ATENCIÓN NUEVO FORO

[Hutch]

Colorado


“Hutch, are tons of files in Argentina, Spain, France, England, the Falklands, the United States.”

Then where is it? Why does no Argentine show it? Why does the Argentine government never show it (as far as I am aware)?

You can’t just say there is lots of evidence. You have to prove it. You could start by actually providing the evidence itself, not just repeating what you have been told by your government.

“But that? , if Hutch does not believe in the evidences…”

No evidence has ever been presented so there is no evidence not to believe in.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.

[Colorado del monte]

Hutch, en todas tus respuestas desacreditas los argumentos historicos al decir "Que lo que sucedio en X tiempo atras no es aplicable al tiempo de hoy", o que es "patetico" ver la actualidad del conflicto de esa manera.

Ahora no sera mas sincero reconocer que se ha comprobado los argumentos historicos y es mas que una obviedad lo que ocurrio en 1831, 1832 y 1833 en el contexto de 1806, 07, 1845 al 50?, no seria mas sincero reconocer que los argumentos historicos no seran tomados en cuenta en la resolucion de disputa de este conflicto por mas que Argentina los tenga?.

Saludos.

PD: Aca esta el correo del movimiento politico del que Horacio Ricciardelli es presidente por si tenes alguna duda:

condornacional@yahoo.com.ar
_________________

Bandera argentina que ondeó en la BAM Malvinas desde el 2 de abril de 1982.

[Hutch]

Colorado

You still fail to provide any proof that the Argentine civilian colonists in the FI were forced out by the UK in 1833. Why? You claim that there is lots of evidence in various nations – so why can you not provide a single scrap of evidence?

“…in all your answers you discredit the historical arguments when saying “That what sucedio in X time back is not applicable to the time of today””

I am not 100% sure what you are saying here the translation is a little unclear. But I will answer according to what I believe you have said:

I do not base all of my answers on ‘ what happened in X is not applicable today’. I simply do not do that all the time. In some cases I do, but not always.

“…or that is “pathetic” to see the present time of the conflict of that way.”

It is pathetic to hide behind the past. You can use past events to understand the present day and how things got to the way there are today, but to hide behind such events is pathetic.

I repeat – what happened involving the UK and Argentina in 1850?
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.

[A. Reid]

Hutch,

You are totally inconsistent in your Arguments. You accept that NOBOBY doubted Spain’s right over the Islands and yet you reject the possibility of even considering Argentine sovereignty. If you accept the first the second comes naturally, they the one and same thing. Argentina is the former Spanish south american colonial dominion that controlled and governed the Islands from Buenos Aires. The same seat of government today.

Independence.

With regards to our Independence, your are also off the mark!!. The Independence movement began on the 25th May 1810, when the Spanish Vice-royal was deposed and a Provisional local Government was chosen. A british frigate witnessed the proceedings from it’s anchorage in the port and it’s Captain even too part in the debates.

Territorial Succession.

You are deliberately misleading on this issue, in an attempt to prove it’s void in your opinion. Territorial succession is not a war principle, but a 100 per cent LAW principle. Ask any hindu dominated by the British before achieving their Independence in 1947 id India had to change her borders on becoming Independent. Or, consult with any of the former African and Caribbean british dominated territories, decolonized during the 60’s and 70’s, if they lost any territory in the process.

Also, you comments on the Viceroyalty being “ split up into several different and independent states…….. Argentina …… took what territory she could at independence” etc., are just hearsay statements to prove your own point and are not based on facts. Its true that the River Plate Viceroyalty later became three different and independent states: Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Paraguay and Uruguay both declared independence and signed international treaties with Argentina to accomplish their independence. Both retained their original frontier limits that had been applied as provinces of the old viceroyalty. This is absolutely in accordance with the LAW regarding territorial succession. Ever since the Malvinas issue was taken before the UN by Great Britain, each country has consistently supported Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereign over the Malvinas. Therefore, there are no conflicting interests on this issue.

