Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
From that Guardian article:
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.
|
The problem with basing any decision on the concept of prior claim is that Spain and Britain were both colonial powers and both were claiming lands in South America that already belonged to native tribes which were displaced and disenfranchised.
The historical claim cannot be seen in isolation. There are many more territories that at one time or other were under control from Buenos Aires that are no longer under that control. Uruguay is a case in point; it was a part of the River Plate territory, goverend from Buenos Aires, but is no longer.
And nobody in the Argentine government appears to be advocating turning their entire territory over to the native Amerindians who occupied it long before the Europeans arrived.
The map of the Americas consists entirely of territories that were forcibly occupied by warring European powers, with boundaries that were settled by force, or threat of force.
"this is who is there now, and this is what they want" is the only fair and consistent basis of determining current possession and control. That is the basis on which Argentina itself exists.