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

[AndyD]

I don't think that this has ever been proposed as its quite ridiculous. The Falklanders rely on fishing rights as well as farming on both islands to provide for themselves.

There are much more territories than what the islanders need. I meant the 'proposal' as a hint that there more in dispute here than the desire of 3,000 people (or 1,500 in 1982) to remain British (or, better put, for 'their soil' to remain exclusively British). Just as I could have cited the case of Diego Garcia, where Britain abruptly evicted a population of a similar number from their homeland and offered just a meager compensation 17 years later, coincidentally one month before the 1982 conflict for Falklands/Malvinas. Or I could have argued on how sending thousands to a war where 900 people are killed seems out of proportion with that alleged objective.

As for the other islands. They've never been part of Argentina and she has no rights at all to the islands.

You may as well say that they've never been a part of Britain either, as they were uninhabited. The islands are disputed and, for each one, there are particular arguments pro and against Britain and Argentina. The sovereignty of Falklands/Malvinas is, presumably, one element in that analysis.

 

[AndyD]

Historically Argentinian governments have been happy enough for plebiscites by small communities determining which country they wish to belong to.

so long as they vote to live in Argentina!

I had the pleasure a year or so back (before the volcanic eruptions) of visiting the originally Welsh founded community of Trevelin in the cordillera - now part of Chubut.

In the interesting local museum I read about the plebiscite (as recently as 1902!) where the inhabitants voted to join Republica Argentina as the judgement on the watershed and international dispute resolution had resolved that they be awarded to Chile in the west.

You can read about this on http://www.patagonia.com.ar/Esquel/41E_More+than+100+years+since+the+referendum.html

(In English as well as Castellano!! but not Welsh - why??)

I'l try to establish how many people voted at the time - but my guess is that these were less than the current permanent adult population of the Falklands/Malvinas

So if self-determination was ok for this small enclave then why not applied here?

Phil, that boundary was decided largely on the geographical/legal work of Francisco Moreno (the Perito Moreno whose name is honored with the glacier), who argued about the interpretation of previous treaties between Chile and Argentina that were not completely clear (both parts agreed on that). His arguments were analyzed by experts appointed by the British Crown, who acted as arbiter, alongside Chilean studies. The arbiter decided pretty much in agreement with Argentine pretensions.

I didn't know that, as an element for that arbitration, a Welsh community was consulted on their 'allegiance'. It may have been to establish which country was using that land, to be analyzed in consideration of the other country's reaction or lack thereof (e.g., there were some attempts of Chilean settling on the part that Argentina considered to be hers, which were protested and thus didn't have consequences). In any case, it was hardly a case of a population argument deciding a dispute that would, otherwise, favor the other part.

As for suggestions that both UK and Argentina should go for arbitration my understanding is that historically neither side wants to because neither side has that degree of confidence in any overwhelming merits of their case. UK now rests it's case on self determination by the indigenous population anyway so the Uk isnt going to push arbitration, whilst Argentina hasn't a track record of any persuasive argument "winning" at Arbitration either - not even over the tiny little islands in the Beagle Channel and that was even after arbitration #2 direct with the Pope not being satisfied with what Queen Elizabeth II had awarded.

Let's bear in mind that the population at Malvinas/Falklands is not indigeneous. The arbitration cited above pretty much favored Argentina. The award wasn't clear about a zone called 'Laguna del Desierto'. Decades later, that specific area was submitted to an arbitration that, again, decided in favor of Argentina during the 1990s.

Yes, on the case of the Beagle we lost. In 1984, there was a referendum here, where a majority accepted that the country should recognize Chilean sovereignty over those islands. A treaty was signed and there's hardly any bitterness about that. You may see that, despite boundaries being long and the continent young, we don't have much of a problem regarding our boundaries, except with Britain.

I agree that both parts probably consider it a risk to submit to arbitration, given that the case is complex. It is worth saying, though, that Argentina did submit the islands to arbitration during the 19th century and Britain refused. I offered some references about that in one of the first messages of this thread:

http://baexpats.org/articles/21587-...-expelled-de-bunked-yet-again.html#post161246

Interestingly, tendentious pro-British sources often disregard this and, instead, they mislead citing, as if it were for arbitration on the islands, a British proposal for arbitration on associated territories, which was refused by Argentina as the sovereignty over the islands should be determined first.

 

[scotttswan]

There are much more territories than what the islanders need. I meant the 'proposal' as a hint that there more in dispute here than the desire of 3,000 people (or 1,500 in 1982) to remain British (or, better put, for 'their soil' to remain exclusively British). Just as I could have cited the case of Diego Garcia, where Britain abruptly evicted a population of a similar number from their homeland and offered just a meager compensation 17 years later, coincidentally one month before the 1982 conflict for Falklands/Malvinas. Or I could have argued on how sending thousands to a war where 900 people are killed seems out of proportion with that alleged objective.



