UK

Showers (AM and PM) -2° London Hi 5°C / Lo -1°C

Falklands are fully protected, insists Gordon Brown

By Matt Dickinson, Press Association

Britain has made all the preparations necessary to ensure Falkland Islanders are protected, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today amid Argentinian efforts to control shipping in the region.

The Argentinian government has issued a decree that tightens control over shipping in the area ahead of British efforts to start oil and gas exploration off the islands' waters.

According to The Sun newspaper, a new British naval task force comprising two ships and an oil supply tanker has been sent to the South Atlantic isles.

But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was "maintaining" British force levels in and around the Falkland Islands and Mr Brown said he did not expect to need to send a task force to the area.

Speaking on a phone-in with Real Radio in the North East, he said: "I think you will find we have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected.

"...This is oil drilling that is exploration for the future. It is perfectly within our rights to do this."

He added that he believed the Argentinian government understood this and "sensible discussions" would prevail.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague suggested that an increased naval presence in the area might be necessary.

He said: "The islanders have every right to develop the natural resources of their islands and surrounding waters.

"It should be made very clear that the wholly legitimate search for oil in the Falklands waters will not be affected by unwarranted threats or interference from Argentina.

"Additionally, the British Government should state clearly that no vessel operating within the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands will require any form of permit from any other country.

"Increased British naval presence in the area would leave no doubt as to this position."

The MoD said the UK's existing "deterrence" in the Falklands was not being increased and UK force levels were being maintained.

A spokesman said: "The Government is fully committed to the South Atlantic Overseas Territories, which include the Falkland Islands.

"A deterrence force is maintained on the islands. That deterrence force comprises a wide range of land, air and maritime assets which collectively maintain our defence posture.

"We have a permanent presence in the South Atlantic, including one frigate/destroyer, a patrol vessel, a survey ship and a replenishment vessel.

"We also have 1,076 service personnel on land."

Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner issued a decree covering all ships that enter its waters, which Buenos Aires regards as those covering the entire South Atlantic continental shelf.

The Foreign Office shrugged off the demand yesterday, insisting that the seas around the Falklands were controlled by island authorities and would not be affected by the decree.

But it is understood to be watching the situation closely.

As the issue escalated, Sir Nicholas Winterton, chairman of the all-party Falklands group, said he would seek a meeting with senior officials at the Foreign Office when Parliament returns from recess next week.

He dismissed Ms Fernandez's decree as "pathetic and useless" as Argentina has no jurisdiction over the seas around the Falklands.

And he stressed that both the Government and Conservative opposition remain committed to British sovereignty over the islands and the principle of self-determination for their inhabitants.

"The Argentinians are again indulging in hostile behaviour - albeit at this stage only in words - against a friendly neighbour, the Falklands," said Sir Nicholas.

"I believe they are doing so for internal purposes and that it will not affect the Falkland Islands at all.

"All they are trying to do is impede the economic progress of the Falkland Islands because, of course, the encouragement of hydrocarbon exploration in the area is an important part of achieving a sustainable future for the islands.

"I don't think one wants to exacerbate what is already a difficult situation, but clearly it is important that the Foreign Office indicates that they believe that this decree has no jurisdiction over international waters."

The Foreign Office said Britain was ready to co-operate with Argentina on South Atlantic issues and was working to develop relations between the two countries.

"Argentina and the UK are important partners," said the Foreign Office spokesman.

"We have a close and productive relationship on a range of bilateral and multilateral issues, including the global economic situation (particularly in the G20), human rights, climate change, sustainable development and counter-proliferation.

"And we want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues. We will work to develop this relationship further."

Despite being ejected from the islands, which they know as the Malvinas, after a two-month occupation and war in 1982, Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the Falklands.

The dispute over the territory has flared up recently because of interest in possible oil reserves.

Several British companies are poised to begin exploration using an offshore rig, while Desire Petroleum has licensed six areas where it predicts 3.5 billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be recovered.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Gallipoli.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 02:22 pm (UTC)
ITS WAR BOYS! Yet another distraction, this time from cock-up central that Afghanistan has become. In a macabre dance Brown decides to better Maggies score on the death toll at the end of the world. Funny how civilian P-Ms are so careless with surplus economic units, I mean squaddies lives.
Re: Gallipoli.
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 10:54 pm (UTC)


Any after thoughts Ron, some time since you set this ball rolling ?
Re: Gallipoli. - [info]ron_broxted - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:05 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gallipoli. - [info]sceptic007 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:51 pm (UTC) Expand
BROWN
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 02:53 pm (UTC)



Brown says "Falklands are fully protected."

