Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

A Referendum managed by the UN with 3 options

1: Do you want the Fakland Islands (Along with the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) to be ruled by the UK? (i.e the status quo)

2: Do you want the Fakland Islands (Along with the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) to be ruled by Argentina? (in some form)

3: Do you want the Faklands Islands (Along with the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) to be independent of both the UK and Argentina?

Then we will see what the people of the Falklands want!

Hardly seems to cover what the Argentines want.Seems very heavily weighted towards one side.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Hardly seems to cover what the Argentines want.Seems very heavily weighted towards one side.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think elements of our experiences here in Northern Ireland could be applied / would be worth consideration. For example people could have a choice of nationality and natural resources could be shared on a principle of joint authority and ownership.

Anything is preferable to people dying.

I don't think we should give in to Argentina because we're worried about people dying. We are not going to start a war with Argentina unless we're attacked so to appease them to avoid such an attack would simply lead to more demands.

You don't have to comprise unless the other side have some leverage in negations. Argentina do not have leverage, they are simply pontificating. They don't have the UN, they won't go to the International Court, and they have already tried and failed to use force. To say we need to enter into any talks of compromise simply because they have laid claim to the islands would be wrong. It would, as suggested, be the equivalent of Canada going the US demanding Alaska and the US Government being told they need to enter talks to find a middle ground.

BTW Where did I get my dates wrong? I can't see it...

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think we should give in to Argentina because we're worried about people dying. We are not going to start a war with Argentina unless we're attacked so to appease them to avoid such an attack would simply lead to more demands.

You don't have to comprise unless the other side have some leverage in negations. Argentina do not have leverage, they are simply pontificating. They don't have the UN, they won't go to the International Court, and they have already tried and failed to use force.

To say we need to enter into any talks of compromise simply because they have laid claim to the islands would be wrong. It would, as suggested, be the equivalent of Canada going the US demanding Alaska and the US Government being told they need to enter talks to find a middle ground.

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.

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.

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.

If only it were as cut, dried and over simplified as you would like.

Unfortunately it is not.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Hardly seems to cover what the Argentines want.Seems very heavily weighted towards one side.

Not really. It is heavily weighted towards what Falkland Islanders want. And it should be their choice, nobody elses.

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.

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.

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.

[Alan Fry]

I think what will happen is that Britain will still rule the Falklands and Argentina would still want them (but it is unlikely it will ever get them).

In other words the status quo!

[danielf]

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:

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 RÃ*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 RÃ*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.

Nice graphic on wikipedia, showing the permanence of settlements on the Falkland Islands.



I wonder if the French will ask for the Channel Islands back?

Or if the Spanish will give the Canaries back to the Guanches?

Originally Posted by danielf

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 RÃ*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 Guardian opinion pieces is missing a few parts. Namely that we didn't cede control of the islands and the settlers originally recognised that fact by asking for permission to travel to the Islands and, when settled, posting reports back to London. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-esta...alklands_(1833)

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 RÃ*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.

[Alan Fry]

Argentina is not the legal sucessor to Viceroyalty of the RÃ*o de la Plata and its sucessor the United Provinces of the RÃ*o de la Plata which split into Paraguay, Bolvia, Uruguay and Argentina, but it does say this on their Constitution:

"Article 35 .- The denominations successively adopted from 1810 to the present, namely: United Provinces of the RÃ*o de la Plata, Argentine Republic, Argentine Confederation, shall henceforth be interchangeably official names to describe the Government and territory of the provinces, using the words "Argentine Nation" for the making and the enactment of laws."

But then again if Argentina is legally the sucessor Viceroyalty of the RÃ*o de la Plata and its sucessor the United Provinces of the RÃ*o de la Plata, then why have they not claimed Paraguay, Bolvia, Uruguay as part of Argentina along with The Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Yes, if I may quote myself:

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.

I was just saying that the Argentinian claim does actually look justified (but completely pointless, as the only valid criterion is the Islanders' wishes).

[Alan Fry]

Remember, no nation has clear control over the Falklands until 1834 by the British

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

Since that article was rather lacking in those facts we can't really judge the merits of their concern.

If you are actually interested in the facts you can of course follow the links they provided to the national archive and pay to read them.