You may as well say that they've never been a part of Britain either, as they were uninhabited. The islands are disputed and, for each one, there are particular arguments pro and against Britain and Argentina. The sovereignty of Falklands/Malvinas is, presumably, one element in that analysis.

Who are you to decide what the islanders need or not? The other islands have been inhabited in the past by sealers and whalers but now are used for scientific reasons.

They were discovered by Britain and used by Britain through the years so how does that suddenly make them not part of Britain?

Is Bouvet Island not Norwegian?

The removal of the Diego Garcians was a terrible act committed by both the British and the Americans but lets talk about the native population who were originally Mauritian slaves moved to that region in 1786 by the French. If they are an indigenous does that not make the Falklanders who moved to the Falklands a meagre 47 years later indigenous too?

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Andy

I'm disappointed that you have thought to brush off clear evidence of how the plebiscite was used to resolve the issue of Valle de 16 Octubre in 1902 between Chile and Argentina when this has in fact been researched and indeed celebrated by Argentinian academics as a triumph for local democracy.

Perito Moreno was one of the three commissioners who visited the area and took evidence from the local settler population (but not the "indigenous" population who were considered to be sub-human and were in the process of being "cleared away" if not just shot) and agreed that the will of the population should supersede notions of geography

http://www.patagonia.com.ar/Esquel/53_Plebiscito+de+1902:+libro+de+investigación+histórica.html

Maybe you should spend more time on research yourself rather than composing "off the cuff" convoluted and self contradictory replies which it appears are based on badly remembered nationalist history lessons at school.

I have given you the opportunity to look up the Argentinian sources and yet you still assert ....

"In any case, it was hardly a case of a population argument deciding a dispute that would, otherwise, favor the other part."

When it clearly was! The evidence is there! But then it is not only the blind who cannot see.

For my part I'd like to learn more about the "1984 Referendum" you talk about. My understanding is that Argentina's Government was preparing for war with Chile on the trivial issue of the three Islands in the Beagle Channel then got distracted by what was a sudden "opportunity" to get onto Falklands Island soil just before winter started and so it was thought by your Leaders that the UK didn't have the resources or will-power to do anything about it. Wrong calculation !

After the debacle of the invasion failure there was no appetite to then take on Chile and so Argentina then fell in line with what the two successive arbiters had said. I;m sure you are not saying that the Islands themselves involved were asked to vote where they wanted to be but I can tell you Ive seen them on a boat trip from Ushuaia and the only indigenous inhabitants are seals and penguins (and I don't mean the neo-peronist variety)

Or are you saying that Argentina's population had a plebiscite about Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands in the Beagle Channel?

Yet there was no plebiscite for the invasion of the Falklands?? By your logic there should have been one. So why not?

I'm afraid you have tied yourself up in several knots here my Argentinian friend.

As for bitterness against Chile in Argentina I'll give you a chance to reflect on that as you may wish to reconsider that point before the evidence is laid out.

The current President's husband pulled out of negotiations with the UK which could have formed the basis of trust and understanding and the building of confidence in mutual self interest. Instead we had a tirade of anti-British rhetoric threats, a series of bi-polar and abusive references to the inhabitants and a failed campaign to garner international support which ended when Cristina stomped off early from Cartagena last month.

More recently the new Argentinian Ambassador to the UK has repeated the party line that there are more "British" descendants in Argentina than in the Falklands and they are happy to be living where they are so that should sufficiently reassure the indigenous Falkland islanders. All the anglophiles I know are keeping their head down at the moment but certainly are not happy! Possibly also they are more intimidated and worried about a visit from the neo-peronista thugs who attacked the British embassy in Buenos Aires. All the Falkland islanders have to put up with are abusive phone calls. Ah is that the reason for Cristina's offer to fly Aerolineas direct to Stanley?

Most importantly the truth is that no one trusts the current Argentinian Government to be as good as her word. And your sophistry really doesn't help here at all.

Negotiation has to involve trust and a willingness to compromise. We have already established that Argentina cannot compromise - there is a legal and constitutional impediment. You say .... ah that's only the constitution and its put up simply as a starter for negotiation but to a country with such a long tradition of the rule of law then UK simply says "ha!" you cannot trust what they put down on a piece of paper as sacred as their constitution then what can you trust?

Any promises made by the Argentinian Government are viewed as not worth the paper that they are written on.

The quote "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" you may not have recognised but it comes from Churchill. His predecessor accepted a piece of paper at face value and we (the world) had to live with the consequences although in the end decency, democracy and the rule of law prevailed after much sacrifice.

Peron miscalculated badly on that one too.

Argentina's current neo-peronist government needs to fundamentally rethink these things and it applies not only to the potential for conflict resolution with the indigenous population of the Falklands/Malvinas who are totally incredulous about Argentinian intentions but also to the way that Government is conducted in Argentina itself. Is it going to be trust or lies which characterises the administration of Argentinian government?

