Well, here is the other side of the coin:
According to the inform "by failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, he effectively dropped it."
As far as I know, the 1850 treaty didnīt have a "please fill all territorial claims here or that will be dropped" clause, so itīs a curious interpretation after all...
The rest of the inform is a piece of cheap propaganda too.
Look at the opinion of some (past) british leaders about the islands:
- Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister in 1834: "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. Is unclear that we've ever been holders of the sovereignty of these islands."
- Sidney Spicer, head of the Americas Department at the Foreign Office in 1910: "... the Argentine government's attitude is not entirely unjustified and our action has been somewhat despotic"
-
R.
R. Campbell, assistant secretary of the Foreign Office in 1911: "Who had the best right while we are attaching the islands. I think the government of Buenos Aires [...] We can not easily make a good claim and we have done a wisely effort to avoid discussing the issue in Argentina. "
-
Sir Malcolm A.
Robertson, the British ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928: "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."
- George Fitzmaurice, counsel to the British Foreign Office in 1936: "Our case has a certain fragility" and advised it finally came: "Sitting on the islands hard to avoid discussing, in a policy to drop the case."
- John Troutbeck, a senior British Foreign Office in 1936: "... our taking of the Falkland Islands in 1833 [...] was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. "
Or ask the Foreign Office about the S17111 (AS – 5728/311/2) document.
Or, for a different opinio, read this column in The Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/t...the-falklands/
Is a complex matter, after all.