Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Damien, with all due respect, decolonisation is still an issue as far as the Falklands / Malvinas / UK and UN are concerned.
The right to self determination is therefore also affected. On that basis the UN has to be involved whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not.
Your assertion that "they don't have the UN" is patently incorrect. They - moreso than Britain - have the UN on their side on this matter. They won't go to the international court for the very same simple reason that the UK is not keen to go to the UN - they see it as loaded in the other parties favour. |
The UN's focus on decolonization is to ensure the rights to self-determination was respected in existing colonies. This is why the UN Resolution was meaningless as it only established what we already knew, that the Falklands are an outpost of Britain and could be considered a colony. However nothing has happened because the islanders' rights are the primary concern in this process. After all, who do you give the islands 'back too' if we were to force Britain to give it up? The process of decolonization was to allow the native people of a country to govern themselves, not to give land to a country which never owned it. The Falklands had no natives and were explored by Europeans, we claimed the Islands. This was a time when most of South America was being colonised and explored by Europe. There was no Argentina.
Quote:
|
Earlier links have evidenced actual Cabinet Office papers which quite clearly show that the very heart of the British Government have, for quite some time, been worried about the legitimacy of their claim to the islands, you cannot deny that fact.
|
I think those papers might have to be considered in the context of their time. The desire to keep the Falklands is rather new, they were a thorn in Britain's side considering the distance of the islands and the cost involved in defending them. Britain had a policy of gradually letting them go which changed quite dramatically with Argentina's last attempts to take the islands. We don't need their interpretation anyway, what would be interesting would be what facts led them to that interpenetration. Since that article was rather lacking in those facts we can't really judge the merits of their concern.
Quote:
|
The one way to resolve this is to test it (without military action) in an environment that both claimants can consider "neutral" - that is the very real issue here. Not what you, I or anyone else thinks.
|
Which we offered them, twice, they denied preferring a war which they lost.