Guest blogger for
23rd January 2014 Havana, Cuba
CELAC and the Falkland Islands – the right to self-determination
Next week the CELAC Summit will be held in Havana and the Cuban government will be in charge of finalising the language in the Summit declarations. Inevitably there will be one on the Falkland Islands and I suspect it will ignore the referendum held on the Islands last year when 99.8% voted in favour of the Islands remaining an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. That’s an uncomfortable fact for Argentina and one which they would prefer the rest of the world ignores. It’s one of the reasons why they want to keep the Falkland Islanders out of any discussions on the future of the Islands and I am pretty sure they won’t mention it to their CELAC colleagues next week.
But why does Cuba support the Argentine position? Surely the tale of an island people defending their livelihoods and their families in a country fiercely resistant to annexation by a big neighbour is something Cuba would be sympathetic to? Is annexation now something Cuba supports over and above the right to self-determination? Or am I missing something?
Argentina claims it’s a question of territorial integrity but that is, frankly, baseless. The Islands have never legitimately been administered by, or formed part of Argentina. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands dates back to 1765, several decades before Argentina even existed.
Contrary to what Argentina says no civilian population was expelled from the Falkland Islands in 1833. The Argentine military garrison which had been sent to the Falkland Islands a mere three months earlier was told to leave by the British Navy, and it complied without any loss of life. The civilian population who had previously received British permission to reside on the Island were encouraged to remain, and most of them did. In the 181 years of continuous and peaceful British administration since then, apart from the 74 days in 1982 when Argentina illegally occupied the islands by force, more immigrants from various countries have settled in the Islands. Several Island families are now proud to trace back eight or nine generations on the Islands. That’s more than many Cubans in Cuba!
History aside, the UK is clear that the future of the Falkland Islands should be determined by the people of the Falkland Islands, in accordance with our obligations under the UN Charter, to respect the principle of self determination. If the Islanders democratically express a wish for an alternative future sovereignty arrangement then we will help the Islanders to achieve that. But through their referendum they have made clear their wish to remain an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. This permits them to have their own government, make their own laws, run their own economy and control their own resources, whilst the UK retains responsibility for their defence and foreign relations.
Ultimately the Falkland Islanders would like to have a friendly relationship with Argentina but that has proved impossible. Why? Because recent Argentine policy has included preventing Falklands flagged vessels from docking in Mercosur ports, preventing cruise ships which are also docking in the Falklands from visiting Argentina, banning charter flights to the Falklands from overflying their airspace and threatening oil companies operating in the Falklands with sanctions and prosecution. They ceased co-operation on the conservation of sustainable fish stocks in the SW Atlantic some years ago. Does this sound like a ‘constructive’ approach to you as described in last year’s CELAC declaration? Doesn’t this sound more like a big guy trying to bully a small neighbour into submission?
To me it seems the policy is designed to put economic pressure on the Islanders in the hope this will make them want to negotiate about sovereignty. But, uncomfortable as it is for Argentina, the Falkland Islanders have every right to decide how they want to be governed – this right of self-determination is a right accepted as so fundamental that it is enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. It is a right that all peoples enjoy and that is why the Falkland Islanders held the referendum in 2013 – to tell the world what they think. They said then that they wish to remain British and there is no question of the British Government forcing them to be anything else.
This also explains why the British government will only talk to Argentina about the future of the Islands if the people of the Falklands wish this to happen. We won’t pretend they don’t exist or ignore their views. We won’t negotiate away the rights of the Falkland Islands’ people against their will or behind their backs. We – and the rest of the world – know what they want and that must be respected. I truly hope that CELAC reflect on this when drafting their declaration next week.
UN Resolution 2065 is dead killed off by the illegal invasion of 1982 and Nestor Kirchner’s decision in 2007 to void UK/Argentina joint agreements. Hence Ban Ki-Moon’s comments of 12th November 2012 when he said, ‘I don’t think Security Council members (UK) are violating ‘relevant’ UN resolutions.
In his post of February 6, 2014 at 7:51 pm Devolverislas stated:
“Look in turn at each NSGT which came in the orbit of resolution 1514 (XV) Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. In every case, except those of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and Ifni and Spanish Sahara the resolution affirms the inalienable right of the people to self-determination.”
I do not believe that statement is accurate. To prove my point, just as an example, I would ask Devolverislas, to quote the reference of the UNGA resolution which states what he claims in the case of Nyasaland.