I'm beginning to think you are more interested in spinning out polemics and obscurification.

 

[AndyD]

Phil, you're making some unfortunate remarks there that remind me of an anecdote involving Perito Moreno, that has relation with one of the points you brought across (as I will argue later):

In the closing of the 19th century, Chile claimed that prior treaties with Argentina should be interpreted considering the watershed from the peaks in the Andes. Moreno disagreed, arguing that the watershed was regularly modified by simple accidents of nature such as falling rocks or trees, or the accumulation of sand, as they had actually been modified since signing those prior treaties, therefore they could hardly have formed the basis for a boundary settlement. Chile didn't accept that. To prove his point about the unsuitability of the Chilean criterion, he deviated river Fénix, in a few days using just a couple of workers with shovels. It seems there wasn't much left for the Chileans to argue, Moreno was thrown stones when he visited Chile and the arbiter decided pretty much in accordance to the criteria he had proposed.

I'm disappointed that you have thought to brush off clear evidence of how the plebiscite was used to resolve the issue of Valle de 16 Octubre in 1902 between Chile and Argentina when this has in fact been researched and indeed celebrated by Argentinian academics as a triumph for local democracy.

My argument was that Moreno's work was critical for settling that issue (see the first paragraph in the link you had given before, they make reference to the watershed-criterion disagreement) and, on the other hand, having a plebiscite isn't the same as awarding territory, that would otherwise fall in the other hands, based on the self-determination principle of a population regardless of how it arrived there. Welsh immigration was important in much of Patagonia and it probably supported Argentine claims of having peacefully inhabited and made use of that land, but that's completely different from the self-determination argument advanced by Britain in the Falklands/Malvinas.

Perito Moreno was one of the three commissioners who visited the area and took evidence from the local settler population (but not the "indigenous" population who were considered to be sub-human and were in the process of being "cleared away" if not just shot) and agreed that the will of the population should supersede notions of geography

http://www.patagonia.com.ar/Esquel/53_Plebiscito+de+1902%3A+libro+de+investigaci%C3%B3n+hist%C3%B3rica.html

I'm sorry but I don't see that this link disproves what I say above. It says there that their visit was after they had submitted their arguments to the arbiter. It says that the impression received from the population contributed to the peace process, that the visit 'framed and somehow defined the subsequent events', but it doesn't say that it had an utmost role in the arbiters decision or that anyone claimed that it superseded geography (*), and there's nothing to equate such argument to the British one for Falkands/Malvinas. E.g., it doesn't say that Chile had protested to the Welsh settling or that prior historical arguments favoring Chile were deemed irrelevant. If I'm missing something, or you have other sources that do support those claims, I'm all ears.

As a sidenote, someone claiming to be of Amerindian descent wrote a comment there, below in the Spanish version, that says that indigenous populations were also consulted.

(*) It just says that 'The determination of those people was in favor of Argentina and while it hardly have been the sole reason for Sir Thomas Holdich had award on behalf of Argentina, was certainly a compelling reason in this decision', which only means that, in this author's opinion, it was one of several reasons.

Maybe you should spend more time on research yourself rather than composing "off the cuff" convoluted and self contradictory replies which it appears are based on badly remembered nationalist history lessons at school.

Are these stones? As received by Moreno in Chile? What an honour.

I have given you the opportunity to look up the Argentinian sources and yet you still assert ....

"In any case, it was hardly a case of a population argument deciding a dispute that would, otherwise, favor the other part."

When it clearly was! The evidence is there! But then it is not only the blind who cannot see.

Well, to be fair, I haven't offered support to claiming that Moreno's geographical work was what mostly decided the matter, but that's what I understand and, as I argue above, I don't see support to the contrary in the links you gave, or at least to this work being superseded by a self-determination argument a-la Falklands/Malvinas, as you were claiming. But well, it must be that, apart from not being able to read any history not given during my tendentious Argentine schooling, or to think critically, I cannot see.

For my part I'd like to learn more about the "1984 Referendum" you talk about. My understanding is that Argentina's Government was preparing for war with Chile on the trivial issue of the three Islands in the Beagle Channel then got distracted by what was a sudden "opportunity" to get onto Falklands Island soil just before winter started and so it was thought by your Leaders that the UK didn't have the resources or will-power to do anything about it. Wrong calculation !

Some of this is disputed but I'll tell you what I believe, Virginia Gamba has interesting work about this, in English, in case you want to know more. There was a connection between Beagle and Malvinas, as the invasion to Malvinas was entertained partly because of worries about losing territory in the South Atlantic, and it was believed that retaking them would improve the Argentine case versus Chile. A plan for the invasion was prepared but its execution was not decided and, if it was going to happen, it was supposed to happen later (in December, then moved to May 24th). Moreover, it was meant to be just invading and handling the islands to the UN. The incident in the Georgias precipitated things, then the disapproval of the Security Council at the UN and the popular reaction in Argentina motivated the Junta to change plans, partly because of that belief about Britain not answering militarily other than by retaking the so-called dependencies.

