Argentina's 1833 myth - a "Population Expelled" - De-bunked yet again...!

[scotttswan]

Guys, this is getting us nowhere, and not because of the complexity of the matter. I did correct ill facts given before, offering proper references, like when I wrote that it was Britain and not Argentina who refused arbitration for Falklands/Malvinas, Argentina was not silent in the end of the 18th century, Vernet's colony lasted longer than was said (before, and again yesterday), countersignment is not the same as permission, etc. I don't see any argument to support that I was contradictory or that I have changed stances.

Argentina was silent for a long long time after they had agreed to settle everything with Britain.
In 1869 President Domingo Sarmiento expressed satisfaction at the state of Argentina’s foreign relations:

The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness

Hardly something a president would say if he still believed that the Falklands were theirs and the 1850 agreement was not related to "all existing differences"... but still it doesn't suit your argument so please continue to ignore it.

Vernet himself said:

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 filibustering4 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 Islands 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.

Its clear who Vernet preferred to have. Vernet obviously went to the British with a view to get them on side with his colony. Britain didn't protest until Argentina started to make official claims.

1829-1833 is when Vernet officially had a colony on the islands. Not a long time at all.... 1834 - present day is how long the Falklanders have not been on the island. A long long time.

I wonder if the arguments regarding a population transplanted in the midst of protests are invisible on other browsers, alongside much of what was argued up to this point...

You still don't get it do you? Transplanted population?

They emigrated there naturally from 1833 to the present day just like the population of Argentina and practically all other South American countries.

Is the Argentine population in Patagonia a "Transplanted population"?

They mostly fished and farmed sheep. There wasn't any need for a huge population to arrive on cold windy islands in the middle of nowhere. There isn't acres and acres of fertile farming land with perfect growing weather conditions to entice the millions who went to Argentina.

They are the indigenous population of the islands.

 

[AndyD]

Argentina was silent for a long long time after they had agreed to settle everything with Britain.
In 1869 President Domingo Sarmiento expressed satisfaction at the state of Argentina’s foreign relations:

Hardly something a president would say if he still believed that the Falklands were theirs and the 1850 agreement was not related to "all existing differences"... but still it doesn't suit your argument so please continue to ignore it.

I haven't ignored that. As part of my argument against your interpretation of the 1850 treaty, in this message I explained how we arrive at no results concerning the islands if we search for Sarmiento's quote in authoritative work on Google. Actually, I had tried with the original Spanish, but this English translation yields the same nil results. BTW, that message also shows how the unauthoritative source, from where (I think that) the interpretation that you're advancing comes from, makes a blatant misinterpretation of a related issue (this is, Palmerston's message to Moreno).

If you felt that Sarmiento's words should be looked into more deeply, why not put it forward respectfully?

As you know, sentences should not be analyzed isolated from the text they belong to. Otherwise, there's the risk of taking them out of context (BTW, quoting out of context is a resource used in panflets prepared with a tendentious intent).

Sarmiento's discourse is here. As you may see, a key theme is how the end of the Triple Alliance War, which was the bloodiest war ever between South American nations, opened an era of peace and opportunity. This war was ending at the time--more precisely, it ended the following year. The conflict had followed others, like the Anglo-French blockade, secession of Paraguay and Uruguay and war with Brazil, but 1870 marked the end of this convulsive era.

Sarmiento said the quoted words in the middle of several pages related to this, just before giving details about the borders with neighbouring countries. He was probably referring to the end of an era marked by these tragic quarrels around vital disputes, not to a taxative nonexistence of any disagreement at all. Besides the war with Paraguay still going on (it would be followed by territorial dispute requiring US arbitration), there were pending border disagreements with Brazil (where US arbitration was also resorted to), Bolivia and Chile, as well as with Uruguay regarding sovereignty over the common rivers, and I'm sure I'm missing more. Most of these were solved in the following years.

Maybe that's why we can't find authoritative work that gives credit to the interpretation you're making of the 1850 treaty. There were several studies by the British government in the first half of the 20th century which, in some cases, argued in favor of British sovereignty, but always using other arguments.

On the other hand, if Sarmiento did happen to mean that phrase in a manner that should have included the islands, there may be other reasons for him skipping them, instead of deriving that he must have thought that the 1850 treaty had ended the dispute. Maybe he thought the claim was inconvenient, wasn't informed, got distracted, whatever... His words to Congress are not binding as a treaty would be. An analysis of the text in the 1850 treaty, in the line of what I wrote in the message referenced before, should matter more than a loose interpretation of what one president, who didn't intervene in the agreement, might have thought of it.

If the argument still sounds far fetched, let's consider that if we snoop throughout 180 years of the dispute, it's very probable to find a a few times (twice, to be more precise) where an Argentine authority implied, while speaking of unrelated issues to an unrelated audience, that everything's fine with Britain, particularly during those 35 years between 1849 and 1884 when the claim was dormant (yet, hardly constituting prescription, for reasons I already gave).

BTW, my recent comment didn't refer to your bringing up this interpretation of the 1850 Treaty. I meant the inaccuracy when you claimed that, after protesting in 1849, Argentina only protested in 1888 and not again until well into the 20th century. According to authoritative sources (I referred you to a book published by Oxford U.), there were protests in '1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the United Nations.' It was just an example of several inaccuracies I've corrected. Instead of reassessing your choice of sources, you kept on advancing points from that pamphlet. Was I the one obscuring things here, like Phil said? That was my point.

