The Falklands Question

[Prolescum]

The Argentine Government - Translation by Google[/url]"]
The Question of the Falkland Islands has been described by the UN as a special and particular colonial case involving a dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be settled through negotiations between the two parties.

Similarly has ruled the Organization of American States.

Argentina also has the strong support of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean to the legitimate rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, as well as solidarity with other countries regions that support the resumption of negotiations between the two parties to reach a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute.

The Argentine government seeks to recover the islands by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of international law and taking into account the interests of its inhabitants.

However, despite the continued willingness of the Argentine government dialogue, the UK ignored the call of the international community to resume negotiations on sovereignty and aggravates the situation by conducting unilateral activities, which include exploration and exploitation renewable resources and non-renewable, and the military exercises.

The Grauniad on the Falkand Islanders' referendum[/url]"]
Despite near zero temperatures and flurries of snow and rain, the turnout was 92% from an electorate of 1,650.
All but three people voted yes to the question posed on the ballots: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom?"

Being British, one could say I have a horse in this race, so I will state outright that I don't give a toss about who owns what. Borders just reinforce the us VS them mentality and fear of the other.

What does concern me in this topic is what Argentina says above, in particular, this:

The Argentine government seeks to recover the islands by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of international law and taking into account the interests of its inhabitants.

Talking about the result, Argentinian Senator Daniel Filmus said this:

We must denounce this trickery that pretends to represent the popular participation of an implanted population

and

This publicity stunt has no validity for international law.

I believe the "international law" he's talking about is the UN's statement that the two nations (the UK and Argentina) should enter negotiations on sovereignty. The "trickery" being that because the population isn't native, it has no right to self-determination.

With respect, I believe, to that position, Senator Anibal Fernandez has since said:

There will never be self-determination for an implanted population and there is no legal framework for this, the Malvinas are Argentine sovereign soil

Apart from a brief period in 1982 when Argentina invaded and occupied the islands, it has been home to British citizens (dependents) for nearly two hundred years, and while I agree that Britain's old colonies should be returned to native populations (like Diego Garcia, currently rented to the U.S. as a military base - utterly disgraceful in my view), these islands never had a native population. As far as I'm aware, it had changed hands several times before 1833 when it became a British dependency for the final time.

The British position, as I understand it, is that any negotiation that takes place must include representatives from the inhabitants, to which Argentina has refused, giving the same reasoning as Senator Anibal Fernandez, namely that the population is implanted, has no right to self-determination and therefore should not be represented at the discussion.

To me, it looks like this The Argentine government seeks to recover the islands by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of international law and taking into account the interests of its inhabitants is entirely bunk, seeing as they've tried to invade the islands already and will be ignoring the views of the referendum held on the 10th of March (as noted, they won't even allow the inhabitants to join negotiations due, according to Argentina, to the UN's resolution which states that the UK and Argentine governments enter negotiations - it doesn't mention third parties).

Of course, this is all ignoring the implanted (Portugese or Spanish - can't remember) population of Argentina.

So my question to you is... although the above is only scraping the top of the issue, I cannot see a legitimate case for the Falkland Islands to cede sovereignty to Argentina, can you point it out to me?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

In theory there is the benefit of open trade support with Argentina because of the geographical proximity with Argentina. However this alone is no justification to do it because there are other factors to consider.
Argentina is not particularly progressive or very democratic, economically speaking its very detrimental, the British don't meddle but the Argentinians would. If the Falklands are left to their own accord they will be taken by the Argentinians in a flash and they know that. Even if the inhabitants ultimately wished for independence, Falklands will not want their independence from the UK , because then they won't have the British military might to safeguard them from Argentina.
As far as land claims are concerned, Argentina has no legitimacy to claim anything.

 

[Gnug215]

So my question to you is... although the above is only scraping the top of the issue, I cannot see a legitimate case for the Falkland Islands to cede sovereignty to Argentina, can you point it out to me?

I think the only good reason I can come up with would be to get rid of Argentina's goddamn incessant whining on this issue.

I mean, come on!!!!!

Not exactly a "legitimate" case, though.

 

[Visaki]

There will never be self-determination for an implanted population and there is no legal framework for this, the Malvinas are Argentine sovereign soil

I wonder how much of Argentinians can be counted as being from "implanted population", in other words how many Argentinians are not native (or considerably so).

 

[malicious_bloke]

The equation is simple.

Argentina wants bilateral negotiations with the UK with a pretedetermined outcome as defined in their constitution (ie full sovereignty over the islands).

This is never going to happen, the main reason being that since the 1982 war the political status of the islanders has changed in UK law. First there was the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) act of 1983, and since then the islanders have updated their constitution several times, increasing their level of autonomy each time.

The point is that the British government can't legally engage in any negotiations over the islands without the permission of the population.

And therein lies the point of the referendum.

...

Also why would the islanders want to join Argentina anyway? The argentine economy appears to be heading for hyperinflation and another sovereign default while the Falklands economy is booming, comparative to the size of the populace.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

There will never be self-determination for an implanted population and there is no legal framework for this, the Malvinas are Argentine sovereign soil

I wonder how much of Argentinians can be counted as being from "implanted population", in other words how many Argentinians are not native (or considerably so).