After the debacle of the invasion failure there was no appetite to then take on Chile and so Argentina then fell in line with what the two successive arbiters had said. I;m sure you are not saying that the Islands themselves involved were asked to vote where they wanted to be but I can tell you Ive seen them on a boat trip from Ushuaia and the only indigenous inhabitants are seals and penguins (and I don't mean the neo-peronist variety)

Or are you saying that Argentina's population had a plebiscite about Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands in the Beagle Channel?

There was a plebiscite in Argentina for Picton, etc. The proposition to accept the arbiter's decision won with more than 81% of the votes. In the line of what you say, I guess it wouldn't have been that high without the 1982 conflict.

Yet there was no plebiscite for the invasion of the Falklands?? By your logic there should have been one. So why not?

Well, on the one hand, there's an important point that you're missing: the 1982 conflict happened during a dictatorship, the 1984 decision was under a democracy. On the other hand, though I'm no military expert, I'm pretty sure that it's not advisable to submit to a national plebiscite the decision to carry on a surprise invasion. (I take it that you mean a plebiscite after the landing, but the joke was tempting.)

Even if it were advisable and all that, I don't see my logic pointing towards a plebiscite for Malvinas. On the contrary, I recognize that the reaction in 1982 was embarrassing. I mentioned the plebiscite as a hint that Argentines are, perhaps, not as unreasonable and expansionist as suggested by prior remarks, but I wouldn't dare to say that we're never unreasonable.

I'm afraid you have tied yourself up in several knots here my Argentinian friend.

As for bitterness against Chile in Argentina I'll give you a chance to reflect on that as you may wish to reconsider that point before the evidence is laid out.

There are some bad opinions but I don't think it's so bad. Besides, I was talking about bitterness related to the Beagle decision. Did you find much (any) of that around? I seldom do, if ever.

The current President's husband pulled out of negotiations with the UK which could have formed the basis of trust and understanding and the building of confidence in mutual self interest. Instead we had a tirade of anti-British rhetoric threats, a series of bi-polar and abusive references to the inhabitants and a failed campaign to garner international support which ended when Cristina stomped off early from Cartagena last month.

More recently the new Argentinian Ambassador to the UK has repeated the party line that there are more "British" descendants in Argentina than in the Falklands and they are happy to be living where they are so that should sufficiently reassure the indigenous Falkland islanders. All the anglophiles I know are keeping their head down at the moment but certainly are not happy! Possibly also they are more intimidated and worried about a visit from the neo-peronista thugs who attacked the British embassy in Buenos Aires. All the Falkland islanders have to put up with are abusive phone calls. Ah is that the reason for Cristina's offer to fly Aerolineas direct to Stanley?

I think this government's policy towards Malvinas is pretty much deficient. Yet, I find your description to be extremely generous to the other side, but let's not get into details that would make this thread endless. BTW, the islanders are not indigenous.

Those who attacked the embassy were not neo-peronists but radical left-wingers from a group called 'Quebracho'. The reason for that name is one of several facts that you will find interesting if you want to understand some of that bad British image that you see around, instead of just whining about it.

To me, it would be silly to blame other Britons for those events, which are often oversimplified and unfairly isolated from positive ones, or to present arguments such as 'A century ago you were bad!' for current issues. This said in connection to references to Argentine mistreatment of our indigenous people in this thread.

Most importantly the truth is that no one trusts the current Argentinian Government to be as good as her word. And your sophistry really doesn't help here at all.

Ouch, a stone hit me!

Negotiation has to involve trust and a willingness to compromise. We have already established that Argentina cannot compromise - there is a legal and constitutional impediment. You say .... ah that's only the constitution and its put up simply as a starter for negotiation but to a country with such a long tradition of the rule of law then UK simply says "ha!" you cannot trust what they put down on a piece of paper as sacred as their constitution then what can you trust?

Well, I think I presented an argument, it's not required to undo one's claims before entering sovereignty negotiations, it doesn't mean that it's not possible to compromise. Britain also claims that the islands, a disputed territory, are hers in the EU constitution, making no clarifications afaik.

The quote "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" you may not have recognised but it comes from Churchill. His predecessor accepted a piece of paper at face value and we (the world) had to live with the consequences although in the end decency, democracy and the rule of law prevailed after much sacrifice.

Actually, the quote is one of several typical misquotes to Churchill; Harold Macmillan was the one who said it, paraphrasing him. Regarding the Munich Agreement, you may know that there's a version, worth considering, that says that Chamberlain was buying time for Britain to prepare for war. BTW, pretty clever to make an analogy between my country and Nazi Germany, who would have thought of that.

