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

[AndyD]

Yes it is an implanted population just like the majority of Argentina. That is another clumsy hypocritical statement made by Timmerman or Kirchner, much like the colonialist statements.

Fettucini, there is doctrine, concerning this concept, that questions implanting populations on disputed territory and stresses its interference with the self-determination principle. These are the matters that define the concept, not the fact that people moved, which, of course, happened with the whole of the world's population, perhaps with the exception of the inhabitants of a specific place in Africa (those imperialist bastards! ) For more on that doctrine, look up 'population transfer' or 'implantation of settlers' or 'settlements' in good sources.

There is no generally-accepted definition of the concept, but economic incentives are usually presented as one of several means to achieve such inbound or outbound transfers.

Also, definitions sometimes refer to the lack of free-willing informed consent of the immigrants, which brings me to a thought. Several posters here are horrified at the prospect of the islanders finding themselves living in a land that is not under the sovereignty of the nation of their choosing, as they (may have) believed it to be when they moved in, or when their ancestors did. Yet, they haven't criticized Britain's responsibility in creating that belief.

 

[robwerwe]

take it to the international courts.

I know the truth is so boring

 

[robwerwe]

I really think its time for Argentina to give up on this petty argument and let it be. They are really embarrassing them selves in front of the whole world.

 

[AndyD]

Depends whether or not Argentina had the rights to the islands at that time.

Confiscating a foreign countries ships without the rights is piracy and the United States certainly believed it was piracy hence the Lexington getting involved.

Well, that is quite different from the categorical phrase you offered in the previous post, though less humorous, unfortunately.

As I mentioned in my blog post about Vernet's settlement, Slacum and Bayles' (the American diplomats') decisions in the Lexington incident were ridiculed by contemporary Americans, notably by (previous) president John Quincy Adams. These decisions were not confirmed by the central governments. It is overly simplistic to say that the acts of the Lexington reflect the beliefs of the U.S.

In the U.S., a study was done, at the time, to see if Argentina had rights to the islands. The results were inconclusive, though they stated that they had belonged to the Spanish Vice-Royalty. This lead to the American policy of neutrality in regards to the dispute, that lasts to these days. As a side note, Goebel cites a decision by an American court in 1835 that, according to him, agreed with Vernet having the authority to do what he did (see footnote 21 in my post).

In that post, I quote a well-written contemporary American study in defense of what the Lexington had done, written by Greenhow in 1842. His points are that Buenos Aires informed Slacum too late about Vernet's authority, after the Lexington had sailed, and that the measures enforced by Vernet were unjustifiably strict. He doesn't say that Vernet had no authority on the islands or that he committed piracy.

Moreover, Capt. Fitzroy (the British officer who captained the HMS Beagle, the ship of Darwin's travels) wrote in 1839:

t must be remembered that [Vernet] had a commission from the Buenos Ayrean government, empowering him to act as civil and military governor of the Falklands; that he believed the Buenos Ayrean authority valid, and had no doubt in his own mind that he was doing right. Mr. Vernet therefore was no robber—no pirate—as he was termed by Captain Duncan, because he tried to uphold his situation, and prevent his settlement from being robbed by people who had no claim whatever upon the islands.

It is worth mentioning that Vernet didn't just keep the seal skins and dispatch the American ships. He seized the skins and took one of the captains (in representation of both of them) to stand court in Buenos Aires under the charge of violating regulations aimed at preserving the population of seals. Greenhow's point above is based on his belief that these regulations were unjustified, but commentators assessing the economical potential of the islands offered support to the contrary, in texts unrelated to the dispute. Mitchell wrote in 1837:

[The islands'] shores, however, are crowded with those huge creatures, the sea elephant and sea leopard, whose rich coating of oil renders them a tempting prize. Hence they have become an object of attention principally to American navigators, who, during the few years that have elapsed since the islands were known, have made dreadful havoc among these animals, and greatly thinned their numbers.

Mackinnon wrote in 1840:

There is no doubt that if this fishery was properly protected, it would become much more productive; but several sealing vessels, particularly Americans, make a point of killing, not only the full grown and legitimate game, but destroy a future chance by also sacrificing the pups.

Goodrich wrote, in 1840:

The lark, a hardy bird, appears here [in South Georgia] as well as in Hudson's Bay, and there are numbers of large penguins, seals, and sea elephants. The abundance of these last attracted the notice of those southern fisheries, who prosecuted the chase with such activity, that these animals have been nearly extirpated.

