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

[AndyD]

AndyD has not signed up to this forum to interact with expats like yourself and many others have. He's here for one thing and that is to post a one sided argument for Argentina's claim on the Falklands on any forum post relating the the Falklands. He completely ignores the rights of the people on the islands and tries to portray them as an implanted population which they clearly are not.

scotttswan, chill out, Timerman didn't send me and I'm not here to just talk about the islands, not withstanding that I don't see that as such a bad thing as long as it doesn't become disruptive. If you find it suspicious that I wrote so much, please understand that this is a sensible subject for us, particularly when we're accused of being unreasonable and brain washed ad-nauseam.

But we can talk about something else now if it's needed to somehow validate my posts above. What's your take on Chelsea vs. Bayern Munchen?

 

[niceguyeddie]

But we can talk about something else now if it's needed to somehow validate my posts above. What's your take on Chelsea vs. Bayern Munchen?

"Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win." - Gary Lineker

 

[AndyD]

Its also interesting, bearing in mind article 73 of the UN charter.

'Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories...'

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

Indeed, it's interesting that is says 'interests', not 'desires'. If it said 'desires', the people might say 'we want you to give us free Porsches' and the central government would have to comply instead of answering that they're not entitled to them.

BTW, that article refers to 'internal self determination', meaning the dimension of the self determination principle that concerns to the relationship between a people and the administration of their homeland, in contrast with 'external self determination', which is the one that matters for international relations, including the sovereignty dispute. Some writers read consequences in regards to external s.d. too, but these, if valid, could arguably contradict other sources of law that are more explicit.

If Britain understands that the term 'desires' is appropriate for external self determination, they could as well apply it for the internal version, so that the islanders annoy CFK by launching 'Porsches for everyone'.

 

[jp]

Indeed, it's interesting that is says 'interests', not 'desires'.

The wording of the article makes it abundantly clear that the interests of the Islanders are paramount. It also charges the UK with a sacred obligation to promote "to the utmost" the well being of the Islanders.

Playing with semantics can create a little wriggle room in a argument, but I don't think there's nearly as much room for interpretation of the word "interests" as has been suggested.

 

[scotttswan]

The wording of the article makes it abundantly clear that the interests of the Islanders are paramount. It also charges the UK with a sacred obligation to promote "to the utmost" the well being of the Islanders.

Playing with semantics can create a little wriggle room in a argument, but I don't think there's nearly as much room for interpretation of the word "interests" as has been suggested.

Resolution 2065

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

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.​

947th plenary meeting,
14 December 1960.

 

[AndyD]

Guys, committing to their interests, however paramount, is not the same as committing to their desires. I think I was clear in the explanation above, and the troubles taken by both nations regarding these words testify that this is not a negligible matter, so the instances of the word "interests" in those texts shouldn't be so lightly taken as synonyms of "desires".

scottswan, the texts you've cited don't contradict what I say above. See that the entitled ones are "peoples of those territories" and that Chapter 11 conditions the obligation to promote their interests "within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter", the Charter referring elsewhere to concepts such as the respect for territorial integrity.

In other words, the group has to constitute "a people" and there has to be an argument to attribute "those territories" to them. These are not trivial conditions, the details are explained by Brilmayer, a Yale Law School professor specializing in these matters, and were given by the International Court of Justice in the case of Western Sahara and Aland islands (I need to review these latter references, that's why I was referring to my future post).

The argument is intended for national groups under colonial ruling. A small group of British citizens doesn't constitute such "a people" only because they live elsewhere. And if they were a people, they would still need an argument for that territory. E.g., if an indigenous group moves into random territory, they don't become entitled to it only because they are a people.

Though it's not the quid of the matter, bear in mind that, giving those attributions to the islanders based on the time they (some) were there, would mean punishing Argentina for resorting to diplomacy for many years. Isn't it a double standard to condemn her (justifiably) if she invades while she's punished if she acts otherwise? Wouldn't it be a bad precedent for the rest of the world, including places where there's more at stake?

Anyway, we may have to agree that we disagree.

 

[jp]

Guys, committing to their interests, however paramount, is not the same as committing to their desires. I think I was clear in the explanation above, and the troubles taken by both nations regarding these words testify that this is not a negligible matter, so the instances of the word "interests" in those texts shouldn't be so lightly taken as synonyms of "desires".