Oh dear...
Re: BROWN
[info]cairoviews wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 03:45 pm (UTC)
Yes they will all sleep more easily with cry baby Brown on the case.

I would guess they will be over run by next Tuesday. Although the Argies may of course take pity on a country with more debt than even they managed to accumulate.
Argentina has no claim:
[info]pacifica_cult wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 03:00 pm (UTC)
The Falkland islands were uninhabited and first discovered by European explorers. not by Argentineans who, after the 1770's falkland crisis, took over and continued Spain's claim.

They have no independent basis for a claim on the falkland islands. The only reason that they are pressing claims is because of the oil that there might be around the falkland isles.

if there was no oil we would hear nothing from the argies!





Re: Argentina has no claim:
[info]thinkforaminute wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 03:43 pm (UTC)
Pacifica :

I am afraid you are talking nonsense. Please see my comments on : www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/argentina-in-bid-to-control-falklands-shipping-1902007.html

The islands were first sighted by Spaniards in 1520 then visited by Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600.
By the mid 1790's Spain's ownership of the islands was universally acknowledged and accepted. When Argentina gained its independence from Spain, the islands were colonised by the Argies. USA fishermen were caught illegally fishing in Argentinian waters soon after and were sent packing by Argentine authorities. The Yanks in (as per usual) sent a warship (the Lexington) and in an completely unjustified attack destroyed the colony. Soon after, before Argentina could recolonise them, we (the British) invaded the islands and have been there ever since.

Yes, the people of the Falklands are indeed British and feel British (of course) but the honest truth is that they are not much more than "squatters" taking over property that is not really theirs.

I'm English and I am patriotic and I would like the islands to remain British but the truth is the truth and we are there as invaders.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Argies' claim is somewhat legitimate.
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]ardvaark75 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 04:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]thinkforaminute - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]ardvaark75 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]thinkforaminute - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]ardvaark75 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Argentina has no claim: - [info]thinkforaminute - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 09:08 pm (UTC) Expand
The Empire in rags
[info]freegib wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 03:18 pm (UTC)
Strong with the weak, weak with the strog (China HK)
Re: The Empire in rags
[info]thinkforaminute wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 03:56 pm (UTC)
Freegib :

It always amuses me how Gibraltarians seem to find some sort of connection to Falklanders.

Please see my comments to another Gibraltarian on :

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/argentina-in-bid-to-control-falklands-shipping-1902007.html

The situations in Gibraltar and the Falklands have nothing to do with each other. Spain gave us (Britain) Gibraltar in a legal, universally recognised treaty. As far as I'm concerned that treaty still stands and Spain can stuff themselves if they now do not like it. All Gibraltarians are therefore genuine British citizens.

There was never any treaty whatsoever where Argentina (or anyone else for that matter), gives the Falklands over to us. We invaded them, pure and simple. Yes, the Falklanders are British and their wishes ought to be respected but the Argies do have a point about the islands being theirs and the fact that the Falklanders are usurpers.

As I said in my comment to the other Gibraltarian, I visited Gibraltar once some years ago and it was brilliant. I wish I could live there right now.
Long live the Rock !
Re: The Empire in rags - [info]sceptic007 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 10:56 pm (UTC) Expand
From Argentina:
[info]marixarg wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 04:14 pm (UTC)


Friends: Again, no!. If politicians want to hold their governments will not again for enmity between us, the people. Nonsense.
Sincerely
[info]pharmac wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 05:07 pm (UTC)
If Brown states "the Falklands are fully protected" God help them. With his track record the Argies should take over next week!
pharmac
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 05:36 pm (UTC)



Point already made, see second and third post !
having tipped Argentina the wink
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 05:42 pm (UTC)
old Gobbo must have been praying for a chance to do a Thatch, I wouldn't put it past him to tacitly encourage the Argentinians
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 05:52 pm (UTC)


And I wouldn't put it past him to make a complete balls of it, as he does everything else !
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 05:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]sceptic007 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 06:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 07:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 07:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]littleglimmer - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 09:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 09:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]sceptic007 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]littleglimmer - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:35 am (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: having tipped Argentina the wink - [info]vhawk1951 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:03 am (UTC) Expand
Ilois, anyone?
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 07:28 pm (UTC)
'Pacifica-cult' wrote:

'They have no independent basis for a claim on the falkland islands. The only reason that they are pressing claims is because of the oil that there might be around the falkland isles.'