All these references can be read in Google Books. Three of these authors were British, two were American. None Peronista, as far as I know.

One would think that Vernet's name would be left to rest peacefully after this and more evidence there is, but such is the respect for other people's rights in those jingoistic, ungrounded references that you've been using.

Regarding a prior message where you answered to one of mine, I was referring to the involvement of the possession of Falklands/Malvinas in the claim to the so-called Falkland Island's Dependencies and Antarctica, given that they're inhabited. I rather not get into that many new subjects here, I mentioned it only to imply that, with its ill-interpretation of the self-determination principle, Britain is advancing claims for territory (at the very least, a portion of its huge claim to Antarctica) that very much exceed the area required by 3000 people.

 

[scotttswan]

All these references can be read in Google Books. Three of these authors were British, two were American. None Peronista, as far as I know.

And none of them support Argentina's claims to the islands.

Vernet may have believed he was operating under Buenos Aires authority but it is debatable whether Argentina had any authority sending a colony to them in the first place.

It is completely irrelevant to the rights of the current population who have peacefully lived on the islands since 1833.

Regarding a prior message where you answered to one of mine, I was referring to the involvement of the possession of Falklands/Malvinas in the claim to the so-called Falkland Island's Dependencies and Antarctica, given that they're inhabited. I rather not get into that many new subjects here, I mentioned it only to imply that, with its ill-interpretation of the self-determination principle, Britain is advancing claims for territory (at the very least, a portion of its huge claim to Antarctica) that very much exceed the area required by 3000 people.

I disagree that the self determination of a population is ill-interpreted. Its a basic human right under the UN Charter.

Those other islands were grouped together along with part of Antarctica as dependences of the Falklands until 1985 when they were separated into separate entities.

Many countries are claiming parts of Antarctica but as you say that is a different argument.

The fact that Argentina claim the other islands is completely ridiculous and its entire claim is "they're close to us".

 

[AndyD]

And none of them support Argentina's claims to the islands.

Well, Greenhow supports the Argentine case in other parts of his article, Goebel does too, but yes, Fitzroy doesn't and the three remaining references are, as I said, unrelated to the dispute. I'm not sure that you understood the purpose of that post. I've argued about the Argentine sovereignty claim before; in this post I was offering additional support to Vernet not committing the acts of piracy you were now accusing him of.

The rest of your message has statements that I have answered before.

 

[scotttswan]

Well, Greenhow pretty much supports the Argentine case in other parts of his article, but yes, Fitzroy doesn't and the three remaining references are, as I said, unrelated to the dispute. I'm not sure you understood the purpose of that post. I've argued about the Argentine sovereignty claim before; in this post I was offering separate, additional support to Vernet not committing the acts of piracy you were now accusing him of.

The rest of your message has statements that I have answered before.

As i said it depends whether he had the right to the islands or not whether they were acts of piracy or not.

 

[AndyD]

As i said it depends whether he had the right to the islands or not whether they were acts of piracy or not.

Capt. Fitzroy answers in my 6:51 pm post above.

Besides, it would be good to know that we now agree that it is at least disputable to claim, as you did firstly, that Vernet had no rights, that the Lexington raid doesn't signify that U.S. had that position, as you said afterwards, and that there was valid reason in enforcing controls to sealing, hinting that Vernet may have acted in good faith. These were basically the points of the message you're answering to. I have argued on Argentine sovereignty but I did it in previous posts.

BTW, something that I left out from your post before: I think I was clear that I'm not negating the self-determination principle but questioning its applicability to this sovereignty dispute.

 

[scotttswan]

Capt. Fitzroy answers in my 6:51 pm post above.

Besides, it would be good to know that we now agree that it is at least disputable to claim, as you did firstly, that Vernet had no rights, that the Lexington raid doesn't signify that U.S. had that position, as you said afterwards, and that there was valid reason in enforcing controls to sealing, hinting that Vernet may have acted in good faith. These were basically the points of the message you're answering to. I have argued on Argentine sovereignty but I did it in previous posts.

BTW, something that I left out from your post before: I think I was clear that I'm not negating the self-determination principle but questioning its applicability to this sovereignty dispute.