Nyasaland gained independence in 1964, four years after UNGA resolution 1514 was ratified.
Ditto
What a brilliant response to a request that you verify one of you allegations:
“If we were in court the judge would say that it is time to bring submissions to a close. The substance of the arguments have already been put by both sides.”
Devolverislas
Would not an Advisory opinion from the ICJ from 2004 supersede one from 1975?
I refer to paragraph 88 of the 2005 Advisory on “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” which reads, in part:
“The Court would recall that in 1971 it emphasized that current devel-
opments in “international law in regard to non-self-governing territories,
as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of
self-determination applicable to all [such territories]”. The Court went on
to state that “These: developments leave little doubt that the ultimate
objective of the sacred trust” referred to in Article 22, paragraph 1, of the
Covenant of the League of Nations “was the self-determination . . . of the
peoples concerned” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued
Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Ajrica) notwithstanding
Security Council Re.solution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I. C. J.
Reports 1971, p. 31, paras. 52-53). The Court has referred to this principle on a number of occasions in its jurisprudence (ibid. ; see also Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. reports 1975, p. 68, para. 162). The Court indeed made it clear that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (see East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29).
If we were in court the judge would say that it is time to bring submissions to a close. The substance of the arguments have already been put by both sides.
One would have to ask Devolverislas why paragraph 59 of the 1975 ICJ Western Sahara Advisory opinion should be any more incontrovertible than any other paragraph, particularly paragraph 54?
A very convenient strategy, ignore anything that does not ‘fit in’ with ones theory?
A simple matter of legal training.
I find it very significant that Devolverislas has failed to supply an example of where ALL the inhabitants of a NSGT have been denied the right to self-determination. This is a common failing of the malvinista ’cause’.
I would further point out that there are now 49 UNGA resolutions dealing with decoloinization which have been issued annually since 1965 that state ‘populations’ of NSGTs have the right to self-determination. The first was 2105 ratified only 4 days after 2065, the last was 68/97 last year which in paragraph 7(c) states:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the
Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories.”
I do acknowledge that the early resolutions referred to ‘small territories’. The Falklands were/are considered to be a ‘small territory’ reference UN document A/5800/Rev1.
Strangely I would agree with Devolverislas that paragraph 59 of the 1975 ICJ Advisory Opinion does, at least partially, apply to the Falkland Islands in as much as there is not, in my opinion, any need for the UN to consult the Islanders about their ‘interests’, they have, I believe, made it abundantly clear where they believe their interest lay!
That’s a pretty feeble reply from the likes of Biguggy. It’s like throwing in the towel. Perhaps, given the circumstances, that’s the best thing the islanders could do.
Regarding Biguggy’s considered reply of Feb 5th, para. 59 of the Western Sahara advisory opinion is incontrovertible, notwithstanding other paragraphs and other opinions.
http://www.icj.cij.org/docket/files/61/6195.pdf
As for Biguggy’s comment of Feb 6th, may I suggest that Biguggy, in his effort to find proof that the Falkland Islanders do not have a right of self-determination, adopt a different approach? Look in turn at each NSGT which came in the orbit of resolution 1514 (XV) Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. In every case, except those of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and Ifni and Spanish Sahara the resolution affirms the inalienable right of the people to self-determination. Furthermore resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas stands out as the only one in which the inhabitants are referred to as a population.
As far as I can ascertain no principal organ of the United Nations (see Article 7 of the UN Charter for the definition of ‘principal organs’) has ever stated that the Falkland Islanders do not have the right to self-determination or that they are a ‘Special Case’. I do acknowledge that the C24 have, for several years now tried to have the Falklands described as a ‘Special Case’ via their draft resolutions on the subject, but so far the Fourth Committee has not passed on this recommendation. It is interesting to note that the C24 is so arrogant and corrupt that it would have the General Assembly, by its draft resolution, reiterate that the Falklands are a ‘Special Colonial Situation’, how can the General Assembly reiterate something it has not stated in the first place?
Further I have so far been unable to find any example of where any principal organ of the UN has ever denied the right to ALL the inhabitants of a NSGT. There are several instances of where minority ‘populations’ have been denied the ‘right’ to determine what course of action should be taken by the territory as a whole but in none of these have even the minority population been denied the right of ‘one man one vote’.
Devolverislas, paragraph 54 of the Western Sahara Opinion reads: –
‘The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates,
as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples . . .” This purpose is further developed in
Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Those provisions have direct and particular relevance for non-self-governing territories, which are dealt with in Chapter XI of the Charter. As the Court stated in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Resolution 276 (1970) :
“. . . the subsequent development of international law in regard to
non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to al1 of
them” (I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31).’
