British Claim

[caton]

Dear Friends,



There has recently been some mention regarding the right the British desire and also about our claim. I’ve also noted some comtempt, even despise to papers by our good friend Hutch, what is not strange, given the habit of HMG of ignoring written treaties: for Britain, only force, sheer force and brute force are respected.

Though old timers have already read it, I will post again my old work “British Claim”, originally posted in Nora’s propaganda forum.

Please note that HMG didn’t claimed the islands invoking self determination or anything different that what is stated in my posting. These are nowadays PRETEXTS to deny us what belongs to us (as we can see in Diego Garcia and Hong Khong, where those principles have been and still are ballantly ignored).


Best - Javier

------------------------------------------------------------------------


British Claim



They claim 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 Trías in 1983 (a neutral historian who found documents in neutral France).

Let’s see all references about the islands (originally called “Sansón Islands”) previous to Davis trip:

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

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

ü 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).
ü Captain Pedro Vega and Vessel Anunciada, belonging to Frey García Jofré de Loaysa's expedition of 1525-26; supposed but not proven.
ü Vessel San Pedro, belonging to the Alcazaba expedition (Dec 1534-Jan1535). Proved to be erroneous.
ü Vessel Incógnita, belonging to the Bishop of Plasencia's fleet. It is already proved it arrived to the islands (1540).
ü Islario de Alfonso de Santa Cruz of year 1541; Sansón Islands included and discovery depicted (latitude = 51° S)
ü Juan Bautista Agnese's nautical chart of 1543-1545; Sansón Islands included
ü Martínez Nautical Chart of 1577; Sansón Islans included.
ü Olives Nautical Chart of 1580; Sansón Islands included.
ü John Davis's Desire, 1592 (doubtful)
ü 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 Sansón 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.

The Uruguayan Historian Rolando Laguada Trías solved the puzzle once and forever. He found a document by Frey André 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 Sansón 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 Andrés de San Martín, who mastered the calculation of longitudes trough eclipses and with the Moon’s Distances Method which had been teach to him by Amérigo 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 Gómez Gallego Vicó, who was “grumete” (“boy” in English?) in that expedition.

It is interesting to know that Georgias del Sur Islands were also discovered by Spaniards.



I’m afraid the British Government knows pretty well their claim is not even weak but non-existent. I’m not surprised to have learned trough a recent extremely interesting posting by a member of this forum they rejected arbitration several times. I am also not surprised of the Islander’s motto “Desire the right”. The only things that are desired are those which are not possessed, being “Right” precisely what they are lacking.

Best,


Javier

[Sea Eagle]

Caton,

Of course if a Country is certain about its claim to territory, there is absolutely no reason at all why arbitration should be resorted to or agreed to under any circumstances I can imagine.

Does Argentina agree to arbitration - I expect not.

Discovery is not an internationally accepted basis for a territorial claim, otherwise there would be a great deal of territory changing hands in all parts of the world!

It may be used in mitigation of a claim but in itself it means little other than as an item of historical interest.

On the other hand the Falkland Islanders claim is based on effective and continuous occupation which has defacto been recognised by a very large number of countries over the years, and still is, including I may say Chile and Uruguay which for many years, until pressurised by Argentina, maintained diplomatic ties with the Falklands.

Argentina's claim on the other hand was detailed by Moreno, Minister to the Court of S. James, in 1833 as based on:-

1. The rights of Spain, to which the Argentine claim was said to have succeeded.

2. Prior Spanish and Argentine occupation (Effective and Continuous?)

3. Purchase from France

4. Abandoment by England in accordance with a secret promise to Spain (Never found nor proved to exist)

Therefore Argentina's claim, unless some new absolute proof is presented needs to affirm the credibilty of the 1833 assertions by producing actual convincing arguments that its position is in fact an uassailable argument.

The British response then was that ' the Government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right as derived from Spain which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself.'

This is still the mainstay of the British position and no amount of trying to blacken the British character by asserting that if it did this or that bad historically, or treated this or that territory in a dissimilar manner, its claim is in some mysterious way weakened.

Furthermore as a new independent state and therefore a third party to the dispute Argentina freed the UK from the terms of the Nootka Sound Convention immediately it officially settled on the Falklands.

The British agument therefore must be disproven to say it was wrong in the first place and then the Falkland Islanders factual argument of effective and continuous occupation must also be disproved before any credence can be given to Argentina's claim.

Regards,

Sea Eagle

[Maquilishuat]

Hello Sea Eagle;

You wrote;

"Of course if a Country is certain about its claim to territory, there is absolutely no reason at all why arbitration should be resorted to or agreed to under any circumstances I can imagine."