Vernet himself said:

'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 filibustering4 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 Islands 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.'

Its clear who Vernet preferred to have. Vernet obviously went to the British with a view to get them on side with his colony. Britain didn't protest until Argentina started to make official claims.

That's brought across by, again, Pepper and Pascoe. Don't you have other sources besides theirs and their 'mirrors'? Don't you care about all that was argued, here and in my blog post, about it being a manipulative pamphlet? Oh, it's the Argentines who are being manipulated and lack critical thinking when they read what's delivered to them, of course...

P&P claim that Vernet was saying that years later, when he was requesting compensation from Britain. Even if he really said that and it's not out of context, it doesn't imply that he was not acting under Argentine sovereignty until 1833, or that he requested permission from Britain to create his settlement, as you were claiming. On the contrary, it sounds like he was justifying, to the British authorities, why he had acted favoring Argentine rights. It's plausible that he preferred British sovereignty, but it doesn't weaken the Argentine case. I make this point in a footnote on my blog post.

1829-1833 is when Vernet officially had a colony on the islands. Not a long time at all.... 1834 - present day is how long the Falklanders have not been on the island. A long long time.

I gave you good references saying that he began the colony in 1826. It's known that he was installed with his family by 1829, including his small children, but the place was barren and rough, yeah, alright... By 'officially' you mean when he was appointed as governor? Well, his settlement was already running by then, and we were talking about the settlement, not about his title. Regarding the rest, it's not a matter of who was there the longer, I already offered (long) explanations for this, this is silly.

You still don't get it do you? Transplanted population?

They emigrated there naturally from 1833 to the present day just like the population of Argentina and practically all other South American countries.

Is the Argentine population in Patagonia a "Transplanted population"?

They mostly fished and farmed sheep. There wasn't any need for a huge population to arrive on cold windy islands in the middle of nowhere. There isn't acres and acres of fertile farming land with perfect growing weather conditions to entice the millions who went to Argentina.

They are the indigenous population of the islands.

I've already answered to all of this, I believe I've done it constructively and respectfully, but you choose to disregard my messages (e.g., this one and this one) and use a patronizing tone to simply repeat those points that, I'm afraid to say, are uninformed.

 

[scotttswan]

I haven't ignored that. As part of my argument against your interpretation of the 1850 treaty, in this message I explained how we arrive at no results concerning the islands if we search for Sarmiento's quote in authoritative work on Google. Actually, I had tried with the original Spanish, but this English translation yields the same nil results. BTW, that message also shows how the unauthoritative source, from where (I think that) the interpretation that you're advancing comes from, makes a blatant misinterpretation of a related issue (this is, Palmerston's message to Moreno).

If you felt that Sarmiento's words should be looked into more deeply, why not put it forward respectfully?

As you know, sentences should not be analyzed isolated from the text they belong to. Otherwise, there's the risk of taking them out of context (BTW, quoting out of context is a resource used in panflets prepared with a tendentious intent).

Like the Argentine pamphlet from 2007?

Sarmiento's discourse is here. As you may see, a key theme is how the end of the Triple Alliance War, which was the bloodiest war ever between South American nations, opened an era of peace and opportunity. This war was ending at the time--more precisely, it ended the following year. The conflict had followed others, like the Anglo-French blockade, secession of Paraguay and Uruguay and war with Brazil, but 1870 marked the end of this convulsive era.

Sarmiento said the quoted words in the middle of several pages related to this, just before giving details about the borders with neighbouring countries. He was probably referring to the end of an era marked by these tragic quarrels around vital disputes, not to a taxative nonexistence of any disagreement at all. Besides the war with Paraguay still going on (it would be followed by territorial dispute requiring US arbitration), there were pending border disagreements with Brazil (where US arbitration was also resorted to), Bolivia and Chile, as well as with Uruguay regarding sovereignty over the common rivers, and I'm sure I'm missing more. Most of these were solved in the following years.

Maybe that's why we can't find authoritative work that gives credit to the interpretation you're making of the 1850 treaty. There were several studies by the British government in the first half of the 20th century which, in some cases, argued in favor of British sovereignty, but always using other arguments.

On the other hand, if Sarmiento did happen to mean that phrase in a manner that should have included the islands, there may be other reasons for him skipping them, instead of deriving that he must have thought that the 1850 treaty had ended the dispute. Maybe he thought the claim was inconvenient, wasn't informed, got distracted, whatever... His words to Congress are not binding as a treaty would be. An analysis of the text in the 1850 treaty, in the line of what I wrote in the message referenced before, should matter more than a loose interpretation of what one president, who didn't intervene in the agreement, might have thought of it.

If the argument still sounds far fetched, let's consider that if we snoop throughout 180 years of the dispute, it's very probable to find a a few times (twice, to be more precise) where an Argentine authority implied, while speaking of unrelated issues to an unrelated audience, that everything's fine with Britain, particularly during those 35 years between 1849 and 1884 when the claim was dormant (yet, hardly constituting prescription, for reasons I already gave).

BTW, my recent comment didn't refer to your bringing up this interpretation of the 1850 Treaty. I meant the inaccuracy when you claimed that, after protesting in 1849, Argentina only protested in 1888 and not again until well into the 20th century. According to authoritative sources (I referred you to a book published by Oxford U.), there were protests in '1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the United Nations.' It was just an example of several inaccuracies I've corrected. Instead of reassessing your choice of sources, you kept on advancing points from that pamphlet. Was I the one obscuring things here, like Phil said? That was my point.

