The UK cleaned the islands in 1833, that's the reason why "UK doesn't need to 'clean' the islands", because it's already cleaned. Islanders that remained in the islands were just invaders that think as British, so, their progeny will continue thinking in the same way. Argentina takes the islanders as argentines (with all the rights) because they born in argentinean sovereign territories.
The islanders would lose many rights, freedom and civil liberties if they were forced to join Argentina. Ever government in history that has imposed its sovereignty on the people has had to resort to authoritarian rule in order to maintain control. Argentina would have to do the same in the islands or the islanders would simply prevent Argentina from exercising sovereignty.
Governments govern with the consent of the governed. Without that consent, there is dictatorship.
@Medeasbiggestfan I'm not against the islanders. If you think that the islanders own legally the resources it could be ok. Now, the islanders are there because UK illegally invaded argentinean sovereign territories in 1833, so, UK is responsible for the loss of resources over a sovereign country, otherwhise these resources would continue being argentinean. If the islanders can't be compensated to return the islands, UK must pay for the injury to Argentina, for ever.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina was injured in 1833 and still being injured. If the islanders have all the rights over the islands resources, UK has the legal obligation of repay the injuries generated by an illegal invasion in a sovereign country internationally recognized since 1810. It's not convenient for UK that the islanders claim for their self-determination right, because UK is liable for the injuries.
Argentines claiming self-determination hurt Spain. Whenever people claim self-determination, it always hurts someone.
The islands are not internationally recognised to be part of Argentina. That's why there is a 'sovereignty dispute'. The UK has always said the islands are British, so it doesn't need to pay anything.
The UK never asked for reparations following the 1982 War. If you like, you can say the UK repaired the war damage with Argentina's share of the oil revenue.
@Medeasbiggestfan The UK invaded in 1833 and British had nothing to do in the islands, there is the big difference with Spain. Since 1810 the islands are being internationally recognized as argentine sovereign territories. The criminal sayings can do few to turn an illegal action that generated serious injuries into a legal action, UK must negotiate the return of the islands or if it's not possible, pay for ever to Argentina /concede an equal area in UK territories.
As I've said, the islands are not internationally recognised as Argentine. The only long term settlement on the islands is the current population. The islands belongs to the islanders, and the UK belongs to the British people.
States govern with the consent of the governed. If Argentina wants the islands, it needs to convince the islanders that their lives would be better under Argentine rule.
Sadly, Argentina seems committed to bullying and harass the islanders.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina has enough information to proof that the islands were sovereign territories before the illegal invasion of 1833. An international court will never accept any of the arguments that you're saying. All the injures (fair or unfair, democractic or not) generated by an illegal act must be paid by the infractor country.
If Argentina has 'enough information', why did it refuse to participate when the UK offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague on three occasions?
I think it's because Argentina knows that no international court would ever support a sovereignty claim that would lead to 3000 innocent people losing their freedom. This is why Argentina resorts to bullying and harassing the islanders.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina refuse to participate because argentines want the islands back and not an indemnification, but if UK insists, the only way will be invoke an international court and The UK will pay for the injuries.
@Medeasbiggestfan it's not bullying try to recover sovereign territories that were loss by an international crime. In addition, the war of 1982 was an authoritarian decision of criminals that illegally governed Argentina. They manipulated the public opinion by forcing the press.
When the islanders try to participate in sport and scientific events, Argentina prevents them from taking part. At the First World Summit on Fishing Sustainability in 2009, the Argentine delegates stole the islanders' flag and nameplate from the conference table. Argentina recently banned the islanders' flag from being flown in South American ports. Last year, Argentines campaigned to cancel the .fk domain.
This won't help Argentina get the islands. it's just bullying.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina don't recognize the islanders as a sovereign entity, it's impossible treat them in another way. You're saying that the islanders are not Argentines, so, Argentina has nothing to talk about self-determination with outsiders. Argentines want to recover the islands, if UK ensure that this impossible, the only way will claim for a indemnification invoking an international court and UK will pay for the injuries generated by the international crime in 1833
The Argentine Constitution calls for the islanders to be treated with respect. It's not very respectful to steal someone's flag. Spain claims Gibraltar, but it doesn't go around taking flags or barring Gibraltarians from participating internationality.
As I said, the Argentine Government is welcome to take the issue to an international court. The reason they don't is because they know they'd lose. So instead, Argentine officials steal flags from international conferences.
@Medeasbiggestfan If Argentina takes the issue to an international court,will be to claim an indemnification based on the international crime performed by UK in 1833 and all the injuries that it generated and still generating.Convince the islanders to return the islands to Argentina, indemnificate them if the UK think that it's correct,don't push a situation that will cost the value of all the past, current and futures resources from the islands and UK will be obligated to pay.
You can only put individuals on trial, not entire countries. Since no one is alive from 1833, no one can be tried for the alleged crime you're talking about.
An international court can only mediate on the sovereignty dispute, and Argentina knows that no international court will rule in favour of a claim that would result in 3000 people losing their freedom.
@Medeasbiggestfan Entire countries are liable for international crimes and injures. Check the Japanese compensation to countries occupied during 1941-45. Taking in account that the injuries generated by the illegal invasion of 1833 still exists and will remain existing if the islands are not returnes, the UK will be obligated to pay permanently until the islands return to Argentina.
@Medeasbiggestfan, If the invasion of Argentina in 1982 was a crime like the crime commited by UK in 1933, yes, Argentina must pay. The difference is that the injuries generated by Argentina are minimal and finite. The crime performed by UK continue generating injuries, so UK will be obligated to pay permanently, and not only for the past.
Argentina didn't pay reparations to the islanders. In fact, the Argentine government says its current policy is to cripple the islands economy.
You could argue that the UK does pay for taking over the islands in 1833. The UK pays millions every year to protect the islanders and gets nothing in return.
@Medeasbiggestfan The UK could pay millions every year,it's a problem of UK. Since 1982 Argentina has not any intention of invade, there is no reason for be paranoid.Argentina paid every thing that was claimed because Argentina lost the war. If UK refuse to dialog and negotiate the return of the islands, next step will be a legal demand claiming for compensation.Take advantage of the intention of Argentina about recover the islands, return the islands,otherwise it will really expensive for UK.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina don't want to negotiate with the islanders, Argentina will negotiate with the UK, if the UK refuse, Argentina will directly invoke an international court and demand the UK for the the injuries generated for the international crime in 1833 that still generating injuries to Argentina. UK should take advantage of the intention of Argentina and convince the islanders to return the islands. Until now Argentina is running with the expenses, it will change
The UK doesn't have the right to negotiate away the freedom of the islanders.
As I said, Argentina is welcome to refer the issue to an international court, but it won't get the result it wants.
I think there will be negotiations eventually, when the islanders vote for full independence from the UK. My guess is the UK will offer to give Argentina sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in return for recognising the islanders' independence.
@Medeasbiggestfan I think that the islands will back to Argentina sooner or later. The islanders will keep their self-determination as British (because they're British too). The islanders independency will remain nonviable while the access restrictions persist. Only after many years of free access to argentines, the independency could be analized.
Don't think so. There's no incentive for the islanders or the UK to negotiate.
Even if Argentines were allowed to immigrate to the islands, it wouldn't change anything.
Spaniards are allowed to immigrate to Gibraltar (in fact almost 25% of Gribraltans are of Spanish ancestry) yet after only a short time on the rock, all most all of them want to remain British.
It would be the same with any Argentines that go to live on the islands.
@Medeasbiggestfan The vast majority of argentines support the return of the islands and this is the why argentines have restricted the access to the islands, to manipulate the self-determination of a partially closed community. Other reasons are invalid excuses. Argentina will never invade the islands, the argentines want to dialog and free access and permanency in the islands, without free access for all the self-determination of any community is artificial.
Why is it strange for the Gibraltarians to want to be British? Although they often have disagreements with the UK government, that doesn't mean they hate the British people - in fact they see themselves as British.
It would go against British legislation and the Falkland Islands Constitution for the UK to negotiate on sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders. Even if the UK could negotiate, it wouldn't accomplish anything as the islanders would rebel.
There are very little natural resources from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
The islanders should be compensated by England, because England supports and encourage the illegal occupation since the beginning. In this way England can take any resource at any time. The islanders freedom is just an excuse to keep them as a colony.
@juv7 I´ll answer to you later: man, why do you insist in colonialism, in economical slavery; why can´t you become more rational? Freedom will come soon for people, you´ll not prevail forever. Furthermore, you must stop spending money in the navy, and you Must do something about your People.
@juv7 Excuse me, I clearly don´t get it; do you mean "Celtic", oposed to english, when you say Brittania? Or you refer to the British Empire during Elizabeth/ James? I may get the word wrong. But I think you refer the unificated kingdom of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. If that´s the case, you know what I think. I won´t repeat it.
And I must apologize for any idiotic Argentine who simply berates You as "pirates" as if it where as simple as that and as if we, Argentines, had not also had a very strong tradition of corsairs in the XIXth century, spearheaded by the great Frenchmen turned Argentine, Hippolite de Bouchard (who even came up to invading spanish California for a short period of time, in the name of the Argentine State). We Argentines are not all as rude and stupid as some that just give the rest a bad name.
and self-rule but ensuring that the neighbouring seas and natural resources, which lawfully belong to the sovereign argentine people are not pillaged by any foreign corsair that is willing to pay a toll to the British Crown. Argentina doesnt need to rule the islands, nor does it want to, they are a very expensive burden on the british crown, it wants to maintain control of the neighbouring seas which are of strategic military importance, as well as the resources.
to use argentina travel papers in the '70s, the infamous Blue Paper they had to carry when travelling), so the argument would be for a right to secession, which could only be ruled under argentine now I personnally believe that in a compact of states secession is an inherent right BUT past legal precedent has proven that the mainstream opinion differs from mine. I think the real solution would be making the islands an autonomous region in Argentina. Thus permiting the islanders maintain identity
@Medeasbiggestfan The islanders could never sustain themselves practically without being subjects of another, bigger, country. Neither could they sustain a "war for their freedom" against any country, even argentina, and I don't think they would try, it would be a pointless war just like the Etarras in Spain. I agree with the fact that the islanders are not to blame, but the reality is that they are argentine subjects, de jure at least (something that britain partially recognized by forcing them
@arankwende Nunca he visto tantas taradeces juntas, en serio: ¿Chabon, que aclaraciones les tenes que hacer a un ingles? Decis que la posesion de las islas no es importante: tenemos una deuda externa de unos cuantos puntos del PBI; Las Malvinas tienen Petroleo; la posesion permite explotacion, la explotacion las ganancias, las ganancias reducen la deuda externa ¿Comprendido? Si los isleños son ingleses, su lugar es Inglaterra: ellos estan ahi por los recursos nomas.
