One in foreing languaje..
Ok, This is for Paul, I invite you to discuses in my blog, do not worry, is very new and has not any follow... :), friendly and without any pre-judged. Do not take my comment as offensive, is not, and sorry my English. If this facts at continue are true (I am not sure) my comment above them.
->27 Jan 1600 Discovered by Dutch Capt. Sebald de Weert. •This fact inhibit the UK discover claims. ->14 Aug 1592 First confirmed sighting of the islands by English Capt. John Davis (Davis' Land). •It is a really pity that Spanish was some idiot, I am sure that they come first, is the most probably, but the did not do any document, of if they did, they did not know how care of them .Any way, that was in 1592. John David continue making some travels, and arrived to other lands, He was a very lucky men, because in that time was not many navigation facilities and he arrived and saw discover many lands, almost as if he already knew where they were!
->Feb 1594 English navigator Richard Hawkins names the islands Hawkins Maydenlande (Hawkins Maiden Land) •What?? Why? If the island already have a name.. Capt. Sebald de Weert called the "Sebaldes" in spanihs "islas Sebaldinas".
->27 Jan 1690 First confirmed landing by English Capt. John Strong. •That is you are saning, a confirmed landing. Mmm.. I think that the Dutch probably make a landing in the island, really, I do not see the difference between a discover and a landing. ->23 Dec 1708 Named Falkland's Land by Capt. Woode Rogers. •Again? Changed name? How many name this island will be? And the Spanish name are not mentioned here..
->1763 French name the islands the Îles Malouines. •Another name!! French? Were in this chronologies we talk about French? We not say any french discover but we are talking about a french name? I suggest that someone forget some here. Fuck French!! Jaja! ;) ->5 Apr 1764 French settlement on East Falkland (Fort St. Louis) • First settlement! Some how want make effective use of the island.
->25 Jan 1765 West Falkland Island claimed for Britain. • Only West?
->8 Jan 1766 British settlement on West Falkland (Port Egmont, Falkland Islands). • Port Egmont, a litle island near to "Gran Malvina" (West Falkland)
->1 Apr 1767 French transfer their settlement to Spain (Puerto de Soledad), named Islas Malvinas. •Of course, French and British was not friends.
->20 Mar 1774 British withdraw, but continue to claim sovereignty over all the Falkland Islands. •Only a little settlement, only nine years, only a little island, and probably John Davis even know about East Falkland. Has Colon and Spanish the right over all America only with the fact to arrived some island in Caribe first?
->Feb 1811 Spanish withdraw. • 44 year, and left a plaque too. Why? If they recognized the UK sovereignty... why the plaque too?
->6 Nov 1820 Argentina claims sovereignty. • Arrived and claim it as a part of the old viceroy.
Will be continue... when I have a little more time.
Hi my friend, thanks for the invite. I wont share this with the troublemakers dont worry. I'd rather have a place where we can talk like adults without being called names or having people bring up the Belgrano or the Sheffield and the likes.
ResponderEliminarAnyway, 1600 comes AFTER 1592, so the Dutch claim to sighting first is obviously wrong. That said, I'm not 100% certain that Davis did find the islands, I think it was Hawkings (it was 1593, not 1594 by the way, but thats a minor point).
The first sighting that is known and recorded (very important in terms of international law in ownership of the time) was certainly Strong in 1690, even if the Dutch did in 1600 there is no record and it a moot point as it could be said that maybe Hawking did too.
Yeah, lots of names, but stuff like that happens even now, hell look at how many names Russia has had in the last 150 years. lol
the Spanish never recognised British soverignty at the time, nor did we theirs. We each recognised each others claims without giving up our own. It was how diplomacy worked ta the time, we each agreed to disagree and just get on with it basicly.
I agree it would have been easier all around if each side had agreed to have half each, but thats due to idiots back then.