That's brought across by, again, Pepper and Pascoe. Don't you have other sources besides theirs and their 'mirrors'? Don't you care about all that was argued, here and in my blog post, about it being a manipulative pamphlet? Oh, it's the Argentines who are being manipulated and lack critical thinking when they read what's delivered to them, of course...

It may be biased towards the UK claim but it contains facts that go against the false claims Argentina makes in her 2007 pamphlet.

You have your interpretation of the facts. Others have theirs and you haven't put up a decent enough argument against their claims.

Did President Bartolomé Mitre not claim in 1865 "there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those Governments."

Translation here from British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP) 1865-1866 (printed London 1870), p. 1174; original in H. Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, p. 227: “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.”

What about Vice-President Marcos Paz when he opened Congress on 1 May 1866:
"The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled."

Translation from BFSP 1866-1867 (printed London 1871), p. 1009; original in Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 238:"Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico ] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste."

or on the 1st of May 1869 President Domingo Sarmiento
"The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness."

Translation here from BFSP 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), 1227-1228; o riginal in Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p.286: "El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia."

Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are not the only ones who claim this.

The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra says that the Argentine dictator General Manuel Rosas wanted to purchase the end of Britain’s involvement in River Plate affairs by giving up the claim to the Falklands, and Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that "Britain retained the Falkland Islands."

Carlos Pereyra, Rosas y Thiers. La Diplomacia Europea en el Río de la Plata 1838-1856, Madrid 1919, pp. 202, 206. & Carlos Pereyra, Rosas y Thiers. La Diplomacia Europea en el Río de la Plata 1838 – 1856, new edition Buenos Aires 1944, pp. 217, 222

Member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands to Britain, and complained that the restoration of "perfect friendship" between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim.

Verbatim record in Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Año del Libertador General San Martín, 1950,Tomo II, Período Ordinario, 6 de julio-10 y 11 de agosto, Buenos Aires 1951 pp. 1095-1096.

Other Argentine historians also believe that the Convention of Settlement seriously affects Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. The historian Ernesto Fitte criticised it in 1974,4 and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín, in a book printed in Buenos Aires in 1974 and reprinted in 1976, quotes both Pereyra and Rojas, and says that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the Convention of Settlement was "a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight"

Its clear that there were no problems in the years after the agreement and Argentina had given up its weak claim based on a few years of an illegal colony on another countries territory.

The fact is Argentina and Britain signed a peace treaty that put an end to the existing differences and settled any existing differences between Britain and Argentina.

If you are making a diplomatic peace treaty you are certainly going to include any current sovereignty disputes with that country that may upset that peace in the future.

P&P claim that Vernet was saying that years later, when he was requesting compensation from Britain. Even if he really said that and it's not out of context, it doesn't imply that he was not acting under Argentine sovereignty until 1833, or that he requested permission from Britain to create his settlement, as you were claiming. On the contrary, it sounds like he was justifying, to the British authorities, why he had acted favoring Argentine rights. It's plausible that he preferred British sovereignty, but it doesn't weaken the Argentine case. I make this point in a footnote on my blog post.

I gave you good references saying that he began the colony in 1826. It's known that he was installed with his family by 1829, including his small children, but the place was barren and rough, yeah, alright... By 'officially' you mean when he was appointed as governor? Well, his settlement was already running by then, and we were talking about the settlement, not about his title. Regarding the rest, it's not a matter of who was there the longer, I already offered (long) explanations for this, this is silly.

I've already answered to all of this, I believe I've done it constructively and respectfully, but you choose to disregard my messages (e.g., this one and this one) and use a patronizing tone to simply repeat those points that, I'm afraid to say, are uninformed.

The settlement was fine with the British until he was officially appointed.
A private entrepreneur killing cattle on the land is quite different from appointing a governor of the islands.

That is when they protested. A private group of Gauchos, French, Spanish, British, German immigrants isn't a problem for Britain. It was when Argentina officially started to claim the islands they protested.

Up until that point he was just some guy with a bit of paper that had been signed by the British consulate.

You can check out Vernet's letter here AGN, Buenos Aires, Sala VII, F.131, doc. 46; letter from Vernet to Lord Harrowby dated 5 May 1856.

All this is completely irrelevant as the UN charter gives the population the right to decide their future.

The Falklanders first published their own laws in 1884 and have continually updated them to the present day. Their relationship has changed drastically with the UK over the years and i expect it will continue to change until at some point the population decides it wishes to go it alone.

 

[AndyD]

Like the Argentine pamphlet from 2007?

It may be biased towards the UK claim but it contains facts that go against the false claims Argentina makes in her 2007 pamphlet.

You have your interpretation of the facts. Others have theirs and you haven't put up a decent enough argument against their claims.

Did I ever bring forward the 2007 pamphlet? I've even been careful not to use Argentine references, though there are good ones. I haven't defended the 2007 brochure, yet you've been reproducing the claims in P&P's pamphlet over and over again, waving that 'little red book' of anti-Argentine banter despite my efforts to answer with arguments and proper references. You can find them all over this thread, and in those footnotes on my blog post where I refer to footnote 1.

Did President Bartolomé Mitre not claim in 1865 "there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those Governments."

Translation here from British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP) 1865-1866 (printed London 1870), p. 1174; original in H. Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, p. 227: “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.”

What about Vice-President Marcos Paz when he opened Congress on 1 May 1866:
"The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled."

