It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argentina Claims Falklands (again)

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Argentina has no intention of using violence to regain their property. They intend to bring their case to the UN, and will continue to protest the illegal occupation of their land.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
And it will be thrown out (again) as its not there land as has been proven 9 times in this very thread.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
And it will be thrown out (again) as its not there land as has been proven 9 times in this very thread.


Indeed.

Its still interesting that my examples have been ignored about other territories across the world



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
And it will be thrown out (again) as its not there land as has been proven 9 times in this very thread.


Actually, it has not even been proven once by anyone in this thread. People have claimed that Argentina violated a treaty and thus the land was forfeit. I have proven this to be a false assertion. No one has been able to demonstrate otherwise. The treaties are there for everyone to read if they so desire. The laws are clear and unambiguous. Britons ceding of the islands without proviso is also very clear. No one has demonstrated any legal right for Britain to claim the islands. I offered a challenge for anyone to prove they did, and no one has responded. Facts not assumptions are required for a legal claim. I have offered plenty that no one has refuted.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Its still interesting that my examples have been ignored about other territories across the world


I assume that you are referring to your mentioning of returning places like South America to the natives, or making Mexico into Aztecland, or returning Europe to the Neanderthals and such. The examples you gave are not germane as they are dissimilar examples. In the case of the Falklands, we have sufficient established legal claims and international laws. We have three established nations, who had been successful trading partners, were established and recognized nations with treaties and trade deals between them, and we had well established international laws and codes of conduct. It is due to these same laws that nations interact with each other in the manner that they do today. With the case of the Falklands, established and recognized international laws were violated.

We operate in a world were laws help to form a civilized society. These very same laws were in effect when the Falklands were stolen. If Britain were to steal Jamaica, or Hawaii, or Macao, the world would not accept that action as it violates the very same laws that were violated when they stole the Falklands.

The fact that it was seven or eight generations ago, does not diminish any legal claims. As you may know, it is not at all unheard of for artwork and other personal property to be returned to its rightful owner hundred of years after it has been stolen. There are laws in the US from 350 years ago, that are being used to claim the return of land, and used successfully. The Githabul tribe won back rights to 6,000 sq. Km in Australia based on established legal claims. If you wish to look, there are numerous cases involving land claims appearing before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Land claims from before the British invasion of the Falklands, have been adjudicated and granted. There is no reason that time alone would prevent the rightful return of the Falklands to Argentina.

If you wish to prove that the British invasion and occupation was legal, then offer proof.

All anyone has offered is ...that might makes right. If that is all you can claim, then please let me know where you live so that when you are on vacation, I can come to your house and acquire your television, automobile, and any other trinkets that I may like. At which point, according to many in here, they would become legally mine.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
I offered a challenge for anyone to prove they did, and no one has responded. Facts not assumptions are required for a legal claim. I have offered plenty that no one has refuted.


That's because you give me a headache with your stubborn refusal to accept the simple fact that Argentina's claim rest's on the treaty signed by Spain. That treaty was broken.

I'm just not that interested in going over the same facts again and again. Seems to me that everyone is in agreement apart from you. I have yet to see anyone step in and second your motion.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Stumason, I have proven that your claim that Argentina broke a treaty, and made then invasion of the Falklands fair game, is a false assumption. You have not proven it to be otherwise in any legal sense. It is merely your opinion unsupported by facts. I have demonstrated clear evidence. I used factual data, I outlined events in a time line. I gave relevant examples to confirm the data. If you would like to educate me, then point to a specific reason why Argentina HAD to obey the treaty Spain made with Britain. Established history and international law clearly shows otherwise. If you cannot do that, then you offer nothing. It sounds to me that you simply are frustrated in your inability to provide factual evidence. You continue to claim Argentina broke a treaty but fail to provide anything other than your say so. The treaties are available for you to refer to. You can read them line by line if you wish. If you are so correct, then point to a specific article, that backs up your claim. I can wait.