And from an international law perspective there has never even been a lawful case put forward by the british that have categorically admited in the past the irregularity of the islander situation and have abused their "power" position in the UN to not enforce many binding resolutions about the subject... The new argument of the "islanders self determination" was created post-1983 because of the popularity garnered by the british gvmt in fighting an "unjust war" put forward by a military gvmt
Argentina's main problem is that taking over the islands against the wishes of the islanders is impractical and unsustainable. The islanders would never accept Argentine rule being forced on them. They'd declare independence and fight for their freedom, making life very difficult for Argentina.
The Argentine government must know this, which explains their undiplomatic behaviour towards the UK. This is not something they'd do if they were serious about getting the islands.
The islanders are not pirates, they're living in their birthplace. It would be wrong to ask them to give up their freedom because of the actions of the UK government in the 19th century.
In the next decade or so, the islanders will request independence. At which point most of Argentina's arguments will become invalid.
@Medeasbiggestfan no, the islanders of Islas Malvinas are not pirates.They are instruments of the UK Goverment. UK don´t want the islander`s independence, is an excuse for not returning the Malvinas to Argentine people, that were stolen in 1833 with HMS Clio. If they could return Hong Kong to China (with millions of population), it will be easy to return the islands to Argentina.
The islanders have a right to independence. If the islanders ever voted to become an independent nation the UK government would have to respect their wishes.
Hong Kong was never a British territory, it was leased to the UK. The lease ran out in 1997.
@Medeasbiggestfan UK says it has intoaccount the wishes of the islanders, Argentina says it takes into account their *interests*, not their wishes.In other words, maintain their lifestyle, but as argentine citizens (because they born in argentine territory, Malvinas).United Nation calls for dialogue.
Argentina, since birth, always claimed sovereignty of the islands. Always. UK occupied the Malvinas without a formal declaration of war and expelled the argentine population.
John Strong discovered the islands in 1690, before an independent Argentina existed.
The British only evicted the Argentine military in 1833, the Argentine settlers remained and were joined by British colonists in the 1840s. The islanders today are really no different than most people in the Americas being descended from many different peoples (though mainly British).
In any case, it would be wrong to forced the islanders to give up their freedom due to their ancestry.
@Medeasbiggestfan Strong(1690)was not the first to discover the islands.There were earlier explorations of other boaters, although not confirmed, located to the Malvinas in their charts.The first sighting(unquestionable)was the Dutchman Sebald de Weert in 1600,90 years before Strong.
Argentina's population(not just the military)in the Malvinas was expelled in 1833 and UK transplanted population.There isn´t a "falklander" culture., they are settlers under British rule.CONT-
The islands may have been seen before 1690, but John Strong was the first person to land and walk on the islands. Argentina doesn't dispute this.
John Onslow, Captain of HMS Clio, in his log stated that he forced the Argentine military to leave, but paid the settlers silver to stay. Charles Darwin met them when he visited the islands in 1834, Richard Moody states they were still on the islands in 1841. There are photos of elderly gauchos on the islands in the 20th century.
@Medeasbiggestfan The British did not fully dominated the islands (only owned Port Egmont). They were abandoned in 1774. In 1777 the Spanish destroyed all traces of occupation, the United Kingdom without protest, what is considered abandonment. Spain itself defended its sovereignty over the territory (that corresponds to Argentina by inheritance).
The population was deported and replaced with a graft of British population.
The French and later the Spanish were only in Port Louis. After the Spanish left in 1811, the islands remained uninhabited until 1829. When the United Provinces eventually came to the islands, they were only in Port Louis.
The Argentine military was deported by the British in 1833, but the Argentine settlers were paid by the Captain of HMS Clio to stay on the islands. They were joined by British settlers in the 1840s.
@Medeasbiggestfan The ancestry of the population does not mean much, even in a territorial dispute. Ethnicity is not the same as nationality.
Self-determination violates the territorial integrity of our country. The islanders are free to decide about their lives (can choose to be Argentine or British), but not decide the fate usurped territory (even if they are 100% pro-British)
In a democracy, freedom overrides territorial integrity. It is wrong to force the islanders to give up their freedom due to the actions of the UK government in 1833.
There is a distinct Falklands culture, they are far more hardy and single minded than most people in the UK, and their dialect and attitudes are unique to the lands. Their culture has been influenced over 200 years by Latin American, Scottish and Welsh culture, making it more distinct than many in the Americas.
@Medeasbiggestfan No one should claim for freedom in other country's lands. ¿What will happen if a few hundreds of persons encroach in an england region and claim for their freedom?
The islanders are not in another country - they're in their birthplace. The sovereignty of the constituent countries of the UK is determined by the people, no matter where their ancestors came from.
@Medeasbiggestfan , So, a few hundreds can migrate to another country, deliver a few hundreds of babies there and then claim for its freedom..... no way...
The sovereignty of British territories is determined by the wishes of the majority who were born in those territories. It doesn't matter whether their parents were migrants.
@Medeasbiggestfan, So, Just creating a very small neighborhood at England where only born inmigrant's children, then they will can claim for the sovereignty of the neighborhood.
You can't gerrymander a border around a town and claim it as a territory. To claim sovereignty, it has to be a distinct and historic territory (like the islands)
@Medeasbiggestfan But it's the same thing, the islands are not a distinct territory, it is an argentinean territory like any other continental argentinean territory where argentineans was expelled. If the inmigrants establish a town there and the country wasn't enough strong (or clever) for handle it to avoid conflicts. They will be able to have children and then claim for its sovereignty. It's unethical at least.
The islands are distinct - clue is in the name. Firstly, they're islands, 300 miles from mainland South America. Secondly, they're distinct historically as the Argentine Republic has never exercised sovereignty over them (with the exception of 74 days in 1982).
It would be unethical to force the islanders to give up their freedom just because their ancestors were from the British Isles, not Iberia.
@Medeasbiggestfan 10, 300 o 1000 miles it's the same, the thing is that Argentina had the sovereignty and argentineans living there when the first inmigrants arrived and expelled them. (with or without being excercised, the sovereignty exists). The islanders are free, they can live on the islands or leave it, as argentineans or as british people, but they should accept that it's an argentinean territory and adapt to it.
The sovereignty of any territory is determined by the people who were born in that territory. Countries where sovereignty is imposed on the people are not free. I would be wrong to punish the islanders for something that may or may not have happened in the 19th century.
Even if Argentina somehow took over the islands, the islanders would never accept Argentine rule. They'd rebel and declare independence. It would be a nightmare for Argentina, the islanders would make sure of that.
@Medeasbiggestfan It's a circle, by your thinking way, inmigrants can encroach "any territory" (of any country), expel natives, and stay there for decades. Then they can claim for sovereignty. The islanders are not malvinenses, they're british, and if England supports Argentina, they will respect it.
It is wrong to punish people for something that happened 200 years before they were born. You can't remove a people's fundamental rights because their ancestors may have committed a crime.
Also, the British didn't expel any 'natives'. The islands never had an indigenous population - the first human to set foot on the islands was John Strong in 1690. However, most people in Argentina are descend from European immigrants who displaced or killed native South Americans.
@Medeasbiggestfan You're right, europeans inmigrants displaced or killed native south americans, but they never had any sovereignty internationally recognized over the lands when this happen, this is a big difference.
So you're saying that those of Iberian ancestry can take land and claim sovereignty because the natives who originally live there didn't have a flag recognised by the European power recognised of the 18th century? That seems like a very unfair distinction.
@Medeasbiggestfan No, I told you that when thouse iberian ancestry were there, there are not any sovereignty internationally recognized. Current islanders are the progeny of inmigrants that arrived to argentinean territories which have a sovereignty internationally recognized.
@Medeasbiggestfan Fair or unfair distinction, we must respect the international laws. We cannot transgress international rules because (for us) they are "unfair", the world could be turn in chaos if any country begins to ask for "fair" things forgetting the international rules.
@Medeasbiggestfan In addition, England ecourage the islanders to encroach since the begining, so, England must run with the "unfair" things and compensate the islanders for any damage or injury.
It's against international law to force a people to join a foreign state against their wishes. Argentina admits this, but it gets around the law by saying the islands are a 'special case'. In reality the islanders are no different from any other former British colony in the Americas.
Chaos would come if Argentina imposed its rule on the islanders. The islanders are incredibly strong minded and would never accept any form of Argentine control.
Medeasbiggestfan, International rules are not from Argentina, they are "international", and all people must respect them. Islanders must be compensated by England, because without England encouraging and protecting them to remain there, current islanders could born in England and not in Argentina. they won't be forced to join any state, they are free to choose all the things related to their lifes, but they can't transgress international rules.
Firstly, there is a different between England and the UK.
So you want the UK to pay the islanders compensation for Argentina taking away their freedom?
The islanders would certainly lose their freedom if Argentina ever took over. They'd no longer determine their sovereignty or government. Plus, in order to hold the islands, Argentina would have to remove many civil liberties from the islanders.
Argentina would transgress the international law by removing the islanders' human rights.
@Medeasbiggestfan I'm so sorry for the islanders, but there is no other way. If inmigrants progeny can claim for sovereignty over any isolated area from other country it will be a chaos because the sovereignty of the countries will be useless, and only will prevail the wishes of a few hundreds of inmigrants or their progeny wishes.
There is another way, Argentina can recognise the islanders' fundamental rights.
Allowing people to exercise their fundamental rights, regardless of their ancestry, will not lead to chaos, it will lead to a world of freedom, where people can't be oppressed by foreign powers.
@Medeasbiggestfan , Argentina, or England or any country will be able to invoke the "Islas Malvinas" case to encroach over other countries lands. The only requirement is stay there for some years, have children and keep the area isolated. Nice way to steal lands "legally".
If Argentina ever took over the islands against the wishes of the islanders, other countries would be able to use the case to take over neighbouring lands against the wishes of the people born there.
@Medeasbiggestfan There is no other cases similar to Las Islas Malvinas Argentinas. May be you can find one, or two cases almost similar... in the other hand, in your way, any country would send inmigrants to invade any isolated area of other country, have children and claim for sovereignty.
For a nation to send immigrants to a far away land and maintain the population's loyalty is very difficult. It was rare in the 19th century, it couldn't happen in the 21st. Can you think of an example where it could happen?