In addition to 'Thinkforaminute's correct query of this, I'd like to point out that the UK invasion and retention of the islands was one of self-interest, a strategic land mass in the South Atlantic and a wool producing area. Though TFAM is right to question parallels with Gibraltar there is truth in 'freegib's comment. One need only compare the treatment of the British Commonwealth citizens of Diego Garcia, of a similar population number to that of the Falklands, who were forcibly removed from their homeland following a lease agreement over the 'uninhabited island'. Interestingly, a supposed settlement - actually an unlawful fix, since overturned by the British High Court, was agreed only months before Argentian invasion, prior to which, and roughly at the time of this settlement, the then deeply unpopular Thatcher government had withdrawn the one defence ship the Falklands then had.

The Ilois, however, had the disadvantage of being black and standing in the way of a big cash windfall for the UK by leasing the island to the UK's ally and provider of the Marshall loan. Diego Garcia is now a strategic invasion and rendition platform for the new superpower. A favour returned between the Anglo Saxon conquistadores.

'vhawk1951', there may well have been an element of 'entrapment' in 1982. There is a possibility of it relating to Hussein's first invasion of Kuwait, and there sure as hell was false pretext in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. As for international waterways, let's not forget Suez.

I hope this is no more than sabre - rattling for both sides' domestic comsumption, but if large reserves are discovered there will be legitimate questions relating to 'sharing the spoils'.
Winding Up The Temperature
[info]littleglimmer wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 09:27 pm (UTC)
I see the proven war-hungry Hague is again looking to ratchet things up.
Re: Winding Up The Temperature
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 10:51 pm (UTC)


William Hague, a war monger, no no that was Chamberlain, but we digress,,,
Re: Winding Up The Temperature - [info]littleglimmer - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:26 am (UTC) Expand
You get to employ a carrot + stick approach
[info]reg373 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 09:52 pm (UTC)
when you are talking. When you isolate, it's just stick. So the opposite side hardens, and 3rd parties don't come over to your side of the matter -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 10:25 pm (UTC)

Discussion is taking place - at the UN. Yet oil multinationals can utterly transform nations. See 'Drilling And Killing' on www.democracynow.org.

Interesting, too, that the Belgrano was the only US warship to escape Pearl Harbour. The US then sold it to Argentina, to be then sunk by the UK in a war crime.

One for the Sun readers to celebrate.
Falkland or Malvinas
[info]cogollo_london wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 10:45 pm (UTC)
For god sake, stop arguing about who is the owner of the islands. The islands belongs to whoever is brave enough to live in such conditions, windy, bloody cold, far away from everything, etc.
Under no conditions I'd go to live there and contribute working hard developing the area, rising my family, having my house. NO WAY.
So what's the point of all discussions about the ownership of the islands? ...Hypocrites.
Concessions
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:11 pm (UTC)

Perhaps not, cogollo. But might you consider working on a rig off-coast for damn good wages? Or might you consider buying shares in the oil company getting the concession?

I wouldn't like to live in the Falklands either. I wouldn't like to live in the Shetlands, the Orkneys, the Pharoahs. I wouldn't pretend that this is really relevant to the issue of who should lay claim to the oil in the North Sea.
Re: Concessions
[info]cogollo_london wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:33 am (UTC)
gulliver, personally I'm not considering either working for damn good wager or buying shares.
If there's oil in the island, malvinenses or faklanders (not argentineans or british) have the right to extract it and commercialize it. what's the problem with it?
peace & love.
Pharoahs in the North Sea?
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:13 pm (UTC)
Or the Faroes for that matter.
Re: Pharoahs in the North Sea?
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:44 pm (UTC)



Aye !
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Thursday, 18 February 2010 at 11:51 pm (UTC)
For how long will Britain be able to keep a colonial enclave half a world appart? Will that unwellcome presence in the Americas end like peacefull like in Hong Khong or violently like in Goa?
British claim I
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:03 am (UTC)
Britain claims the Islands invoking Right of discovery. The Malvinas/Falkland were supposedly seen by Captain John Davis (vessel Desire) in 1592, though this sighting is doubtful. They were visited (no doubt about it) by Richard Hawkins in 1594.

As their supposed right arrises of the discovery, they cannot argue they are the legal owners of the islands in case they were discovered by others prior to Hawkins or even to Davis.

Unfortunately enough for their claim, there is no doubt about the discoverers, as it has been soundly proven by the Uruguayan Historian Rolando Laguada Tr�as in 1983 (a neutral historian who found documents in neutral France).