It is funny, I admit that initially, I approached this topic with a bit of tongue in cheek. I was not being serious when I stated that the Falklands had copied the Argentinean flag in their coat of arms. But when I saw how many people were making claims without factual basis, I was a bit astounded that it was being taken as the truth. I have no need to falsify data, nor need I only offer my opinion. The laws in this matter are quite clear and historically established. If someone would like to point to data that backs up their claim I am willing to consider it, and will readily accept being corrected. Simply saying that, Argentina had to obey a treaty made by other nations, without any supporting data to confirm that, means nothing. If you state it is a fact, then you can easily prove it, no?

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Its still interesting that my examples have been ignored about other territories across the world


oh what a suprise...

my examples are STILL being ignored



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
nfinite, I responded regarding your examples earlier. Unless there is something else you had in mind, I pointed to the return of land based on Historical claims. Perhaps you missed my post(Page 6, post 4). If there is some other aspect you would like me to address please, read my post then let me know what examples you mean, that are specifically relevant to this topic. The Falklands are a very clear case, and the laws and claims are well established. We are not talking about border changes due to Wars, nor are we talking about conquering of the new world. If you have anything to offer that is germane to the Falklands, then by all means, bring it up again so I can respond to any specific details you have in mind.

If you would like to bring up any evidence that supports the belief that Argentina was in violation of some treaty or law, and thus the Falklands were forfeit, then, again, offer some proof.

On page 5, 4th post from the bottom, I clearly outlined, with details, why the belief held by some, that Argentina violated the Nootka treaty, is a false assumption. I received a 500 point applause for this post, as it followed the ATS motto of deny ignorance, and offered clear factual evidence and not opinion.

As for Stumasons comment that no one has offered any support on Argentina's side, well, this is not a popularity contest like a television pop idol. This is a discussion about international law. The more important fact, is that no one has thus far offered any solid proof that Argentina violated any valid treaty, or that in any way, Britain had any legal right to invaded the Falklands.

I will make it simple...
Question: When the British crown gave independence to the American colonies, was the newly formed country of the US legally bound to abide by all previous treaties Britain had made regarding the territory of the US?

Awnser: NO. The US was free to make new deals and did so with many countries including Britain. Fact, not opinion.

Question: when the British Crown gave independence to the colony of India, Was India legally bound to abide by all treaties and trade deals Britain had made regarding the territory of India?

Answer: NO. As a sovereign nation they were free to make their own deals, and anyone who was a previous partner with Britain had to make new deals with the govt. of India. Fact, not opinion.

Question: When Britain met with Spain in the three Nootka conventions, and ceded the Falklands, were there any rules such as, If Spain gave the land away, or if a future owner prevented Britain from fishing there, then Britain would get the land back?

Answer: NO, there were no Proviso articles regarding Britons Ceding the territory. It was given away without conditions. Fact, not opinion.

Question, When Spain gave independence to Argentina, were the Falklands legally included in the newly formed countries territory?

Answer YES, the Spanish Crown ceded the Falklands as part of Argentina. Fact, not opinion

Question: When Argentina was newly formed, did Britain recognize Argentina as a sovereign nation?

Answer: YES, Trade goods flowed between the two countries and trade deals were established between the two governments. Fact, Not opinion.

The only comment anyone had made regarding the Falklands, is that Argentina violated a treaty and thus the land was forfeit. This is a proven false assumption. If anyone can offer anything other than their personal belief, then I would be glad to listen. Law is based on Facts, not opinion.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Do you think this just might have helped start this whole thing.

Britain Disappointed Over Falklands Celebrations Snub

LONDON, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- British officials said they were disappointed when Argentina said it would not attend a service to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict.

After Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana rejected the invitation, Britain's Foreign Office expressed its regret Tuesday, The Telegraph reported.

"They have given it the character of a victory celebration and, given that, we cannot take part," Taiana said Monday. "We consider the Malvinas to be an archaic colonial situation and in the 21st Century the persistence of this situation is difficult to explain."