That much is clear. But its also clear from the language used that the "interests" of the Islanders are not to be taken likely, or defined by a third party according to their own, conflicting agenda.

Isn't it a double standard to condemn her (justifiably) if she invades while she's punished if she acts otherwise? Wouldn't it be a bad precedent for the rest of the world, including places where there's more at stake?

I think determining the fate of the Islanders based on a 180 year old grievance surrounding the arrival of their ancestors would set an even worse precedent.

Anyway, we may have to agree that we disagree.

Yup. I appreciated reading your thoughts on the issue though.

 

[ElQueso]

What about people who are under a semi-colonial arrangement and don't want to change? Puerto Rico is a an example. Although at first the US didn't want them to have self-determination, it has been steadily moving in that direction and later this year Puerto Rico is going to begin steps toward just that. They are going to vote on their status.

They will have the choice of self-determination. They can choose to become a state or a common wealth, to be independently associated, or become their own country.

We're talking about an ex-spanish colony ceded to the US by Spain after the Spanish-American War. Most of the citizens are Hispanic. Most speak Spanish as their first language. The US and Puerto Rico are going about an amicable evaluation of their relationship.

The Falklands is a similar situation, although obviously politically a bit different, mostly made so, in my opinion, by Argentine policy which I feel to be contradictory.

Argentina had a few people on the island some nearly two hundred years ago. It was never officially supported by Argentina aside from granting land to something Spanish, French, British and American ships had been using for some years and in fact had previously been claimed by all but the US.

Whatever small claim that land grant gives Argentina, doesn't outweigh the following history of what ended up happening there, much like has happened all over the world many times in the last two centuries.

Given that the inhabitants are British citizens (some have Argentine ancestors, as well as French, Spanish, Dutch, etc, etc), some of whom have descendants going back as far as 9 generations, it would be sheer colonialism on Argentina's part to not accept whatever the islanders themselves wanted. To say that Argentina's right in any way outwieghs the rights of the colonial population of the islands, is pure colonialism because they have not been a part of Argentina. Making them a part of the population by force is colonialism.

This could all be resolved by allowing the islanders to vote as the Puerto Ricans are going to do, on their self-determined course of action.

To me, any other argument related to the disposition of the islands is moot in the face of self-determination in a colonial situation.

Of course, I go so far as to say any group of peoples should have that right - no matter how big or how small a group. That includes the right of States in the US to secede without a bloodly civil war.

 

[scotttswan]

The argument is intended for national groups under colonial ruling. A small group of British citizens doesn't constitute such "a people" only because they live elsewhere. And if they were a people, they would still need an argument for that territory. E.g., if an indigenous group moves into random territory, they don't become entitled to it only because they are a people.

They were only given full British nationality in 1983.
They are a population made up of Scots, Welsh, Danish, Norwegian, Uruguayan, Argentinian, Chile emigrants etc much the same way all other countries in South America are made up emigrants from other countries.

They are a "people" in the same way Argentinians are a people.

 

[AndyD]

They were only given full British nationality in 1983. They are a population made up of Scots, Welsh, Danish, Norwegian, Uruguayan, Argentinian, Chile emigrants etc much the same way all other countries in South America are made up emigrants from other countries.

They are a "people" in the same way Argentinians are a people.

They are predominantly British and were so, during the long period of settlement that is crucial to the British argument, due to discriminatory immigration policies in place for many years, starting in 1833 when the soldiers and their families were sent back and when, not coincidentally, settlers evicted by the Lexington didn't return and the influx of new settlers from Argentina stopped. That's the point forwarded by informed Argentineans, not the alleged myth that was supposedly de-bunked by the link in your OP.

South American nationals, at the time of their independence, were not advancing legal claims based on self determination. If they were, they would have to advance a proper argument of them being a distinct 'people' as understood by 'decolonization law', and the fact that they were pretty much mixed with the indigenous population (more than is stated often on Internet threads about the dispute) would've been an element. If, say, a colonial power conquered part of another power's colony and implanted its own population there (who could later combine with indigenous peoples and claim its independence via decolonization doctrine), the power would need to acquire that territory in the context of a war if the first, and its people, were to lose rights. I mean, I see your point, but it's not that simple.