Translation from BFSP 1866-1867 (printed London 1871), p. 1009; original in Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 238:"Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico ] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste."

or on the 1st of May 1869 President Domingo Sarmiento
"The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness."

Translation here from BFSP 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), 1227-1228; o riginal in Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p.286: "El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia."

So you're just repeating the argument about Sarmiento that I've answered in my last message, bringing forward Marcos Paz's quote to which I referred when I said that snooping leads to two results, and add a third result, Mitre's, because you're assuming that it was impossible to maintain friendly relations if there was a dispute for the islands. Your references being facsimiles of P&P's, of course.

Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are not the only ones who claim this.

The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra says that the Argentine dictator General Manuel Rosas wanted to purchase the end of Britain’s involvement in River Plate affairs by giving up the claim to the Falklands, and Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that "Britain retained the Falkland Islands."

Carlos Pereyra, Rosas y Thiers. La Diplomacia Europea en el Río de la Plata 1838-1856, Madrid 1919, pp. 202, 206. & Carlos Pereyra, Rosas y Thiers. La Diplomacia Europea en el Río de la Plata 1838 – 1856, new edition Buenos Aires 1944, pp. 217, 222

Sorry, I should have said that the interpretation is made by P&P and one historian. On the other hand, among the myriads of good books and papers about the dispute available for search on Google, the 1850 treaty is not mentioned.

Member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands to Britain, and complained that the restoration of "perfect friendship" between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim.

Verbatim record in Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Año del Libertador General San Martín, 1950,Tomo II, Período Ordinario, 6 de julio-10 y 11 de agosto, Buenos Aires 1951 pp. 1095-1096.

Other Argentine historians also believe that the Convention of Settlement seriously affects Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. The historian Ernesto Fitte criticised it in 1974,4 and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín, in a book printed in Buenos Aires in 1974 and reprinted in 1976, quotes both Pereyra and Rojas, and says that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the Convention of Settlement was "a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight"

It says those people criticized that the lack of mention weakened the Argentine case, which is not the same as giving it up, and I maintain that references to the 1850 treaty are, at most, in a feeble percentage of the publications related to the dispute. Signing a treaty where you fail to mention a latent dispute is always a bad legal precedent, though in this case the correspondence between Moreno and Palmerston, of a few months before, should be taken into consideration. The head of the British Foreign Office had told the Argentine representative that lacks of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence. This correspondence is blatantly misrepresented by P&P, as I show in a previous message here that I referenced yesterday, where I give part of the original text as published by Boston College in the US.

Moreover, bear in mind that Rosas was a controverted political figure, target of a lot of criticism, justified and unjustified. Some of the references P&P give, copied by you here, are taken from the political arena.

The fact is Argentina and Britain signed a peace treaty that put an end to the existing differences and settled any existing differences between Britain and Argentina.

If you are making a diplomatic peace treaty you are certainly going to include any current sovereignty disputes with that country that may upset that peace in the future.

It was not a peace treaty and it explicitly put relations back to the state they were before the conflict that lead to the treaty, a state which included the dispute. It doesn't say 'all of the existing differences' or 'any existing differences' anywhere. If you want to know what the settled 'existing differences' were, read the rest of the treaty and not just the preamble. I'm just repeating myself.

The settlement was fine with the British until he was officially appointed. A private entrepreneur killing cattle on the land is quite different from appointing a governor of the islands.

If you're talking about Argentine sovereignty acts, they started in 1820, including governors appointed before Vernet and recognized by authoritative literature, we've already discussed this. If you're talking about Argentine permanent settlement, it started in 1826.

That is when they protested. A private group of Gauchos, French, Spanish, British, German immigrants isn't a problem for Britain. It was when Argentina officially started to claim the islands they protested.

Yes, until 1829, Britain was OK with them raising the Argentine flag since 1820, claiming the islands through a ceremony, granting its land, appointing governors, attempting settlements and succeeding. That was the cherry on the top of British acquiescence since abandoning the islands 55 years before. We're just repeating ourselves, you may copy P&P's claims that those acts didn't happen or weren't relevant, again. Claims that I've already answered giving proper references.

Up until that point he was just some guy with a bit of paper that had been signed by the British consulate.

That again... I feel silly for having engaged in this conversation.

You can check out Vernet's letter here AGN, Buenos Aires, Sala VII, F.131, doc. 46; letter from Vernet to Lord Harrowby dated 5 May 1856.

I don't have access to that document, that's why I was supposing that P&P did not take it out of context, though they failed to win my trust for reasons already given. But I'm playing along because you, as well as other Britons who have seized the articles in Wikipedia, are taking this self-published pamphlet to be the untouchable supreme fountain of knowledge.

All this is completely irrelevant as the UN charter gives the population the right to decide their future.

Already answered profusely, but it makes great counter-arguments to simply repeat the original claims unmodified, doesn't it?

This is why it's frustrating for Argentines to discuss the islands. At the top are the well-known negatives. At the bottom, meaning to discuss it between learned but ordinary people, if it's with the islanders it's very hard to have the chance. E.g., Ros Atkins, of the BBC, recently went there for a 30-year anniversary special, he made these comments when he asked a local historian for an interview:

Ever more interesting. Local historian John Smith walks out ahead of @newshour. Says he doesn't like our 'attitude' and 'questions'. All we'd asked were the most expected of qs. He also didn't want to talk directly to an Arg historian. Tho we'd never said that was nec.

