How successive Argentine Governments since 1964 have constantly lied to the UN and to their own people.
Today I will show you how they have lied and show you the truth of the whole affair.
For 50 years Argentine Government officials have not only lied to their own people but also to the UN and whole world in general. In September 1964, José María Ruda, Argentina’s Representative to the United Nations addressed the UN Subcommittee III on the subject of the Falkland Islands; this later became known as the ‘Ruda Statement. The Ruda Statement led to the adoption of UN Resolution 2065 (XX) by the General Assembly and is the foundation for the Government of Argentina’s arguments that the Falkland Islands should be Argentine. Ruda’s 8,000 word speech was littered with falsehoods and inaccuracies, which the Government of Argentina has continued to use in front of the United Nations for the past 50 years and which it continues to use to influence the international community.
However the truth is very different in all departments. First we will look at the first falsehood that is told to the Argentine people that in 1833 Britain invaded the Falklands and kicked out the Argentine population The Government of Argentina describes January 1833 as the point in which the United Kingdom usurped the Islands from Argentina, and forcibly ejected every Argentine resident from the Islands. Indeed Ruda described to the United Nation how…under the threats of its guns, the British fleet evicted a peaceful and active Argentine population…
However the truth is rather different as we shall see and makes quite a mockery of that statement.
Britain claimed the Falkland Islands in 1765, establishing a settlement at Port Egmont on Saunders Island, prior to any Spanish claim to the Islands. In January 1833, following the reassertion of British administration of the Islands, José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, an Argentine warship, prepared a report which shows that only the 26-man garrison were ordered to leave the Falkland Islands, along with 11 women and 8 children who had accompanied them. The garrison itself had been established for less than three months. Pinedo’s report details how Captain Onslow of HMS Clio ordered ‘…those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain’ and indeed many did so. Argentine residents who remained in the Islands included Antonina Roxa (a renowned gaucho and businesswoman who died in the Falklands in 1869) and Antonio Rivero. So that is the first lie that he has been caught out telling
We now come to lie number two
…they were replaced, during those 131 years of usurpation, by a colonial administration and a population of British origin […] and it is periodically renewed to a large extent by means of a constant turnover. ~ José María Ruda, 1964, Ruda claimed that the Falkland Islands population was formed by a rotation of British people sent from England on a regular basis. The Government of Argentina still 50 years later continues to describe Falkland Islanders as implanted people from England.
I will now show you that what Ruda said is not true
In the 1840s, British families did begin to settle in the Islands of their own free will as was the custom in those days, indeed at the same time many Europeans including British citizens were taking the hazardous rout from European shores to make a new life for themselves in many South American country’s including Argentina itself. So why should they not travel a little further and settle on the Falkland Islands. Descendants of those families are now ninth generation of those living in the Islands. However, it was not just British workers who arrived in the Islands in search of a new life. Many emigrated from the South American continent, including José Llamosa, who arrived in 1847 from Uruguay aboard the Napoleon. Llamosa’s son, Pedro was born in the Islands and went on to farm on West Falkland in his own right. 50 years after Ruda described Islanders as British implants, the sixth generation of Llamosa’s descendants were born in the Falkland Islands. Other notable settlers arrived from Scandinavia (the Larsens), Gibraltar (the Pitalugas) and Canada (the Aldridges). As of 2012 Census, 61 separate nationalities resided in the Falkland Islands.
So to say that the Falkland Islands population was formed by a rotation of British people sent from England on a regular basis is nothing more than a barefaced lie. In fact when we delve a little further into the records of who came to the Falkland Islands we see that after the Argentine Garrison was expelled in 1833 Governor Richard Moody’s secretary Murrell Robinson took two Argentine gauchos to the Falklands in 1843, and some 150 gauchos later arrived in three merchant ships from Montevideo: the Paloma in 1846 and the Napoleon and the Vigilante in 1847 The men had been hired by Samuel Fisher Lafon, a British businessman based in Montevideo who had a concession on East Falkland. Argentine historian Hipólito Solari Yrigoyen considered all Lafone’s immigrants to be Argentinian, 5 but that is incorrect. Though no passenger list survives for the Paloma, there are lists for the other two ships. The list for the Vigilante gives Spanish names for 14 gauchos and 4 boys, without specifying nationalities. But the list for the Napoleon gives the names and nationalities of all 104 passengers: among them were 12 Argentine gauchos, plus 4 wives and 1 child, making at least 17 Argentine people who went to live and work in the Falklands in 1847. The Napoleon also took to the islands 15 Uruguayans, with 6 wives and 3 children, and 24 Spanish men with 4 wives and 2 children. These were clearly immigrants into the River Plate area, and would have been intending to work in either Uruguay or Argentina. There were also 16 men born in France, with 2 wives and one child, 3 Brazilians, 1 German with his wife, and 6 British with 1 wife and 2 children. By 1851 only 78 of those people remained but at least one family (Llamosa, listed on the Napoleon as Spanish) still has descendants in the Falklands today (with other surnames). Argentinians were never prohibited from living in the Falklands, but hardly any wanted to. More importantly, most of the people who went to live in the Falklands arrived under their own steam without involving Britain at all.