Now onto the important bit that you touched on, the Argentine claim. With Spain not recognising your independance you couldn't claim it as inheritance, only as conquest. Plus with Spain recognising the British claim (claim remember, not soverignty) Argentina should have also if it was believed to be inherited. But you claimed the whole lot regardless of any prior claim, effectivly an act of war.
Your claim to 1820 is an interesting one, I assume you refer to Jewett? A man who not only was a convicted pirate (irony really, considering people call us pirates lol) but also never actually submitted any claims. The first official claim from Argentina to the islands was 10th June 1829 and Britian responded with a diplomatic protest. You may notice that by 1829 you had already built colonies there, but the guy who did (Vernett) asked for British permission to do so.
I have a question for you, how do you view the 1850 Convention of Settlement? And the fact that it ended Argentine complaints over the islands for 34 years, then it was dropped again the year after for another 50 years!!
In that time period Argentinan leaders not only commented that every issue was settled but that our countries were perfect friends again and had nothing between us anymore. Now if we had control of what you thought was your land then that wouldnt be the case. No?
Plus your maps of the time clearly show the Falklands as being seperate from Argentina, shaded in a different colour like all non Argentine territory.
Thought Daniel?
"Anyway, 1600 comes AFTER 1592, so the Dutch claim to sighting first is obviously wrong" It`s true, I did not see them, I only see the order. My bad. But I have sources talking about the Dutch discovered like the first that is certain and has not any objection. (In terms of proof). And I think because of this, that event appear first in that list (I did not altered the order). Davis and Hawkings have versions that can not proof.
ResponderEliminar"I think it was Hawkings" In my opinion, is more probably that was Davis, because Hawkings described the island with habitants. (Of course, according I have read). In margin... 'read' is the easiest verb to conjugate ;)
"The first sighting that is known and recorded" That is a important argument. But the fact to make a map is not enough. You can argument was the first map, and I will not agree, maybe was the first detailed map. Anyway, this is points to UK.
About names.. jaja! is only to show the controversial of the discovering. Russia always changes name but always talk about himself.
"I agree it would have been easier all around if each side had agreed to have half each, but thats due to idiots back then." Absolutely agree with you.
"But you claimed the whole lot regardless of any prior claim, effectivly an act of war." When UK come, they go to Puerto de la Soledad, not to Port Egmont, they not return to they first settlement and not claims their part, and their claims the entire lot too.
You say that we only maintain our claims only as conquest. So, if Argentina conquest a Spanish land in 1820, UK must recognize that in 1833 use the force and not the right. Because Spanish or Argentinian, the island was not British.
Yes, was Daniel Jewett, you call people like he Corsair. I understand that Vernet (Is not my favorite...) asked UK protection, he was only thinking in personal business (warning, is my personal opinion). He think that UK ca make a more effectives use of the island and he can make more money. Probably true, but is not the fact of sovereignty.
About your question.. I was really surprised with that convention. My opinion in this: Argentina in 1849 had only 39 years of life... so, was a country in construction and organization. UK took advantage of that. The Malvinas/Falkland was not mentioned in specific, is tacit can you say. In my opinion, the colonialims was become into a different 'modus operandi' and the military was become very expensive, so appear new methods of economic and political control. (Maybe because I am from a ex-colonial country I think that every is colonialims in many ways, but if you would lives in a country when many nation are trying to obtains benefit of him takes advantage the low cultural level of people... you would think like me)
Thank you for your opinion and your time, I respect all of them and recognize that I do not have the absolutely true, only I am a little hard-head
Thank you for your opinion and your time, I respect all of them and recognize that I do not have the absolutely true, only I am a little hard-head :)
I hope that the post would not be very large.
Saludos!
'When UK come, they go to Puerto de la Soledad, not to Port Egmont, they not return to they first settlement and not claims their part, and their claims the entire lot too.'
