test debate

admin

“The recovery of these territories (Malvinas) and the full exercise of sovereignty constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.” A Transitory Clause in the Constitution of Argentina [1]

Fig One: Malvinas in the view of the British

Perhaps it is of the time for us to think of this dispute in a new perspective; for that when one thinks about such issues, one thinks of a struggle of a people against the long dead claims of a nation with a revanchist populace. Often, foreign relations are much more complicated than referendums, right of determination and all the opposed. Foreign relations consist of complex webs of treaties, the ratification of treaties, and coercion.

In a long letter to the British parliament, Argentine Politician Carlos Raimundi boasted about the island’s long Argentine heritage, and revives Argentine claims on the Malvinas. “Any acceptable settlements will recognize that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possedetis juri”These words started a long letter to British officials. “On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio…Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world deniesis under legal dispute, not even the US…The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.”[2]

With these words embedded to our heads, we must take upon this issue a new outlook. Contentions must be read with a blank mind; prejudices must be dropped in order for them to be effective.

1R1NC: Nookta Sounds Convention

Firstly, one has to recognize the rights to uti possedetis juri, which states that when a country achieves independence, the independent country shall be given lands as decided by their previous federal conventions. Uti possedetis juri applies for all countries in the world, although in many cases, they are ignored. However, in Argentina, this case is strikingly valid, as in many parts of the Spanish Empire.

With this said, we may now move onto the main contention of this point. The Nootka Sound Convention was signed by the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of Britain in 1790, as a way to regulate British and Spanish colonies. The Nootka Sound convention was ratified six weeks after it was agreed upon; the origins of this convention was when Jose Martinez, a Spanish Navigator, was sent to declare Spanish control over Nootka Sound, whose claims was then conflicted by British and American fur traders. After much conflict, the Nootka Sound convention was signed on the 29^th of October, 1790.

Fig Two: A State Sponsored Spanish Map after Nootka Sounds labeling Malvinas as Spanish territory

Back to our dilemma; soon, after 1829 and the restoration of Argentine independence, an Argentine administration was soon set up on the Malvinas. Firstly a brief private venture, this went out of hand when American fishing ships were apprehended by the Island’s Argentine Governor, which soon led to the dispatching of the sloop Lexingtonto destroy the island’s main city and deserted the island. “This island is now without government”was what the Americans said before they left. This settlement was set up in the face British protests, but as stated, these islands were part of Argentina via the right ofutis possederetis juri. One must look carefully at the agreement relating to the Nootka Sound Convention. The Sixth Article of the Convention clearly outlines that:

“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain.”[4]

Keep in mind that during the signing and ensuring ratification of this, a Spanish garrison was present in the Malvinas. Although a British settlement existed, they left in 1776 (leaving a puny plaque) at the British settlement of Port Egmont. However, this British settlement was forced to leave in 1780 by the Spaniards, and through the Nootka Sound Conventions, was prohibited from coming back to the island.

Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years; a claim to a piece of disputed territory is often invalidated after 50 year. From the lost of Port Egmont in 1780, to the resettlement of the islands in 1829 by Argentine officials, the island remained virtually uninhabited with no de factoruler, although it was clear that is was up until then Spanish, and after the departure of Spain, Argentine.

1R2NC: UN Resolution 1514, 2065 and the apparent End of Colonization

UN Resolution 2065 was adopted in an attempt to liberalize the relations between the two countries, and negotiate the end of British presence in that area. UN Resolution 2065 was much said to be an extension of 1514, which was passed on the 20^th of December, 1960. The last non-operative clause of UN Resolution 1514 states:

(This assembly) Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

This last non-operative clause is then followed by conditions and declarations that seemingly put the matter in a more confusing matter; Operative Clause One states that:

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. [3]