However, in your way of thinking, any nation can claim sovereignty over any neighbouring territory containing descends of immigrants (which is almost every country in the world these days) and claim the population doesn't have any rights to their birthplace.
@Medeasbiggestfan This is no my way really, this is the way of the international rules. And in this way, only the nations which was encroached by inmigrants after be recognized as a sovereign country could invoke the case.
There is no international law against living in your birthplace and exercising your fundamental rights. However, it is against international law to take over a territory against the wishes of the people living there.
As I say, Argentina could not hold the islands against the wishes of the islanders. They'd fight for their freedom. Argentina would either have to concede to the islanders, or impose authoritarian rule over them. Both eventualities would be a nightmare for Argentina.
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part 1, Article 1, Section 1:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
@Medeasbiggestfan The right doesn't include progeny of inmigrants in a soverign country internationally recognized. Inmigrants can't have children and claim for sovereignty, this is crazy. Any soverign country could be under risk. They can determine anything that they want, but not in a territory where other people have the sovereignty before they arrived.
It's not 'crazy', it's democracy. The UN Covenant doesn't discriminate.
It's quite shocking that you would deny the descends of immigrants fundamental rights, especially in the case of the islands which have no native population (so everyone there is descended from immigrants).
Effectively, you're saying people of Spanish ancestry are entitled to their fundamental rights in the islands, but people of British ancestry aren't.
@Medeasbiggestfan Spain and all the world recognize the sovereignty of Argentina, including las Islas Malvinas Argentinas, inclusively before the arrive of british inmigrants that expelled the argentineans from de islands. So, here we have an usurpation over a soverign country, and it is forbidden by the international rules. You are taking as example territories that never was recognized internationally as a soverign country before the arrive of inmigrants.
Most of the islanders are not English, they are manly of Scottish ancestry - about 10% of the islanders state they are of Latin American ancestry.
The British expelled the Argentine military, not the settlers. Any islanders whose family have been on the islands since the 1830s are descended from them (as well as the British who came after).
The islands are a British territory for now, but in the next few decades (once the oil starts to flow) the islanders will request independence.
@Medeasbiggestfan It's irrelevant from where are the islanders ancestry, they are british and his freedom must be exercised at their respective territory where they are recognized as sovereign citizens. In any way, when the invaders arrived argentineans was there and military and settlers was expelled and inmigrants can't do this. This must be solved by international magistrates, respecting the internationales rules, and not by any interested part because we are not impartial
The UK offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague three times (in 1947, 1948 and 1955). Argentina refused to take part on every occasion, saying the dispute is a matter for the UK and Argentina to resolve alone.
@Medeasbiggestfan England denies any possibility of intervention for experts in international laws, the reason is clear, Las Islas Malvinas son argentinas. England can't transgress almost all the international rights of millions of argentinean people against one questionable right of a few hundreds of islanders over an illegal heritage.
Argentina has said many times that the islanders have the right to Argentine citizenship. However, even if all the islanders became Argentine citizens, Argentina would still deny them many rights currently enjoyed by people in Argentina (such as self-determination). Meaning a group of citizens are treated differently to another based solely on their ancestry. This is clearly prejudice and would not be supported by international law.
@Medeasbiggestfan We won't solve anything here. I think that an impartial international court wouldn't support England's excuses. England will continue taking advantage from Argentina's territories and from the islanders, using them as pawn with their consent (because they are british, and not malvinenes). UK shouldn't be beneficiary of any resource from the territory in dispute, this is cheeky.
The UK doesn't benefit from any of the islands' resources. All the income from the islands goes to the Falkland Islands Government. Argentina doesn't deny this.
If you read General Assembly Resolution 1514, it's clearly written to help
people just like the islanders to stand up for their rights and allow them to determine their own futures. It's about supporting self-determination as fundamental Human Right. I think an international court would clearly support the islanders' rights.
@Medeasbiggestfan The excuse of "self-determination" is invalid. The islanders will conserve their self-determination in UK because they are from there. You can't claim for self-determination over a foreign country's sovereign territories. Self-determination is only valid for natives from territories that was occupied before. When the islanders arrived, the islands belonged to a sovereign country internationally recognized(Argentina), they was inmigrants.
Resolution 1514 doesn't state those caveats. It talks about the rights of 'all peoples'. Surely a Resolution of the UN General Assembly wouldn't discriminate based on ancestry?
Also, whether or not the islands have ever been recognised as part of the Argentine Republic is very dubious.
If what you say is true, then the American colonists in 1776 didn't (and still don't) have the right to self-determination as they were immigrants to a land recognised to be part of the British Empire
@Medeasbiggestfan You can't transgress the self-determination right of millions of argentineans over the islands, to respect the self-determination rights of inmigrant's progeny.
As I keep saying, every human who has ever lived on the islands has been an immigrant since the islands never had a native population.
The EU and the Commonwealth both recognise the islands as a British overseas territory. The UN is officially neutral on the sovereignty of the islands.
In the next few decades the islanders will gain full independence from the UK, at which point most of Argentina's arguments will become void.
@Medeasbiggestfan Civil and Military population expelled by british inmigrants weren't inmigrants because they were argentinean in argentinean soveregin territories. In addition, sovereign countries aren't obliged to populate every square meter to keep the sovereign against inmigrants.
@Medeasbiggestfan Militar and civilians were expelled, there exists historical evidence about this. Argentineans born in Argentina, sovereign countries are not obligated to delivery babies in every square meter to confirm their sovereign there, so, they were natives, and invaders were inmigrants. The self-determination of millions of argentineans is being crushed.
In fact, there is little evidence to support Argentina's claim and there's a lot of evidence to support the view that the civilians stayed.
In 1833 John Onslow, Captain of HMS Clio, stated in his log that he paid the civilians silver to stay on the islands.
Charles Darwin stated that he met the Argentines in 1834. Richard Moody in the 1840s said they were still there when the British colonists came. There are even photos of elderly gauchos on the islands in the early 20th century.
@Medeasbiggestfan Las Islas Malvinas are (and were) part of Argentina as an unit, sovereign territory internationally recognized. So, any argentinean is (and was) native from any part of Argentina including the islands.
@Medeasbiggestfan People is not persecuted for being descends of inmigrants, just, that as they born in argentinean sovereign territories they must respect the same laws that the all of the argentineans respect. Is not self-determination claim rights over encroached territories.
That is what I'm saying. The sovereignty of British territories is determined by the people born in that territory - regardless of whether they're descended from immigrants. It would be prejudice and discrimination to remove certain rights from a group of people as a result of their ancestry.
@Medeasbiggestfan Since 1810 The islands are argentinean territories. After the independency where the islands were included, all the non argentinean people that arrived to the islands are inmigrants. The islands are a part of Argentina as a unity. Argentineans are native from every square meter of Argentina, including the islands. The self-determination over the islands is a right that belong to all the argentineans, including current islanders as inmigrants relatives.
Are you saying that if a majority of people in Misiones wanted to join Brazil, the rest of Argentina would have to support them before it could happen? This seems very undemocratic. Did the rest of the Spanish Empire have a vote when the United Provinces declared independence?
If a majority of people in Scotland voted for independence, it would happen, regardless of what people in the rest of the UK thought.
@Medeasbiggestfan Democratic procceses couldn't be "undemocratic". The Spanish Empire wasn't a democracy. In Scotland will vote all the scotch people, because they were encroached by England and they want to recover their original independency, it's a different thing. If Misiones wanted to join Brazil, it must be a democratic decision that must include all the argentineans.
@Medeasbiggestfan If a majority of people in London wanted to join Belgium, it must be decided by all the english people, otherwise it will be an oligarchic decision. Conterminous or not it's the same thing, all England is sovereign territory that belong to all english.
England didn't 'encroach' Scotland. Scotland and England voted to join together in 1707. At which point both Scotland and England ceased to exist as independent countries.
If a majority of people in London wanted to be part of Belgium it would have nothing to do with the rest of England. There is a campaign for Cornwall to be recognised as a separate country within the UK, the British government has said it is a matter for the people of Cornwall to decide, not the rest of England.
@Medeasbiggestfan Sovereign countries work as a unit. Sovereign territories belong to all the natives which have self-determination as a unit and any decision must be globally and democratic. I don't know anything about Cornwall, may be a rights violation happened there. Scotland was independient before belong to UK, and the "Union Act" was forced by England. Anyway, the important thing is that Scotland has an independient past.
It's a little ironic for you to talk about 'rights violations' in the UK when you want to remove rights from the islanders.
The islands have a history of separation from Argentina. With the exception of 74 days in 1982, the Argentine Republic has never governed the islands. By virtue of that history, the islands should be defined as a separate entity. Also, the islanders are a unique people, distinct from Argentina and the UK. This alone should entitle them to self-determination.
@Medeasbiggestfan Claim for self-determination when UK is controlling and restricting the access to the islands since many years ago and after they expelled the "problematic" argentineans, is an absolut fraud. Let permanently move argentineans to the islands for 150 years and then claim for self-determination.
@Medeasbiggestfan By my self-determination right, being argentinean, I've the right of moving and change my address to Misiones, and do any legal thing there and take it as my country. If Misiones wanted to join Brazil, my self-determination will be injured, so I have the right to vote. UK is transgressing the self-determination of all the argentineans (excepting the islanders) since 1833
The lives of the islanders would change dramatically if they joined Argentina, but the lives of most Argentines wouldn't change at all. That's why only the islanders should have a vote on the issue.
Immigration to the islands is determined by the islanders' government, not the UK. Most Latin Americans who immigrate to the islands want to remain British after just one generation of living there. So even if Argentine immigrants were allowed, it possibly wouldn't change anything.
@Medeasbiggestfan Islanders would never invade and continuing encroaching Argentinean territories. Argentina couldn't protect its rights because UK ilegally support illegal inmigrants, otherwise this situation would never happen. UK must pay for any dramatical change over the live of the islanders. The lives of thousands of argentines changed dramatically. Let argentines moving gradually but permanently to the islands for 150 years, and then claim for self-determination.
@Medeasbiggestfan The self-determination of the islanders is being manipulated for UK since many years ago because Argentina has not free and permanent access to the islands. So, It's illegal invoke this right in this situation. It's fraud. UK must compensate the islanders if they result injured for respecting the international rules, because UK is forcing this situation.
I think something may have been lost in translation. I was saying that who is entitled to live in the islands is determined by the government of the islands, not the UK. It is the islands government which prevents Argentines from living in the islands.
The islands are self-governing, the UK's only role is defence and foreign policy.