Let?s see all references about the islands (originally called ?Sans�n Islands?) previous to Davis trip:

? Discovery by the Fernando de Magallanes expedition of 1520; the news probably arrived Spain by Esteban G�mez (who deserted the expedition, arriving to Spain on 6th may 1521).

? Nautical Chart by Diego de Rivero (1527-1529) including "Sans�n Islands" in latitude 49� S and nearer the mainland coast. It is proved that Esteban Gomez met Diego de Rivero.

? Nautical Chart dated 1522-23 formerly in the Top Kapu Sarayi of Stamboul and now in the Aghalar Mosque of that very city; it depicts the northern coast and the Eastern mouth of the Strait of Magellan and a very great island due east of the above mentioned mouth at 180 nautical miles (1 nautical mile = 1852 meters).
? Captain Pedro Vega and Vessel Anunciada, belonging to Frey Garc�a Jofr� de Loaysa's expedition of 1525-26; supposed but not proven.
? Vessel San Pedro, belonging to the Alcazaba expedition (Dec 1534-Jan1535). Proved to be erroneous.
? Vessel Inc�gnita, belonging to the Bishop of Plasencia's fleet. It is already proved it arrived to the islands (1540).
? Islario de Alfonso de Santa Cruz of year 1541; Sans�n Islands included and discovery depicted (latitude = 51� S)
? Juan Bautista Agnese's nautical chart of 1543-1545; Sans�n Islands included
? Mart�nez Nautical Chart of 1577; Sans�n Islans included.
? Olives Nautical Chart of 1580; Sans�n Islands included.
? John Davis's Desire, 1592 (doubtful)
? Richard Hawkins (1594)

Too much evidence, I?m afraid. Too many nautical charts, too many navigators reporting the islands. How could the islands be included in the Diego de Rivero 1527-29 Chart if they were not discovered?

Though it was most likely Sans�n and Malvinas Islands were the same (for it?s geographical position), those who had interests in opposing it said that an undoubtfull proof was lacking: there were no written mention to the islands in the documents of the Magellan expedition, that is, in Albo, Pigafeta, Maximiliano de Transilvano, the Genovese and Portuguese pilots or other partial original documents that can be consulted in the ?Colection of Documents...? of Navarrete. This could only being explain if the islands had been discovered by those who deserted the expedition, as none of the above mentioned chroniclers were on board.
(to be continued)
British claim (II)
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:04 am (UTC)
The Uruguayan Historian Rolando Laguada Tr�as solved the puzzle once and forever. He found a document by Frey Andr� Thevet in ?Le Gran Insulaire?, Vol I, dated 1586 (before Davis trip) in the National Library of Paris, France, Ms 15452, including a map on page (?Folio?) 229 with latitudes and longitudes representing ?Les isles de Sans�n ou des Geants?. Frey Thevet mentions an old Portuguese Captain and Pilot who sailed in the Magellan expedition he found at Lisbon as his source of information. This is extremely important, as he is reproducing the testimony of a DIRECT WITNESS of the discovery. It is also very important the investigation that proves that Frey Thevet lived at Lisbon between 1563 and 1567. So, the islands were already discovered at 1567. The British claim invoking discovery in 1592/94 vanishes into thin air.

The document is supported by the above mentioned map of page 229, as it is astonishingly coincident with today?s charts. Accurate Latitude observations were not uncommon at those times, as the measurement of the Meridian High of the Sun has always been easy; with that data and a Nautical Almanac, Latitude is simply calculated. The accurateness in Longitude is simple astonishing. They can only be explained due the observations and capacity of Astronomer Andr�s de San Mart�n, who mastered the calculation of longitudes trough eclipses and with the Moon?s Distances Method which had been teach to him by Am�rigo Vespucci.

The Portuguese Captain was probably Don Alvaro de Mezquita. The probably date of discovery is 28th July, based on the name given to the islands and the French ?Santoral? (list of days commemorating a particular Saint), particularly considering the priest on board ?San Antonio? - Father Calmette- was French (this is a highly logical supposition but subject to debate).
Captains in the Magellan expedition were very young, being Magellan himself 40 years old. There is also the possibility that this man ?though a Captain and Pilot- was not that at the times of Magellan. That is -for example- precisely the case of G�mez Gallego Vic�, who was ?grumete? (?boy? in English?) in that expedition.