ResponderEliminarYes, because of the treaty between Spain and Britian (Nootka Sound) which allowed for either side to reassert full claims should a third party build anything on the islands south of the Spanish buildings. When Argentina did that it opened up the entire claim for Britian and Spain, and Britian took advantage of that fact.
So our claim was to bring back what was ours by treaty, the fact that we had to do so by threat of force is neither here nor there as by law the islands were still not yours as your conquest was over British lands, ergo we were taking back our land that you had claimed.
Vernett...
'He submitted his land grant to the British Consulate in Buenos Aires, where Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths countersigned it on 30 January 1828'
So he knew he needed British permission. Also to quote him
'… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and
those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Is lands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be'
So he points out that as far as he was concerned his colony was under the British flag. NOT the Argentinian one. So it is a case of soverignty as it shows the 'Argentine' colony was an independent one that was actually under the British flag.
With the Convention Britian didnt take advantage of Argentina, you had us and France at a disadvantage after our failed attack on you (which I disagree with as a course of action anyway, I cant find any valid reason for it). The fcat that your Minister of Foreign Affairs (for 15 years at this point) and your leader both thought that dropping any case for the islands wasnt worth it and gave them up.
Even if you think it was the wrong decision and that we took advantage, it is still a historical fact that you cant deny.
Unless you think making and agreement when YOU have the advantage and then changing your mind 30 years later is legal?
As for colonialism, dont forgett that England is an ex colony, from Italy (the Romans), France (the Normans), Scandinavia (the Vikings) and Germany (the Saxons). We struggled tooth and claw to rise above those places and ensure we wouldnt be invaded again, to ensure we wouldnt be anyone elses colony again.
Is it an excuse for the way my country has behaved in the past? Hell no! But its a reason, historical perspective and context are important. We acted in line with the values and laws of the times in order to survive.
Its why I cant actually be annoyed that Argentina claimed the islands illegally, you possibly didnt know that Britian still had a legal claim, just like France didnt when they made the settlement on the islands. Slow communications of the time period and all that.
take care budd, hope to read your reply soon.
Oops, that was bby me, I didnt realise my friend had signed in on my PC. lol
ResponderEliminarNo problem about Andy :)
ResponderEliminarOk, first about the old histories. Even if UK discovered the island first (Fact not proved), the international law in that time required make and effective use in a reasonable time after the discovering. I mean, the discovering gives the right to use but if that use was not made in time, the right disappears. Uk made use 170 years after the discovered. I do not think in 170 years like a reasonable time to use.
Nootka. Was sealed between UK ans Spain, and they can do any concession to other part. If the island come under other country, the other part can do a possession whiteout the offenses to the first part. But what about the third part using the island? That treat can generate any obligation to a non sealed part. That is in one part.
Secondly about Nootka, Argentina is the natural continue administrative government of Spain. In 1810 the government was formed with Spanish descendent's in the continent (America for me). Was a revolution against Spain. We was Spanish from America (continent, not country, that is EEUU or USA) claiming the same right to Spanish from Europa. And that was become in a revolution. May could was be in another form if Spain wasn't so idiot . The point is that Argentina continue the administrative Spanish labor, under all land of Spanish like a natural exercise of right, and legal because was not a secession, was a reaffirmation of human right. So the Argentine country was a legal act to eyes of human right, and all pre-spanish land was become Argentine without any other pre-treat between Spanish and UK. If the island was took for Portugal, in example, they has not anything to do there. But Argentina not, Argentina is a natural continue of Spain. (In English is difficult to explain that point to me :( )
Uk recognized Argentina in 1825, in a friendship treat. Argentina was in the island and UK did not any claims about the islands, we can assume that like a UK tacit recognize of Argentina over the island?
Argentina has a very hard histories, difficult to understand. Typically, I think, from a borning nation. There are a organization process that take many time. I believe that before 1900, Argentina was a green Fruit, taking form, and other nation take advantage of that. Them, when we have a little more mature, whit a constitution, whit a government a little more stable, we look before ans see bad thing, like a big brother taking advantage to a minor brother.