I started this thread, Britain Disappointed Over Falklands Celebrations Snub when the news broke.

This is the only response from that article I got:

Posted by WOGIT, on February 28, 2007

Maybe they wanted to piss them off and offer a reminder to who is running the place.


I guess the "wanted to piss them off" part worked!


[edit on 8/4/07 by Keyhole]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
On page 5, 4th post from the bottom, I clearly outlined, with details, why the belief held by some, that Argentina violated the Nootka treaty, is a false assumption. I received a 500 point applause for this post, as it followed the ATS motto of deny ignorance, and offered clear factual evidence and not opinion.

As for Stumasons comment that no one has offered any support on Argentina's side, well, this is not a popularity contest like a television pop idol. This is a discussion about international law. The more important fact, is that no one has thus far offered any solid proof that Argentina violated any valid treaty, or that in any way, Britain had any legal right to invaded the Falklands.


Well done! An applause. I had one too. Doesn't mean your right, just means that your adding to the discussion.

As you said, it's not a TV Pop Idol contest.

As for your continued rubbish about the Falklands, I am going to reply to it in short order....



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
United Kingdom not England


Our Country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, please don't call it just England. We find it quite offensive.

Annnd...that Island is ours and its not changing hands until the people say so. Plus, I do find it quite hilarious that no one has said anything regarding my comments about the United States.

If the UK has to give back the Falklands, then should White European Americans give back Northern America to the orginal tribes? Should we give back Western Europe to the Romans? Should Arabs be force to give back land to Israel (seeings Israel does not have the same borders as in the OT)

Should Italy be forced to split and give back its land to the orginal countries of that area? Should the German federal government breakup Germany? Should the Spanish government do the same with the Basque region and Catalona?

Should Southern Western area of the United States be giving back to Mexico or should the nation of Aztlan be created?

Should Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Iraq be forced to give back their land to the Persians and the nation of Persia be created again?

Should the Australian government break up its commonwealth and give its land back to the native population? same with New Zealand.

Should the United Kingdom be broken up and England, Scotland and Wales become countries again? plus the creation of a United Ireland?

In other words, you cannot focus on one nation and ignore others.


Did you REALLY to respond to these examples? I am trying to find you answers to each example I have used.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I did not reply to each specific example you mentioned because for the most part they are very dissimilar examples and do not relate to the Falklands situation and you know that quite well. I did point out that Australia did indeed give rights to 6,000 Sq. Km back to a native tribe. We could discuss each and every area you mentioned and the differences, but as they are not related examples to the Falklands they have little bearing on this thread.

In many of the areas you mentioned there is no land claim being pressed and no call for return. In others there was no clear established violation of international law. In some, the new borders are due to War and redistribution of territory. In the Falklands, there was a clear violation of international law. There has always been a claim for return, and Argentina has never surrendered it's legal claim. The same cannot be said for many of the places you mentioned. It is Apples and Oranges, and you well know that.

Personally I do think the Basque do indeed deserve a homeland of their own. Their language is unique among all the European languages, and their blood line, or genetic make up is also unique. What's wrong with giving them a bit of mountainous land to end the conflict? Spain could easily grant them self rule as an autonomous territory, much like the Kurds in Afghanistan, and it would solve a lot of the violence there. This is just an opinion of mine and does not reflect any specific law or right of return.

In the case of the Falklands, there was a clear established sovereign nation that had it's land invaded by a trading partner. There was no valid treaty that allowed Britain to fish or hunt there. There was no valid claim to ownership by Britain at the time of invasion. It was a clear cut case of invasion and occupation, in violation of international law. That is a significant difference.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

As for your continued rubbish about the Falklands, I am going to reply to it in short order....