Far from being superseded it was reiterated. I would also suggest you read the individual the individual Judges opinions, not what the RG rep. told the Fourth Committee they said but their actual opinions.
I would further suggest that his wishes for the denial of self-determination do not constitute UN endorsement of that denial.
Biguggy’s diligence deserves a reply.
Para. 59 of the Advisory Opinion on W. Sahara (1975) supersedes the advisory opinion relative to Namibia (1970).
Para. 59 states that there are “certain cases” not “multiple instances” (Biguggy) where “the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory” on the ground that the “population” did not constitute a “people entitled to self-determination” or “on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances”. The Falkland Islands/Malvinas is the obvious case. Biguggy requests another example.
It is sitting under Biguggy’s nose: – that of the former Spanish Sahara, which he seems to know so well. Resolution 2072 (XX) Question of Ifni and Spanish Sahara called in October 1964 for “the liberation of the Territories of Ifni and Spanish Sahara from colonial domination”. The resolution strikingly made no reference to “the inalienable right of the people of the territory to self-determination”, which is the clause that accompanies the resolutions for all the other NSGTs (excepting Falklands/Malvinas). This was because Spain, post 1884, had introduced settlers to Ifni and Spanish Sahara, just as the Great Britain introduced settlers to the Falkland Islands. Interestingly Spain withdrew its settlers in 1975, after negotiating the Madrid accords with Morocco and Mauritania. Western Sahara remains on the list of NSGTs today but the UN terms of reference have changed. Now that the Spanish settlers have been removed the “people” of the territory – the Sahrawi (Berbers) – have been granted the right of self-determination. (See for example resolution 46/67 Question of Western Sahara….).
It is an unkind irony that Biguggy’s cherished case of Western Sahara, scuppers, not endorses, the right of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders
With reference to his/her above post I would draw the attention of Devolverislas to paragraph 68-70 inclusive of the ICJ Advisory Opinion which read:
“68. The third paragraph in the preamble of resolution 3292 (XXIX)
reaffirms “the right of the population of the Spanish Sahara to self-
determination in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV)”. In paragraph 1
of the operative part, where the questions asked of the Court are formulated, the Court is requested, “without prejudice to the application of the principles embodied in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)”, to give its advisory opinion. This mention of resolution 1514 (XV) is thus made to relate to the actual request for the opinion. The reference to the application of the principles embodied in resolution 1514 (XV) has necessarily to be read in the light of the General Assembly’s reaflïrmation in the third paragraph of the preamble of “the right of the population of the Spanish Sahara to self-determination in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV)”.
69. In paragraph 3 of the operative part it is urged thàt the referendum be
postponed “until the General Assembly decides on the policy to be followed
in order to accelerate the decolonization process in the territory, in
accordance with resolution 1514 (XV)”. This third mention of resolution
1514 (XV), which has also to be read in the light of the preamble, thus refers to it as governing “the decolonization process in the territory” and “the policy to be followed in order to accelerate” that process.
70. In short, the decolonization process to be accelerated which is
envisaged by the General Assembly in this provision is one which will respect the right of the population of Western Sahara to determine their future political status by their own freely expressed will. This right is not affected by the present request for an advisory opinion, nor by resolution 3292 (XXIX); on the contrary, it is expressly reaffirmed in that resolution. The right of that population to self-determination constitutes therefore a basic assumption of the questions put to the Court.”
Those 3 paragraphs would appear to effectively repudiate the above statements of Devolverislas viz:
“It is sitting under Biguggy’s nose: – that of the former Spanish Sahara, which he seems to know so well. Resolution 2072 (XX) Question of Ifni and Spanish Sahara called in October 1964 for “the liberation of the Territories of Ifni and Spanish Sahara from colonial domination”. The resolution strikingly made no reference to “the inalienable right of the people of the territory to self-determination”, which is the clause that accompanies the resolutions for all the other NSGTs (excepting Falklands/Malvinas). This was because Spain, post 1884, had introduced settlers to Ifni and Spanish Sahara, just as the Great Britain introduced settlers to the Falkland Islands. Interestingly Spain withdrew its settlers in 1975, after negotiating the Madrid accords with Morocco and Mauritania. Western Sahara remains on the list of NSGTs today but the UN terms of reference have changed. Now that the Spanish settlers have been removed the “people” of the territory – the Sahrawi (Berbers) – have been granted the right of self-determination. (See for example resolution 46/67 Question of Western Sahara….).”