As I said, people from other Latin American countries who immigrants to the islands want to remain British, Argentine immigrants might feel the same.
@Medeasbiggestfan But the government of the islands was configured by UK since its beginning. UK had been created a town restricting the access by the force to any person that thinks different, in special argentines. And now, guess what the islanders thinks...ha ha ha. UK by the force determined what people could live on the islands. The islanders were privated by UK of their legal right of self-determination, freedom on the islands was adulterated since the beginning.
The government of the islands is elected by the islanders. Those on the islands are there by choice, no one was ever forced to live on the islands. Even the islanders who are not of British descent don't want the live under Argentine rule.
The islanders are free at the moment, they wouldn't be if Argentine took them over.
@Medeasbiggestfan The self-determination right can't be invoked after illegally "cleaned" the population of "inconvenient" voices and after this, working in keep this voices out by the force.
The UK doesn't need to 'clean' the islands, Argentina's policies are enough to convince the islanders not to become Argentine.
Argentina continually bullies the islanders and tries to damage their economy. If Argentina ever took over, the islanders would lose many of the rights, freedoms and civil liberties. And I'm not just talking about self-determination.
It's no wonder that the vast majority of the islanders (especially those of Latin American ancestry) don't support Argentina.
@Medeasbiggestfan The islands was "cleaned" in 1833. And since many years ago any person who think different, in special argentines, can't live on the island. UK created, by the force, a colony based on british and pro british people. Then, the islanders could take its own entity, but the self-determination of the population was already adulterated by UK. And there is the fraud.
What do you mean "any person who think different... can't live on the island"? All sorts of people live on the islands. Political views aren't considered when people request residence on the islands.
In the 1970s, the islanders didn't like the UK much as there had been underinvestment for years. It was the 1982 invasion that really turned the islanders against Argentina, and the Argentine government's current bullying tactics towards the islanders makes sure this does't change.
@Medeasbiggestfan In 1833 UK manipulated the origin of the self-determination of the future population. They are british or pro-british people since the beginning. Then, the islands are a closed territory for argentines,since many years ago. So, the "self-determination" created is beign conserved by the force. UK is being acquiescent with the islanders to conserve its fake "self-determination" and taking clear advantages over the islands resources, this is the only reason.
The people who remained on the islands after 1833 weren't pro-British, but their descents on the islands today are. This is mainly as a result of Argentina, not the UK.
I've said before, immigration to the islands is determined by the islanders, not the UK. Although, the islands are closed to Argentines, they're open to everyone else. Many islanders are not of British descent, but very few support Argentina.
As I have said, all the islands resources goes to the islanders, not the UK.
@Medeasbiggestfan UK is taking advantage from the islands resources through british companies that "deal" with the islanders. The islanders have not choice, if they choose deal with other country, the "UK protection" could disappear. In fact, they think as british people, so, it is not a trouble for they. The islanders are "voluntary" hostages and this permits the fraud. If continental argentines can't permanently move to the islands, the self-determination is digitated.
Not true. The main company involved in oil exploration around the islands is Anadarko (which is NOT a British company). Oil exploration was initiated by the the Islanders government, the UK wasn't involved. All the revenue goes to the islanders.
The UK government has never threatened to remove protection from the islands, nor would it as this would be very unpopular in the UK.
I should point out that the only reason the islands need protection is as a result of Argentine aggression.
@Medeasbiggestfan It's not agression want to recover encroached sovereign territories. Argentina could negotiate with UK to find together the best way to respect the international rights of both parts, including the rights of the islanders. They must recover a real self-determination, being british or argentine.
It is aggression to invade and occupy a territory against the wishes of the people living there - which is exactly what Argentina did the last time the UK removed forces from the islands.
Argentina says that the islands belong to them and nothing can change that. The UK says the islands belong to the islanders, and their wishes must be respected. Both positions seem non-negotiable.
Negotiations simply wouldn't work and they'd be rejected by the islanders.
@Medeasbiggestfan UK invaded and occupied the islands, so, it wasn't democratic. In fact, UK invaded a sovereign territory internationally recognized. Islanders are simply illegal inmigrant's relatives. They has not any sovereign over the territories, so, they must respect the Argentina's laws and not create new laws. In fact, UK now is saying that belong to the islanders because the islanders support UK. UK just follow its own interests, and not islander's interests.
Many of the islanders are descended from the Argentines who remain on the islands after 1833. Are you saying they're 'illegal immigrant's relatives'? Even if they were, you can't punish people for the actions of their ancestors.
The UK spends £ millions every year protecting the islands and gets nothing in return. So what's the point in keeping them if not to respect self-determination? The irony is, the UK only cares about the islanders because Argentina invaded in 1982.
@Medeasbiggestfan The only argentines that remained were non problematic argentines, the rest were expelled. UK created a closed community in a sovereign territory. So, if now the islanders have the right of self determination, UK must pay for all the loss of resources that its actions generated to a sovereign country. Pay for all the resources that were illegally taken and now are "legally" claimed. Concede an equal surface in UK to Argentina or compensate the islanders.
The islands are not a 'closed community'. People from any country (except Argentina) can request residency and live in the islands. It's not a 'closed community' when 99.9% of the world's population can ask to live there.
The islanders have international recognition. The EU, Commonwealth and CARICOM all recognise the islands as a British territory whose population have the right to self-determination.
The resources were taken legally and are being used to improve the islanders lives.
@Medeasbiggestfan nunca seran britanicas sienpre seran argentinas ustedes sienpre furon piratas por naturalesa y sinpre lo seran pero falta poco .con nada los enfrentamos y con poco les dimos batalla....y ahora que me contas de las tegnologias que estan hoy en dia...no falta mucho ya falta poco...¡¡¡viva la patriaaaaa argentina carajo!!!!!!
@Medeasbiggestfan Legal or illegal it's changes nothing. The injure over Argentina remains.Argentina is a sovereign country recognized internationally since 1810, it includes the islands. In 1833 UK invaded, and this illegal act injured permanently to Argentina. If UK wouldn't invaded, today Argentina would access to the islands resources. Just two legal choices for UK: 1-Transact the Return.. 2- Pay to Argentina permanently and for ever a indemnification for the injury.
@Medeasbiggestfan In addition, the islands are a closed community for Argentina, the only country who has the sovereign over the territories. So, it's a closed community, partially, but a closed community in anyway.
@Medeasbiggestfan One more thing, the only thing that can changes the self-determination of the islanders is the amount of indemnization that UK must pay to Argentina. If Argentina can't recover the islands, UK must pay for ever amounts that must be proportional to the resources extracted from the islands.
As I have said many times, the islands' resources belong to the islanders.They have said that they would like to share the resources with Argentina in return for good neighbourly relations. In 1995 there was even an agreement to share oil reserves, but Argentina unilaterally withdrew in 2007.
Argentina is welcome to share the resources with the islanders, but it take everything. It's up to Argentina. No one can force the islanders to give up all that they have.
Argentines should be allowed to immigrate to the islands, but that's a decision for the islanders, not me or the UK.
If Argentines were allowed to immigrate to the islands, I think, if Argentina continues to bully and harass the islanders, those of Argentine ancestry in 150 years will want to remain British. In the same way the descendants of the Argentine settlers who were on the islands in 1833 want to remain British today.
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentines can't permanently move by decision of UK, then the islanders adhere to this decision. (It's not immigrate because the islands are sovereign territory from Argentina)
The UK is only responsible for the islands defence and foreign policy. All internal affairs, including immigrate policy, is the responsibility of the islanders government. Read the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008.
The fact that islanders don't allow Argentines to live on the islands is testament to Argentine government policy over the last 30 years.
@Medeasbiggestfan If they want that Argentina concede the islands to be an independient entity, it must be a democratic proccess that involves all the argentines, including the islanders. But we know the results before do any plebiscite. As i said, the only way to recover a real self-determination is allowing argentines in the islands for at least 150 years, otherwise it's an oligarchic decision. It isn't legal to create parallel national laws into a sovereign country.
It wouldn't be an 'oligarchic decision', it would be the decision of the people whose lives would change. It's not for 40 million Argentines to determine the future of 3000 islanders. The only people who should determine the future of the islanders is the islanders themselves.
@Medeasbiggestfan Restricting the access to a part of a sovereign territory is determine the lives of the rest. Argentines are being injured since many years ago.
@Medeasbiggestfan UK could permit the free access and permanency of argentine civilians, in this way after many years the islanders could have a real self-determination right and not the artificial self-determination created by the force.
The UK can't permit free access to Argentine civilians. Only the islanders government can do that. Perhaps if Argentina treated the islanders better, Argentines would be allowed to live in the islands.
Why would Argentine civilians want to live in a group of cold, rainy islands anyway?
Comment removed
pibedamian 3 days ago
Ingleses cabeza de penes parados
conspiracionegipto 4 days ago
The UK cleaned the islands in 1833, that's the reason why "UK doesn't need to 'clean' the islands", because it's already cleaned. Islanders that remained in the islands were just invaders that think as British, so, their progeny will continue thinking in the same way. Argentina takes the islanders as argentines (with all the rights) because they born in argentinean sovereign territories.
pibedamian 6 days ago
@pibedamian
The islanders would lose many rights, freedom and civil liberties if they were forced to join Argentina. Ever government in history that has imposed its sovereignty on the people has had to resort to authoritarian rule in order to maintain control. Argentina would have to do the same in the islands or the islanders would simply prevent Argentina from exercising sovereignty.
Governments govern with the consent of the governed. Without that consent, there is dictatorship.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan I'm not against the islanders. If you think that the islanders own legally the resources it could be ok. Now, the islanders are there because UK illegally invaded argentinean sovereign territories in 1833, so, UK is responsible for the loss of resources over a sovereign country, otherwhise these resources would continue being argentinean. If the islanders can't be compensated to return the islands, UK must pay for the injury to Argentina, for ever.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina was injured in 1833 and still being injured. If the islanders have all the rights over the islands resources, UK has the legal obligation of repay the injuries generated by an illegal invasion in a sovereign country internationally recognized since 1810. It's not convenient for UK that the islanders claim for their self-determination right, because UK is liable for the injuries.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
Argentines claiming self-determination hurt Spain. Whenever people claim self-determination, it always hurts someone.
The islands are not internationally recognised to be part of Argentina. That's why there is a 'sovereignty dispute'. The UK has always said the islands are British, so it doesn't need to pay anything.