Please do. If you think that you can prove that Argentina did not have legal ownership, and that it somehow broke some sort of treaty, then by all means do so. I would however, appreciate some factual data and not just your opinion. I offered factual evidence which refutes any claim of violating the Nootka conventions, and not just opinion, so I would appreciate a response in kind.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
In the interest of providing further information, I have done a bit of research into the official British side of this equation, which many will no doubt find enlightening, as well as a look into the official UN position.

Everyone should realize that before the Falklands War, diplomats from both Britain and Argentina, for quite some time, had been talking about an eventual Hong Kong-like handover of the colony which Britain has occupied since 1833. The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback." This document has been sealed until 2015. The world was at war at the time, and this plan was put on hold.

Not only has the British government considered the issue but also the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization has promoted the situation by calling annually on Britain and Argentina to resume negotiations for the peaceful resolution of the "sovereignty dispute." It should be noted that the UN failed to mention the critical words "self-determination." This self determination detail, and the UN's deliberate decision not to mention it, is quite important and I will get back to it later on.

In 1965 the UN’s General assembly urged Britain and Argentina through Resolution 2065 to "proceed without delay" with negotiations. These negotiations began almost immediately and were kept mostly in secret and away from the public eye.

The negotiations included a British sponsored plan to promote the idea to the islanders, by showing them the benefits which a link to the mainland would bring. As part of the British plan, Argentina and Britain were to jointly build an airport for the islands. The Falklands are a very isolated place, and the addition of an airport was a significant improvement. Sadly, Britain failed to meet with it's obligations and Argentina built the entire airport on it's own. In addition to the airport, which Argentina continues to support, Argentina was happy to provide guarantees of "continuity of customs and lifestyle." It is sovereignty, not colonization, that is the issue for Argentina. Two years into the negotiations, and not a word had been said about them either to the British Parliament or Port Stanley in the Falklands. The Foreign Office policy had been to quietly prepare a satisfactory package of safeguards, as well as economic benefits, to be presented to the islanders in a manner in which was acceptable to them and minimized any negative associations. Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "memorandum of understanding" was in the final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as condominum Unfortunately, politics are a fickle business and diplomacy often suffers the consequences.

Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was foreign secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."

On November 4, 1982, there was another UN resolution requesting a resumption of the negotiations. The United States was included among the nations which voted in favor of this. Although Britain won the Falklands war, they did not win the argument over sovereignty.

Britain's current PUBLIC position on the sovereignty of the Falklands is one of self-determination. Britain says publicly, that it is for the islanders themselves to decide where their future should lie. However, the self-determination principle is only applicable to people who were "oppressed" and not to those who were "transplanted," thus legally, Argentina's territorial integrity takes precedence over self-determination.

When Britain invaded the islands, all the Argentinean settlers were removed. Yes, contrary to earlier statements, there were indeed Argentinean settlers on the islands and not just pirates and prisoners. In addition to this, a law established by Britain forbade any Argentinean immigration to the islands, or any land purchase by Argentinean citizens. If the current population of the islands were a wide mixture of various nationalities, as would be the case with free immigration, the principle of self determination would have more validity. It is clear that the population has been artificially kept British or pro Anglo-Saxon. The Argentine position is to treat the land, separately from the inhabitants, to take into account the islanders interests and well being, but not their determination. This is specifically why the UN left out any mention of self determination, when it called for negotiations.

Given that there has been considerable discussion for a British hand back over the years, I feel it is only a matter of time before this comes to pass. Clearly, it will have to be a situation that has favorable public outcome for both parties involved and will be a considerable challenge. Britain wishes to 'save face' in the matter and minimize any negative fallout. This does not mean that it won't eventually happen.


"No country in the world has more experience dealing with the issues of decolonization than the United Kingdom. For the last hundred years, this once vast Empire, has been busy extracting itself from various corners of the world.....From India, to Hong Kong, to Zimbabwe, the British have turned over government to someone else." (Joseph Allen McCullough)


[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infinite
Argentina wants this to be solved via the United Nations, but the UN, United States and the European Union support the UK claim.



originally posted by PRSuk
If prior claim was legal then the UN would never back a current British claim.