As can be seen above UNGA resolution 3292 was adopted in 1974, that is before Spain ‘removed its settlers’ and that resolution, in the opinion of the court, ‘reaffirms “the right of the population of the Spanish Sahara to self-
determination in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV)”.’
Perhaps Devolverislas would be kind enough to advise us where the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council or the ICJ has stated that the Falklands are a ‘Special Case’ as s/he has stated above?
Further could s/he advise which of the above UN documents removes the right to self-determination for the ‘inhabitants’ of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Article 73 of the UN Charter?
I have quoted the relevant part of Article 73 of the UN Charter above in my post of January 27, 2014 at 5:53 pm, I will not repeat it here.
Biguggy, in his zeal to give some foundation to the islanders’ baseless claim for the right of self-determination, appears to have overlooked paragraph 59 in the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the Western Sahara (1975). This reads as follows:-
“The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expessed will of peoples, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a “people” entitled to self-determination or on the conviction that consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of the special circumstances.”
The Falkland Islands/Malvinas, since the passing of resolution 2065 (XX) in December 1965, is one such special case. The islanders are considered to be a population and not a people. Therefore the principle of self-determination does not apply. It is time that HMG, Hugo Swire, HMA Coles and the islanders faced up to that fact.
Biguggy has completely read the subject ICJ Advisory Opinion and all the individual Judges separate opinions as indicated in my post above.
Devolverislas has quoted paragraph 59 of the advisory but conveniently leaves out the contents of paragraph 54 which read:
‘The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates,
as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples . . .” This purpose is further developed in
Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. Those provisions have direct and particular relevance for non-self-governing territories, which are dealt with in Chapter XI of the Charter. As the Court stated in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) :
“. . . the subsequent development of international law in regard to
non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of
them” (I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31).’
Pretty clear cut I believe ” made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”.
Now onto paragraph 59, many malvinistas seem to think that this paragraph indicates that that under certain circumstances the UNGA has denied the right of self-determination to all the inhabitants of a given territory. Devolverislas, should you believe this to be the case, please give us an example, it should be easy as paragraph 59 indicates that there are muliple instances of where this has occurred.
For further reference may I respectfully suggest that you, and anyone else interested, refer to my above post of January 28, 2014 at 9:52 am, and ALL the documents referenced therein.
I would appreciate if Devolverislas could inform us where the UNGA, the UNSC or the ICJ has ever stated that a ‘population’ do not have the right to self-determination?
I ask this because the earliest UNGA resolution that I have found on the subject, 567, although it refers to the right of people to self determination indicates very clearly that said right is dependent upon the ‘opinion’ of the ‘population’. I find that very interesting.
Most of the instances of where the government of Argentina has lied are difficult to prove without access to various archives. However here is an example which, when the lie was first told, in 1976, the ‘internet’ did not exist and verifying the statements made by Argentina still required someone to actually check physical records. Now anyone with an ‘internet’ connection and sufficient computing capacity can verify several of Argentina’s lies very easily. Here is just one example, from the several made, in just one address to the UN’s Fourth Committee in 1976.
In 1975 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down an Advisory Opinion concerning the Western Sahara.
The following is part of what the representative of Argentina told the Fourth committee that Advisory contained. It is recorded in UN document A/32/23/Rev1 Volume IV and is available through the UN document website.
“20. He referred briefly to some of the considerations contained in the advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice on 16 October 1975.
In that important document, both in the text of the opinion itself and in the statements and individual opinions accompanying the text, he found a number of elements which support his Government’s position.
21.He said that the Court, while recognizing the important role of the principle of self-determination, had pointed out that on a number of occasions the General Assembly had given priority to the principle of territorial integrity, particularly when ‘the colonial Territory had been .created to the prejudice of the country to which the Territory belonged originally. Furthermore, in paragraph 87 of. the opinion, the Court had affirmed quite clearly that in all cases the “special characteristics” of the Territory should be borne in mind. -However, the most decisive paragraph on the subject was paragraph 162, from a reading of which it was perfectly clear that in those situations where there was a dispute regarding sovereignty over a colonial Territory, whether or not the principle of self-determination should be applied depended on the nature of the link between the Territory in question at the moment of colinization.