If it's with other Britons, it frequently ends like this thread. I know that, among Britons, it is more frequent to find them concerned about maintaining the authority of their voice, to find them unwilling to defend weakly-grounded claims or disregard arguments given to them. But that attitude is typically dropped in these conversations. Those who tend to have that kind of debate become bored by the complexity, perhaps uncomfortable too. We're left discussing this as if it were chatter about a football match at a pub on a Sunday night. Sorry guys, I know it's my subjective opinion and that it may sound arrogant, it would only be fair that you accuse me of that.

Of course, it is mainly my country's responsibility to improve the quality of the discussion and we're not doing it under CFK. I hope that, little by little, we will get to that point.

By the way, there were news yesterday regarding the transitory disposition in our Constitution: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1474536-malvinas-ofrecen-cambiar-la-constitucion

 

[AndyD]

By the way, there were news yesterday regarding the transitory disposition in our Constitution: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1474536-malvinas-ofrecen-cambiar-la-constitucion

Actually, now that I read the article properly, Castro didn't offer to change the Constitution beforehand, but said something in accordance with what I have argued in this thread. My translation of her words according to La Nación:

To claim that the 1994 Constitution doesn't make negotiations possible is simply an excuse to avoid entering talks. When there are negotiations and international treaties are signed, the countries involved modify their legislation to include them. Argentina is willing to do that.

 

[ElQueso]

...By the way, there were news yesterday regarding the transitory disposition in our Constitution: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1474536-malvinas-ofrecen-cambiar-la-constitucion

The headlines reads "[Argentina] Offers to Change the Constitution."

Then the subheadline really tells what the story is about, which is nothing: "the country would do it to include eventual results of a negotiation over the islands."

Well, I don't really see any news in that. BTW, I don't say that this negates in any way any of the arguments you've made, when I comment about this particular piece of news, or lack thereof. I just find this more posturing and goading than anything else and felt like commenting on it. But it does have implications, in my opinion, to further negociations related to who is fit to rule, which should have some importance in this world of "play fair everyone."

There could be many reasons the country may change the constitution related to the negociations, although I don't know the Argentine constitution and don't know if some of these apply. For example, I could imagine that it might be changed from an imperative to "regain" (sorry, I couldn't help the quotes) the islands as a territory, to an inclusion of the territory as a province and granting it whatever rights are appropriate, or granting them whatever level of self-rule that is agreed to in the negociations, etc. That would certainly be a change, but not the kind of change the article's title kind of hints at.

What would be more fair would be for Argentina to do certain things, like acknowledge that Britain has ruled there for almost two centuries, that the negociations are complex, and that to get two parties to sit down and talk meaningfully it would make sense for the Argentine government to modify it's consitution to take that out, or perhaps change the wording to something like "Argentina is committed to ensuring that the Malvinas issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved."

Andy, I know that you have mentioned you wish that both governments, and to me particularly the Argentine government, would raise the quality of the debate aboutt he islands. Argentina could score some points in the matter by doing exactly what I mention.

A former British ambassador to Argentina mentioned in a speech that Britain sees the consitutional wording a serious obstacle to discussions because basically there's no reason to talk if the Argentine attitude is the only thing we're going to talk about is Britain's capitulation.

What's Castro's reply? Ah gee, that silly thing isn't any reason not to talk, it's just an excuse. [After all], "When there are negotiations and international treaties are signed, the countries involved alter their domestic legislation to incorporate them. Argentina is willing to do so."

Heh. She does not really strike me a very bright person anyway. I've seen a couple of interviews with her and she just doesn't seem to have much depth, at least. Which doesn't seem to surprise me.

She also doesn't seem to understand the difference between a Consitution and Legislation. The former being the framework for creating and interpreting the second, which is a huge difference in countries where there is at least an attempt made to seriously follow the consitution.

I guess this shouldn't surprise me either, that a high-level Argentine government official, obviously in a position of importance if Argentina has any real desire to "regain" the islands, would not have the sort of depth and understanding necessary for the job, but rather just enough to continue to lay out propaganda in the interests (whatever they really are) of the Argentine government.

Obviously, she has the same understanding of consitutional law that the government itself does, where it is so relatively easy to change the consitution to anything you want it to say, although big changes may take a few years of small steps, a few crises, etc, to get there. I can't wait to see what happens in the next year or two and how it's justified, as far as other changes more critical to the Argentine people.

I've mentioned before that the whole legal wrangling over the islands is silly. I have my opinion, you have yours. Personally, I think the way that Argentina approaches this discussion and every other thing it does, whether internally or externally, makes all of this discussion of something that happened almost two hundred years ago completely moot.

Argentina has been and will be again, if things keep going the way they are, a dictatorship. Before Peron, the number of judges who left the Supreme Court bench for reasons of retirement or death were in the mid 80 percentile. After Peron, it was the exact opposite (if not a bit more) that the number of judges who were forced out was 91%. The average term served went from 9 years to 2 years.

The economy went from being the biggest in South America and a world contender, down to 2nd or 3rd in South America and a laughing stock in the rest of the world.

Argentina has not shown that it is responsible. It has not shown that it has the power to even develop whatever resources that may be found in and around the islands and has shown very recently (i.e, YPF) that it even often screws up letting others with more experience and resources develop such natural resources. There is already enough oil in Argentina for her to have plenty of money for her screwy economic and political ideals but the government can't even take advantage of that.

Law should be blind in that it is applied fairly to all. It should not be blind in that whatever little loophole that can be found should be applied when it is obvious that applying such a loophole would be unfair. This world has been so full of terrible events, horribly unfair all of them. There have been compromises made even in sight of such events.