This is exactly what a decent country has to do instead of waging a war in the first place. This has happened before an arbitration between Argentina and Chile about some small islands in the south. Also it has happened in the Brazilian-Bolivia dispute over the Acre territory. Also this happened when Brazil gave back the French Guyana to France.

But waging war first hand, out of lies, or just sinking a ship in order to stop any talks is the British way to settle disputes. Well, until of course the difference in might disappears as UK meekly give back Hong-Kong to China.

This is a dangerous decision, and for sure will make this dispute alive again when differences are nowhere to be seen.

But, as a citizen from a peaceful country, I reckon that these islands will be given bak to Argentina sooner or later based just on economic reasons. After all, why should UK invest so much to get zero in return? Probably some years in the future, when most of the people who have been engaged in the war have passed away, this will come. Well, everything according to my christal ball...

Saludos amigos, Maquilishuat

[Sea Eagle]

Maquilishuat,

Your post contains a host of unsubstantiated assumptions.

There is no similarity with China. Great Britain had a historical Treaty agreement with Hong Kong to hand back the leased New Territories (in 1999 I think) without which Hong Kong was not really a viable entity. Hence the leasing of the New Territories in the first place. China was not particulary interested in the return of this territory, but the UK saw it as politically and commercially the right thing to do, as has been proved correct. Britains position with Hong Kong and China has hardly changed at all, except for the better, since the handover, it is now better than ever.

The Belgrano was sunk as a military decision, even its Captain, Hektor Bonzo, agrees with this. Argentina had been ordered by the UN to evacuate its forces and refused to do so. There was no other legitimate or realistic peace deal on the table. It takes the agreement of two sides to make peace and neither had agreed to any deal that I have seen any proof of. Other than unsubstantiated assertions.

There is of course no British claim at all, as is well known, there is the fact of British Sovereignty as set against the Argentine claim and proved modern Argentine acquisitive agression.

I agree that all aspects of relationships, development and peaceful co-existence are up for negotiation in the South West Atlantic, and indeed Great Britain has proved totally honourable and willing in this respect. Unfortunately not so for Argentina it requires a British surrender of the Falklands or nothing.

Territorial disputes between continental South American countries settled by arbitration are one thing, but the Falklands is a completely separate geographical and political entity (As the Irish Republic is from England) with a population that has a history of effective and continuous control of that territory over a period of over 170 years, a status that Argentina has only ever achieved in its dreams.

The Argentine claim is based not on fact but a national desire to fulfil the aspirations of their founders for their nation to encompass the boundaries of the former Vice-Royalty of the River Plate. Something that can never be achieved. It is both wrong in fact to encourage the fulfillment of such unfounded ambitions and fraught with difficulties for both South America and the rest of the world to encourage any country to believe that it can with impunity set the clock back to 1810 and restore the boundaries as they (but not all) saw them then.

By the way in 170 years Britain has not made one penny piece from the Falklands but it has always defended its inhabitants from agression e.g. 1914, 1942, 1982.

We should all be talking about where we go to from where we are not from where we would like to be by restoring mythical history.

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle

[Johnmcd]

Ernie,
Much of what you mention does ring true, at least on an official basis.

Hong Kong.
Since 1999 Hong Kong has been run as an effective devolved territory (area of special economic interest) by the PRC, but they too, like the islanders have an un-elected governor and the freedoms previously enjoyed by the Hong Kong Chinese are being eroded - no doubt about that if recent news reports given out by Chinese democracy groups are to be read as true. But you are right the UK had no other choice but to hand over the leased territories. Personally speaking I would have hoped that the UK would have defied the communists and their sordid method of ruling. By giving up so easily we opened the door up to Taiwan.

Belgrano.
The Terry Belaunde peace deal was indeed viable - it carried all the required UN demands and would have stood a chance of working - if given that chance. I was on the spot at the time - but unaware of the haggling going on in New York. Hector Bonzo can say what he likes. He was under orders as we were and the Belgrano posed no immediate threat to the Task Force in those early days of the conflict. Perhaps its all hindsight now, but I will never forget that moment we took the decision to end so many lives when their was a chance, just one chance, for a peaceful out come. The story of the Belgrano is legend now and we can’t change what happened, but let us not add un-necessary veneers where the truth is concerned.

Best wishes,
John.

[Sea Eagle]

John,

I agree that the consequences of the Hong Kong decision were good for the UK but not so good for the Hong Kong population. Taiwan - well they have just resumed direct flights to China after 50 years!

Had it not been partially for the Falkland's lobby in the UK (myself included) and the actions of Islanders themselves the then Thatcher Government, with the instigation of Ridley and the support of others, the same fate may well have befallen the Falklands. The intervention of Parliament only partly helped. The weak nature of the 1970's communications agreements with Argentina undoubtedly led directly through avoidable circumstances to the Argentine invasion of 1982. The rest we know well.