The vast majority. Similar to the USA, Argentina was not densely populated in pre-columbian times and is largely composed of the descendants of European immigrants. It has existed as an independent nation for only slightly longer than the British presence on the islands. As far as I can see this whole dispute is just one bunch of Europeans arguing with another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Argentina

 

[malicious_bloke]

Having brought this up with a couple of malvinistas, they consider themselves "americans" in the continental sense.

That's right, despite their mainly italian and spanish descent and their state's genocidal history with the natives, they think of themselves as natives to the land.

They also claim that in 1833 Britain removed a colony of native argentines from the islands and placed a fictitious entirely new colony there in its place.

This is the true value of cradle-to-the-grave indoctrination in lies

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Here's what Charles Darwin had to say in The Voyage of the Beagle:

On March 1st, 1833, and again on March 16th, 1834, the Beagle anchored in Berkeley Sound, in East Falkland Island. This archipelago is situated in nearly the same latitude with the mouth of the Strait of Magellan; it covers a space of one hundred and twenty by sixty geographical miles, and is a little more than half the size of Ireland. After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers.

Seems that there was indeed an Argentinian colony there - a penal colony...

 

[malicious_bloke]

Here's what Charles Darwin had to say in The Voyage of the Beagle:

On March 1st, 1833, and again on March 16th, 1834, the Beagle anchored in Berkeley Sound, in East Falkland Island. This archipelago is situated in nearly the same latitude with the mouth of the Strait of Magellan; it covers a space of one hundred and twenty by sixty geographical miles, and is a little more than half the size of Ireland. After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers.

Seems that there was indeed an Argentinian colony there - a penal colony...

Yeah that turned up months after Luis Vernet's colony, which was there with the permission of the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The consulate immediately protested Argentina trying to usurp their colony and the Royal Navy sent HMS clio down to the islands to sort the situation out.

The penal colony was removed, even though there had been a big mutiny and the dude in charge had already been murdered, the original colony was invited to remain under the British flag and most of them did. Although Argentina has a big official lie, one they even presented to the UN in 1965 when trying to get a resolution to force Britain to negotiate sovereignty, it involves HMS Clio bringing a whole new set of colonists and expelling the penal colony AND luis vernet's colony and implanting a new group of settlers they brought along with them. It's bollocks that's contradicted by every bit of documentation from the time (including cargo and shipping manifests on file in both britain AND argentina).

That's basically the last substantial news anyone heard of the matter until 1941 when Juan Domingo Peron decides to try and help out his fascist buddies in europe by laying claim to all of Britain's south atlantic territories (hence why Argentina's ridiculous territorial demands now include South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands).

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

Seems I was right to be sceptical of Argentinian claims. The only solid argument in this mess is that of the self-determination of the inhabitants.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

:lol:

Seems I was right to be sceptical of Argentinian claims. The only solid argument in this mess is that of the self-determination of the inhabitants.

It pains me deeply to say it, but I think that David Cameron has it right on this issue. He's probably just saying it because of he oil, though...

 

[malicious_bloke]

:lol:

Seems I was right to be sceptical of Argentinian claims. The only solid argument in this mess is that of the self-determination of the inhabitants.

It pains me deeply to say it, but I think that David Cameron has it right on this issue. He's probably just saying it because of he oil, though...

Political expedience is a wonderful thing IMO. Development of falklands oil wont be commercially significant until after Cameron is well out of power, but having an easy PR opportunity to visibly uphold democratic values when your country easily have the right of the situation while also appearing to stand up to international pressure is never a bad thing. Especially when your economic policy is on dodgy ground and is pretty visibly hurting the economy (even beyond what you can pin on the EU) and your domestic popularity is in the shitter.

Also, the way the Falklands run their economy is fantastic. 99+% employment and they are pretty much the only part of the UK that runs at a surplus. If only we could all be as focused and sensible.

 

[Prolescum]

It pains me deeply to say it, but I think that David Cameron has it right on this issue. He's probably just saying it because of he oil, though...

/me nods reluctantly

 

[Prolescum]

Came across these on my travels. Fairly comprehensive looking.

http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right_PP.pdf

http://www.falklandshistory.org/false-falklands-history.pdf

 

[malicious_bloke]

Apparently the Falklands are part of a plan by NATO, led by Germany (who else?) to threaten south america.

Defence minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro said that the British occupation of the Malvinas has turned the Islands into a military base of NATO.

“Now Germany has borders with Argentina, because as we all know in Europe the orders are given by Germany. We also have France in the Guyana which is considered part of metropolitan France; Curacao is Dutch, in other words a NATO base”

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/25/falklands-a-nato-base-and-the-referendum-unacceptable-and-ridiculous-says-uruguay

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is dominated by the interests of the U.S., and certainly isn't a German proxy.

Is this a subtle Godwin?

 

[malicious_bloke]

:lol:

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is dominated by the interests of the U.S., and certainly isn't a German proxy.

Is this a subtle Godwin?

I'm not sure, I do think there's something dodgy in the water supply in that part of the world though.

 

[Prolescum]

The Germans put fluoride in it.

 

[malicious_bloke]

The Germans put fluoride in it.

You'd be surprised.

Although usually whenever Argentina implodes it's economy due to massive embezzlement and general ineptitude (coming soon, 30% inflation and rising fast atm) the claim is that it's all down to British Sepoys or something.

Frankly hilarious to watch from the outside.