The UK never asked for reparations following the 1982 War. If you like, you can say the UK repaired the war damage with Argentina's share of the oil revenue.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The UK invaded in 1833 and British had nothing to do in the islands, there is the big difference with Spain. Since 1810 the islands are being internationally recognized as argentine sovereign territories. The criminal sayings can do few to turn an illegal action that generated serious injuries into a legal action, UK must negotiate the return of the islands or if it's not possible, pay for ever to Argentina /concede an equal area in UK territories.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
As I've said, the islands are not internationally recognised as Argentine. The only long term settlement on the islands is the current population. The islands belongs to the islanders, and the UK belongs to the British people.
States govern with the consent of the governed. If Argentina wants the islands, it needs to convince the islanders that their lives would be better under Argentine rule.
Sadly, Argentina seems committed to bullying and harass the islanders.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina has enough information to proof that the islands were sovereign territories before the illegal invasion of 1833. An international court will never accept any of the arguments that you're saying. All the injures (fair or unfair, democractic or not) generated by an illegal act must be paid by the infractor country.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
If Argentina has 'enough information', why did it refuse to participate when the UK offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague on three occasions?
I think it's because Argentina knows that no international court would ever support a sovereignty claim that would lead to 3000 innocent people losing their freedom. This is why Argentina resorts to bullying and harassing the islanders.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina refuse to participate because argentines want the islands back and not an indemnification, but if UK insists, the only way will be invoke an international court and The UK will pay for the injuries.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan it's not bullying try to recover sovereign territories that were loss by an international crime. In addition, the war of 1982 was an authoritarian decision of criminals that illegally governed Argentina. They manipulated the public opinion by forcing the press.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
When the islanders try to participate in sport and scientific events, Argentina prevents them from taking part. At the First World Summit on Fishing Sustainability in 2009, the Argentine delegates stole the islanders' flag and nameplate from the conference table. Argentina recently banned the islanders' flag from being flown in South American ports. Last year, Argentines campaigned to cancel the .fk domain.
This won't help Argentina get the islands. it's just bullying.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina don't recognize the islanders as a sovereign entity, it's impossible treat them in another way. You're saying that the islanders are not Argentines, so, Argentina has nothing to talk about self-determination with outsiders. Argentines want to recover the islands, if UK ensure that this impossible, the only way will claim for a indemnification invoking an international court and UK will pay for the injuries generated by the international crime in 1833
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
The Argentine Constitution calls for the islanders to be treated with respect. It's not very respectful to steal someone's flag. Spain claims Gibraltar, but it doesn't go around taking flags or barring Gibraltarians from participating internationality.
As I said, the Argentine Government is welcome to take the issue to an international court. The reason they don't is because they know they'd lose. So instead, Argentine officials steal flags from international conferences.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan If Argentina takes the issue to an international court,will be to claim an indemnification based on the international crime performed by UK in 1833 and all the injuries that it generated and still generating.Convince the islanders to return the islands to Argentina, indemnificate them if the UK think that it's correct,don't push a situation that will cost the value of all the past, current and futures resources from the islands and UK will be obligated to pay.
pibedamian 4 days ago
@pibedamian
You can only put individuals on trial, not entire countries. Since no one is alive from 1833, no one can be tried for the alleged crime you're talking about.
An international court can only mediate on the sovereignty dispute, and Argentina knows that no international court will rule in favour of a claim that would result in 3000 people losing their freedom.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Entire countries are liable for international crimes and injures. Check the Japanese compensation to countries occupied during 1941-45. Taking in account that the injuries generated by the illegal invasion of 1833 still exists and will remain existing if the islands are not returnes, the UK will be obligated to pay permanently until the islands return to Argentina.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@pibedamian
25 individuals were put on trial for Japanese war crimes, not the entire country.
Japan did pay reparations for the crimes committed to the peoples of counties it subjugated.
When will Argentina pay reparations for invading and occupying the islands and placing the islanders under a military dictatorship in 1982?
I realise was rule Argentina by an illegally military junta in 1982, but so was Japan in the 1940s.
Medeasbiggestfan 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan, If the invasion of Argentina in 1982 was a crime like the crime commited by UK in 1933, yes, Argentina must pay. The difference is that the injuries generated by Argentina are minimal and finite. The crime performed by UK continue generating injuries, so UK will be obligated to pay permanently, and not only for the past.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan In fact Argentina paid for the invasion in 1982. The entire country.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@pibedamian
Argentina didn't pay reparations to the islanders. In fact, the Argentine government says its current policy is to cripple the islands economy.
You could argue that the UK does pay for taking over the islands in 1833. The UK pays millions every year to protect the islanders and gets nothing in return.
Medeasbiggestfan 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Medeasbiggestfan The UK could pay millions every year,it's a problem of UK. Since 1982 Argentina has not any intention of invade, there is no reason for be paranoid.Argentina paid every thing that was claimed because Argentina lost the war. If UK refuse to dialog and negotiate the return of the islands, next step will be a legal demand claiming for compensation.Take advantage of the intention of Argentina about recover the islands, return the islands,otherwise it will really expensive for UK.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@pibedamian
The UK defends the islands at the request of the islanders who are terrified of the Argentines coming back.
Argentina's current policy doesn't hurt the UK and only services to make the islanders less sympathetic to negotiate with Argentina.
The UK will never pay reparations and it won't negotiate against the wishes of the islanders. Argentina's current policy are doomed to fail.
Medeasbiggestfan 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentina don't want to negotiate with the islanders, Argentina will negotiate with the UK, if the UK refuse, Argentina will directly invoke an international court and demand the UK for the the injuries generated for the international crime in 1833 that still generating injuries to Argentina. UK should take advantage of the intention of Argentina and convince the islanders to return the islands. Until now Argentina is running with the expenses, it will change
pibedamian 3 days ago
@pibedamian
The UK doesn't have the right to negotiate away the freedom of the islanders.
As I said, Argentina is welcome to refer the issue to an international court, but it won't get the result it wants.
I think there will be negotiations eventually, when the islanders vote for full independence from the UK. My guess is the UK will offer to give Argentina sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in return for recognising the islanders' independence.
Medeasbiggestfan 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan I think that the islands will back to Argentina sooner or later. The islanders will keep their self-determination as British (because they're British too). The islanders independency will remain nonviable while the access restrictions persist. Only after many years of free access to argentines, the independency could be analized.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@pibedamian
Don't think so. There's no incentive for the islanders or the UK to negotiate.
Even if Argentines were allowed to immigrate to the islands, it wouldn't change anything.
Spaniards are allowed to immigrate to Gibraltar (in fact almost 25% of Gribraltans are of Spanish ancestry) yet after only a short time on the rock, all most all of them want to remain British.
It would be the same with any Argentines that go to live on the islands.
Medeasbiggestfan 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The vast majority of argentines support the return of the islands and this is the why argentines have restricted the access to the islands, to manipulate the self-determination of a partially closed community. Other reasons are invalid excuses. Argentina will never invade the islands, the argentines want to dialog and free access and permanency in the islands, without free access for all the self-determination of any community is artificial.
pibedamian 3 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Do people in Gibraltar want to be British? LOL, that's very strange. People there hate Spanish and British.
DarreRommel88 1 day ago
@DarreRommel88
Why is it strange for the Gibraltarians to want to be British? Although they often have disagreements with the UK government, that doesn't mean they hate the British people - in fact they see themselves as British.
I suggest you watch this video: PQnp0M6QNZA
Medeasbiggestfan 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Medeasbiggestfan Do people in Gibraltar want to be British? LOL, that's very strange. People there hate Spanish and British.
DarreRommel88 1 day ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The UK doesn't want to negotiate. It is being forced to negotiate but anyways it doesn't want.
The UK never will offer to give Argentina sovereignty over South Georgians and Sandwich because the UK needs the natural resources down there.
DarreRommel88 1 day ago
@DarreRommel88
It would go against British legislation and the Falkland Islands Constitution for the UK to negotiate on sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders. Even if the UK could negotiate, it wouldn't accomplish anything as the islanders would rebel.
There are very little natural resources from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 day ago
Long live EIRE!!!! best regards from ARGENTINA!!!
Argentus2009 1 week ago
The islanders should be compensated by England, because England supports and encourage the illegal occupation since the beginning. In this way England can take any resource at any time. The islanders freedom is just an excuse to keep them as a colony.
pibedamian 1 week ago
DEATH TO THE INVADERS ENGLISH!
100preFascista 2 weeks ago
VIVA EL ALMIRANTE GUILLERMO BROWN AHORA Y SIEMPRE.
100preFascista 2 weeks ago
I love you Ireland, your people is an example of bravery. Thanks to Brown, thanks to the Wolf Tones, thanks Ireland!
pedazodatmosfera 2 weeks ago
@pedazodatmosfera RULE BRITTANIA
juv7 2 weeks ago
@juv7 I´ll answer to you later: man, why do you insist in colonialism, in economical slavery; why can´t you become more rational? Freedom will come soon for people, you´ll not prevail forever. Furthermore, you must stop spending money in the navy, and you Must do something about your People.
pedazodatmosfera 2 weeks ago
@juv7 Excuse me, I clearly don´t get it; do you mean "Celtic", oposed to english, when you say Brittania? Or you refer to the British Empire during Elizabeth/ James? I may get the word wrong. But I think you refer the unificated kingdom of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. If that´s the case, you know what I think. I won´t repeat it.
pedazodatmosfera 2 weeks ago
ingleses hijos de puta. algun dia arreglaremos cuentas.
me encanta quemar banderas inglesas, ingleses cobardes,, hijos deputa
gruporezak2 3 weeks ago 4
And I must apologize for any idiotic Argentine who simply berates You as "pirates" as if it where as simple as that and as if we, Argentines, had not also had a very strong tradition of corsairs in the XIXth century, spearheaded by the great Frenchmen turned Argentine, Hippolite de Bouchard (who even came up to invading spanish California for a short period of time, in the name of the Argentine State). We Argentines are not all as rude and stupid as some that just give the rest a bad name.
arankwende 3 weeks ago
and self-rule but ensuring that the neighbouring seas and natural resources, which lawfully belong to the sovereign argentine people are not pillaged by any foreign corsair that is willing to pay a toll to the British Crown. Argentina doesnt need to rule the islands, nor does it want to, they are a very expensive burden on the british crown, it wants to maintain control of the neighbouring seas which are of strategic military importance, as well as the resources.