22. Referring to the individual opinions of the members of the Court, the representative of Argentina said that Justices Nagendra Singh and Fouad Ammoun had stated their views very clearly on the subject. It was clear that for Judge Nagendra Singh self-determination need not be applied When there was proof that at the time of colonization of the Territory, the Territory belonged to a State and was separated from it by the colonizers. Judge Ammoun had stated that there were many cases where the General Assembly had “dispensed with” the application of the principle of self-determination. Both international magistrates, finally, had described general situations which would fall within those basic categories.”
23. However, he said that the opinion of Judge S. Petren of Sweden had been most decisive in that area. The Swedish magistrate had stated his view succinctly as follows: first of all, the law on decolonization was in the process of formation, and although it was based primarily on the principle of self-determination, that was no reason why in certain specific cases account should not also be taken of the principle of territorial unity and national unity. He had stressed that the process of decolonization had taken place by means of a combination of various elements of international law which were evolving under the aegis of the United Nations.
24. Furthermore, in an equally decisive way Judge Petren had stated that there was no uniform opinion on the subject of decolonization because of “the fact that the wide variety of geographical and other data which must be taken into account in questions of decolonization have not yet allowed of the establishment of a sufficiently developed body of rules and practice to cover all the situations which may give rise to problems. In other words, although its guiding principles have emerged, the law of decolonization does not yet constitute a complete body of doctrine and practice.” Perhaps it might be appropriate to add that for the Swedish magistrate, as was clear from his opinion, one of the exceptions to the principle of self-determination might be that there was proof of sovereign ties between the state in question and the Territory claimed. ‘
‘Judge Ammoun had stated that there were many cases where the General Assembly had “dispensed with” the application of the principle of self-determination. Both international magistrates, finally, had described general situations which would fall within those basic categories.’
Now what Judge Ammoun actually wrote can be seen here:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6205.pdf
and reads as follows:
“The Opinion deals with the right of self-determination in paragraphs 54 to
59.
The latter paragraph ends by referring to certain instances where consultation in application of the principle of self-determination was dispensed with by the General Assembly. Such instances are very numerous”
As can easily be seen Judge Ammoun has stated that ‘consultation’ has been dispensed with not the right to self-determination as Argentina would have everyone believe.
There are numerous other lies in the quote I have given above which can easily be found by referencing the actual ICJ Advisory or the individual Judges opinions, all of which are available through the following website:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=69&case=61&code=sa&p3=4
One has to ask why Judge Dr. Ruda, as a member of the ICJ in 1975 did not, in his dissenting opinion on the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion make any mention of the paragraphs dealing with self-determination (54-59), very particularly paragraph 54 which is the one that states ALL NSGT’s have the right to self-determination.
I ask this because Dr. Ruda was from Argentina and in 1965/5 was the representative of Argentina at the UN and it was he who gave the 8,000 word address to sub-committee III of the Special Committee (C24) which contained a great many untruths. He must have been fully aware of how damaging to the claim by Argentina paragraph 54 was, yet he made no statement trying to limit it in any way. One has to wonder why?
Or am I missing something?” asks Ambassador Cole, unsure of his thread.
US policy towards Cuba was historically defined by the Monroe doctrine (1823):- America for Americans and no interference in the Western Hemisphere by European powers. So the USA, far from annexing the island, in fact helped Cuba throw off the yoke of Spanish rule. Independence was not achieved until1898 and it meant a brief period of USA occupation.
Now the 33 Latin American and Carribean countries of Celac have pledged in the Havana Declaration 2014 to rid South America of the last vestige of European colonialism – the British colony of Falkland Islands. It is not a question of a “big guy trying to bully a small neighbour”. Argentina seeks to recover sovereignty over territory which it historically administered and to which it has sound legal title. The UK ignores UN invitations to engage in a dialogue with Argentina. Argentina applies pressure. The UK should know the meaning of pressure having applied it so many times in the past.
Spain’s retreat from its last colony in the New World was inevitable. The force of history now dictates that the UK too will relinquish its last colony in the Americas. In Cuba it took several wars before the Spanish were finally defeated. In the Falklands the United Kingdom and Argentina can settle the matter by talking. It is ridiculous that the UK government panders to the whims of the islanders when British long-term interests on the continent are at stake.
The UK refuses dialogue, what about Timmerman’s empty chair last year.
Please do not try to pull the old ‘only two parties’. Timmerman himself has said that the Islanders do not exist the only people on the Islands are British citizens who are ‘squatting’. Yet he ran from two of these ‘only British Citizens.’