Argentina's current neo-peronist government needs to fundamentally rethink these things and it applies not only to the potential for conflict resolution with the indigenous population of the Falklands/Malvinas who are totally incredulous about Argentinian intentions but also to the way that Government is conducted in Argentina itself. Is it going to be trust or lies which characterises the administration of Argentinian government?

I'm beginning to think you are more interested in spinning out polemics and obscurification.

OK, I'm the one obscuring things though I brought across reputed references to correct sharp inaccuracies in several parts of this thread. This has gotten silly indeed, I hope Graham Chapman's character comes to the rescue soon.

 

[AndyD]

The removal of the Diego Garcians was a terrible act committed by both the British and the Americans but lets talk about the native population who were originally Mauritian slaves moved to that region in 1786 by the French. If they are an indigenous does that not make the Falklanders who moved to the Falklands a meagre 47 years later indigenous too?

I'm not building a self-determination argument for the Chagossians, though, if I were, there's a decisive fact in their settling not being under protest in the midst of a dispute. I'm trying to say that, if self-determination regardless of anything else is utmost important for Britain, then why did she behave that way with that other population? It was contemporary with the negotiations and conflict for Falklands/Malvinas. Aggravated by the fact that what they did with the Chagossians was worse than telling them that 'Another country will be sovereign here from now on'. Maybe there are other British interests in play in Falklands/Malvinas...

Regarding Georgias and etc., I doubt there were used much for whaling before the start of the last century, when the dispute for them started, and fishing near them is not the same as inhabiting them, besides whalers having diverse nationalities. The dispute for these islands began later than for Falklands/Malvinas basically because they were disregarded before that time. I don't believe the Argentine case for them is as strong as the one for Malvinas, but it is not as simple as you're suggesting. There are many elements to consider, e.g., undisputed international recognition. It's complex and more difficult to settle, I rather not get into that here.

 

[scotttswan]

Even if it were advisable and all that, I don't see my logic pointing towards a plebiscite for Malvinas. On the contrary, I recognize that the reaction in 1982 was embarrassing. I mentioned the plebiscite as a hint that Argentines are, perhaps, not as unreasonable and expansionist as suggested by prior remarks, but I wouldn't dare to say that we're never unreasonable.

"see look we are not unreasonable as others can decide their future but it doesn't apply to the Falklands....."

I think this government's policy towards Malvinas sucks. Yet, I find your description to be extremely generous to the other side, but let's not get into details that would make this thread endless. BTW, the islanders are not indigenous.

But the Chagossians are?

Well, I think I presented an argument, it's not required to undo one's claims before entering sovereignty negotiations, it doesn't mean that it's not possible to compromise. Britain also claims that the islands (a disputed territory) are hers in the EU constitution.

Britain names them as an overseas territory. That is quite different from Argentina's including them in her constitution and also quite different from France and her overseas territories.

OK, I'm the one obscuring things though I brought across reputed references to correct sharp inaccuracies in several parts of this thread. This has gotten silly indeed, I hope Graham Chapman's character comes to the rescue.

Argentina's claims are still very poor and you haven't corrected any inaccuracies you have only added a one sided viewpoint that ignores many facts, as well as be belittling the population of the islands and ignoring certain points in UN resolutions as they don't favour your viewpoint.

Maybe Argentina should read the charter they signed up to its right there in chapter 1.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Vernet went to the UK consulate, He went to get his forms counter signed. He later went to the UK for compensation for his dilapidated colony and received money for it.

What Argentina's claims boil down to is a total of 3 and a half years of a colony that was most likely illegal in the first place.

You claim borders were not that flexible during the time, ignoring many many changes in borders since 1833 including Argentina's own expansion into Patagonia.

The UK has offered to take the other islands to arbitration but has not done so for the Falklands, maybe they should, but this doesn't prevent Argentina from going to the international courts for all the islands.

Argentina doesn't need some cold windswept islands. It certainly needs dollars that oil could provide, but of course Nestor walked out on talks that would have benefited both countries.

Propaganda for children that is almost on par with the shit hamas are putting out is never going to help the problem. Compare Zamba with the BBC's Horrible Histories. Which is more educational?

Britian has a long history with the islands dating back to 1690. Her relationship with her former colonies has progressed into the modern age, the right to self determination is something any of them can decide upon and history has shown many who have.

 

[scotttswan]

I'm not building a self-determination argument for the Chagossians, though, if I were, there's a decisive fact in their settling not being under protest in the midst of a dispute.

Like when Britain protested Argentina's move to place a colony on her land?

I'm trying to say that, if self-determination regardless of anything else is utmost important for Britain, then why did she behave that way with that other population? It was contemporary with the negotiations and conflict for Falklands/Malvinas. Aggravated by the fact that what they did with the Chagossians was worse than telling them that 'Another country will be sovereign here from now on'. Maybe there are other British interests in play in Falklands/Malvinas...

Its the utmost importance for the Falklanders. The UK's relationship with her former colonies has drastically changed since the 60's when the islands were bought from Mauritius and the Chagossians were moved.