We now come to lie number three
…by a sound and unbroken position of protest at the outrage maintained by all
Argentine Governments that have succeeded each other since 1833.
~ José María Ruda, 1964
Argentina claims it has never relented over its claim to the Falkland Islands and has never and will never accept British sovereignty of the Islands.
In November 1849, the ‘Convention of Peace’ was signed between Felipe Arana (on behalf of the Argentine Confederation) and Henry Southern (on behalf of the United Kingdom). The Convention of Peace was ratified on 15th May 1850 in Buenos Aires and resolved all outstanding issues between Argentina and the United Kingdom, restoring ‘perfect friendship’ between the two nations. This includes the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Between 1850 and the 1940s the Argentine Congress did not raise the issue of the Falkland Islands once. For almost one century after the Convention of Peace was signed, with the exception of an exchange of diplomatic letters between Britain and Argentina disputing a proposed new map of Argentina created by the Government of Argentina (the so-called ‘Affair of the Map’ between 1884 and 1888). There was no formal protest from the Government of Argentina until a brief mention of the Argentine claim in the ceremonial message opening Congress in 1941. Indeed both sides regarded it as a peace treaty, and it is a universal principle of international law that in a peace treaty, any territories not mentioned are confirmed by the treaty in the possession of the party that held them when the treaty was signed. That was stated by many 19th-century writers on international law, such as the American jurist Henry Wheaton (1785-1848), who wrote in 1836 that in a peace treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. Argentine authors say Britain conquered the Falklands from Argentina, the Convention of Settlement did not mention the Falklands at all, so it fixed the state of affairs existing in 1850 the Falklands were British, by Argentina’s agreement.
So with all this evidence how could Ruda say to the United Nations by a sound and unbroken position of protest at the outrage maintained by all Argentine Governments that have succeeded each other since 1833? However more to the point how can todays Government officials say the same thing.
Lie number four.
Geographically they are close to our Patagonian coasts, they enjoy the same climate and have a similar economy to our own south-lands. ~ José María Ruda, 1964.
The Government of Argentina believes that the Falklands should be Argentine as they are closer to the continent than they are to the United Kingdom, and that Argentina is incomplete without them. They also claim that they have never accepted that the Islands are not geographically part of Argentina.
In 1882, 42 years after the Convention of Peace, the Director of the Office for National Statistics of Argentina, Dr Francisco Latzina produced a map of Argentina, funded by the Argentine Treasury. This map, produced in Spanish, showed Argentine territory in a dark rusty colour and non-Argentine territory (such as Uruguay and Chile) in a paler beige. In this map, the Falkland Islands are shown in the pale beige of non-Argentine territories. Later, in 1918, the Agricultural Ministry produced a map of Argentina, showing agricultural areas and the railroad network. This map, as with the Latzina Map 36 years earlier, shows the Falkland Islands in a different colour to continental Argentina. The Falklands, as a nation built on sheep farming, are clearly agricultural and if Argentina considered the Islands to be part of Argentina, why then are they not shown as such? Finally, there is no established international law or principle that relates proximity to sovereignty, if there was, the world would likely look very different: the Channel Islands might be part of France, and St Pierre and Miquelon would be Canadian.
Lie number five
…the indiscriminate application of the principle of self-determination to a territory so sparsely-populated by nationals of the colonial power, would place the fate of this territory in the hands of the power that has settled there by force, thus violating the most elementary rules of international law and morality. ~ José María Ruda, 1964.
The Argentine Government claims the Islands are a colony of the United Kingdom, suffering under the yoke of London, and retained in order to control British interests in the South Atlantic.
The Falkland Islands Constitution reflects the democratic processes undertaken by the people of the Falkland Islands to devolve power from the United Kingdom to the Government of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands are internally self-governing economically self-sufficient and are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. Our democratically elected Legislative Assembly writes the laws of the Islands, and sets the policies by which we live. The Government of the United Kingdom supports the Islands in terms of defence and foreign affairs. Our democratic way of life was further demonstrated in March 2013 when in an internationally-observed referendum, we went to the polls, with 99.8% of those who voted choosing to remain a British Overseas Territory. Our relationship with the United Kingdom is one based on mutual respect. Self-determination is a basic human right of all people, enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Falkland Islanders, who can trace heritage back nine generations in the Islands from Europe and Latin America, have the right to freely determine their own future and political allegiance. The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination by virtue of being on the UN list of Non Self Governing Territories; there is no exception to this. The Secretary General has confirmed that the UK is not in breach of any UN resolution on the Falkland Islands.
So there we have it five lies that have been told to the whole world by Argentine officials since 1964 refuted and proved to be lies. However we cannot leave it there as Argentina in the last few tears have pumped up the rhetoric with these little gems of diplomacy.