The Falklands isn't a colonial situation in that a native (I don't necessarily mean indigenous) population is under foreign rule and can't be freed due to the tyranny of its master. Even if Argentina had a strong claim (which I don't believe, I think it's at best a bit weak and not as strong as Britain's overall), the fact is, Argentina hasn't controlled those islands in a terribly long time and there are no ex-Argentine, or even Spanish, descendants who are screaming to be out from under the yoke of the "colonialist British."

It would be in Argentina's best interests to take that strong wording out of the Consitution, agree to sit down with Britain and have some serious discussions about what Argentina could get out of an agreement that allows the islanders to determine their own fate. I'm sure, as was once discussed, the possibility of sharing in whatever wealth may come out of those islands, particularly where oil is related, would be on the table.

Instead, it seems Argentina sees that it's in its best interests to antagonize Britain in stupid ways, ensuring that they will not sit down and talk, so that the government can use the emotional issue of the islands, built up over decades of propaganda giving to Argentina school kids declaring the islands are Argentina's - believe it or fail, to help distract attention from the horrible job they are doing of governing the nation.

 

[scotttswan]

So you're just repeating the argument about Sarmiento that I've answered in my last message, bringing forward Marcos Paz's quote to which I referred when I said that snooping leads to two results, and add a third result, Mitre's, because you're assuming that it was impossible to maintain friendly relations if there was a dispute for the islands. Your references being facsimiles of P&P's, of course.

Sorry, I should have said that the interpretation is made by P&P and one historian. On the other hand, among the myriads of good books and papers about the dispute available for search on Google, the 1850 treaty is not mentioned.

It says those people criticized that the lack of mention weakened the Argentine case, which is not the same as giving it up, and I maintain that references to the 1850 treaty are, at most, in a feeble percentage of the publications related to the dispute. Signing a treaty where you fail to mention a latent dispute is always a bad legal precedent, though in this case the correspondence between Moreno and Palmerston, of a few months before, should be taken into consideration. The head of the British Foreign Office had told the Argentine representative that lacks of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence. This correspondence is blatantly misrepresented by P&P, as I show in a previous message here that I referenced yesterday, where I give part of the original text as published by Boston College in the US.

Moreover, bear in mind that Rosas was a controverted political figure, target of a lot of criticism, justified and unjustified. Some of the references P&P give, copied by you here, are taken from the political arena.

I really don't have the time to go searching for more historians but its pretty clear there were no problems after 1850. If the islands were still an issue there would be problems.

It was not a peace treaty and it explicitly put relations back to the state they were before the conflict that lead to the treaty, a state which included the dispute. It doesn't say 'all of the existing differences' or 'any existing differences' anywhere. If you want to know what the settled 'existing differences' were, read the rest of the treaty and not just the preamble. I'm just repeating myself.

Every year Rosas was President before the agreement. He protested about the Falklands.

Every year Rosas was President after the agreement. He didn't protest about the Falklands.

Neither did Juan Ramón Balcarce, Juan José Viamonte, Manuel Vicente Maza, Justo José de Urquiza, Justo José de Urquiza, Santiago Derqui, Juan Esteban Pedernera, Bartolomé Mitre, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento and Nicolás Avellaneda

Rosas like me and many many others would take that agreement as putting an end to the existing differences and restoring perfect relations of friendship.

If you're talking about Argentine sovereignty acts, they started in 1820, including governors appointed before Vernet and recognized by authoritative literature, we've already discussed this. If you're talking about Argentine permanent settlement, it started in 1826.

Yes, until 1829, Britain was OK with them raising the Argentine flag since 1820, claiming the islands through a ceremony, granting its land, appointing governors, attempting settlements and succeeding. That was the cherry on the top of British acquiescence since abandoning the islands 55 years before. We're just repeating ourselves, you may copy P&P's claims that those acts didn't happen or weren't relevant, again. Claims that I've already answered giving proper references.

The islands were in use by British ships for repairs. There may not have been a permanent settlement but the islands were used.

You can't grant land that you don't own.

That again... I feel silly for having engaged in this conversation.

I don't have access to that document, that's why I was supposing that P&P did not take it out of context, though they failed to win my trust for reasons already given. But I'm playing along because you, as well as other Britons who have seized the articles in Wikipedia, are taking this self-published pamphlet to be the untouchable supreme fountain of knowledge.

Already answered profusely, but it makes great counter-arguments to simply repeat the original claims unmodified, doesn't it?

And we've replied with the actual UN documents that clearly apply to the islanders.

Its very clear reading the UN documents that they do apply to the population of the Falklands.

United Nations Resolution 2065 says the UK and Argentina should seek a peaceful solution to the Falklands dispute within the framework of UN Resolution 1514

General Assembly Resolution 1514

1514 (XV). Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples

The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,

Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,

Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic cooperation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end
Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.​

 

[AndyD]

The headlines reads "[Argentina] Offers to Change the Constitution."

Then the subheadline really tells what the story is about, which is nothing: "the country would do it to include eventual results of a negotiation over the islands."

I agree, the headline misleads. Clarifying that was the purpose of my last message ('Actually, now that I read the article properly' etc.) Sorry, I hurried when I posted that as 'news'.

