cedars I am aware of all those things and if you re-read my comments and Emilie's you will see what I mean about being even handed.
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
cedars
soft+gentle - you'll always be on the "team" regardless of your views on this issue. I'm just saying, please check the facts and pick your horse based on the right motives.
I'm sure you will!
Cedars
-
Chariklo
Understood! But...
I'm still a Spurs fan!
-
cedars
On a side issue - if any mods are monitoring this thread, I would love to know why it keeps collapsing whenever Emilie answers. Is she doing something unknowingly that is doing this? I'm not pointing the finger, but it makes it extremely hard for others to participate in the thread and/or answer her.
Just a thought...
Cedars
-
besty
@LMSA:
thanks for responding on the question of the 1850 Settlement Treaty between the Argentine Confederation and Great Britain.
You explained it as follows:
what do I think about the 1850 Convention of Settlement and what it means about the Malvinas claim? As with some treaties, this one is open to interpretation. The fact remains that the Malvinas are not mentioned, either by name or by implication. There can be no Argentine cession of the Malvinas without explicit wording. On the other hand, you seem to have interpreted this treaty as a settlement of all disputes, including the Malvinas. For the answer to that I believe we need to go into the intent of the treaty itself, which was drawn up specifically to address the British occupation of the island of Martin Garcia, to lift the British blockade, to return captured vessels, to recognize Argentine rights on the Paraná, and to mediate the Argentine-French dispute in Uruguay. Since Juan Manuel José Domingo Ortiz de Rozas y López de Osornio and his advisors are no longer with us, and I certainly am no expert in the Argentine foreign policy of the 1850s, I would have to venture that the dear general had more pressing issues than the Malvinas, such as a possible French or British invasion of the Argentine mainland. He simply wasn’t in a position to negotiate. It would be like a barrister worrying about a petty theft charge when his client was also charged with murder.
The Treaty wording makes revisionist interpretation to support a claim for the Falklands problematic. Whilst primarily about the Anglo-French blockade, the Treaty settled 'existing differences'.
The lack of mention of the Falklands is eloquent in itself. General Rosas had the perfect opportunity to leverage his 2 year negotiations with the French and British, but chose not to. If the Falklands was an 'existing difference' then he signed the Treaty in bad faith. On the other hand if it wasn't an 'existing difference'....well you get the point. Is an Argentine Treaty worth the paper it is written on, or not? (see 1982 for details)
Between the re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands in 1833 and the ratification of the treaty, Argentina sent annual protests to the British government by means of the Message to Congress, thereby maintaining Argentina's claim to the islands. Following the Treaty, such protests ceased, and Argentina did not protest again diplomatically until 1888. The matter was not raised again before the Argentine Congress until 1941.
So Argentina at a minimum have a 38 year gap and then a 53 year gap in diplomatic protest and the existence of the 1850 Treaty settling 'existing differences' to contend with. Plus 180 years of continuous British rule and islanders that want the status quo. (Gaps in protest over 50 years in length are deemed to render territorial claims invalid according to International Law - perhaps that's why Argentina refused the UK 1947 offer of International Court of Justice involvement? )
For context the Argentine Confederation and the Buenos Aires Region were in on/off civil wars all through this period up until 1859, and also busy warring for Patagonia with Chile, who did in fact have the strongest geographical proximity claim to the Falklands at that time.
In fact the 'Argentine' governors you rely on for evidence of pre-1833 ownership were Americans (Pirate Jowett) and Europeans (Seal Killer Vernet) granted commercial rights by Buenos Aires Region, not the Argentine Confederation, but by what jurisdiction did Buenos Aires Region confer these commercial rights on islands 2000km away? General Rosas couldn't even defend his own river mouth, hence the 1850 settlement Treaty.
-
transhuman68
Problem solved.... LOL.
-
besty
fascinating insight into American diplomacy.
-
cedars
lol besty, that's their answer to everything!
I do appreciate the level of research you have done into the history of the dispute. I don't mind admitting that I simply can't summon the patience to research this topic in any great detail, simply because the fact that the islanders themselves want to keep things as they are renders it all a complete non-starter in my opinion. It just amazes me that the Argentinians completely overlook this crucial aspect, and throw their dummy out of the pram anyway.
Kudos to you for summoning the enthusiasm to do the research. You're a more patient man than I am.
Cedars
-
transhuman68
14 pages... over 3 months? The b----y Falklands War was fought in less time!
I say again.... nuke it and leave it!
-
cedars
transhuman68 - I'm sure you're joking, but you do realise there's 3,500 people on those islands? Would you want them and their sheep to leave before or after the bombs start to drop??!!
Cedars