I did not say I agreed with the Belgrano decision, the loss of life was out of proportion to the need for a demonstration of military power. Right or wrong it was a military decision.

The Belaunde peace deal may or may not have been viable but there is no convincing evidence that the Junta was in fact prepared to accept and abide by its terms. It takes two to Tango as they say. Also remember that Peru was the only SA nation to provide Argentina with miltary help in 1982 at the same time professing peace.

Best wishes,

Ernie

[Johnmcd]

Ernie,
Whether the communication agreement was weak or not, really wasn’t the issue at the time – surely? Invasion was then an Argentine ‘paper exercise’ and not on the cards and the islanders were direct beneficiaries while absent landlords – were…simply absent! But I do admire the Falklands lobby of the time; though I’ve had to read a hell of allot to understand that. The invasion was a direct result of a set of totally unrepeatable circumstances, where the junta played all their cards at once. No matter!

The Belaunde peace deal.
As matter of known fact, Belaunde had contact with Galteiri and had already agreed with him a route out of disaster. Francis Pym, who was in New York at the time also knew about this too (also Haig) and both knew it was a show stopper. Let’s be real about this, everyone at the time thought, quite rightly, that the Junta needed a way out – they were given this and everyone knew that a last moment deal would probably stop the armed conflict that no one wanted anyway. The fact is while Pym was in New York, Thatcher was at Chequers. In her own memoirs she recalls hearing something about the ‘promising plan’, probably from Pym or even Haig, but had nothing on ‘paper’ as she states. Military decision? Yes, of course it was as Belgrano was heading away into shallow waters, but a necessary political action to take? No, we could have waited. Thatcher jumped, she was not pushed, and knew exactly the result this would have. We went war precluding any such notion of peace.

Peru helped the Junta? With more aircraft I believe to help home-land defence when they started losing aircraft numbers. (Argentina was still in a state of semi-aggression with Chile at the time) One ally simply helped another here. What about France sending technicians to BA to set up Exocets for the Super Enterdards – a more dastardly act!


Best wishes,
John.

[caton]

Dear Sea Eagle,

Your quote:

“On the other hand the Falkland Islanders claim is based on effective and continuous occupation which has defacto been recognised by a very large number of countries over the years, and still is, including I may say Chile and Uruguay which for many years, until pressurised by Argentina, maintained diplomatic ties with the Falklands.”<br>
There is NO CLAIM by the islanders. They are British, you know, not different than people from Suffolk. There are TWO parts in the dispute, and Britain claimed sovereignty invoking right of discovery. Please note that not only she didn’t discover the islands, but she recognized Spanish sovereignty on them and made no claim on our territory when you recognized us as a sovereign state..

Your occupation has ONLY FORCE as a title and Argentina NEVER recognize it, even more, we have been claiming fort our right from then on. Your islanders are the colonists sent by the usurper, they have no title. Like it or not, both Uruguay and Chile recognize Malvinas as part of Argentina. Not even the country for which you play the part of good cepoys in Irak recognises your sovereignty!


Your quote:

“Abandoment by England in accordance with a secret promise to Spain (Never found nor proved to exist)”<br>
The 1928 Field Report (by the Foreign Office) recognises that:

“The believe that a secret compromise was carried out has been stated with decision both by British and Spanish historians, who had made a description of those transactions ”<br>
See History of England by Belsham, Miller, and Coote Hughes & Wade. For Field Memorándum, Ferrer Vieyra 1993, 438.


You pretend to disregard the ‘secret clause’ between the Spanish and British Governments. I remember them that it was fully fulfilled. Besides, Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty over the islands as follows:

a) Utrecht Treaty of 1713

b) 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 cancels (renounces to) the expedition.

c) 28th October 1790: NOOTKA SOUND TREATY: SPANISH SOVERIGNTY IN MALVINAS IS RECOGNIZED AGAIN BY BRITAIN



Nootka Sound Treaty is pretty clear, Utrecht Treaty is pretty clear, our possession of the islands in 1820 was uncontested by Britain, Spain recognises our independence and our sovereignty over Malvinas (as all Latinamerican states), in the 1825 friendship and trade treaty between Britain and us your country made no reserves about Malvinas. On the contrary, WE HAVE CLAIMED AND PROTESTED TO BRITAIN EACH AND EVERY YEAR SINCE 1833 ON, WHATEVER GOVERNMENT we had.


Your quote:

“Furthermore as a new independent state and therefore a third party to the dispute Argentina freed the UK from the terms of the Nootka Sound Convention immediately it officially settled on the Falklands.”<br>
By no means, as we are the inheritor state! Do you think that Russia didn’t inherited the treaties signed by the Soviet Union? Didn’t India inherited the frontiers drawn by the UK with her neighbours? Psst, ridiculous!


Best Javier