There could be many reasons the country may change the constitution related to the negociations, although I don't know the Argentine constitution and don't know if some of these apply. For example, I could imagine that it might be changed from an imperative to "regain" (sorry, I couldn't help the quotes) the islands as a territory, to an inclusion of the territory as a province and granting it whatever rights are appropriate, or granting them whatever level of self-rule that is agreed to in the negociations, etc. That would certainly be a change, but not the kind of change the article's title kind of hints at.

The problematic part is where it says that the government should seek full sovereignty (ejercicio pleno de la soberanía). The rest of the Constitution gives ample flexibility: it welcomes dual nationalities, enforces a federal system where much of the law is local, admits pseudo-provinces with special statuses (e.g., the city of Buenos Aires) and the controverted transitory disposition itself calls for preserving the islander's way of life.

What would be more fair would be for Argentina to do certain things, like acknowledge that Britain has ruled there for almost two centuries, that the negociations are complex, and that to get two parties to sit down and talk meaningfully it would make sense for the Argentine government to modify it's consitution to take that out, or perhaps change the wording to something like "Argentina is committed to ensuring that the Malvinas issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved."

That would be odd. Normally, countries taking part in a dispute have contradictory claims contained in their law. Boundaries are no small part; even if their constitutions don't describe them in detail, I'm confident that no legislature is allowed to change boundaries like if they were passing common law. I mean, I agree that the expressiveness of the clause may be problematic, but I don't think it's so atypical.

Concessions regarding these contradictory claims are normally offered secretly during the process, and materialized after agreeing (it may be a partial agreement while the process goes on). They're not done beforehand. I'm not just saying this because it makes sense to me, I read it in some texts about dispute settlement, though I haven't delved deep into them--we can look more thoroughly if needed.

A former British ambassador to Argentina mentioned in a speech that Britain sees the consitutional wording a serious obstacle to discussions because basically there's no reason to talk if the Argentine attitude is the only thing we're going to talk about is Britain's capitulation.

What's Castro's reply? Ah gee, that silly thing isn't any reason not to talk, it's just an excuse. [After all], "When there are negotiations and international treaties are signed, the countries involved alter their domestic legislation to incorporate them. Argentina is willing to do so."

Heh. She does not really strike me a very bright person anyway. I've seen a couple of interviews with her and she just doesn't seem to have much depth, at least. Which doesn't seem to surprise me.

I doubt Castro is prepared enough to be a good ambassador in Britain for us, I agree with you on that, but I think she's right when she says that this kind of argument (from the former British ambassador) is an excuse. For reasons stated above and below.

She also doesn't seem to understand the difference between a Consitution and Legislation. The former being the framework for creating and interpreting the second, which is a huge difference in countries where there is at least an attempt made to seriously follow the consitution.

I guess this shouldn't surprise me either, that a high-level Argentine government official, obviously in a position of importance if Argentina has any real desire to "regain" the islands, would not have the sort of depth and understanding necessary for the job, but rather just enough to continue to lay out propaganda in the interests (whatever they really are) of the Argentine government.

Obviously, she has the same understanding of consitutional law that the government itself does, where it is so relatively easy to change the consitution to anything you want it to say, although big changes may take a few years of small steps, a few crises, etc, to get there. I can't wait to see what happens in the next year or two and how it's justified, as far as other changes more critical to the Argentine people.

Well, as a side note, with international law things have become a bit less determinate with the advent of internationalism. Some countries even give priority to international treaties over their constitutions (e.g., Netherlands, Guatemala and Honduras). Since the 1994 reform, our Constitution places international treaties in an order of priority between itself and Legislation, except treaties on human rights which have constitutional priority.

Anyway, there would still be a problem as a treaty calling, e.g., for partial or no sovereignty would contradict the imperative to obtain 'full' sovereignty, the latter having priority. I can think of two ways to possibly solve that, the most straightforward is to simply change the Constitution in what respects to the transitory disposition alone.

Having that kind of limits is acceptable, the 94 reform itself was limited, it couldn't touch the dogmatic part, contained in the first part. A special majority in Congress is needed to pass the law that calls for a constitutional assembly with attributions only on the transitory disposition. After many TV shows and ads, there would be an election of representatives from each province, who would gather and vote. This is not far fetched, it wouldn't debilitate our legal system. Solving Malvinas/Falklands is a big deal, it would justify taking these kinds of steps. It could happen in a midpoint of negotiations, after agreeing with Britain on certain points including this.

It would require, of course, a level of popular support, higher than required for ordinary law. Maybe that was the intent of those who included this disposition, to avoid, for example, that the cause is 'sold' overnight. Perhaps I'm wrong when I criticize that they included this.

The other way involves arguing about the transitory nature of the disposition, and using a referendum to solve the debate that would arise. One way or the other, popular support would be crucial. I find this to be normal. Notwithstanding the immaturity of our institutional framework, and the lack of will shown by this government to maintain it and improve it, I believe it is hard to create any legal framework that contemplates everything, for example the 'boundary dilemma' commented above. In constitutional monarchies, the monarchs have extensive legal powers to solve such special situations, which they seldom (never) use because the situations seldom (never) appear. In republics, this is left to the people via their formal vote or informal support (or lack of protest). As we know, if the monarchs decide arbitrarily, they will get an informal and sovereign kick in the butt from their people, so both procedures are not that different.

In summary, when Castro says that, normally, legislation would change in response to international treaties, I don't think she's offering BS, despite the Constitution being involved.