Regarding Georgias and etc., I doubt there were used much for whaling before the start of the last century, when the dispute for them started, and fishing near them is not the same as inhabiting them, besides whalers having diverse nationalities. The dispute for these islands began later than for Falklands/Malvinas basically because they were disregarded before that time. I don't believe the Argentine case for them is as strong as the one for Malvinas, but it is not as simple as you're suggesting. There are many elements to consider, e.g., undisputed international recognition. It's complex and more difficult to settle, I rather not get into that here.

It is a very simple dispute. Argentina claim them because they are on her "continental shelf" and she wants to enforce her claim to Antarctica.

The UK claim them because they discovered them, administrated them and they have always been British. Whaling went on in the islands until 1978.

The diverse nationalities is unimportant as they were licensed to be there by the British.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Phil, you're making some unfortunate remarks there that remind me of an anecdote involving Perito Moreno, that has relation with one of the points you brought across (as I will argue later):

Perito Moreno is an Argentinian hero. I also happen to like him. As well as a hero he was undeniably a patriot and what he actually did was generally (as far as I know) for the betterment of mankind and the advancement of science. Actually there arnt a lot of Argentinean "state heroes" without blood on their hands but he was one. But I guess that goes also for British ones as well!

Your anecdote about the river is one Ive heard before from my Argentinean friends - its standard fare for schools to perpetuate this national myth. But in fact it’s a better example of that Argentinian phenomenon “viveza criolla” - crafty but dishonourable. I prefer to think that an objective man of science wouldn’t behave like a Neapolitan sneak thief. Go on add to my disillusions!!

Thank you for at least bothering to follow the link I sent you.

Incidently heres a cryptic clue for you ... have a look at the works of one of our British heros (hint Darwin)

Dispensing away with all the flowery language and the meaningless distractions ….

I don’t have to prove from the evidence that a plebiscite was the only determinate of a national boundary review which Argentina was happy to accept I only have to demonstrate an example of how a plebiscite was a material factor.

And I have. The plebiscite in 1904 was a factor. Only one influencing factor. It was not “solely” or “exclusively” or even “mainly”. There were other factors in other words. But the plebiscite was one introduced and accepted by the three commissioners who visited including the celebrated Perito Moreno and it had influenced the decision and geography was subordinated to the perceptions and aspirations of the local settlement population.

Doesn’t matter if it was 99% of the decision or even 1% of the decision. Your national hero was happy to sit and take down this evidence and accept it and then go along with the result. Argentina didn’t dispute the result of the award and say no no no geography is paramount!!!

My friend Im sure you see this doesn’t sit happily with your albeit shifting position which you have invested so much time and effort in throughout this saga of posts.

The people who live in a place and have settled for generations (although the Welsh in Valle de 16 Octubre had only been there for less than a decade) deserve to be given the chance for a plebiscite and the results of that to be given some weight in the final outcome by the respective administrations. Do try to grasp the concept of democracy its a precious flower to treasure which certainly has been crushed many times in your homeland in the near past and as for the present there are some bad signs there as well.

I defy you to try and discover some words to weasel around this point about the plebiscite. But I have every confidence you'll give it a go!!

I didnt spot the comment about the indigenous locals being asked as you have spotted on the weblink. If so then this was unusually enlightened for the time. Must have been at the instigation of Perito Moreno I’m sure.

No I dont know about Virginia Gamba but I'll look out for her. If she has written in English even better

So it was "the people" who pressurised the junta to invade the Falklands? This is what you say. An interesting rewrite of history! My friends told me they would have chopped off the little toes of their children if there had been any thought that their children would have been called up for military service to support the well known and anticipated planned invasion of Chile which then switched to become the Falklands. But it was the poor unfortunates from the north east and the south who were regarded as dispensable. "cannon fodder"

[QUOTE/] "Well, on the one hand, there's an important point that you're missing: the 1982 conflict happened during a dictatorship, the 1984 decision was under a democracy. On the other hand, though I'm no military expert, I'm pretty sure that it's not advisable to submit to a national plebiscite the decision to carry on a surprise invasion. (I take it that you mean a plebiscite after the landing, but the joke was tempting.)" [/QUOTE]

Yes indeed there was a bit of "tongue in mouth" (joke) about my response to your suggestions about the Beagle plebiscite. But Andy i thought you told me that the Military were responding to "national pressure"? So was the Falklands invasion with the peoples blessing or not? You are saying it was not a military adventure by an out of control gang of drunks ?? Which is it?? Or perhaps you want to argue it both ways and switch between arguments whenever it suites?

As for being unfair and throwing stones? Well forgive me Andy but you seem to be able to withstand and come back in good humour which is to your credit.

[/QUOTE] There are some bad opinions but I don't think it's so bad. Besides, I was talking about bitterness related to the Beagle decision. Did you find much (any) of that around? I seldom do, if ever. [/QUOTE]

When I visited the far south around five years ago there were some fairly negative views around being expressed about the Picton etc islands being Chilean as well as generally about Chile it seemed to me.