Er...They don't back the British Claim.


Originally posted by stumason
Yes. Argentina themselves nullified the treaty by attacking US Seal hunters. Treaty was forfit. (and later) As for your continued rubbish about the Falklands, I am going to reply to it in short order....


Interesting that when faced with the truth about Argentina's legal claim, and Britain's eventual plan of return, along with UN backing, suddenly all the nay sayers have run off.

And to think, they thought I was nuts. So much for deny ignorance.

Viva las Malvinas!!!



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Er...They don't back the British Claim.


How come the UN gave support to the British during the Falklands war and supported the British claim during the war?

The UN said both Argentina and the UK should seek peaceful solution, it didn't say that Island belongs to Argentina. Resolution 2065.

UN Decolonization Committee has also expressed a desire for negotiations to start again.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The UN always tries to take the middle road. During the Falklands War, and during any war, they always come out against aggression and military solutions. The issue of the Falklands should not be determined by might, but by that which is right. That is why the UN condemned the Argentine military actions in the Falklands.

This being said, the UN has for quite some time called upon Britain and Argentina to work out a solution. Notice that it is called the Decolonization committee. Even when there was no threat of military action, the UN has requested that Britain negotiate as the legal claims of Argentina are quite solid. It is well established that Britain has planned for the eventual return of the Falklands to Argentina. The UN regularly calls on both countries to resume negotiations and to conclude this business. If the UN had determined that Britain should keep the islands then they would not be supporting Argentina's call for negotiations. Since the war, the UN repeated their call for change and several countries signed on including members of the EU and the US. If those members wished the Falklands to remain permanently under the control of the British then they would have issued a statement to that effect. Instead they have called for resumed negotiations and deliberately continue to make no statements promoting self determination.

The British plan for an eventual hand over modeled on the Hong Kong plan, is the direction the UNs Decolonization Committee would like to see. Argentina must provide guarantees of "continuity of customs and lifestyle," and they have repeatedly assured this. Argentina met and surpassed the previous plan that involved building an airport for the islands and once again Britain failed to meet it's obligations under the plan. On several occasions, Britain has negotiated, and in the end backed out of it's agreements.

Clearly it can be understood that Britain has a strong desire to come away from this situation looking like the good guys. They have some very sensitive issues to deal with and rushing at an inappropriate time would be a political disaster for them. There has to be a combined culture of cooperation and a friendly relationship between Argentina and Britain before this can happen. The UN wishes to pursue a road of cooperation and a friendly transfer of the Falklands, and in time it will eventually come to pass. The 99 year plan is a good one as it allows all current residents of the island the chance to live out their lives without change, and any new resident will grow up with full knowledge of the plan and an understanding of things to come. Ending the laws that prohibit the sale of land to Argentineans, will be a first step along with an end to selective immigration.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Since the war, the UN repeated their call for change and several countries signed on including members of the EU and the US.


Spain are only against the British claim because of Gilbrator, another disputed area in which the population voted in support of being under British rule (99.9% of them). And Spain still refuses to accept that democratic vote (Spain having a Franco moment there I think)

What makes me laugh is that many fail to understand that the people want to remain British. This is why Bermuda rejected independence from the UK. Why can't you or the UN understand this? I thought the UN is meant to be democratic not supporting removing democracy? Are you in favour of denying people their democratic right? The UN states that no one should be denied their nationality under its Human rights charter.

Argentina should understand that the people on the Falklands want nothing to do with Argentina and would rather be independent. It never was and never shall be their land. The only reason they claim it is because it was apart of the Spanish colony. Lets not forget, Mexico was a Spanish colony and the South West of the United States was apart of that colony. That part of the America was Mexican land, so in theory Mexico should get it back then? seeings that is your arguement about Falklands.

Lets not forget that the US has oversea territories and if the British is forced to give its territories back, so should the US as well. Plus France.

