It’s C24 time again

June 14th 2012.

The 30th anniversary of the end of the Falklands war in 1982. Also the first time that the Head of State of any country in the world demeaned herself to go and try, in desperation, to convince the sub-sub-Committee of the United Nations, known as the C24, that she had a claim to another territory.

And the basis for this claim? Another defeat at the hands of British forces, 150 years before the Falklands War. President Cristina Kirchner alleges that in 1833 the British ‘usurped’ her country and threw off the legal authorities that were representing Buenos Aires. She even took along to the C24 a long-lost son of the family that Argentina claims established their right of sovereignty. A Vernet!

That poor scion was dragged up to say that his family had had a house on the Falklands since 1823 and that they became, in 1829, the representatives of the Buenos Aires Government. ” .. great-great-grandmother Maria had been the wife of the first political and military commander of the Malvinas Islands and those adjacent to Cape Horn.  Since 1823, her house had been part of Malvinas.  At that time, ranches had been set up for livestock.  Her brother and brother-in-law settled in Puerto de la Soledad in 1824.  In 1828, a decree had given her family land as a way to encourage the development of new areas for national prosperity.  In 1829, Maria was 29 with three children, the youngest of whom had taken her first steps in Malvinas.”

Now this is one of Argentina’s lies. They’ve been doing it to the C24 ever since Ruda’s speech in the 1960’s. What Marcello Luis Vernet did not mention, is that his family’s expedition to East Falkland in 1824 (not 1823) failed. The truth of that, the Vernet family’s initial attempt to establish a business on the islands under one Pablo Arequati, goes rather more like this: 

February 2nd, Pablo Areguati, with 25 gauchos, arrives on East Falkland. February 12th, Areguati writes, “We are without meat, without ship’s biscuits, and without gunpowder for hunting. We support ourselves by chance captures of rabbits, since there is no fat meat since we cannot go out to slaughter as there are no horses. I have resolved to tell you that we are perishing.” April 8th, the Captain of the British ship Adeona, threatens to denounce Areguati’s party as ‘pirates.June 7th, Areguati abandons the settlement and returns to Buenos Aires in the Fenwick. He leaves 8 gauchos behind, including the foreman Aniceto Oviedo. July 24th, the remaining gauchos are taken off East Falkland by the British sealer, Susannah Anne.

So – no house established in 1823.

In 1825, Britain and Buenos Aires signed a commercial Treaty which, while not recognising any right of Buenos Aires to any territory still claimed by Spain, at least set up the mechanism for trade. In Article 3, Britain gave permission for settlers from the mainland to try to forge business interests on the Falklands. So now the Vernet family had British permission.

And yet Marcello Vernet accused Britain of making the “gross historical error” !

Vernet then quoted from his ancestor’s Diary that at the time of Maria Vernet’s arrival in 1829 (not 1823), there were some 20 other settler families.  Her diary described daily life in a small community composed of Germans, people from Patagonia, Scots, Frenchmen, Genoese, English, Irish, and Africans.

He did not explain how these representatives from so many countries quite provides Argentina with the right to claim the Falklands.

Vernet also talked about the ‘Malvinas Command’, being founded on August 30th 1829. He did not mention the British protest of that same year which clearly told Buenos Aires that the Falklands were British and that they should stay away.

In many ways, the most surprising thing about Argentina’s claims over 1833 is that they were actually surprised that the British turned out to be as good as their word. They still do not think the British can be as good as their word.

In 1832 Argentina did not believe that the British would throw them off. They were wrong.

In 1982 Argentina did not believe that the British would throw them off. They were wrong.

And yet here they are still, in 2012, screeching at a discredited and biased sub-sub-Committee of the United Nations that Britain should let them onto a set of islands that they never owned, nor ever established any claim to.

Is Argentina hard of hearing ?

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history8.pdf

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

http://falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf

Happy New Year 2012

I haven’t had a moan on this site since November I see. Well, I’m beginning to get a little disillusioned. I have doubts.

I have doubts that Argentina is actually a serious contender.