If the islanders are not indigenous then how long does it have to take before you would say they are? Possibly you have spent many hours at the computer in earlier posts on this point?? Its going to be a few more generations now I suspect before the Falkland Islanders will be willing to review the "best offer" coming from Buenos Aires.

Ah go on Andy dont hold back. Thanks for the tantalising offer to inform us further about the "shadowy group" that Cristina said afterwards was responsible for the riot outside the British Embassy. I know a little about Quebracho and you are keen to improve my education so do let forth. Indeed last year I was in the north west so I recognise where the name possibly comes from. Tell me if this Group isn’t encouraged by the racked up popularist rhetoric from Cristina and her cronies to go out and cause trouble. That looks like a neo-peronist gang to me. Just because they didn’t arrive in the Peronist bus (with the little children etc) doesn’t mean they aren’t fellow-travellers.

And yes there is a theme in Argentinian history to set about and blacken the name of the British. After all who was it to helped you realise your national identity, championed your recognition as an independent country, financed your agricultural and industrial expansion, etc etc and most recently provided the tipping point for you to realise the benefits of democracy over military dictatorship. Many of your compatriots and maybe even you have a love-hate fascination towards the British. So go on tell me. Who is whining?

[QUOTE/] To me, it would be silly to blame other Britons for those events, which are often oversimplified and unfairly isolated from positive ones, or to present arguments such as 'A century ago you were bad!' for current issues. This said in connection to references to Argentine mistreatment of our indigenous people in this thread. [/QUOTE]

Well harking back to the 1830’s was what this thread started with !

And still mistreating and abusing your indigenous people - according to the UN investigator!!!

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40665&Cr=argentina&Cr1


Do you still wonder the Falkland Islanders don’t have any truck with your Government.

Incidentally you certainly score points by not flinging around the pejorative expression “Kelpers”


[Quote/] Well, I think I presented an argument, it's not required to undo one's claims before entering sovereignty negotiations, it doesn't mean that it's not possible to compromise. Britain also claims that the islands, a disputed territory, are hers in the EU constitution, making no clarifications afaik. [/Quote]

Yes you have presented an argument. You have made an assertion about the "EU Constitution" but its unsubstantiated. At the risk of going down yet another blind cul-de-sac kindly back that up with a source.


[Quote/] Actually, the quote is one of several typical misquotes to Churchill; Harold Macmillan was the one who said it, paraphrasing him. Regarding the Munich Agreement, you may know that there's a version, worth considering, that says that Chamberlain was buying time for Britain to prepare for war. [/QUOTE]

No actually actually the quote is widely attributed to Churchill see for example ....
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html

[QUOTE/] OK, I'm the one obscuring things though I brought across reputed references to correct sharp inaccuracies in several parts of this thread. This has gotten silly indeed, I hope Graham Chapman's character comes to the rescue soon.[/QUOTE]

The Monty Python character I immediately thought about when you mentioned this was John Cleese planning the invasion of Stalingrad in the Minehead by-election ... which is on Youtube

http://youtu.be/vlmGknvr_Pg


It’s a bit difficult to follow the recording but I do hope that this is entertaining

 

[AndyD]

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.

It's pointless to go on like this, with you misrepresenting and disregarding my points while I clarify again and again. Whoever is here wanting proper arguments already has a long discussion to read.

I don’t have to prove from the evidence that a plebiscite was the only determinate of a national boundary review which Argentina was happy to accept I only have to demonstrate an example of how a plebiscite was a material factor.

And I have. The plebiscite in 1904 was a factor. Only one influencing factor. It was not “solely” or “exclusively” or even “mainly”. There were other factors in other words. But the plebiscite was one introduced and accepted by the three commissioners who visited including the celebrated Perito Moreno and it had influenced the decision and geography was subordinated to the perceptions and aspirations of the local settlement population.

Doesn’t matter if it was 99% of the decision or even 1% of the decision. Your national hero was happy to sit and take down this evidence and accept it and then go along with the result. Argentina didn’t dispute the result of the award and say no no no geography is paramount!!!

My friend Im sure you see this doesn’t sit happily with your albeit shifting position which you have invested so much time and effort in throughout this saga of posts.

Did I ever deny that the plebiscite may have been a factor? You're changing your words here. You brought up this point making a parallel with Falklands/Malvinas, where self-determination is claimed to be an utmost factor, then you said that Perito Moreno had agreed on the plebiscite "superseding notions of geography" (?), that it "clearly was [a case of a population argument deciding a dispute that would, otherwise, favor the other part]" (?) and that only the blind [like me?] could not see that. That's what I challenged, plus I explained why a plebiscite doesn't imply a self-determination argument a-la-Falklands/Malvinas. Now you change your words, misrepresent mine and accuse me of shifting positions. Unhelpful and boring.