It is interesting to know that Georgias del Sur Islands were also discovered by Spaniards.
The UK Foreign Office Field Report (1928)
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:09 am (UTC)


The Foreign Office Report dated 29th February 1928 (by John W. Field) recognizes that:

?On 28th October 1790 a convention was signed between this country and Spain which article 6th established that none of the parts should establish in the future any settlement in the eastern or western coast of South America or adjacent islands to the south of those coasts and islands then occupied by Spain (...). By this article IT IS EVIDENT THAT GREAT BRITAIN WAS EXCLUDED OF OCCUPYING ANY PART OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. This treaty was abolished in October 1795 when Spain declared war against Great Britain BUT IT BECAME IN FORCE AGAIN by article 1 of the additional articles of the friendship and Alliance Treaty between Great Britain and Spain dated 5th July 1814, that was signed at Madrid on 18th july 1814?
The Nootka Sound Treaty and the Malvinas/Falkland
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:11 am (UTC)
Here is a brief account of this treaty, almost unknown for many.

Two British ships were captured by the Spaniards at Nootka Sound (Vancouver, Canada) for entering in what was at that time their jurisdiction. That information arrived to the Spanish Court at the end of 1789. As it has happened with Malvinas (giving place to the "secret clause" recognising the Spanish sovereignty of the archipelagos I have written about in my "Chronology of Malvinas/Falklands" postings), the British considered their honour was at stake and demanded a reparation. William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister at those times and he began war preparatives (Spain too). The Spanish Real Armada was in no position at those times to fight a war alone against the Royal Navy as this later had twice it's size. Spain looked for support to the France of Louis XVI, which was in fact ruled by the National Assembly at those times, being Mirabeau one of it's leading representatives.France was once again reticent with her ally. There were negotiations between Spain and Britain in wich the latter obtained many adventages.
The Convention of Nootka Sound was signed on October 28th, 1790, at San
Lorenzo, ceding Spain, in spite of Floridablanca's attempts. The ships
captured were returned to the British; no reparation should be paid, but
subjects of both powers were not to be disturbed when fishing or sailing
alongside the Pacific Ocean or the South Atlantic Seas, either landing in
coast by those waters - in unsettled lands - , trading with the naturals,
or even stablishing settlements. All that could be done, with the
following limitations only:

Article 4th stated that the English activities must not be useful as "pretext to an ilicit trade with the Spanish Settlements and with that aim in mind it has been expressely stablished that British subjects will not sail nor fish in those seas at a distance of less than ten sea leagues of any part of land already occupied by Spain".

Article 5th made reference to free trade in northwestern North Am�rica north of the zone then occupied by Spain: where none of those sea powers had settlements, the other would be free to trade.

Article 6th stablished that either in the eastern as in the western coasts and adyacent island of South Am�rica no new settlement was going to be stablished in the future by either power south of those already occupied by Spain. In spite of this, the subjects of both powers could go ashore for things related with fishing and even build "lodges and other temporary buildings useful for that aim only."

Article 7th stablished that in case of any violation of any clause, the Offitials of both sides -without going to hands- should made a clear statement of facts and send them to their respective authorities.

The English obtained nearly everything they had asked for, but British settlements in what are now Argentinian coasts (including Malvinas/Falkland) had been avoided (exept those temporary for sealers and whalers).

The agreement not to establish new settlements either in the eastern as in
the western coasts and adyacent island of South Am�rica already occupied
by Spain (as per article 6th), recognizes Spanish sovereignty over Carmen de Patagones, San Jos�, Deseado y PUERTO SOLEDAD (MALVINAS Is). This Treaty was disadventagious for Spain, BUT IT IS A BRITISH RECOGNIZEMENT to the SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY of MALVINAS. At those times, Spain had been for 16 years the only stablished country in Malvinas, after the English abandoned them in 1774.
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:12 am (UTC)

This is not a separatist post-colonial situation. The Falklanders are British. That does not mean that the oil beneath them, to a distance of 200km around the islands including Georgia, is, necessarily.