This seems to ignore the fact that hence the Malvinas were settled via foreign settlers and the settlement was illegitimate, then the so-called “Native” Falklanders are in reality non-indigenous people. Calling for the need to bring this dispute to a speedy end, the UN did what it was best at doing; nothing. Although Operative Clause two determines that the right to self determination was applicable to the islanders, there has been evidence that the true settlers of the Malvinas were Patagonia Indians; so in reality, self-determination rights goes to them, but since discovery of the island in 1593 probably decimated the population, it would only make sense for this dispute to ignore self-determination. [5]

Nevertheless, this resolution calls for the end of colonization, and for the start of negotiations. These broke down in the face of stiff and stubborn British resistance; they would simply not discuss this issue, as it is clear that the “islanders” (descendants of British sailors) do not want to discuss this. Resolution 2065 was passed in 1965. This time, the pleas of the UN was clear. Calling upon both sides to negotiate, this failed again due to British stubbornness and unwillingness to hear the actual Argentine reason.

After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent? This would be a violation of national integrity, as that land was renounced during the Nootka Sound Conventions. Yet at the moment of the British reassertion of power in 1833, Argentina had no ways of retaliating except via peaceful and diplomatic means.

When a tiger refuses to listen to a little bear, that little bear gains strengths and makes the tiger listens to him; Argentina submitted 27 complaints against Britain to 1945, and since then, has brought this issue up at all times during the General Assembly meetings in the UN. Thing came to a boiling point, but an understandable one (fuelled by ignorance), when Argentine Nationalist Dictator Admiral Jorge Anaya unleashed the might of the Argentine Armed Forces upon the Malvinas, with the hope of reclaiming their lands.

The lost of the Malvinas War did not mean the complete lost of hope of the recovering of Argentine lands. Until this day, Argentina deserves the right to be viewed as an equal, although aggressive; the Argentines put faith in the UN to deliver the full might of its decolonization doctrines to take effect in the Southern Atlantic. It was clear that in 1833, Argentina was at the mercy of the UK; but now, the situation has changed, and the UK is at the mercy of the UN.

Justice is omnipotent; one day, justice will be delivered.

Fig Three: Argentine World Cup holding up a pro-Argentine Malvinas banner

IN CONCLUSION:

The Nootka Conventions states that the Falkland belongs to Argentina via the right of uti possedetis juri, as it previously belonged, for 70 unchallenged years, to Spain, and when the transfer of power became apparent, to Argentina; Britain’s 1833 settlement was settled through a desperate but successful show of power, in which two British ships forcibly expelled all Argentines from the Malvinas.

The UN has a job of ending colonization; yet the Malvinas is still colonized, and the British government will not accept any negotiations via a long lost claim of self determination, which the current inhabitants do not hold.

Citations:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

[2]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falkland-islands-principle-international-law

[3]http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/RES1514.HTM

[4]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

[5]http://www.lonelyplanet.com/falkland-islands/history

Priest of Swag

“The recovery of these territories (Malvinas) and the full exercise of sovereignty constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.” A Transitory Clause in the Constitution of Argentina[1]

Fig One: Malvinas in the view of the British

Perhaps it is of the time for us to think of this dispute in a new perspective; for that when one thinks about such issues, one thinks of a struggle of a people against the long dead claims of a nation with a revanchist populace. Often, foreign relations are much more complicated than referendums, right of determination and all the opposed. Foreign relations consist of complex webs of treaties, the ratification of treaties, and coercion.

In a long letter to the British parliament, Argentine Politician Carlos Raimundi boasted about the island’s long Argentine heritage, and revives Argentine claims on the Malvinas. “Any acceptable settlements will recognize that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possedetis juri”These words started a long letter to British officials.“On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio…Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world deniesis under legal dispute, not even the US…The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.”[2]

With these words embedded to our heads, we must take upon this issue a new outlook. Contentions must be read with a blank mind; prejudices must be dropped in order for them to be effective.

1R1NC: Nookta Sounds Convention

Firstly, one has to recognize the rights touti possedetis juri, which states that when a country achieves independence, the independent country shall be given lands as decided by their previous federal conventions.Uti possedetis juriapplies for all countries in the world, although in many cases, they are ignored. However, in Argentina, this case is strikingly valid, as in many parts of the Spanish Empire.