arankwende 3 weeks ago
to use argentina travel papers in the '70s, the infamous Blue Paper they had to carry when travelling), so the argument would be for a right to secession, which could only be ruled under argentine now I personnally believe that in a compact of states secession is an inherent right BUT past legal precedent has proven that the mainstream opinion differs from mine. I think the real solution would be making the islands an autonomous region in Argentina. Thus permiting the islanders maintain identity
arankwende 3 weeks ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The islanders could never sustain themselves practically without being subjects of another, bigger, country. Neither could they sustain a "war for their freedom" against any country, even argentina, and I don't think they would try, it would be a pointless war just like the Etarras in Spain. I agree with the fact that the islanders are not to blame, but the reality is that they are argentine subjects, de jure at least (something that britain partially recognized by forcing them
arankwende 3 weeks ago
@arankwende Nunca he visto tantas taradeces juntas, en serio: ¿Chabon, que aclaraciones les tenes que hacer a un ingles? Decis que la posesion de las islas no es importante: tenemos una deuda externa de unos cuantos puntos del PBI; Las Malvinas tienen Petroleo; la posesion permite explotacion, la explotacion las ganancias, las ganancias reducen la deuda externa ¿Comprendido? Si los isleños son ingleses, su lugar es Inglaterra: ellos estan ahi por los recursos nomas.
pedazodatmosfera 2 weeks ago
FUERA PIRATAS DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!!!
arioscar76 1 month ago 5
que grande irlanda
arthas2 1 month ago 2
And from an international law perspective there has never even been a lawful case put forward by the british that have categorically admited in the past the irregularity of the islander situation and have abused their "power" position in the UN to not enforce many binding resolutions about the subject... The new argument of the "islanders self determination" was created post-1983 because of the popularity garnered by the british gvmt in fighting an "unjust war" put forward by a military gvmt
arankwende 1 month ago
@arankwende
Argentina's main problem is that taking over the islands against the wishes of the islanders is impractical and unsustainable. The islanders would never accept Argentine rule being forced on them. They'd declare independence and fight for their freedom, making life very difficult for Argentina.
The Argentine government must know this, which explains their undiplomatic behaviour towards the UK. This is not something they'd do if they were serious about getting the islands.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 month ago
@Medeasbiggestfan diplomaticamente ingles ser pirata por naturaleza ,ladron de territorios ajenos,.
PABLORCful 1 month ago in playlist SUB ENGLISH
@PABLORCful
The islanders are not pirates, they're living in their birthplace. It would be wrong to ask them to give up their freedom because of the actions of the UK government in the 19th century.
In the next decade or so, the islanders will request independence. At which point most of Argentina's arguments will become invalid.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 month ago
@Medeasbiggestfan no, the islanders of Islas Malvinas are not pirates.They are instruments of the UK Goverment. UK don´t want the islander`s independence, is an excuse for not returning the Malvinas to Argentine people, that were stolen in 1833 with HMS Clio. If they could return Hong Kong to China (with millions of population), it will be easy to return the islands to Argentina.
cosasparacompartir 2 weeks ago
@cosasparacompartir
The islanders have a right to independence. If the islanders ever voted to become an independent nation the UK government would have to respect their wishes.
Hong Kong was never a British territory, it was leased to the UK. The lease ran out in 1997.
Medeasbiggestfan 2 weeks ago
@Medeasbiggestfan UK says it has intoaccount the wishes of the islanders, Argentina says it takes into account their *interests*, not their wishes.In other words, maintain their lifestyle, but as argentine citizens (because they born in argentine territory, Malvinas).United Nation calls for dialogue.
Argentina, since birth, always claimed sovereignty of the islands. Always. UK occupied the Malvinas without a formal declaration of war and expelled the argentine population.
cosasparacompartir 2 weeks ago
@cosasparacompartir
John Strong discovered the islands in 1690, before an independent Argentina existed.
The British only evicted the Argentine military in 1833, the Argentine settlers remained and were joined by British colonists in the 1840s. The islanders today are really no different than most people in the Americas being descended from many different peoples (though mainly British).
In any case, it would be wrong to forced the islanders to give up their freedom due to their ancestry.
Medeasbiggestfan 2 weeks ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Strong(1690)was not the first to discover the islands.There were earlier explorations of other boaters, although not confirmed, located to the Malvinas in their charts.The first sighting(unquestionable)was the Dutchman Sebald de Weert in 1600,90 years before Strong.
Argentina's population(not just the military)in the Malvinas was expelled in 1833 and UK transplanted population.There isn´t a "falklander" culture., they are settlers under British rule.CONT-
cosasparacompartir 1 week ago
@cosasparacompartir
The islands may have been seen before 1690, but John Strong was the first person to land and walk on the islands. Argentina doesn't dispute this.
John Onslow, Captain of HMS Clio, in his log stated that he forced the Argentine military to leave, but paid the settlers silver to stay. Charles Darwin met them when he visited the islands in 1834, Richard Moody states they were still on the islands in 1841. There are photos of elderly gauchos on the islands in the 20th century.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The British did not fully dominated the islands (only owned Port Egmont). They were abandoned in 1774. In 1777 the Spanish destroyed all traces of occupation, the United Kingdom without protest, what is considered abandonment. Spain itself defended its sovereignty over the territory (that corresponds to Argentina by inheritance).
The population was deported and replaced with a graft of British population.
cosasparacompartir 1 week ago
@cosasparacompartir
The French and later the Spanish were only in Port Louis. After the Spanish left in 1811, the islands remained uninhabited until 1829. When the United Provinces eventually came to the islands, they were only in Port Louis.
The Argentine military was deported by the British in 1833, but the Argentine settlers were paid by the Captain of HMS Clio to stay on the islands. They were joined by British settlers in the 1840s.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The ancestry of the population does not mean much, even in a territorial dispute. Ethnicity is not the same as nationality.
Self-determination violates the territorial integrity of our country. The islanders are free to decide about their lives (can choose to be Argentine or British), but not decide the fate usurped territory (even if they are 100% pro-British)
cosasparacompartir 1 week ago
@cosasparacompartir
In a democracy, freedom overrides territorial integrity. It is wrong to force the islanders to give up their freedom due to the actions of the UK government in 1833.
There is a distinct Falklands culture, they are far more hardy and single minded than most people in the UK, and their dialect and attitudes are unique to the lands. Their culture has been influenced over 200 years by Latin American, Scottish and Welsh culture, making it more distinct than many in the Americas.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan No one should claim for freedom in other country's lands. ¿What will happen if a few hundreds of persons encroach in an england region and claim for their freedom?
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The islanders are not in another country - they're in their birthplace. The sovereignty of the constituent countries of the UK is determined by the people, no matter where their ancestors came from.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan , So, a few hundreds can migrate to another country, deliver a few hundreds of babies there and then claim for its freedom..... no way...
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The sovereignty of British territories is determined by the wishes of the majority who were born in those territories. It doesn't matter whether their parents were migrants.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan, So, Just creating a very small neighborhood at England where only born inmigrant's children, then they will can claim for the sovereignty of the neighborhood.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
You can't gerrymander a border around a town and claim it as a territory. To claim sovereignty, it has to be a distinct and historic territory (like the islands)
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan But it's the same thing, the islands are not a distinct territory, it is an argentinean territory like any other continental argentinean territory where argentineans was expelled. If the inmigrants establish a town there and the country wasn't enough strong (or clever) for handle it to avoid conflicts. They will be able to have children and then claim for its sovereignty. It's unethical at least.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The islands are distinct - clue is in the name. Firstly, they're islands, 300 miles from mainland South America. Secondly, they're distinct historically as the Argentine Republic has never exercised sovereignty over them (with the exception of 74 days in 1982).
It would be unethical to force the islanders to give up their freedom just because their ancestors were from the British Isles, not Iberia.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Medeasbiggestfan 10, 300 o 1000 miles it's the same, the thing is that Argentina had the sovereignty and argentineans living there when the first inmigrants arrived and expelled them. (with or without being excercised, the sovereignty exists). The islanders are free, they can live on the islands or leave it, as argentineans or as british people, but they should accept that it's an argentinean territory and adapt to it.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The sovereignty of any territory is determined by the people who were born in that territory. Countries where sovereignty is imposed on the people are not free. I would be wrong to punish the islanders for something that may or may not have happened in the 19th century.
Even if Argentina somehow took over the islands, the islanders would never accept Argentine rule. They'd rebel and declare independence. It would be a nightmare for Argentina, the islanders would make sure of that.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan It's a circle, by your thinking way, inmigrants can encroach "any territory" (of any country), expel natives, and stay there for decades. Then they can claim for sovereignty. The islanders are not malvinenses, they're british, and if England supports Argentina, they will respect it.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
It is wrong to punish people for something that happened 200 years before they were born. You can't remove a people's fundamental rights because their ancestors may have committed a crime.
Also, the British didn't expel any 'natives'. The islands never had an indigenous population - the first human to set foot on the islands was John Strong in 1690. However, most people in Argentina are descend from European immigrants who displaced or killed native South Americans.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan You're right, europeans inmigrants displaced or killed native south americans, but they never had any sovereignty internationally recognized over the lands when this happen, this is a big difference.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
So you're saying that those of Iberian ancestry can take land and claim sovereignty because the natives who originally live there didn't have a flag recognised by the European power recognised of the 18th century? That seems like a very unfair distinction.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan No, I told you that when thouse iberian ancestry were there, there are not any sovereignty internationally recognized. Current islanders are the progeny of inmigrants that arrived to argentinean territories which have a sovereignty internationally recognized.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Fair or unfair distinction, we must respect the international laws. We cannot transgress international rules because (for us) they are "unfair", the world could be turn in chaos if any country begins to ask for "fair" things forgetting the international rules.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan In addition, England ecourage the islanders to encroach since the begining, so, England must run with the "unfair" things and compensate the islanders for any damage or injury.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
It's against international law to force a people to join a foreign state against their wishes. Argentina admits this, but it gets around the law by saying the islands are a 'special case'. In reality the islanders are no different from any other former British colony in the Americas.
Chaos would come if Argentina imposed its rule on the islanders. The islanders are incredibly strong minded and would never accept any form of Argentine control.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
Medeasbiggestfan, International rules are not from Argentina, they are "international", and all people must respect them. Islanders must be compensated by England, because without England encouraging and protecting them to remain there, current islanders could born in England and not in Argentina. they won't be forced to join any state, they are free to choose all the things related to their lifes, but they can't transgress international rules.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Firstly, there is a different between England and the UK.
So you want the UK to pay the islanders compensation for Argentina taking away their freedom?
The islanders would certainly lose their freedom if Argentina ever took over. They'd no longer determine their sovereignty or government. Plus, in order to hold the islands, Argentina would have to remove many civil liberties from the islanders.