I can understand how Europe think that they have control about this land, very far from their continent. And they come here and established colonies, in a under level life and right. Only because they see before? before WHO? before other European man or woman? Mmm... And I can not understand yet how they think that can continue claims a land in 1833 and continue. The people in Mavinas/Falkland today would be Argentine (in fact, legally today, any person borns in the islands has right to Argentine citizenship) and not British descendent's.
By the way, we not considered the British sovereignty of the island like some legal, I thin that was illegal. I order to you argument, they discovered but not used in a reasonable time, so... Spanish had legitimate right over the island and then UK.
I think that thin conversation is in disorder, what do you think? May be we must order and talk about specific points.. because the line is loss..
I understand that the island now is under British rule and anything that we discuses or not can not change this fact, So.. we are free to talk... :)
No puedo evitar escribir en mi propio idioma, me resulta mucho mas cómodo. Igual siempre puedes usar google-traductor (aunque es muy pobre para traducir). Saludos desde Argentina!
'the international law in that time required make and effective use in a reasonable time after the discovering.'
ResponderEliminar'Historically, acts of discovery were considered sufficient to effect occupation, but in contemporary international law, continuous and peaceful acts of occupation are necessary.'
So I dont know where you got your information from, but its wrong.
I should add I certainly DONT think the UK found the islands first, far from it. Only that we have the first recorded landing and claim. Nobody before us had bothered, and in law its the proof that is needed. Without being able to prove who found it before us nobody could claim to have.
I dont understand your first point about the Nootka Sound convention. Sorry mate. :(
'Argentina is the natural continue administrative government of Spain'
But Argentina wasnt the only country to come out of it, why is your claim to the lands worth more than the claims of any other sucsessor states of Spanish rule? Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate broke up into several independent countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia). Is it not arrogent to assume you alone have any rights as inheritors?
Thats a minor point however, but this next one is full of inaccuracies.
'Uk recognized Argentina in 1825, in a friendship treat. Argentina was in the island and UK did not any claims about the islands, we can assume that like a UK tacit recognize of Argentina over the island? '
Yes we recognised you, however in 1825 you had NOBODY on the islands. The 1824 expedition failed horribly (even according to their commander, I can link you to his handwritten report if it helps) and they left the islands in 1824 and nobody returned until 1826.
The treaty of friendship made no mention from either side to the islands, which isnt a surprise as Argentina hadnt actually made any claim official, in fact it wasnt until 1829 that it was brought to the attention of Britain that you wanted the lands, and that was only because of a newspaper article in BA.
As soon as we were made aware we made the diplomatic protests (important as they keep claims alive, one of the reasons why the 90 years of no protest from Argentina killed your claims dead as a dodo).
If britian had been made aware that you were trying to claim the islands then it would be a good case for you, but as it stands it isnt.
If your country was 'green' as you put it, then its the fault of the leaders of the time for not pressing the issue at the time, after all they had the upper hand.
There were 5 ways to gain acquisition of sovereignty over lands back in 1833.
Accretion - land being built up slowly by geographical process such as beaches expanding.
Cession - basicly being granted lands in a treaty.
Obviously neither of those count in this situation. Though Argentina could be said to have ceeded the islands to the Uk with the Settlement of Convention.
the 3 that do are:
Occupation - this counts only on lands that are otherwise without soverignty claims. this is where the British claim started.
Conquest- fully legal until the Kellogg–Briand Pact in 1928. To do this you had to follow the rules of war which say this counts only after military occupation followed by a peace settlement. Argentina didnt manage this, though Britian did by 1850 (not that it matters as you handt completed a conquest).
Finally, and most importantly in this situation,
Prescription - Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.
You never achieved this, Britian had a prescription on the lands for over 90 years (1850 to 1941).
I think the main problem with your claim is the situation from the Convention of Settlement in 1850 and the 90 years of prescription Britian had over the islands.