You claim Argentina wants dialogue on how to solve the problem. What, other than eventual sovereignty, is Argentina prepared to accept?
Argentina has never in its history owned the Falkland islands – this is just one of the myths and fantasies of Buenos Aires.
Britain established its claim in 1765, having first made it in 1594. Spain disputed this although eventually, in 1863, Spain recognised British sovereignty.
Argentina was never in the game, not having inherited the archipelago from the Spanish (it was never a part of the Viceroyalty) nor having established its own claim (Jewett had no mandate and Vernet had British permission).
The force of history (and international law) now says that the Kelpers have the right to determine their own future. A right acknowledged by both the UN and the ICJ.
The kelpers, in their referendum, chose to retain their links with Britain. Their choice. There is no longer a ‘Falklands Question’ – as the answer is clear.
Argentina is irrelevant.
“The UK ignores UN invitations to engage in a dialogue with Argentina. Argentina applies pressure.”
How about Timmerman’s ’empty chair’ at at a meeting he ‘demanded’ last year. Please do not give give me the crap about only two parties, Argentina has said often enough it is quite willing for a third party to be involved, the UN Secretary General!
So you believe that two parties sitting talking is fair when one of the parties have set a pre determined outcome, LOL how stupid can you get.
What an excellent summary of the situation by Tim Cole – yes definitely well said. The simple truth you describe should be told to all who would listen as an antidote to the blatant lies told repeatedly Argentine government regarding this matter. German Leon: your scenario is just not applicable as an analogy. How could people from outside the US declare their independence for Florida? It’s a state within a sovereign territory. The Falkland Islands have never been a part of Argentine territory, your analogy is just spurious. The actions of the Argentine government should be seen for what they are..a hostile attempt to grab territory that does not belong to them.
Simon, once they become US citizens they can but they have to get the majority of the other ‘citizens’ to agree with them.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has twice said in advisory opinions (Namibia in 1971 & Western Sahara in 1975) that ALL Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) have the right to self-determination.
In 1965, supported by Argentina and opposed by the UK, the UN General Assembly passed its resolution 2065. Which, among other things declares that its resolution 1514 applies to the Falklands. This means that the Falklands are a ‘Colonial Situation’ and in addition means that as they are not Self-Governing therefore Article 73 of the UN Charter applies to them.
Article 73 of the UN Charter states, among other things:
“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:”
Please note three very important words in that, ‘interests’, ‘inhabitants’ and ‘paramount’. It is because of those that the ICJ has stated that ALL NSGTs have the right to self-determination.
For anyone really interested in this they can find out what the representative from Argentina told the UN Fourth Committee in 1976 that the ICJ and the individual Judges wrote (said0 in their written opinions by consulting official UN document A/32/23Rev1 Vol.IV pages 226 and 227. Then compare what the Court, and the Judges individually wrote via the ICJ website:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=fe&case=57&code=rj&p3=4
The differences are enlightening to say the least!
UN GA Resolution 2065 is dead. Murdered. Stabbed in the back by its best friend – in 1982. RIP 2065.
Britain is not in breach of any UN Resolutions as confirmed by the Secretary-General ban Ki-moon in November 2012. Argentina would like to convince the world of its own rather distored interpretation of UN Resolutions.
Hi Tim, after your clear explanation, try to imagine for a while that all cubans, dominicans, mexicans like many others people from all around the world at Florida US, want their right to self determination over that territory in which they were living for several decades. According to your explanation it is absolutely correct. But the awful truth is not!.
Historically the “argie” governor Luis Vernet was kicked on August of 1831 by US ships and two years later José María Pinedo has suffered the UK invacion (1833).
On the other hand if British government will only talk to Argentina about the future of the islands it is an absolutely responsability of the UK prime minister. The CELAC declaration will be a common sense declaration, nothing else.
Thanks to let express myself.
Regards.
German Leon
The British government has sat down and talked to the Argentines making agreements on fisheries, flights and hydrocarbons all of which were voided by the Nestor Kirchner government in 2007.
Your understanding of history is wrong. Britain’s claim can be traced back to 1594 and was reaffirmed in 1765. Jewett acted without a mandate and did too little, Vernet acted with British permission until 1829 when his actions came too late. Buenos Aires should have listened to the British warnings of 1829 and 1832. Pinedo and the trespassing garrison were merely asked to leave as part of a police action – not important although Argentina would like to make the world believe that it is.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103643219/Falklands-History
Well said.