Let’s take a look at events since my last post here. What has happened? Nothing really. Having failed, arguably not even tried, to get a ‘live’ United Nations General Assembly Resolution again in 2011, Argentina continues to shout about long dead Resolutions. 2065 for example, which dates back to 1965, and was probably Argentina’s only real diplomatic success at the UN. The problem though is that, for all the desperate attempts to resurrect it, Resolution 2065 is dead. Stabbed in the back by Argentina itself in 1982. A diplomatic suicide.

Then there are the annual General Assembly Resolutions that were thrown up between 1982 and 1988. All of them requesting that Britain and Argentina talk, and eventually that’s what they did. There was talk and, in 1989, a resumption of diplomatic contact, and, indeed, a number of agreements on fisheries, oil exploration, etc. All of which Argentina subsequently broke of course, but then that’s Argentina for you.

Importantly, the UN stopped making Resolutions asking Britain and Argentina to discuss their differences. I can only take the near deafening silence since 1988 as an indication that the UN was satisfied with the renewal of diplomatic relations and would now rather the whole subject went and annoyed someone else.

So that was the UN. Nothing getting passed the Fourth Committee on the issue of the Falklands, and in particular, nothing from the sub-sub-Commmittee generally known as the C24. It is suggested that the C is for ‘Committee’ but I have a rather different opinion. It’s not a high one, or worthy of repeating here. Britain long ago withdrew from dealing with the C24, although we did reserve a right to comment on matters involving the Falklands. Officially, I don’t think we ever have. Unofficially, the Englishman who sits at the back of the room has been known to have a quiet word after some particularly ludicrous decision. The quiet word seems to work.

Argentina doesn’t much go for quiet words, so November and December has been filled with increasingly loud rhetoric and claims of small victories. “China supports us”, was one; failing to mention that China always has, mostly because China wants Argentine support over Taiwan. “CELAC supports us”, was yet another, even though CELAC’s support was muted, and no-one actually knows what a CELAC is. I think that it is a type of vegetable, which is what it looks like, but I suspect we may never get to find out.

The latest storm in a tea-cup was Mercosur’s ban on Falkland flagged vessels from visiting their ports. Actually, this one dates from 2010, but as nobody seemed to have noticed, it was obviously worth repeating. Or at least it would have been, if the ban was actually very effective.

For political reasons little Uruguay took the most vocal stand for this ban, failing to  mention to its neighbours that the country would need some legislative change to make it work. Or that such change, was by no means certain. Uruguay’s official stance is that no new law is needed, but as there is at least one Falklands flagged vessel still sitting at Montevideo, this looks about as effective as the ban on British warships. One of which is also sitting in Montevideo harbour now, and has been since December 30th.

All of which only goes to show, that politics + bull and bluster = no contest.

I do hope that things liven up this year. In many ways they should, what with the 30th anniversary of Argentina’s last attempt at invasion, the 180th anniversary of their first, and Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations which will include a Royal visit ( by a very minor Royal) to the Falkland Islands. Oh, and there’s Prince William’s deployment too. Well, if he turns up at your crisis, any self-respecting Argentine should refuse to have anything to do with him, and drown for their misplaced cause.

Maybe I won’t be disappointed in 2012, but I suspect that I will.

Argentina just hasn’t got it!

Happy New Year.

Argentina’s Resolution Tango

I haven’t had a whine for ages. After Argentina’s performance before the 4th Committee it didn’t seem very worthwhile. After all, they desperately need a new UN General Assembly Resolution, but just don’t push for it. Which seems a little strange.

What they do, is tell the world that Britain is refusing to comply with a dozen UN Resolutions dealing with the Falklands, and generally telling the UK that it has to negotiate.

This is, of course, a complete lie.

General Assembly Resolutions is must first be recognised, are not mandatory. They are there to advise the subjects of the Members wishes and views. General Assembly Resolutions carry no weight in international law. Now Security Council Resolutions are obligatory, in that a refusal to comply is an offence in international law. Or it should be. Recent experience with SC Resolutions concerning Iraq and North Korea suggest otherwise. As did Argentina’s refusal to comply with SC Resolution 502 in April, 1982.