First this one.
The heroism of Antonio ‘El Gaucho’ Rivero the Government of Argentina has portrayed Antonio ‘El Gaucho’ Rivero as a folk hero who stood up in defiance of an overbearing British Government in the Falkland Islands. He has been commemorated in banknotes, and Presidential Decree 256 (preventing commercial vessels bound to, or from the Falkland Islands docking in Argentine ports under a British flag) is referred to colloquially as ‘Gaucho Rivero’s Law.
Nothing could be further from the truth about this man and what is more the Argentine Governments know it.
Antonio Rivero was a rogue and a murderer. He joined forces with seven other gauchos in the former capital Port Louis and murdered Captain Mathew Brisbane (Superintendent of the settlement) along with Juan Simon, Don Ventura Pasos, Anton Vaihinger and William Dickson in a dispute over pay. The men he murdered were all in the employ of fellow Argentine, Louis Vernet and their murders could hardly be considered a glorious national uprising because there were no British forces in the Islands at the time. Rivero later betrayed his accomplices to the British in the hopes of leniency in his own case. Rivero ultimately escaped prosecution due to a lack of established judiciary and courts in the Islands at the time. Rivero, and accomplices, were all sent to England for trial but there was doubt as to whether they could fairly be considered British subjects, and only British subjects could be tried in Britain for homicides committed outside the British Isles. The group was returned to South America and released. In 1966 and 2002, the Argentine History Academy, when asked to evaluate Antonio Rivero’s life and position, judged him to be a criminal.
So one should ask the question as to why such a criminal should be portrayed as some kind of hero when the Argentina Government actually knows he is not a hero but just a common murderer who was lucky not to have been hanged by the British for his crimes. One should also ask the same question to the Argentine people for it is quite easy to find out what Rivero was like.
Next we come to Militarisation of the South Atlantic
The Government of Argentina regularly claims that the Falkland Islands are the most militarised zone in the South Atlantic, and that the United Kingdom is militarising the region as a strategic NATO base.
The military presence in the Islands is modest; it exists as a direct result of the illegal invasion of the Islands in 1982 (Argentina was ordered by UN Security Council
Resolution S/RES/502 [1982] to withdraw and did not). Military presence has significantly decreased in size since 1982 and is relative to the perceived level of threat to the Islands. In March 2015, Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon announced a £180m investment in maintenance and upgrades to infrastructure in the Islands, but there will be no increase in numbers to the 1, 500 military servicemen and women currently in the Falklands.
Hardly the militarised zone in the South Atlantic when we see Argentina itself has 73,000 frontline troops along with 30,000 active reservists. Along with 400 tanks, with a further 275 active aircraft and 41 warships
Not to mention Brazil who has over 300,000 active frontline troops along with a reserve of over 1,000,000 with 500 tanks and 749 aircraft with 113 navy ships
We won’t mention Chile who have more military might than Argentina. Yet Argentina continually says that 1,500 men and women which only 800 are frontline troops along with just four modern jet fighters with just a few helicopters along with just one Frigate and a supply vessel are a threat to the area of the South Atlantic who would not be there if Argentina had not illegally invaded in the first place in 1982 when there were just 68 Royal Marines and sailors on the islands.
Does that sound as if the UK is militarizing the area?
Next we come to the oil
Oil exploration in Falklands waters without Argentina’s permission is reckless and is threatening the environment The Government of Argentina has repeatedly stated that oil and gas exploration in Falklands waters without Argentina’s support is reckless and will lead to an oil spill disaster on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico disaster. They say that the oil industry in the Islands is putting Argentine coasts at risk, and could damage the environment.
During the 1990s, the Government of Argentina agreed to co-operate with the governments of the Falkland Islands and United Kingdom in terms of oil exploration (the Oil Accord of 1995), and it was the Government of Argentina who unilaterally withdrew from these agreements in the early 2000s. We in the Falklands have a long history of environmental stewardship and have taken numerous steps to ensure that any offshore oil and gas activity is developed in a careful and sustainable way, without negative impacts on our pristine environment and our delicate ecosystems. Best practice regulation, health and safety and environmental management are adhered to. Peer-reviewed scientific research is at the forefront of our pledge to protect our environment as we look to a future in the oil and gas industry, and globally recognised scientific institutes work alongside the Falkland Islands Government.
So there you have it five lies exposed as well as exposing a so called Argentine hero that is a criminal. Exposing the real people who are militarizing the South Atlantic and showing that Argentina actually signed an agreement to share the Falkland oil and gas but pulled out of the agreement.
I will leave it up to the reader to say who the bad persons are in all this. All I know that there are some very sensible and good Argentine persons who are sick to the back teeth of what is going on and equally some very unscrupulous Argentine persons who not only don’t mind lying to the United Nations and ultimately the world but also their own people and that is unforgivable.
Loading comments...