Argentina would transgress the international law by removing the islanders' human rights.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan I'm so sorry for the islanders, but there is no other way. If inmigrants progeny can claim for sovereignty over any isolated area from other country it will be a chaos because the sovereignty of the countries will be useless, and only will prevail the wishes of a few hundreds of inmigrants or their progeny wishes.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
There is another way, Argentina can recognise the islanders' fundamental rights.
Allowing people to exercise their fundamental rights, regardless of their ancestry, will not lead to chaos, it will lead to a world of freedom, where people can't be oppressed by foreign powers.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan , Argentina, or England or any country will be able to invoke the "Islas Malvinas" case to encroach over other countries lands. The only requirement is stay there for some years, have children and keep the area isolated. Nice way to steal lands "legally".
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
If Argentina ever took over the islands against the wishes of the islanders, other countries would be able to use the case to take over neighbouring lands against the wishes of the people born there.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan There is no other cases similar to Las Islas Malvinas Argentinas. May be you can find one, or two cases almost similar... in the other hand, in your way, any country would send inmigrants to invade any isolated area of other country, have children and claim for sovereignty.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
For a nation to send immigrants to a far away land and maintain the population's loyalty is very difficult. It was rare in the 19th century, it couldn't happen in the 21st. Can you think of an example where it could happen?
However, in your way of thinking, any nation can claim sovereignty over any neighbouring territory containing descends of immigrants (which is almost every country in the world these days) and claim the population doesn't have any rights to their birthplace.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan This is no my way really, this is the way of the international rules. And in this way, only the nations which was encroached by inmigrants after be recognized as a sovereign country could invoke the case.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
There is no international law against living in your birthplace and exercising your fundamental rights. However, it is against international law to take over a territory against the wishes of the people living there.
As I say, Argentina could not hold the islands against the wishes of the islanders. They'd fight for their freedom. Argentina would either have to concede to the islanders, or impose authoritarian rule over them. Both eventualities would be a nightmare for Argentina.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan There is no any international right that lets the progeny of inmigrants calim for sovereignty when they born in other country.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part 1, Article 1, Section 1:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The right doesn't include progeny of inmigrants in a soverign country internationally recognized. Inmigrants can't have children and claim for sovereignty, this is crazy. Any soverign country could be under risk. They can determine anything that they want, but not in a territory where other people have the sovereignty before they arrived.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
It's not 'crazy', it's democracy. The UN Covenant doesn't discriminate.
It's quite shocking that you would deny the descends of immigrants fundamental rights, especially in the case of the islands which have no native population (so everyone there is descended from immigrants).
Effectively, you're saying people of Spanish ancestry are entitled to their fundamental rights in the islands, but people of British ancestry aren't.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Spain and all the world recognize the sovereignty of Argentina, including las Islas Malvinas Argentinas, inclusively before the arrive of british inmigrants that expelled the argentineans from de islands. So, here we have an usurpation over a soverign country, and it is forbidden by the international rules. You are taking as example territories that never was recognized internationally as a soverign country before the arrive of inmigrants.
pibedamian 1 week ago
Comment removed
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The islander's freedom will remain intact because Las Islas Malvinas Argentinas are not their country, their country is England.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Most of the islanders are not English, they are manly of Scottish ancestry - about 10% of the islanders state they are of Latin American ancestry.
The British expelled the Argentine military, not the settlers. Any islanders whose family have been on the islands since the 1830s are descended from them (as well as the British who came after).
The islands are a British territory for now, but in the next few decades (once the oil starts to flow) the islanders will request independence.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan It's irrelevant from where are the islanders ancestry, they are british and his freedom must be exercised at their respective territory where they are recognized as sovereign citizens. In any way, when the invaders arrived argentineans was there and military and settlers was expelled and inmigrants can't do this. This must be solved by international magistrates, respecting the internationales rules, and not by any interested part because we are not impartial
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The UK offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague three times (in 1947, 1948 and 1955). Argentina refused to take part on every occasion, saying the dispute is a matter for the UK and Argentina to resolve alone.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan England denies any possibility of intervention for experts in international laws, the reason is clear, Las Islas Malvinas son argentinas. England can't transgress almost all the international rights of millions of argentinean people against one questionable right of a few hundreds of islanders over an illegal heritage.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Argentina has said many times that the islanders have the right to Argentine citizenship. However, even if all the islanders became Argentine citizens, Argentina would still deny them many rights currently enjoyed by people in Argentina (such as self-determination). Meaning a group of citizens are treated differently to another based solely on their ancestry. This is clearly prejudice and would not be supported by international law.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan We won't solve anything here. I think that an impartial international court wouldn't support England's excuses. England will continue taking advantage from Argentina's territories and from the islanders, using them as pawn with their consent (because they are british, and not malvinenes). UK shouldn't be beneficiary of any resource from the territory in dispute, this is cheeky.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The UK doesn't benefit from any of the islands' resources. All the income from the islands goes to the Falkland Islands Government. Argentina doesn't deny this.
If you read General Assembly Resolution 1514, it's clearly written to help
people just like the islanders to stand up for their rights and allow them to determine their own futures. It's about supporting self-determination as fundamental Human Right. I think an international court would clearly support the islanders' rights.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The excuse of "self-determination" is invalid. The islanders will conserve their self-determination in UK because they are from there. You can't claim for self-determination over a foreign country's sovereign territories. Self-determination is only valid for natives from territories that was occupied before. When the islanders arrived, the islands belonged to a sovereign country internationally recognized(Argentina), they was inmigrants.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Resolution 1514 doesn't state those caveats. It talks about the rights of 'all peoples'. Surely a Resolution of the UN General Assembly wouldn't discriminate based on ancestry?
Also, whether or not the islands have ever been recognised as part of the Argentine Republic is very dubious.
If what you say is true, then the American colonists in 1776 didn't (and still don't) have the right to self-determination as they were immigrants to a land recognised to be part of the British Empire
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan You can't transgress the self-determination right of millions of argentineans over the islands, to respect the self-determination rights of inmigrant's progeny.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
As I keep saying, every human who has ever lived on the islands has been an immigrant since the islands never had a native population.
The EU and the Commonwealth both recognise the islands as a British overseas territory. The UN is officially neutral on the sovereignty of the islands.
In the next few decades the islanders will gain full independence from the UK, at which point most of Argentina's arguments will become void.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Civil and Military population expelled by british inmigrants weren't inmigrants because they were argentinean in argentinean soveregin territories. In addition, sovereign countries aren't obliged to populate every square meter to keep the sovereign against inmigrants.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Firstly, as I've said, the civilian population was not expelled by the British, their descendants are still on this islands today.
The Argentines on the islands in 1833 weren't born there, most had only been there for two months. So they were hardly natives.
In any case, people shouldn't be persecuted for being the descends of immigrants.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Militar and civilians were expelled, there exists historical evidence about this. Argentineans born in Argentina, sovereign countries are not obligated to delivery babies in every square meter to confirm their sovereign there, so, they were natives, and invaders were inmigrants. The self-determination of millions of argentineans is being crushed.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
In fact, there is little evidence to support Argentina's claim and there's a lot of evidence to support the view that the civilians stayed.
In 1833 John Onslow, Captain of HMS Clio, stated in his log that he paid the civilians silver to stay on the islands.
Charles Darwin stated that he met the Argentines in 1834. Richard Moody in the 1840s said they were still there when the British colonists came. There are even photos of elderly gauchos on the islands in the early 20th century.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Las Islas Malvinas are (and were) part of Argentina as an unit, sovereign territory internationally recognized. So, any argentinean is (and was) native from any part of Argentina including the islands.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan People is not persecuted for being descends of inmigrants, just, that as they born in argentinean sovereign territories they must respect the same laws that the all of the argentineans respect. Is not self-determination claim rights over encroached territories.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan With your excuses, any inmigrant's relative that own an area on UK could claim for self-determination over the implicated area.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
That is what I'm saying. The sovereignty of British territories is determined by the people born in that territory - regardless of whether they're descended from immigrants. It would be prejudice and discrimination to remove certain rights from a group of people as a result of their ancestry.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Since 1810 The islands are argentinean territories. After the independency where the islands were included, all the non argentinean people that arrived to the islands are inmigrants. The islands are a part of Argentina as a unity. Argentineans are native from every square meter of Argentina, including the islands. The self-determination over the islands is a right that belong to all the argentineans, including current islanders as inmigrants relatives.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
Are you saying that if a majority of people in Misiones wanted to join Brazil, the rest of Argentina would have to support them before it could happen? This seems very undemocratic. Did the rest of the Spanish Empire have a vote when the United Provinces declared independence?
If a majority of people in Scotland voted for independence, it would happen, regardless of what people in the rest of the UK thought.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Democratic procceses couldn't be "undemocratic". The Spanish Empire wasn't a democracy. In Scotland will vote all the scotch people, because they were encroached by England and they want to recover their original independency, it's a different thing. If Misiones wanted to join Brazil, it must be a democratic decision that must include all the argentineans.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan If a majority of people in London wanted to join Belgium, it must be decided by all the english people, otherwise it will be an oligarchic decision. Conterminous or not it's the same thing, all England is sovereign territory that belong to all english.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
England didn't 'encroach' Scotland. Scotland and England voted to join together in 1707. At which point both Scotland and England ceased to exist as independent countries.
If a majority of people in London wanted to be part of Belgium it would have nothing to do with the rest of England. There is a campaign for Cornwall to be recognised as a separate country within the UK, the British government has said it is a matter for the people of Cornwall to decide, not the rest of England.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Sovereign countries work as a unit. Sovereign territories belong to all the natives which have self-determination as a unit and any decision must be globally and democratic. I don't know anything about Cornwall, may be a rights violation happened there. Scotland was independient before belong to UK, and the "Union Act" was forced by England. Anyway, the important thing is that Scotland has an independient past.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
It's a little ironic for you to talk about 'rights violations' in the UK when you want to remove rights from the islanders.
The islands have a history of separation from Argentina. With the exception of 74 days in 1982, the Argentine Republic has never governed the islands. By virtue of that history, the islands should be defined as a separate entity. Also, the islanders are a unique people, distinct from Argentina and the UK. This alone should entitle them to self-determination.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Claim for self-determination when UK is controlling and restricting the access to the islands since many years ago and after they expelled the "problematic" argentineans, is an absolut fraud. Let permanently move argentineans to the islands for 150 years and then claim for self-determination.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan By my self-determination right, being argentinean, I've the right of moving and change my address to Misiones, and do any legal thing there and take it as my country. If Misiones wanted to join Brazil, my self-determination will be injured, so I have the right to vote. UK is transgressing the self-determination of all the argentineans (excepting the islanders) since 1833
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
The lives of the islanders would change dramatically if they joined Argentina, but the lives of most Argentines wouldn't change at all. That's why only the islanders should have a vote on the issue.