You misunderstand my position. Argentina's case is flimsy in my opinion and from what i've read.
Vernet may have been acting for the benefits of the islands future but i still believe he had no right to be there in the first place.

I understand you are trying to say self-determination does not apply to the people but i strongly disagree. If they were to be handed over to Argentina and then they promptly declared independence would Argentina recognise and respect their right?
What if Tierra del fuego, Rio Negro etc suddenly decided enough was enough and they wanted independence would they have the right to self determination?
I believe they would just like my own country Scotland has the right to self determination and the Falklanders have the right to self determination.

 

[AndyD]

I understand you are trying to say self-determination does not apply to the people but i strongly disagree. If they were to be handed over to Argentina and then they promptly declared independence would Argentina recognise and respect their right?

All people are entitled to self determination, what I'm saying is that it doesn't imply that they can decide which country is sovereign over whatever territory they live in. Bear in mind that the self-determination principle was advanced to liberate peoples who didn't have the possibility to live under their free political organization. The islanders can live under the political organization of their choosing, because they have the choice to move into Britain. There is a different matter in discussion regarding Falklands/Malvinas, which is the right of the British people, or of that British 'minority', to that territory.

Brilmayer's paper is about that distinction, made to bring into agreement two principles that are popularly thought to be sometimes incompatible: the right to self-determination of all peoples, and the right of nations to their territorial integrity. She writes:

While international law does not provide a right of secession, separatists have nonetheless relied on particular provisions of international law in making their secessionist claims. They have focused on the United Nations' clear recognition of self-determination, while disregarding the accompanying caveats that the principle does not supersede a state's territorial integrity. But the self-determination argument potentially supports an unlimited right to withhold individual consent to state authority. Proponents of secession therefore face a very slippery slope in formulating a right to secede that does not open the door to complete anarchy. One way to limit the right of self-determination is to claim that self-determination is appropriate for nations or peoples, but not for minorities. The issue then becomes whether the separatist group is a nation or a people.

[...]Although secessionist rhetoric may focus on freedom from domination by an alien culture, it does not achieve this goal simply by abandoning land. An important element of the goal is the continued possession of a particular piece of land within which political rights can be enjoyed.

[...]By choosing secession rather than emigration, secessionists assume a duty of justification that refugees need not bear. Secessionists must somehow establish a claim to the territory on which they would found their new state. Such claims to territory do not flow automatically from ethnic distinctiveness. Groups that are ethnically distinct, but possess no independent territorial claims, have very poor chances of convincing anyone of their right to secede. Imagine, for example, a group of recent immigrants coming to a particular state in order to engage in commerce or to find jobs. Even if this group is ethnically quite distinct, it cannot establish the requisite claim to territory simply by migrating to an already inhabited area and settling there.

I'm trying to say this since the beginning of the thread. I see your disagreement, I feel it's unfortunate but OK. I just feel compelled to answer when you say that I didn't answer, or you repeat a question already answered abundantly, or offer further statements from jingoistic websites like you did the past days.

What if Tierra del fuego, Rio Negro etc suddenly decided enough was enough and they wanted independence would they have the right to self determination?

To answer, we would need to define a scenario where those provinces would want to succeed, entering a very-hypothetical territory. So let me answer with a more palpable example: let's say the German community at Villa General Belgrano, in Córdoba, wants to secede. Would they have that right? Not according to Brilmayer's interpretation at the very least, because they wouldn't have an argument for that territory, as they simply immigrated into that piece of Argentina, and they most likely wouldn't be considered 'a distinct people' with the strength required by the secessionist argument, but rather as a small German-Argentine community. Not surprisingly, awarding them that right would mess up things with immigrant communities and minorities all over the world.

There are twice as many people in Villa General Belgrano than in the islands, where the territory being claimed is perhaps a million times larger, literally. Therefore, to make the analogy with the islands fairer, let's imagine there's a hefty gold mine in V.G.B., and Germany offered the town folks a piece if they secede, opening the opportunity for Germany to enjoy that mining business and build a military base there...

I believe they would just like my own country Scotland has the right to self determination and the Falklanders have the right to self determination.

We all have the right to self determination, we just need to see what it implies and what it doesn't. If Scotland decides to secede, it will put on the table its particular characteristics as a distinct 'people' and its argument regarding that territory, which obviously have nothing to do with the arguments of the islanders or the people at Villa General Belgrano, Tierra del Fuego and Rio Negro.