Argentina has not shown that it is responsible. It has not shown that it has the power to even develop whatever resources that may be found in and around the islands and has shown very recently (i.e, YPF) that it even often screws up letting others with more experience and resources develop such natural resources.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. I won't defend what was done recently with YPF, but let's consider that, during the 90s, it was an expanding world-class company of mixed ownership under state control. The agreement to jointly explore for oil at that time, where YPF participated, lead to no results because it was in a different area and with different economics. The area being explored now is inside an exclusion zone declared by Britain unilaterally during the 1982 conflict, and later extended, unilaterally too, plus a few years later they upgraded it into an economic exploitation zone, guess what, unilaterally. Argentina protested to all of this but she wouldn't go and work there because it would probably lead to a military escalation a-la 1982.

There is already enough oil in Argentina for her to have plenty of money for her screwy economic and political ideals but the government can't even take advantage of that.

Law should be blind in that it is applied fairly to all. It should not be blind in that whatever little loophole that can be found should be applied when it is obvious that applying such a loophole would be unfair. This world has been so full of terrible events, horribly unfair all of them. There have been compromises made even in sight of such events.

I know. Except the 'screwy' part, Argentina is larger than the current government . We also know that arguments like 'we're more apt, we're stronger, you've enough already' are not legally relevant. Britain also has a lot, particularly of sea around the world and claims on Antarctica. We're talking of vast territory, international law is important here, is it going to be superseded by the desire of 3000 people (or 1500 in 1982)? Nothing nearly horrible would happen to them. On the contrary, insert into international law that communities are entitled to decide the sovereignty of whatever land they occupy, and horrible things will start to happen to immigrant communities and minorities around the world.

The Falklands isn't a colonial situation in that a native (I don't necessarily mean indigenous) population is under foreign rule and can't be freed due to the tyranny of its master. Even if Argentina had a strong claim (which I don't believe, I think it's at best a bit weak and not as strong as Britain's overall), the fact is, Argentina hasn't controlled those islands in a terribly long time and there are no ex-Argentine, or even Spanish, descendants who are screaming to be out from under the yoke of the "colonialist British."

When some Argentines claim that it is a colonial case, they don't mean it as 'subjugation' of the islanders, but of the Argentines, who are deprived or that part of their territory. I still don't think it is very useful as a characterization of the dispute, though there is a point. I mean, if Britain had kept a loosely-populated portion of India for herself, it would make sense to call it 'the remnant of a colonial situation' regardless of her developing a British settlement while India protested. This coincides with decolonization doctrine when it calls for the respect of territorial integrity.

Instead, it seems Argentina sees that it's in its best interests to antagonize Britain in stupid ways, ensuring that they will not sit down and talk, so that the government can use the emotional issue of the islands, built up over decades of propaganda giving to Argentina school kids declaring the islands are Argentina's - believe it or fail, to help distract attention from the horrible job they are doing of governing the nation.

Argentina oscillated between a 'more-antagonist' stance and a 'more-friendly' one, and just the same we didn't find any openness. For example, during the 1990s we had the so-called 'des-malvinización', while international journals showcased Argentina as an example for developing countries due to our economic reform, freedom of the press, etc. People in charge of foreign policy were learned and competent. Regarding the islands, the deals that closed were to open exploration on a region that was partly disputed and partly non-disputed and, regarding fishing, to regulate without affecting sovereignty, so I don't see any understanding of our position or nothing like it. In the meantime, P&P's propaganda advanced on the (new) WWW (and in the islands evidently), Britain enforced militarily its new claims on the surrounding sea which may now lead to exploitation of nonrecoverable resources there, population in the islands increased strongly, combined with more years passing, the latter two being were used in this thread as arguments against the Argentine case... I'm afraid the British position has been much harder than the reasonableness suggested by your message.

 

[AndyD]

Every year Rosas was President before the agreement. He protested about the Falklands.

Every year Rosas was President after the agreement. He didn't protest about the Falklands.

Neither did Juan Ramón Balcarce, Juan José Viamonte, Manuel Vicente Maza, Justo José de Urquiza, Justo José de Urquiza, Santiago Derqui, Juan Esteban Pedernera, Bartolomé Mitre, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento and Nicolás Avellaneda

The 1850 agreement coincided with Palmerston's correspondence saying that lack of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence, which in diplomacy may be considered a request not to protest, or at least Hope makes that interpretation. In the years thereon, it wasn't necessary to protest as not much time has passed (experts say that at least 50 years for prescription according to Gustafson, I have seen other sources that coincide) and there were other priorities than antagonizing with our main partners.

Rosas like me and many many others would take that agreement as putting an end to the existing differences and restoring perfect relations of friendship.

Will you talk to Rosas again soon? There's a few people around who would like to ask him a couple of things.

Many many others, and me, take that agreement for what its full text says, not just the preamble. For whatever reasons, those in my band seem to write many many more books and academic papers.

I believed I have already answered extensively enough, in past posts, the points in the rest of your message.

 

[scotttswan]

The 1850 agreement coincided with Palmerston's correspondence saying that lack of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence, which in diplomacy may be considered a request not to protest, or at least Hope makes that interpretation. In the years thereon, it wasn't necessary to protest as not much time has passed (experts say that at least 50 years for prescription according to Gustafson, I have seen other sources that coincide) and there were other priorities than antagonizing with our main partners.

Do you have a copy of Moreno's letter to Palmerston and his reply?

Rosas is also the President who said he would drop the claim in return for the money owed to the UK?

I've read Palmerston's letter to Moreno in 1834 where he clearly states Argentina has no claim.