Argentina did not, as you quaintly put it, “take what territory she could”. Argentina simply began administering and governing the exact same territorial extension that had been declared in 1776 as the then new Spanish viceroyalty of the River Plate. Nothing more, nothing less. Malvinas were included and recognized as being fully integral part of that viceroyalty, and even you admit that Spain’s sovereignty over the Islands was never at doubt, or being questioned.

Secret document 17111

Your considerations on the findings of this document should be directed to the Foreign Office’s legal advisor that drew it up. Not to us. British legal experts made the assumption , not a group of neighbours sitting on the corner discussing politics.

Jewett US citizen and a privateer.

Yes, that’s true. But the point here is that, in the Islands, he acted under direct orders and the Seal of the Buenos Aires GOVERNMENT. Cavendish was one of the most famous privateers world - wide. Hawkins was the son of a pirate and slave-runner John Hawkins. Drake died with a knighthood and an admiralty that England bestowed on him in appreciation for all he had sacked and plundered in foreign lands. Lord Chatham actually lived from the proceeds of a fleet of pirates on his payroll. Where do you draw the line?

Recognition of Argentina as an Independent State.

The UK formerly recognized Argentina’s independence on the 15th December 1823, in a written document signed by Primer Minister George Canning. HMG didn’t make any reservation whatsoever in this document regarding the Islands such as excluding them from the possibility of being recognized as Argentinean territory, for example.

[Hutch]

A Reid

“You are totally inconsistent in your Arguments.”

No I’m not. Some details change from time to time as new information comes up but the main and general thrust of my argument has remained consistent.

“You accept that NOBOBY doubted Spain’s right over the Islands…”

Yes, Spanish control over the FI was accepted. As far as I know though, the UK never dropped her claim on the FI despite recognising Spain’s claim.

“…yet you reject the possibility of even considering Argentine sovereignty.”

Argentine sovereignty over the FI was an independent act of Argentina, unconnected to Spain. And she failed to establish herself on the FI, there was an outstanding claim on the FI from before Argentina was born (again as far as I know the UK claim was never dropped) and it appears no nation on the planet accepted Argentine sovereignty of the FI pre 1833.

Argentine sovereignty of the FI was a failure and never accepted internationally.

“If you accept the first the second comes naturally, they the one and same thing.”

No they are not. There was no continuation of administration the FI from Spain to Argentina. Argentina claimed the FI for the first time in 1820, four years after independence, she did not ‘inherit’ them. Argentina is not Spain and can not claim Spanish success for herself.

Argentina was an independent nation which sought to have control of the FI and failed to do this.

“Argentina is the former Spanish south american colonial dominion that controlled and governed the Islands from Buenos Aires. The same seat of government today.”

So what? Those are Spanish achievements. Should Eire be ruled from London because it used to be? Your argument relies almost entirely so far on what Spain did. Not what Argentina did but what a foreign nation did. BA rule of the FI was abandoned in 1811.

“With regards to our Independence, your are also off the mark!!.”

No I’m not, I suggest you learn some Argentine history. Argentina became an independent nation on 9th July 1816 and not before. Although there was greater freedom and independence in the area after the May Revolution of 1810, Argentina was not an independent state until 1816. Simple facts.

“The Independence movement began on the 25th May 1810…”

Yes, it may have began then but it was not a reality was it?

“Territorial succession is not a war principle, but a 100 per cent LAW principle.”

Prove it please. I believe here you actually mean the principle of uti possedetis.

“Upon independence, most of the emerging states in the region accepted the principle of uti possedetis, which provides that newly decolonized states should inherit the colonial administrative borders that they held at the time of independence. However, there was disagreement over what constituted evidence of such "possession." According to one view, only Spanish legal documents could define borders (uti possedetis juris); but another view posited that lands actually held at the time of independence were the basis for continued possession (uti possedetis facto). For example, Brazil claimed large stretches of land beyond the borders that were stipulated in treaties between Spain and Portugal, simply because it had the strongest claim to their "control."
http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks27/chap2_27.html

“Ask any hindu dominated by the British before achieving their Independence in 1947 id India had to change her borders on becoming Independent…”

India did change her borders as she lost the region known as Pakistan under Partition. Eire did not get the territory of Northern Ireland after independence. Paraguay lost territory after independence by Argentine invasion and annexation. Poland lost territory when she became independent after WW2. Argentina lost the Beagle Channel, though I don’t know the full details of that.