So perhaps no UN Resolution is really mandatory or effective.

Which raises questions about their longevity. One of Argentina’s current claims is that Britain should follow UN GA Resolution 2065 which recognises a dispute over sovereignty between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands and calls for talks.

Resolution 2065 dates back to 1965 and, as a direct consequence of it, both sides sat down in an attempt to resolve their differences. Needless to say, talks were protracted and didn’t go in the direction that Argentina wished. So Argentina invaded the Islands.

The rest is history, as they say, and so is Resolution 2065. Something of a cheek then, for Argentina’s wily diplomats to accuse Britain of refusing to comply with it, 29 years after they killed it stone dead. The same can be said of Resolution 31/49 (1976), and for the same reason.

Then there were the UN GA Resolutions produced between 1982 and 1988.

37/9 (1982) calls for negotiations over sovereignty, as does 38/12 (1983) and 39/06 (1984). Resolution 40/21 (1985) superseded these by calling for negotiations to solve the problems existing between the two countries, including the Falklands, which seemed now to take a secondary position. No mention of sovereignty in that one. Nor was there any mention of a sovereignty dispute in 41/40 (1986) or 42/19 (1987).

Each of course, taking over from the one before. Inaction having rendered it/them irrelevant, out-of-date, redundant.

The last UN GA Resolution was 43/25 (1988) which called, as had the two before it, on both sides; ” to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;”

And they did. Both sides sat down, talked for the first time in years and reached some agreements.

The United Nations was so happy that there hasn’t been another GA Resolution since.

So Argentina tells the world lies. Britain is not in breach of any UN GA Resolution concerning the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

There is another type of UN Resolution however; one which goes to the core of the UN itself; one that emanates from the Charter; one that cannot die.

One example is 1514 (1960) which talks about all peoples having a right to determine their own future; another example is 1515 (1960) which states that such peoples have the right to exploit their own resources, as does 1803 (1962).

Argentina shot itself in the foot when it invaded. That act not only killed a lot of good men, it killed off a few Resolutions too. The last effective Resolution on the subject was 1988. Britain complied.

Argentina lies !

Arturo Puricelli – A Man in Need of Some Reality

I see the mad Puricelli is at it again.

Somebody in the Argentine Government thought it would be a good laugh to promote  the man to Defence Minister. Not a job that should carry too much weight, as Argentina has been starving its military of funds for decades. A depleted Argentine armed force is not in itself a bad thing, as they’ve had a nasty habit of taking over the place every time they disagreed with the way the country was being run. Which was pretty well always.

Argentina can, of course, thank the British for breaking this particular cycle. The defeat of the military junta in the Falklands War was just too embarrassing for them to take, and as a result – democracy arrived. Good for us, we did them a favour.

And do they appreciate it? No! Of course they don’t. But they do still have a sense of humour.

Argentine Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli, is obviously no threat to the political system. Whatever world he lives in, it ain’t this one. According to the head of Argentina’s armed forces, the Falkland Islands are under siege and the inhabitants held against their will.

” It is so obvious the (UK) can only think in a fortress supported with strong budgets; they have no other reason for such a display of force but that to hold as hostages the 2000 people confined in South Atlantic islands that are Argentine sovereignty,” said this bumbling fool, whose grasp of geography needs some attention too.

No. They are not being held as hostages and no, the Islands are not, and never have been, Argentine territory.

I suppose the upside is, with Puricelli in charge of the army, the chance of another coup is low.

http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/argentina-is-not-a-complete-nation-says-timerman/

Argentine Belligerence

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst, political commentator and occasional writer on the Falkland Islands for the British Telegraph newspaper.

Yesterday, in his commentary on the latest twists and turns at the United Nations, which has seen the Falklands issue appear both in the annual speech by Argentina’s President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and at the weekend meeting of the G77 + China group, Mr. Gardiner issued the following warning.