Lets not be bias here, eh?




posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
But there is considerable bias in stating that the Islanders should be the ones deciding the future of the Islands. The UN General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 confirmed "that the right to self-determination was not applicable to the islanders since they were a British population transplanted with the intention of setting up a colony."  With British established laws keeping any Argentineans from immigrating or buying property, there can be no legal claim of self determination. The British stacked the deck so to speak, which is a common policy in colonization.

If there had been free immigration this would be another story. Since Britain set artificial immigration rules and prevented anyone other than loyal British subjects from living there, then of course the vote would be stacked.


When the people of what is now Argentina were beginning to explore their own political future, the British were more than happy to aid the Spanish colonies to become independent from Spain. The powers of Europe were undergoing change and Britain saw this as a chance to gain an advantage. When Argentina became independent in 1816, Britain was among the first nations to recognize their independence and establish diplomatic and commercial ties. In 1825 England signs with Argentina a Treaty of Friendship and Trade in which, among many things, she implicitly recognizes Argentina's territory including the Falklands. Argentina formally took possession of the islands through an expedition commanded by the American officer David Jewett. The proclamation of Argentinean sovereignty was published in the papers “El Redactor” (Cádiz, Spain) and the “Times” of  London. No formal claim was made at this time by any foreign government including Britain. Argentina appoints her first Governor to the islands, Luis Vernet, Once Governor Vernet was established there, one of the first things he does is to protect Argentina's interests by trying to stop the foreign vessels which went there to poach sea lions.

In 1831 in response to Argentina preventing the poaching going on in the Falklands, US Commander Duncan, violently sacked the Argentine colony. He spiked the cannons, blew up the powder, took all the poached sea lion skins that had been legally confiscated by the Argentineans and declared the islands “free of all government.” He arrested many of the settlers including Governor Vernet, and took them to Montevideo. This action clearly was in violation of the American Monroe Doctrine, which acknowledged the independence of the Americas and was opposed to foreign intervention. The United States never explained to Argentina  the use of  force against a friendly country whose independence they had previously acknowledged, and with which they had diplomatic and commercial ties.


While this was going on,
In 1832 an Argentinean officer was able to arrest those responsible for the assassination of the Governor of Puerto de la Soledad (near the actual Port Stanley). They were tried, found guilty and hanged, proving that Argentina had jurisdiction over the place where the laws were infringed. On the other hand, soon after the British took command through irresistible force in January 1833, other murders took place. The suspects were caught and sent to England to be judged; but the English court understood that because the murders had taken place in lands that did not belong to the British Crown, they could not be judged there, and they were returned to South America. That proved that the English courts knew that they had no jurisdiction over the islands, a belief shared by the former British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, vanquisher of Napoleon.

Again at a later date, another US warship expelled an Argentine military garrison from the islands in 1833. Even Richard Davies, a Falklands Councilor agrees that when Britain invaded the islands that there was an Argentine presence on the islands. Since that time, no Argentinean has been allowed to live there. Richard Davies calls for self determination, yet none was given to the Argentineans who were illegaly expelled.

Britain formally and legally ceded the land, and then acknowledged that the Islands belonged to Argentina. Later they invaded and all Argentineans were expelled with force. It is well established that the British have planned on returning the Falklands to Argentina, and there have been numerous documents supporting this going back many decades. It is not just Spain, which you mentioned, promoting this idea, but many nations including the “Group of 77” developing countries and China. This is why the UN Decolonization Committee continues to call for continued negotiations. This is not just my opinion, it is established fact. There is widespread international support including not only the UN but also a declaration has been issued by MERCOSUR supporting Argentina in the sovereignty dispute, and the Summit of Arab and South American Countries has urged Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations with decolonization as it's goal. In the same vein, the Ibero-American Summit had issued a special statement reiterating the need for a resumption of negotiations. Since Britain itself, has upon several occasions declared it's plan of return, there can be no claim otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join