So it was "the people" who pressurised the junta to invade the Falklands? This is what you say.

I didn't say that. Besides, doesn't it sound like a silly remark given that it was a surprise invasion? Were there pickets with posters demanding 'Let's invade by surprise!' or what? Yet you say 'This is what you say.' Evidently, I'm failing to realize that my English is horrible... If someone's interested, my actual comment is available.

If the islanders are not indigenous then how long does it have to take before you would say they are? Possibly you have spent many hours at the computer in earlier posts on this point?? Its going to be a few more generations now I suspect before the Falkland Islanders will be willing to review the "best offer" coming from Buenos Aires.

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...

Ah go on Andy dont hold back. Thanks for the tantalising offer to inform us further about the "shadowy group" that Cristina said afterwards was responsible for the riot outside the British Embassy. I know a little about Quebracho and you are keen to improve my education so do let forth. Indeed last year I was in the north west so I recognise where the name possibly comes from. Tell me if this Group isn’t encouraged by the racked up popularist rhetoric from Cristina and her cronies to go out and cause trouble. That looks like a neo-peronist gang to me. Just because they didn’t arrive in the Peronist bus (with the little children etc) doesn’t mean they aren’t fellow-travellers.

Quebracho frequently criticizes and insults CFK, and I don't see how throwing stones at the Embassy would help her. Plus their origin is not Peronist, though they sympathize with Montoneros (a Peronist leftist movement in the 1970s, some of whose members are now in goverment) but it's mostly a Marxist-Leninist nationalistic band. Sorry but I rather not deprive you of the suspense regarding the reason for their name.

What I find most interesting in your paragraph is that you ask me not to hold back. What leads you to think that I want to criticize Britain but I'm holding it back? I believe I've expressed tacitly and explicitly that I don't intend to do that, I've been talking about the case for Malvinas but I love British culture.

I think that remark of yours adds up to others that indicate that you're entertaining prejudices, which may explain why you're reading my messages superficially. Perhaps you would like me to be anti-British, so as to have an explanation for my defense of the Argentine case. Maybe you have arrived here with the preconceived idea that I will contradict myself and change stances, so that's why you're so easily coming up with those remarks.

Well harking back to the 1830’s was what this thread started with !

I was bringing across references and arguments that are relevant for a case that is unsolved, partly to answer things that were said before, including false allegations. That's different from defaming a nation just for the sake of it.

Yes you have presented an argument. You have made an assertion about the "EU Constitution" but its unsubstantiated. At the risk of going down yet another blind cul-de-sac kindly back that up with a source.

My argument was not limited to the assertion about the EU Constitution, this was just an example of it being normal that countries neglect, in such documents, disputing claims to territory they consider to be theirs, without it implying that they don't have the goodwill to settle disputes or that the preconditions for negotiations are not set.

Part III, Title IV of the EU Constitution regulates the relationship between the Union and European overseas territories, or 'non-European countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.' These are listed in Annex II, the list includes the islands, no reservation made. The documents are available here:

http://www.proyectos.cchs.csic.es/euroconstitution/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm

This wording implies a ratification of the British stance regarding the islands, it's not more direct because the EU Constitution only regulates their relationship with the Union, but it is a 'sacred' document (as you called our Constitution) that neglects the other part's position. Yet, negotiations may be started without changing that, it would be odd to request it beforehand, it doesn't imply a lack of trustworthiness.

I did offer a source, it's the EU Constitution itself. If you wanted to read the actual text and discuss it, you could have requested a link or looked it up in the Internet, instead of neglecting my argument or shallowly stating that it was unsubstantiated before you even had the chance to verify it. I concede that the wording is not as direct as the transitory disposition in our Constitution, but I was not comparing their expressiveness, please read the original argument before saying that I was.

No actually actually the quote is widely attributed to Churchill see for example ....
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html

I said it was a typical misquote, thus frequently attributed to him. That link you offer mentions two newspapers quoting 'better to talk jaw to jaw than have war', which is believed to be closer to what he really said. The 'jaw-jaw/war-war' phrasing was said by Macmillan. But I didn't know that the form was previously printed by NY Times and other newspapers. After reading your link and this one, I see that it is believed that Macmillan may have picked it up from those papers, though I guess it's not impossible that NY Times was right and Churchill's version was actually the 'jaw-jaw' one.

When I brought this up, it's not that I thought 'jaw to jaw' made a big difference compared to "jaw-jaw", etc. I was just tempted to do it because I sensed a condescending tone in your saying that I may not have recognized those words and explaining what 'his predecessor' had signed with Hitler, particularly after you had suggested that my knowledge of Perito Moreno's deeds was limited to tendentious history lessons at school, which was not nice but, not surprisingly, works with the aforementioned prejudices. Just as you're inviting me to 'take a look' at Darwin's words in your last message (I quoted him before, in another thread about the dispute).