ResponderEliminarEven if we assume that Argentina was in the right back in 1833 (and Im not saying they are :P) those 2 things utterly ruin your claim.
Many lands have lost land they once owned to another power, can you imagin them all trying to reclaim? The maps would be messed up and all kinds of people screwed.
But, and this is an important point now, in all honesty there is zero chance of Argentina getting the Falklands with how things stand right now. No way will the UN go against the principle of self determination unless its an outstanding circumstance, and trying to claim national integrity (or whatever the wording is) can't stand due to 170 years of the islands being British (be both de facto and de jure, though one more then the other) meaning the islanders are very much a different nationality to Argentina, making it damaging to THEIR national integrity.
The only, and I stress only, way Argentina will ever own the islands is to talk the islanders round. Then nobody can complain as it would be their free choice. But that will take decades, if not centuries.
Even if you did get the islands by current diplomatic means, how would Argentina run them with near enough the entire population beign hostile to them (those that arent now would be then!)? You'd create a modern day colonisation situation where the entire inhabitants would want to rebel against your rule. Either you give in, and they come back to the UK after costing you millions, if not billions, or you subjegate them for decades, or longer!
Either way, if Argentina won the islands they would then lose face, money and probably the islands again. Would it not be better to just walk away? Try to be friends and work that way?
I' el ll tiene un intento en usar el traductor si usted quiere escribir en español. Aunque I can' promesa de t como de bien trabajaría para nosotros. Gracias por un discusión amistoso cualquier manera. Tome a cuidado mi amigo. Paul, orgulloso ser Británicos, más orgullosos ser humano.
Ok, we can leave the historical argument a moment and talk about the current of Malvinas/Falkland.
ResponderEliminarWarning, do not feel offended of any comment in this post, nothing here is personal.
If I would be not Argentine, and looks the Malvinas/Falkland situation, I can say that: The Argentine problem is not the fact that the island is not Argentine, the problems is UK. The island imposes a very near UK position from Argentina, and UK is a very dangerous country to other nations and peoples, because they are ambitious, and does not matter a third world country between they their interesting.
UK has very bad reputation here, they are imperialist. If the island was a independent country, without any formal British sovereignty, I sure that would be not any problems.
But not. And them you put Military basis, and is funny the interesting of UK spend million and million in Malvinas/Falkland, If the very few people live there receives the part of money that UK spend in Malvinas/Falkland, probably they will be happy to go to London at live, and UK leave the problem of a very far island with 2500 inhabitants. But there are other interesting thing below the moral thing, I think, that make UK spend many million and attention in Malvinas/Falkland. You can say not, is the moral thing, and I will say that with only 22 years old I have saw enough world like to know that is not true. There are money in game, there are natural resource in game, there are strategical's position in game, there are many thing more that make Malvinas/Falkland very interesting to UK, not the people. Because if people was first UK's interest, they would not did that they did in Diego Garcia.
All entire world know about that, and it is fine, does matter, because the owns of the world live above the Equator.
So, (as you see) we have a diametrical point of view. I live in South and you in North. This was a analysis outside of me, thinking and view from impartial position, and realist. But not complete. I do not mention some thing about Argentina.
Argentina is a innestable country, with people that think are the best in the entire world, but is not true. Argentina always try to obtain the benefit but forget the work to obtain it. Argentina is a controversial country, many misery in one place, and many rich in other places. (Latinoamerica's problem). But Argentina always believe self like European, like Paris, (and the great descendant actually is Italian, for example I have Italian ascendant), The political class suffers the same thinking mode that many people, take personal advantage when they can (like Vernet) in the daily life, and that is very destructive to a country. I am in a really war against this attitude in my country, I believe in a change is possible from the daily be, from the people. Sorry, as you see I have no problem to talk about my country defect. Not mean that I do not love Argentina, but a realistic change require a realistic interpretation of the situation.
Saludos!