If you look on this site you can see various S American nations in border disputes and various S American states gaining or losing territory after independence:
http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks27/chap2_27.html

“Or, consult with any of the former African and Caribbean british dominated territories, decolonized during the 60’s and 70’s, if they lost any territory in the process.”

Their territorial limits were generally accepted by the various nations themselves and the international community. As far as I can tell, no nation on the planet recognised Argentine sovereignty over the FI pre 1833. No one recognised continuation of rule from Spain to Argentina in the FI as there was none.

Do you know how many border disputes there have been in S America despite general recognition of old colonial borders? Here’s the previous link again:
http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks27/chap2_27.html

The VR did split up into several different nations and each took what territory she could. This territory was generally agreed to by the other new nations by looking at their previous areas under the Spanish empire.

“Paraguay and Uruguay both declared independence and signed international treaties with Argentina to accomplish their independence.”

Yes – these were recognised acts with signed treaties. It seems no one ever recognised Argentine sovereignty over the FI pre 1833 in a signed or other form.

“Both retained their original frontier limits that had been applied as provinces of the old viceroyalty.”

By the consent of each party involved. There was no consent to Argentine sovereignty over the FI by any nation. certainly not by the UK who was the nation with an outstanding claim on the FI.

“This is absolutely in accordance with the LAW regarding territorial succession.”

Again please provide proof of this international law.

“Ever since the Malvinas issue was taken before the UN by Great Britain, each country has consistently supported Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereign over the Malvinas.”

Please provide proof that ‘each country’ in the entire United Nations has consistently supported Argentine sovereignty over the FI. Not counting the UK or Argentina that will be roughly 190 nations you have to provide evidence for.

If Argentina had the support of the entire UN then why has her case not moved forward?

“Therefore, there are no conflicting interests on this issue.”

I’m not sure what this means.

“Argentina did not, as you quaintly put it, “take what territory she could”.”

Yes she did. Much of it was by the consent of her neighbours and then she – 4 years after independence – made her first claim on the FI. The FI was clearly not part of Argentine territory pre 1820 if she needed to claim it.

“Argentina simply began administering and governing the exact same territorial extension that had been declared in 1776 as the then new Spanish viceroyalty of the River Plate.”

But this did not include the FI which had been abandoned since 1811 and was not claimed until 1820.

The VR of the River Plate established in 1776 included the rough territory of Bolivia,. Paraguay and Uruguay – these became independent states and Argentina did not rule them. If you mean that the new Argentine state began administering the territory which was accepted by the other ex-VR nations as being no ‘Argentine’ you are correct, but that territory did not include the FI.

“Malvinas were included and recognized as being fully integral part of that viceroyalty..”

Which had ceased to exist by the time Argentina made her first claim on the FI, if not before. You are relying on foreign history instead of Argentine. They may have been recognised as being part of the Spanish VR but never as being part of the new state of Argentine.

“…and even you admit that Spain’s sovereignty over the Islands was never at doubt, or being questioned.”

Because this is a fact and it has nothing to do with Argentina. Why do you steal someone else’s achievement?

I repeat again – Spanish sovereignty of the FI was accepted. Argentine sovereignty – which was new – never was.

“Your considerations on the findings of this document should be directed to the Foreign Office’s legal advisor that drew it up.”

As no evidence of the authenticity of this document has been provided I can not do that. An Argentine provided it but you are saying that we can not deal with it because we should talk to the FO instead.

“But the point here is that, in the Islands, he acted under direct orders and the Seal of the Buenos Aires GOVERNMENT.”

And what little he did seems to have been ignored by the entire world. Who would listen to a privateer claiming ownership of some ‘abandoned’ land in the name of a new and chaotic nation?

Nowhere in the recognition of Argentine independence does Argentina claim the FI. No where are they mentioned as being Argentine territory. No where does the UK recognise Argentine sovereignty over the FI.

Using your logic, why can we not assume that by her omission, Argentina recognised UK sovereignty over the FI in 1823?