With this said, we may now move onto the main contention of this point. The Nootka Sound Convention was signed by the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of Britain in 1790, as a way to regulate British and Spanish colonies. The Nootka Sound convention was ratified six weeks after it was agreed upon; the origins of this convention was when Jose Martinez, a Spanish Navigator, was sent to declare Spanish control over Nootka Sound, whose claims was then conflicted by British and American fur traders. After much conflict, the Nootka Sound convention was signed on the 29^thof October, 1790.

Fig Two: A State Sponsored Spanish Map after Nootka Sounds labeling Malvinas as Spanish territory

Back to our dilemma; soon, after 1829 and the restoration of Argentine independence, an Argentine administration was soon set up on the Malvinas. Firstly a brief private venture, this went out of hand when American fishing ships were apprehended by the Island’s Argentine Governor, which soon led to the dispatching of the sloopLexingtonto destroy the island’s main city and deserted the island.“This island is now without government”was what the Americans said before they left. This settlement was set up in the face British protests, but as stated, these islands were part of Argentina via the right ofutis possederetis juri.One must look carefully at the agreement relating to the Nootka Sound Convention. The Sixth Article of the Convention clearly outlines that:

“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain.”[4]

Keep in mind that during the signing and ensuring ratification of this, a Spanish garrison was present in the Malvinas. Although a British settlement existed, they left in 1776 (leaving a puny plaque) at the British settlement of Port Egmont. However, this British settlement was forced to leave in 1780 by the Spaniards, and through the Nootka Sound Conventions, was prohibited from coming back to the island.

Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years; a claim to a piece of disputed territory is often invalidated after 50 year. From the lost of Port Egmont in 1780, to the resettlement of the islands in 1829 by Argentine officials, the island remained virtually uninhabited with node factoruler, although it was clear that is was up until then Spanish, and after the departure of Spain, Argentine.

1R2NC: UN Resolution 1514, 2065 and the apparent End of Colonization

UN Resolution 2065 was adopted in an attempt to liberalize the relations between the two countries, and negotiate the end of British presence in that area. UN Resolution 2065 was much said to be an extension of 1514, which was passed on the 20^thof December, 1960. The last non-operative clause of UN Resolution 1514 states:

(This assembly) Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

This last non-operative clause is then followed by conditions and declarations that seemingly put the matter in a more confusing matter; Operative Clause One states that:

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. [3]

This seems to ignore the fact that hence the Malvinas were settled via foreign settlers and the settlement was illegitimate, then the so-called “Native” Falklanders are in reality non-indigenous people. Calling for the need to bring this dispute to a speedy end, the UN did what it was best at doing; nothing. Although Operative Clause two determines that the right to self determination was applicable to the islanders, there has been evidence that the true settlers of the Malvinas were Patagonia Indians; so in reality, self-determination rights goes to them, but since discovery of the island in 1593 probably decimated the population, it would only make sense for this dispute to ignore self-determination. [5]

Nevertheless, this resolution calls for the end of colonization, and for the start of negotiations. These broke down in the face of stiff and stubborn British resistance; they would simply not discuss this issue, as it is clear that the “islanders” (descendants of British sailors) do not want to discuss this. Resolution 2065 was passed in 1965. This time, the pleas of the UN was clear. Calling upon both sides to negotiate, this failed again due to British stubbornness and unwillingness to hear the actual Argentine reason.

After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent? This would be a violation of national integrity, as that land was renounced during the Nootka Sound Conventions. Yet at the moment of the British reassertion of power in 1833, Argentina hadno ways of retaliating except via peaceful and diplomatic means.

When a tiger refuses to listen to a little bear, that little bear gains strengths and makes the tiger listens to him; Argentina submitted 27 complaints against Britain to 1945, and since then, has brought this issue up at all times during the General Assembly meetings in the UN. Thing came to a boiling point, but an understandable one (fuelled by ignorance), when Argentine Nationalist Dictator Admiral Jorge Anaya unleashed the might of the Argentine Armed Forces upon the Malvinas, with the hope of reclaiming their lands.

