Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The UN's focus on decolonization is to ensure the rights of self-determination in existing colonies are respected. 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 of the UN. 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. 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.
|
From that Guardian article:
Quote:
|
A year after the French landed, the British established a settlement at Port Egmont on West Falkland, but abandoned the territory in 1774. Spain maintained a presence on the Falklands until 1811. The newly independent United Provinces of the RĂ*o de la Plata (which included Argentina) believed that Spanish possessions should revert to them and in 1820 sent a ship to the abandoned Falklands. In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist.
|
It would appear that there is some basis for an Argentinian claim (if the above is accurate). The Brits abandoned the territory, which was then held by Spain for 35 years. It seems reasonable to assume the Spanish possessions would revert to United Provinces or the RĂ*o de la Plata, who did claim it, but it was then annexed by the British. Obviously, the above is all irrelevant as the wishes of the Islanders should be the deciding factor, and there seems to be little doubt regarding what they want.