Immigration to the islands is determined by the islanders' government, not the UK. Most Latin Americans who immigrate to the islands want to remain British after just one generation of living there. So even if Argentine immigrants were allowed, it possibly wouldn't change anything.
Medeasbiggestfan 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Islanders would never invade and continuing encroaching Argentinean territories. Argentina couldn't protect its rights because UK ilegally support illegal inmigrants, otherwise this situation would never happen. UK must pay for any dramatical change over the live of the islanders. The lives of thousands of argentines changed dramatically. Let argentines moving gradually but permanently to the islands for 150 years, and then claim for self-determination.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The self-determination of the islanders is being manipulated for UK since many years ago because Argentina has not free and permanent access to the islands. So, It's illegal invoke this right in this situation. It's fraud. UK must compensate the islanders if they result injured for respecting the international rules, because UK is forcing this situation.
pibedamian 1 week ago
@pibedamian
I think something may have been lost in translation. I was saying that who is entitled to live in the islands is determined by the government of the islands, not the UK. It is the islands government which prevents Argentines from living in the islands.
The islands are self-governing, the UK's only role is defence and foreign policy.
As I said, people from other Latin American countries who immigrants to the islands want to remain British, Argentine immigrants might feel the same.
Medeasbiggestfan 6 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan But the government of the islands was configured by UK since its beginning. UK had been created a town restricting the access by the force to any person that thinks different, in special argentines. And now, guess what the islanders thinks...ha ha ha. UK by the force determined what people could live on the islands. The islanders were privated by UK of their legal right of self-determination, freedom on the islands was adulterated since the beginning.
pibedamian 6 days ago
@pibedamian
The government of the islands is elected by the islanders. Those on the islands are there by choice, no one was ever forced to live on the islands. Even the islanders who are not of British descent don't want the live under Argentine rule.
The islanders are free at the moment, they wouldn't be if Argentine took them over.
Medeasbiggestfan 6 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The self-determination right can't be invoked after illegally "cleaned" the population of "inconvenient" voices and after this, working in keep this voices out by the force.
pibedamian 6 days ago
@pibedamian
The UK doesn't need to 'clean' the islands, Argentina's policies are enough to convince the islanders not to become Argentine.
Argentina continually bullies the islanders and tries to damage their economy. If Argentina ever took over, the islanders would lose many of the rights, freedoms and civil liberties. And I'm not just talking about self-determination.
It's no wonder that the vast majority of the islanders (especially those of Latin American ancestry) don't support Argentina.
Medeasbiggestfan 6 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The islands was "cleaned" in 1833. And since many years ago any person who think different, in special argentines, can't live on the island. UK created, by the force, a colony based on british and pro british people. Then, the islanders could take its own entity, but the self-determination of the population was already adulterated by UK. And there is the fraud.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
What do you mean "any person who think different... can't live on the island"? All sorts of people live on the islands. Political views aren't considered when people request residence on the islands.
In the 1970s, the islanders didn't like the UK much as there had been underinvestment for years. It was the 1982 invasion that really turned the islanders against Argentina, and the Argentine government's current bullying tactics towards the islanders makes sure this does't change.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan In 1833 UK manipulated the origin of the self-determination of the future population. They are british or pro-british people since the beginning. Then, the islands are a closed territory for argentines,since many years ago. So, the "self-determination" created is beign conserved by the force. UK is being acquiescent with the islanders to conserve its fake "self-determination" and taking clear advantages over the islands resources, this is the only reason.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
The people who remained on the islands after 1833 weren't pro-British, but their descents on the islands today are. This is mainly as a result of Argentina, not the UK.
I've said before, immigration to the islands is determined by the islanders, not the UK. Although, the islands are closed to Argentines, they're open to everyone else. Many islanders are not of British descent, but very few support Argentina.
As I have said, all the islands resources goes to the islanders, not the UK.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan UK is taking advantage from the islands resources through british companies that "deal" with the islanders. The islanders have not choice, if they choose deal with other country, the "UK protection" could disappear. In fact, they think as british people, so, it is not a trouble for they. The islanders are "voluntary" hostages and this permits the fraud. If continental argentines can't permanently move to the islands, the self-determination is digitated.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
Not true. The main company involved in oil exploration around the islands is Anadarko (which is NOT a British company). Oil exploration was initiated by the the Islanders government, the UK wasn't involved. All the revenue goes to the islanders.
The UK government has never threatened to remove protection from the islands, nor would it as this would be very unpopular in the UK.
I should point out that the only reason the islands need protection is as a result of Argentine aggression.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan It's not agression want to recover encroached sovereign territories. Argentina could negotiate with UK to find together the best way to respect the international rights of both parts, including the rights of the islanders. They must recover a real self-determination, being british or argentine.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
It is aggression to invade and occupy a territory against the wishes of the people living there - which is exactly what Argentina did the last time the UK removed forces from the islands.
Argentina says that the islands belong to them and nothing can change that. The UK says the islands belong to the islanders, and their wishes must be respected. Both positions seem non-negotiable.
Negotiations simply wouldn't work and they'd be rejected by the islanders.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan UK invaded and occupied the islands, so, it wasn't democratic. In fact, UK invaded a sovereign territory internationally recognized. Islanders are simply illegal inmigrant's relatives. They has not any sovereign over the territories, so, they must respect the Argentina's laws and not create new laws. In fact, UK now is saying that belong to the islanders because the islanders support UK. UK just follow its own interests, and not islander's interests.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
Many of the islanders are descended from the Argentines who remain on the islands after 1833. Are you saying they're 'illegal immigrant's relatives'? Even if they were, you can't punish people for the actions of their ancestors.
The UK spends £ millions every year protecting the islands and gets nothing in return. So what's the point in keeping them if not to respect self-determination? The irony is, the UK only cares about the islanders because Argentina invaded in 1982.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan The only argentines that remained were non problematic argentines, the rest were expelled. UK created a closed community in a sovereign territory. So, if now the islanders have the right of self determination, UK must pay for all the loss of resources that its actions generated to a sovereign country. Pay for all the resources that were illegally taken and now are "legally" claimed. Concede an equal surface in UK to Argentina or compensate the islanders.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
The islands are not a 'closed community'. People from any country (except Argentina) can request residency and live in the islands. It's not a 'closed community' when 99.9% of the world's population can ask to live there.
The islanders have international recognition. The EU, Commonwealth and CARICOM all recognise the islands as a British territory whose population have the right to self-determination.
The resources were taken legally and are being used to improve the islanders lives.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan nunca seran britanicas sienpre seran argentinas ustedes sienpre furon piratas por naturalesa y sinpre lo seran pero falta poco .con nada los enfrentamos y con poco les dimos batalla....y ahora que me contas de las tegnologias que estan hoy en dia...no falta mucho ya falta poco...¡¡¡viva la patriaaaaa argentina carajo!!!!!!
chechayable 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Legal or illegal it's changes nothing. The injure over Argentina remains.Argentina is a sovereign country recognized internationally since 1810, it includes the islands. In 1833 UK invaded, and this illegal act injured permanently to Argentina. If UK wouldn't invaded, today Argentina would access to the islands resources. Just two legal choices for UK: 1-Transact the Return.. 2- Pay to Argentina permanently and for ever a indemnification for the injury.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan In addition, the islands are a closed community for Argentina, the only country who has the sovereign over the territories. So, it's a closed community, partially, but a closed community in anyway.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan One more thing, the only thing that can changes the self-determination of the islanders is the amount of indemnization that UK must pay to Argentina. If Argentina can't recover the islands, UK must pay for ever amounts that must be proportional to the resources extracted from the islands.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
As I have said many times, the islands' resources belong to the islanders.They have said that they would like to share the resources with Argentina in return for good neighbourly relations. In 1995 there was even an agreement to share oil reserves, but Argentina unilaterally withdrew in 2007.
Argentina is welcome to share the resources with the islanders, but it take everything. It's up to Argentina. No one can force the islanders to give up all that they have.
Medeasbiggestfan 4 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan As I'm saying, let argentines to permanently move to the islands for 150 years and then think in a real self-determination right.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
Argentines should be allowed to immigrate to the islands, but that's a decision for the islanders, not me or the UK.
If Argentines were allowed to immigrate to the islands, I think, if Argentina continues to bully and harass the islanders, those of Argentine ancestry in 150 years will want to remain British. In the same way the descendants of the Argentine settlers who were on the islands in 1833 want to remain British today.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Argentines can't permanently move by decision of UK, then the islanders adhere to this decision. (It's not immigrate because the islands are sovereign territory from Argentina)
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
The UK is only responsible for the islands defence and foreign policy. All internal affairs, including immigrate policy, is the responsibility of the islanders government. Read the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008.
The fact that islanders don't allow Argentines to live on the islands is testament to Argentine government policy over the last 30 years.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan If they want that Argentina concede the islands to be an independient entity, it must be a democratic proccess that involves all the argentines, including the islanders. But we know the results before do any plebiscite. As i said, the only way to recover a real self-determination is allowing argentines in the islands for at least 150 years, otherwise it's an oligarchic decision. It isn't legal to create parallel national laws into a sovereign country.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
It wouldn't be an 'oligarchic decision', it would be the decision of the people whose lives would change. It's not for 40 million Argentines to determine the future of 3000 islanders. The only people who should determine the future of the islanders is the islanders themselves.
To do anything else is undemocratic.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan 40 million can determine the future of 3000, it's better than 3000 determine the future of 40 million.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
The islanders don't want to determine the lives of the Argentine people, they just want the right to be free in their birthplace.
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan Restricting the access to a part of a sovereign territory is determine the lives of the rest. Argentines are being injured since many years ago.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@Medeasbiggestfan UK could permit the free access and permanency of argentine civilians, in this way after many years the islanders could have a real self-determination right and not the artificial self-determination created by the force.
pibedamian 5 days ago
@pibedamian
The UK can't permit free access to Argentine civilians. Only the islanders government can do that. Perhaps if Argentina treated the islanders better, Argentines would be allowed to live in the islands.
Why would Argentine civilians want to live in a group of cold, rainy islands anyway?
Medeasbiggestfan 5 days ago