The lost of the Malvinas War did not mean the complete lost of hope of the recovering of Argentine lands. Until this day, Argentina deserves the right to be viewed as an equal, although aggressive; the Argentines put faith in the UN to deliver the full might of its decolonization doctrines to take effect in the Southern Atlantic. It was clear that in 1833, Argentina was at the mercy of the UK; but now, the situation has changed, and the UK is at the mercy of the UN.

Justice is omnipotent; one day, justice will be delivered.

Fig Three: Argentine World Cup holding up a pro-Argentine Malvinas banner

IN CONCLUSION:

The Nootka Conventions states that the Falkland belongs to Argentina via the right ofuti possedetis juri, as it previously belonged, for 70 unchallenged years, to Spain, and when the transfer of power became apparent, to Argentina; Britain’s 1833 settlement was settled through a desperate but successful show of power, in which two British ships forcibly expelled all Argentines from the Malvinas.

The UN has a job of ending colonization; yet the Malvinas is still colonized, and the British government will not accept any negotiations via a long lost claim of self determination, which the current inhabitantsdo not hold.

Citations:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

[2]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falkland-islands-principle-international-law

[3]http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/RES1514.HTM

[4]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

[5]http://www.lonelyplanet.com/falkland-islands/history

admin

“The recovery of these territories (Malvinas) and the full exercise of sovereignty constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.” A Transitory Clause in the Constitution of Argentina [1]

Fig One: Malvinas in the view of the British

Perhaps it is of the time for us to think of this dispute in a new perspective; for that when one thinks about such issues, one thinks of a struggle of a people against the long dead claims of a nation with a revanchist populace. Often, foreign relations are much more complicated than referendums, right of determination and all the opposed. Foreign relations consist of complex webs of treaties, the ratification of treaties, and coercion.

In a long letter to the British parliament, Argentine Politician Carlos Raimundi boasted about the island’s long Argentine heritage, and revives Argentine claims on the Malvinas. “Any acceptable settlements will recognize that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possedetis juri”These words started a long letter to British officials. “On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio…Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world deniesis under legal dispute, not even the US…The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.”[2]

With these words embedded to our heads, we must take upon this issue a new outlook. Contentions must be read with a blank mind; prejudices must be dropped in order for them to be effective.

1R1NC: Nookta Sounds Convention

Firstly, one has to recognize the rights to uti possedetis juri, which states that when a country achieves independence, the independent country shall be given lands as decided by their previous federal conventions. Uti possedetis juri applies for all countries in the world, although in many cases, they are ignored. However, in Argentina, this case is strikingly valid, as in many parts of the Spanish Empire.

With this said, we may now move onto the main contention of this point. The Nootka Sound Convention was signed by the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of Britain in 1790, as a way to regulate British and Spanish colonies. The Nootka Sound convention was ratified six weeks after it was agreed upon; the origins of this convention was when Jose Martinez, a Spanish Navigator, was sent to declare Spanish control over Nootka Sound, whose claims was then conflicted by British and American fur traders. After much conflict, the Nootka Sound convention was signed on the 29^th of October, 1790.

Fig Two: A State Sponsored Spanish Map after Nootka Sounds labeling Malvinas as Spanish territory

Back to our dilemma; soon, after 1829 and the restoration of Argentine independence, an Argentine administration was soon set up on the Malvinas. Firstly a brief private venture, this went out of hand when American fishing ships were apprehended by the Island’s Argentine Governor, which soon led to the dispatching of the sloop Lexingtonto destroy the island’s main city and deserted the island. “This island is now without government”was what the Americans said before they left. This settlement was set up in the face British protests, but as stated, these islands were part of Argentina via the right ofutis possederetis juri. One must look carefully at the agreement relating to the Nootka Sound Convention. The Sixth Article of the Convention clearly outlines that:

“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain.”[4]

Keep in mind that during the signing and ensuring ratification of this, a Spanish garrison was present in the Malvinas. Although a British settlement existed, they left in 1776 (leaving a puny plaque) at the British settlement of Port Egmont. However, this British settlement was forced to leave in 1780 by the Spaniards, and through the Nootka Sound Conventions, was prohibited from coming back to the island.

Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years; a claim to a piece of disputed territory is often invalidated after 50 year. From the lost of Port Egmont in 1780, to the resettlement of the islands in 1829 by Argentine officials, the island remained virtually uninhabited with no de factoruler, although it was clear that is was up until then Spanish, and after the departure of Spain, Argentine.

1R2NC: UN Resolution 1514, 2065 and the apparent End of Colonization

UN Resolution 2065 was adopted in an attempt to liberalize the relations between the two countries, and negotiate the end of British presence in that area. UN Resolution 2065 was much said to be an extension of 1514, which was passed on the 20^th of December, 1960. The last non-operative clause of UN Resolution 1514 states:

(This assembly) Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

This last non-operative clause is then followed by conditions and declarations that seemingly put the matter in a more confusing matter; Operative Clause One states that:

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. [3]

This seems to ignore the fact that hence the Malvinas were settled via foreign settlers and the settlement was illegitimate, then the so-called “Native” Falklanders are in reality non-indigenous people. Calling for the need to bring this dispute to a speedy end, the UN did what it was best at doing; nothing. Although Operative Clause two determines that the right to self determination was applicable to the islanders, there has been evidence that the true settlers of the Malvinas were Patagonia Indians; so in reality, self-determination rights goes to them, but since discovery of the island in 1593 probably decimated the population, it would only make sense for this dispute to ignore self-determination. [5]

Nevertheless, this resolution calls for the end of colonization, and for the start of negotiations. These broke down in the face of stiff and stubborn British resistance; they would simply not discuss this issue, as it is clear that the “islanders” (descendants of British sailors) do not want to discuss this. Resolution 2065 was passed in 1965. This time, the pleas of the UN was clear. Calling upon both sides to negotiate, this failed again due to British stubbornness and unwillingness to hear the actual Argentine reason.

After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent? This would be a violation of national integrity, as that land was renounced during the Nootka Sound Conventions. Yet at the moment of the British reassertion of power in 1833, Argentina had no ways of retaliating except via peaceful and diplomatic means.

When a tiger refuses to listen to a little bear, that little bear gains strengths and makes the tiger listens to him; Argentina submitted 27 complaints against Britain to 1945, and since then, has brought this issue up at all times during the General Assembly meetings in the UN. Thing came to a boiling point, but an understandable one (fuelled by ignorance), when Argentine Nationalist Dictator Admiral Jorge Anaya unleashed the might of the Argentine Armed Forces upon the Malvinas, with the hope of reclaiming their lands.

The lost of the Malvinas War did not mean the complete lost of hope of the recovering of Argentine lands. Until this day, Argentina deserves the right to be viewed as an equal, although aggressive; the Argentines put faith in the UN to deliver the full might of its decolonization doctrines to take effect in the Southern Atlantic. It was clear that in 1833, Argentina was at the mercy of the UK; but now, the situation has changed, and the UK is at the mercy of the UN.

Justice is omnipotent; one day, justice will be delivered.

Fig Three: Argentine World Cup holding up a pro-Argentine Malvinas banner

IN CONCLUSION:

The Nootka Conventions states that the Falkland belongs to Argentina via the right of uti possedetis juri, as it previously belonged, for 70 unchallenged years, to Spain, and when the transfer of power became apparent, to Argentina; Britain’s 1833 settlement was settled through a desperate but successful show of power, in which two British ships forcibly expelled all Argentines from the Malvinas.

The UN has a job of ending colonization; yet the Malvinas is still colonized, and the British government will not accept any negotiations via a long lost claim of self determination, which the current inhabitants do not hold.

Citations:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

[2]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/01/falkland-islands-principle-international-law

[3]http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/RES1514.HTM

[4]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

[5]http://www.lonelyplanet.com/falkland-islands/history