consider the property.
On the subject of Nootka I have not lied, I have just noted that the position is obscure. Your reference to the proceedings of the House of Commons also shows that Nootka is obscure. In those proceedings it is also remarked that the convention "settled nothing" and "left everything open to future disputes".
Even if Nootka was not obscure, even if it clearly stated that the Falklands were Spanish, the Spanish did not relinquish sovereignty of the Falklands until the 1860s and relinquished this Sovereignty to the British. The United Provinces was unable to take the Islands and hold them so any dispute stemming from Nootka would be an Anglo-Spanish dispute.
What a brilliant argument!
This is the kind of argument one knows come from somebody who does NOT have real arguments.
HMS Clio arrived in January 1833 and expelled Pinedo and his garrison of 26 soldiers plus their families, three foreigners and a prisoner. [1]
At that time there were 33 civilians settled on the islands, 29 of whom preferred to stay under British sovereignity. Four civilians preferred to leave; they did NOT want to come to Buenos Aires but to Montevideo in Banda Oriental (Uruguay) and judged by their names, one couple was Brazilian.
1. Commencing 1833 and through December 1849 the 'Confederación Argentina' regularly and officially protested British sovereignity in diplomatic letters and in the "Message to Congress". [2]
2. In 1849 the "Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation" was signed, and in May 1850 it was ratified in Buenos Aires. [3]
Following the ratification, Argentina no longer protested and the Falkland Islands were not mentioned in the "Messages to Congress" for 91 years until 1941, except once, 20 January 1888, when Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa protested to Britain against Britain’s possession of the Falklands. [2]
3. In President Bartolomé Mitre's message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865: "… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos." [4] "there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments [France and Britain]."
4. Vice-president Marcos Paz's opening speach to the Argentine Congress, 1 May 1866: "... perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste." [5]) "... damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, which has not yet been settled." "The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled."
5. President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's "Message to the Argentine Congress", 1 May 1869: "... Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía ...". [6] "Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere/(assuming their spirit of justice) in manifesting their sympathies ..."
6. 1881: The 'Latzina' Map, "Mapa Geográfico de la República Argentina ...", Buenos Aires 1882 (dated 1881), based on the treaty of 23 July 1881, financed by the Argentine Foreign Ministry and published in 120,000 copies, distributed to Argentine consulates all over the world shows Argentina in one colour and non-Argentina in another. [7]
7. 1881/82: the map 'Limites Australes de la Republica Argentina' [8] dated 1881 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
8. 1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 [9] does not include the Falkland Islands at all.
1) 1920 eh? Overlooking the fact that it was, supposedly, 1820, there's a small problem. The individual that supposedly made the claim, David Jewett, was only authorised to act as a privateer in respect of Spanish vessels. However, he then encountered mutiny, scurvy and took to piracy. There is no official record that he was ever authorised to "claim" anything. And, in any event, a pirate couldn't do so.
2) Argentinean administration? You mean the penal colony where the troops mutinied on arrival and killed the commanding officer?
You could add that the British relinquished sovereignty except that it wouldn't be true. Somewhat difficult to explain the British claim to sovereignty in 1765 or the Falklands Crisis in 1770/1771 where the local Spanish governor used 5 warships and 1400 troops to evict the British settlers. Only to have the Spanish king repudiate the actions, return all seized goods and pay reparations.
There is more
Territorial proximity is irrelevant. The Islands weren't uninhabited. They were in constant use by the crews of British and American sealing ships.
And Vernet was authorised by Britain. But took to piracy. And most of his workers were removed by the USA.
Poor gerardo. The UK has NEVER referred to the Falkland Islands by that stupid Spanish name.
But it is notable that neither of your made-up references mention a year.
Regarding Nootka, it is worth noting that Britain only agreed not to begin any NEW settlements. The Falklands were an existing settlement.
Dear Carla. Argentina can't have Malvinas back. There are a number of reasons
1) They don't exist!
2) Argentina can't have something BACK that never legally belonged to it. You don't get any "rights" by trespassing.
3) The UK is the UN-approved Administering Authority.
4) Despite all the UN General Assembly resolutions that Argentina has managed to get passed, ALL UNGA resolutions are NON_BINDING.
5) In recent weeks, the UN Secretary General has stated that the UK is not in breach of any resolutions.
6) The only allowable options for a Non-Self Governing Territory is to stay as it is or go to independence. Being passed over to a third-world colonialist imperialist country is NOT an option. No matter what your ill-educated "neighbours" think.
7) The UN Secretary General also said that the Islanders are entitled to self-determination.
8) I wonder if you recall what happened in 1982? We're still there. But better prepared. That's why that bunch of gangsters that pretend to be the "government" of Argentina screamed about "British militarisation". Because, unlike 1982, there aren't 80 Royal Marines that you had to send 66,000troops to fight. There are now about 1300, fully-equipped combat-experienced troops, 4 multi-role combat aircraft and up to 2 warships. And maybe a submarine. Is it a hunter-killer or a ballistic missile type? Who knows? If it's there.
There aren't going to be any "Malvinas" for you. Not this year. Or next. Or in 10 years. Or 50. Or 100. Or 1000.
Oh, and for those cowards, named and anonymous, that like to sling around the word "liar"can we remind you that the whole world knows how much Argentina and Argentines lie and, from last time, how many you lost, how many were kindly taken prisoner, how many were abandoned by your "government" and who ran for home?
But don't let us stop you pursuing your claim that you refuse to take to the ICJ.
Hahaha well said. Enough to show how brainless these arguments are. They are really EXCUSES trying to cover up the unwarranted aggression of 1833.
watch whats waiting for you :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jKHPj1Pp7g
To be fair on the Argentinians I've tried to imagine if the Shetland Islands had been resettled then claimed by Denmark 180 years ago and the situation where there were no displaced Shetlanders. Honestly, I really believe few British people today would care. The Faroes are a real example of islands closer to our Archipelago but we are not claiming them. We are also not screaming for the return of Calais. Canada is not jumping up and down about the French islands off its coast.
The extent to which Argentines feel passion about the islands cannot be explained by anthing other than indoctrination. The fact that so many of them rely Ad Hominens to argue to case only backs this up Honestly what difference would they make to the average Argentinian? (treat the oil argument as nion sequitur because the dispute predates this)
The situation seems better suited to a psychologist than it does a diplomat.
YOUR PEOPLE'S GREED WILL PAY YOU BACK. INDEPENDENTS ARE WINNING IN UK.
WATCH OUT, BRIAN. UK IS DISMEMBERING SLOWLY, LIKE A MELTING CHOCOLATE.
The world and in particular the UN should be very cautious when supporting a spurious claim such as the one by Argentina, as the world would look very different if their views on historical events and the geographical positioning of land were to be enforced on the rest of the world. South American countries now enjoy the right to self determination despite their colonial past so why cant the Falkland islanders. After all Argentina is almost as far from Spain as the Falklands are from Great Britain.
When the Falklands were first discovered by the British there was no indigenous population and therefore no aggression.
When the area now known as Argentina was invaded by Spain there was an indigenous population. That population was subsequently slaughtered; those that survived were forced to live as third class citizens in there own country. There languages superseded by Spanish. Finally the invaders decided they wanted to keep it all for themselves and turned on there own countrymen until they achieved independence from their motherland; lots and lots of aggression.
Why don’t the Argentineans look at there own colonial past and give the land they took by force back the native people of what is now Argentina.