THE ISLANDS BELONGS TO ARGENTINA. IN FEBRUARY 5, 1830 WAS BORN MATILDE VERNET Y SAEZ IN PUERTO SOLEDAD, MALVINAS (NOT FALKLANDS). HER NATIONALITY : ARGENTINA. THE ISLANDS WERE FRENCH, WERE SPANISH, AND FINALLY ARGENTINES. NEVER BRITISH!.
"The UK is breaking international law"...then take the case to the ICJ. Argentina has a 97% European population demographic... Does Betts think these people should have no voting rights? Falklanders control their immigration policy and when the islands where first landed (by the British BTW) they were uninhabited, so therefore the population is valid. Did the indiginous population of the area now called Argentina control immigration before their European invasion? NO
"then take the case to the ICJ" In order for a case to be submitted to the ICJ the states involved must recognize its jurisdiction. Both the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom have recognized its jurisdiction, but the United Kingdom limited its recognition for evets happening from 1970 onwards. This shows the evident weakness in British arguments. "Argentina has a 97% European population demographic" So? You are bothered by a state with a friendly immigration policy? The point is not that Falkland Islanders are European and, thus, are not entitled to self-determination. The point is that only victims of colonialism can invoke the external dimension of the right of peoples to self-determination as United Nations resolution demand. Self-determination is illegal if it is used to harm the territorial integrity of a nation that behaves accordingly with the principles of equal rights and self-determination, meaning that it represents without discrimination the whole population under its resposibility. "Does Betts think these people should have no voting rights?" Did he say that? No. He said that they have no right, including himself, to be judges in a territorial dispute, which is true according to the United Nations resolutions. "when the islands where first landed (by the British BTW) they were uninhabited, so therefore the population is valid." The accidental visit of Strong to the Falkland Islands in 1690 is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the modern population of the Falkland Islands. Besides, even if they were related, the Falkland Islands were discovered by Spain 1520 (also probably landed, though no accounts of those details) and landed for the first time also by Spaniards in 1540. "Did the indiginous population of the area now called Argentina control immigration before their European invasion? NO" The Argentine Republic was founded by the combined efforts of both European settlers and indigenous peoples fighting together against the Spanish Empire. Indigenous peoples were always considered to be part of the Argentine people and that's why the Argentine declaration of independence was written in Spanish, Guarani, Quechua and Aymara, even the second Argentine governor of the islands was a Guarani man and a veteran of the Argentine war of independence. The Aonikenk from Patagonia considered themselves to be Argentine and helped the Argentines to repel the Mapuche malones that were a threat for both and the last Argentine governor of the Falkland Islands even invited the Queen of the Strait of Magellan, an important Aonikenk cacique to a party in the islands. So, yes, indigenous peoples and their descendants, along with the rest of the Argentines, vote when it is necessary to freely elect a common leader that regulates in their behalf the immigration control. But that's something Falkland Islanders cannot do, even the population of the islands themselves is manipulated to remain stable by the United Kingdom. This is a known fact. Several islanders leave the territory annually and the British government makes sure that a similar number replace them for the population to remain stable. Most of them cannot be qualified as indigenous (most are foreigners) and the population itself is not natural, for example, it does not grow like normal populations and in a hundred year span they only increased by 8%, this is not normal demographically speaking.
THE ISLANDS BELONGS TO ARGENTINA. IN FEBRUARY 5, 1830 WAS BORN MATILDE VERNET Y SAEZ IN PUERTO SOLEDAD, MALVINAS (NOT FALKLANDS). HER NATIONALITY : ARGENTINA. THE ISLANDS WERE FRENCH, WERE SPANISH, AND FINALLY ARGENTINES. NEVER BRITISH!.
"The UK is breaking international law"...then take the case to the ICJ.
Argentina has a 97% European population demographic...
Does Betts think these people should have no voting rights?
Falklanders control their immigration policy and when the islands where first landed (by the British BTW) they were uninhabited, so therefore the population is valid.
Did the indiginous population of the area now called Argentina control immigration before their European invasion? NO
"then take the case to the ICJ"
In order for a case to be submitted to the ICJ the states involved must recognize its jurisdiction. Both the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom have recognized its jurisdiction, but the United Kingdom limited its recognition for evets happening from 1970 onwards. This shows the evident weakness in British arguments.
"Argentina has a 97% European population demographic"
So? You are bothered by a state with a friendly immigration policy? The point is not that Falkland Islanders are European and, thus, are not entitled to self-determination. The point is that only victims of colonialism can invoke the external dimension of the right of peoples to self-determination as United Nations resolution demand. Self-determination is illegal if it is used to harm the territorial integrity of a nation that behaves accordingly with the principles of equal rights and self-determination, meaning that it represents without discrimination the whole population under its resposibility.
"Does Betts think these people should have no voting rights?"
Did he say that? No. He said that they have no right, including himself, to be judges in a territorial dispute, which is true according to the United Nations resolutions.
"when the islands where first landed (by the British BTW) they were uninhabited, so therefore the population is valid."
The accidental visit of Strong to the Falkland Islands in 1690 is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the modern population of the Falkland Islands. Besides, even if they were related, the Falkland Islands were discovered by Spain 1520 (also probably landed, though no accounts of those details) and landed for the first time also by Spaniards in 1540.
"Did the indiginous population of the area now called Argentina control immigration before their European invasion? NO"
The Argentine Republic was founded by the combined efforts of both European settlers and indigenous peoples fighting together against the Spanish Empire. Indigenous peoples were always considered to be part of the Argentine people and that's why the Argentine declaration of independence was written in Spanish, Guarani, Quechua and Aymara, even the second Argentine governor of the islands was a Guarani man and a veteran of the Argentine war of independence. The Aonikenk from Patagonia considered themselves to be Argentine and helped the Argentines to repel the Mapuche malones that were a threat for both and the last Argentine governor of the Falkland Islands even invited the Queen of the Strait of Magellan, an important Aonikenk cacique to a party in the islands. So, yes, indigenous peoples and their descendants, along with the rest of the Argentines, vote when it is necessary to freely elect a common leader that regulates in their behalf the immigration control. But that's something Falkland Islanders cannot do, even the population of the islands themselves is manipulated to remain stable by the United Kingdom. This is a known fact. Several islanders leave the territory annually and the British government makes sure that a similar number replace them for the population to remain stable. Most of them cannot be qualified as indigenous (most are foreigners) and the population itself is not natural, for example, it does not grow like normal populations and in a hundred year span they only increased by 8%, this is not normal demographically speaking.
They're Argentinian, not European