“There can be no room for complacency in London as Kirchner seeks re-election in October. Britain should be prepared for a further escalation in tensions over the Islands if her nationalist and populist administration is returned to office in an emboldened position, and must take all necessary steps to reinforce the Falkland’s defences.”

As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher, Nile Gardiner has a particular insight into the type of belligerent politics used by Argentina on the subject of the Falkland Islands, and the means best able to counter those.

Strong action appears to be his recommendation.

There is no doubt that the Islands are possibly the one subject able to unite Argentines, and as a result, the rhetoric increases at every election and in other times of trouble.

Argentina is not immune to the world’s financial ills and finds herself unable to access the major financial institutions due to the default of 2002. Unwilling to accept any advice from the IMF, who look with suspicion on Argentina’s official statistics, and unable to reach a settlement with the Paris Club, the South American State’s financial health is open to question. Every time this has happened before the Government in Buenos Aires has raised the Falklands as a smoke screen.

The United Kingdom has stated its position clearly. There will be no negotiation unless the Islanders’ wish it. With Presidential elections due next month, this subject will gain more prominence and the British Government should remain resolute. Kirchner’s re-election is virtually assured and she will be confident of gaining ground.

She should be denied it!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100106691/britains-message-to-argentina-over-the-falklands-back-off/

Faulty Towers

Talk about mixed messages.

Last week it was the Foreign Office showing a lack of fibre over the deployment of Prince William to the Falklands in the face of protests from Argentina. This week they are reassuring the money men in the City of London about the committment to defend the Islands.

Has something changed? Probably not. As one of the great Offices of State the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has long been recognised as the sort of ivory tower that carries on pretty much regardless of the realities that surround it.

It was, after all the Foreign Office that were so keen to enter negotiations with Argentina in the 1960’s, with the aim of disposing of an obstruction to their greater ambitions both at the United Nations and in the south cone. That over 2,000 Britain lived on that obstruction did not enter into their isolated minds. That those people had lives and rights did not either. It was only when the Islanders’ open letter hit Parliament in the February of 1968 did the Foreign Office wake up to the fact that the Islanders’ plight resonated with the British people. Their paymasters.

But they don’t learn. As a result the Labour Government ploughed on with negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar, advised by the Foreign Office, and completely oblivious to the will of the electorate. And then, when realisation dawns, there’s a massive U-turn and the Government is embarrassed.

That’s what happened in 1968, and that’s what happened to Mr. Blair.

And still they don’t learn. Prince William’s deployment to the Search and Rescue team on the Falkland Islands is not just a matter of military expediency. It’s a matter of British pride. That he should be there on an anniversary of a war that we pursued with honour is a matter for even greater pride.

But the image from this week’s news is that, as so many times in the past, the Foreign Office only responds to the money. The big investors in the City scream for assurances and the Foreign Office suddenly support a strong response to Argentina’s continued belligerence.

It really is about time these civil servants learnt the meaning of the word, ‘servant’.

 

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1967-1981/

FCO Wimps!

It always seems to come down to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office !

The biggest bunch of double-dyed wimps to ever exist as a Government Department !

Yes, I’m annoyed. I’m annoyed by todays report in the Telegraph that Prince William’s proposed deployment to the Falkland Islands is in question because of representations made by Argentina.

That would be the Argentina that has been toadying in diplomatic circles all week seeking support for their spurious claims from Russia and China. The Argentina that whinges and whines when the sailors on HMS Clyde get some live firing training on the open seas. The Argentina that will be going to the United Nation’s Fourth Committee next month with their annual rant about how Britain should hand over these Islands, that Argentina has never owned.

And where is the British dithering coming from. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of course. Reputed to have favoured Argentina’s view since the 1930’s because they have more fun playing politics in South America than they do arguing over the Falkland Islands.

I had hoped that William Hague had put some backbone into these anonymous, lilly-livered civil service mandarins, but apparently not.

Prince William not only should be deployed to the Islands, he should be sent as the Crowns representative for the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War. A clear demonstration from the British Government that the Falkland Islands are British.

A clear two-finger message to Argentina !