But let’s assume I am wrong in various matters, which I may be. In that case, why does Argentina still refuse to take her case to any competent court, use the UN effectively, make the FI issue important in Anglo-Argentine relation? Fear? Knowledge that in reality her support is far less than she claims for domestic audiences? Knowledge that the world does not care and places democracy and freedom above Argentine nationalism and imperialism?
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.

[Colorado del monte]

[Hutch]

Colorado

You fail – utterly – to show that the UK abandoned her claim on the FI. Maybe she did – but I have seen no evidence that that happened.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.

[Colorado del monte]

Lean por favor estos dos links



La guerra de las Malvinas enriqueció al país en martirio y heroísmo. En valor sin par. En abnegación y en coraje. Pero también enriqueció al país con documentos decisivos para explicar nuestra tragedia y nuestra frustración permanente.

http://www.nacionalypopular.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3871&Itemid=101

De ello es altamente significativo el informe de Lord Franks preparado para el Parlamento Británico por el Consejo de la Corona y publicado en enero de 1983. El informe de Lord Franks trae una sinopsis de la inteligencia británica sobre la Argentina que arranca del año 1965.

http://www.rionegro.com.ar/arch200001/investiga7.html
_________________

Bandera argentina que ondeó en la BAM Malvinas desde el 2 de abril de 1982.

[Hutch]

Colorado

Well, what an apparent total waste of time those two links were. What was the point of them?

The first link:

So once again you go running away to 1955 again. Hiding behind the past again Colorado, instead of answering the questions you have been asked, proving what you have claimed or staying on topic. It seems another way for you to feel sorry for yourself and your nation. Pathetic.

“The war in the Malvinas enriched the country in martyrdom and heroism. In unparalleled value. In selflessness and courage.”

This is total nationalistic pseudo poetic garbage and I would not think many who had actually fought there would think in these terms. This sounds just like what people who have never seen any combat say about wars they took no part in. ‘Martyrdom’? Utter rubbish.

“But they also enriched the country with documents crucial…”

If by that it means the Franks Report then I sincerely doubt it.

“…to explain our frustration and our ongoing tragedy.”

Why are so many Argentines so full of self pity? Why are they so pathetic in their belief in their nation? Why do they make Argentina out to be such a pathetic loser?

Its well known that the UK had large investments in Argentina.

“It was then when England was launched to the reconquest of Argentina.”

‘Reconquest’?

“Exporters of talented brains (2.500.000 Argentine emigrated in search of work between 1976 and 1980)…”

So it is the UK’s fault that intelligent people left Argentina when it was under dictatorship for at least part of that time?

“…importers of the Laotians and Vietnamese (now also the Koreans in true waves)”

So it is the UK’s fault that there was immigration to Argentina?

Are you surprised that a government would take steps to protect its economic interests? How naïve and ignorant of history and politics are you Colorado?

The second link:

There is immediately a danger here because this piece makes lots of claims and seems to make no effort at all to prove what is said. It is very easy to make wild claims about secret services because it is almost impossible to prove any theory – no matter how paranoid and unlikely – wrong.

“…infiltrated terrorist organizations in the Middle East. In exchange, he was allowed to continue to sell arms and drugs.”

Unpleasant but not that rare.

I am flattered that the UK secret services are so good and so feared.

I am not even sure what this rambling piece is even supposed to mean.

And once more you fail – utterly – to show that the UK abandoned her claim on the FI. Maybe she did – but I have seen no evidence that that happened.
_________________
Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen.

[Colorado del monte]

Hutch, el primer link es material historico que se puede ademas corroborar en la obra del gran historiador britanico experto en temas de Argentina del siglo XX, Ferns.

El segundo link, es una simple investigacion periodistica de un diario provincial, aunque diversas hipotesis tratan de aspectos repugnantes de los tiempos post-modernos en que nos toco vivir en tiempo real. Pero que tiene que ver con todo la historia de amores y odios como una enfermedad que convive en la historia argentina desde su gestacion, las injerencias britanicas por ejemplo que a esta altura son innegables, tambien me parece un desproposito que niegues la tradicion britanica del espionaje y de las operaciones encubiertas, a mi juicio una de las mejores del mundo y masters.