This is what the UN hydrocarbon discussions will be about - which nation state government is in the position to grant concessions, and where. This is a step away from issues of sovereignty regarding the Malvinas/Falklands.
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:32 am (UTC)
Britain tookm the islands by force, expelled its population, brought her colonists and after the etnic cleansing (and only after...) invokes self determination (unlike at Hong Khong, when millions of inhabitants were not asked about their delivery to red China, or unlike Diego garc�a, as has been corectely mentiones in this trend)
We have been claiming for justice since the usurpation of 1833, before oil, or gas had any importance. Simply, we want our islands back, which does not mean we want to expulse the islanders (as the Uk did with ours...). There is plenty we can offer regarding keeping their culture, etc, but Britain must go.
(no subject) - [info]ardvaark75 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:36 am (UTC) Expand
Who is "we" - "we have been claiming for justice... etc" - [info]peter_holl - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:54 pm (UTC) Expand
Cronology of Malvinas/Falklands 1501 - 1770
[info]catonelcensor wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:15 am (UTC)

? Americo Vespucci's trip (1501-1502); very, very doubtful
? Binot Palmiere de Gonneville's trip (1503-1504); very doubtful too
? Discovery by the Fernando de Magallanes (Magellan) expedition of 1520; the news probably arrived Spain by Esteban G�mez (who deserted the expedition, arriving to Spain on 6th may 1521).The discovery of Malvinas by this expedition was definitely proven by the Uruguayan Historian Rolando Laguada Tr�as in 1983
? Nautical Chart by Diego de Rivero (1527-1529) including "Sans�n Islands" in latitude 49� S and nearer the mainland coast. It is proved that Esteban Gomez met Diego de Rivero.
? Nautical Chart dated 1522-23 formerly in the Top Kapu Sarayi of Stamboul and now in the Aghalar Mosque of that very city; it depicts the northern coast and the Eastern mouth of the Strait of Magellan and a very great island due east of the above mentioned mouth at 180 nautical miles (1 nautical mile = 1852 meters).
? Captain Pedro Vega and Vessel Anunciada, belonging to Frey Garc�a Jofr� de Loaysa's expedition of 1525-26; supposed but not proven.
? Vessel San Pedro, belonging to the Alcazaba expedition (Dec 1534-jan1535); proved erroneous.
? Vessel Inc�gnita, belonging to the Bishop of Plasencia's fleet. It is already proved it arrived to the islands (1540).
? Islario de Alfonso de Santa Cruz of year 1541; Sans�n Islands included and discovery depicted (latitude = 51� S)
? Juan Bautista Agnese's nautical chart of 1543-1545; Sans�n Islands included
? Mart�nez Nautical Chart of 1577; Sans�n Islans included.
? Olives Nautical Chart of 1580; Sans�n Islands included.
? John Davis's Desire, 1592 (doubtful)
? Richard Hawkins (1594)
? Sebald de Weert discovers Sebaldinas Islands (Jason Islands for the British) on 24th January 1600.
? Schouten Le Maire expedition of 1615-16
? Antonio de la Roche (1675)
? John Cook (1684),
? John Strong (1690) with Wellfare (or Farewell)
? Beauchesne Gouin's Philypeaux
? Captains Peree and Fouquet voyaye of 1705
? Captain Boislore's Toisson D'Or trip of 1706.
? Captain De la Marre's Saint Luois trip of 1706
? Captain Chabert's expedition of 1707-1708 (Amable and Oriflamme).
? Captain Chabert's trip of 1708 (Notre Dame de L'Assomption)
? Captain Wooders Roger corsair expedition of 1708 (Duke and Duchess)
? Juan Doublet's Saint Jean Baptiste expedition of 1708.
? Brignon's Notre Dame de L'Incarnation trip of 1711-13.
? Admiral Jackob Roggeveen expedition of 1721-22
? Utrecht Treaty of 1713 (Spanish sovereignty in the SW Atlantic recognised by Britain)
? Lord Anson expedition (1740)
? England asks for Spanish authorisation to establish themselves in Malvinas (1749).
? The Spanish ambassador in London Denies it, invoking article 8th of Utrecht Treaty. England cancells (renounces) the expedition.
? French settlement at Port Louis (1764)
? British settlement at Port Egmont
? France abandons the islands. Colonists indemnified for their expenses.
? British illegal intruders expelled by force (1770)
? British return to Port Egmont. Secret clause on treaty specifies they are to abandon the settlement.
? British fulfilment of secret clause: Port Egmont is abandoned.

Re: Cronology of Malvinas/Falklands 1501 - 1770
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:48 am (UTC)


Would you like rephrase that please.

Forgive me, I don't quite follow.
Re: Cronology of Malvinas/Falklands 1501 - 1770 - [info]sceptic007 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:54 am (UTC) Expand
An extensive, admirable list.
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:45 am (UTC)

Unfortunately laws of spot and grab no longer apply.
There isn't oil *in* the island.
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:49 am (UTC)

So now you know.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date