I think this has been blown up a little bit by the media, but if it comes to it, and I pray it dosnt our military will have no problem whatsoever defeating the Argentinean "liberators". The only reason they got it last time was because there was hardly and military prescience there. Now there is over 1000 troops and multiple Typhoons, plus a naval task force on its way.
Well, how much claim does the UK have to them, really? Since their discovery, the Falkland Islands have been claimed by France (1764), Britain (1765, unaware that the French got there first), Spain (1767) who then kicked out the Brits (1770) but allowed them to return (1771) without relinquishing sovereignity. Britain lost interest and left in 1776, and Spain ditto in 1811, both leaving plaques to assert their claim, which is no more meaningful than the Russians planting a flag on the Arctic plateau. Argentina then claimed it in 1820 through Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor and privateer in the employment of Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch. In January 1833, British forces returned to the party and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty. It established a Royal Navy base at Stanley and incidentally beat off the German Asiatic Fleet in 1914. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The UK responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue. Talks between the UK and Argentinia took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory. On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and the rest, as they say, is history. International reaction ranged from support for Argentina in Latin American countries (except Chile and Colombia), to opposition in the Commonwealth and Europe (apart from Spain) --and eventually the US. The whole justification is based on UN Resolution 1514 (XV). Without it, Spain, and arguably, Argentina could have asserted sovereignty as much as the UK. But we all know the islands really belong to the Patagonian Indians.
all about the oil huh XD I'd be happy to write a senator if it came down to it.. not like they have any legit claim other than they want that black gold
Nexxo - the people living there don't want to part of Argentina, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't claim sovereignty. /Case Closed.
I would tend to suggest longevity helps determine rights of claim, as is the case with most historical boundaries. Obviously military might plays a part in ever changing boundaries across the globe. I think it would be naive to think oil didn't play a big part, as suggested by Argentina's rumbling on sighting an oil rig being towed into place. However, the local populous have no desire to become Argentinian and those wishes should also be respected.
As far as I remember, they hadn't discovered the oil before the Falklands War and we went in in order to liberate our own people from Argentinian occupation. Forgetting that the oil is there, a response that does not ensure the Falklands stays British is wrong. Argentina have had no ruling over the islands for a couple of hundred years. The people who live there are British, their parents were British, their grandparents were British. Regardless of how close the islands are to Argentina, it is British land and any concession of it to Argentina in my opinion is wrong. There is no one alive just now who remembers it being Aregntinian land (7 weeks during 1982 excluded of course). The Argentinians are only ever bothered about it because their own country is pretty f***ed right now and their government is using the Flaklands as a smoke screen to mask their own problems. The same happened in 1982 and it was the end of their military jaunta. I watched a programme about the foreign office the other night and the Falklands were shown during it. Was quite interesting seeing the different viewpoints of people in power at the time.
It wasn't about the oil in '82. I know you'd probably argue the reasons for going in were political on both sides. I won't debate that. But the moral validation which was required for the British response, had we cared about it at the time, was present. The argentinian claim to the Falklands rests on one of two things: 1) Argentina is closer to the islands than we are. Clearly that's a poor reason for them having sovereignty over the islands. By that logic, France could claim the UK as it's own. 2) That the Falklands rest on a continental shelf that Argentina has sovereignty over. Clearly again this is flawed, most of western Europe is on the same continental shelf, it doesn't mean any country on that shelf can claim the rest of the area simply because their land is continuous with the other land. Furthermore, although I agree that the early history of the islands has been messy, the Falklands have been British for several hundred years, and are populated by people who consider themselves British and wish to remain so. International territorial disputes are always messy, but if there's any justification for maintaining a system of things, consent of the people combined with who's been sitting on the patch of land the longest seem like acceptable ways of determining them.
If Argentina did decide to invade the Falklands how would it be any different from Iraq invading Kuwait? Surely a military response would not just be from Britain but would have the backing of the UN and Nato too.
Technically yes, would depend if Britain wanted to put on a show of strength or not though. Last time we could of brought in NATO but chose not to as Thatcher at the time wanted to show Britain was not weak and also did not want to have to owe other countries any more favours than she had to.
Shall we give Australia back to the Aboriginals then? After all they sat on that patch of land the longest. Although I do not disagree with the principle that the wishes of the Falklanders, in the end, is what counts in this matter, I can't help but thinking that this argument has been pulled out of the hat because it suits the UK government.
And therein lies the issue... Do we penalise the government because in general they are a complete shower of **** and only care about what suits them at this moment in time? Or do we 'play it with a straight bat' and support them - because even these idiots get to be right once in a while. The facts of the case support the British position in all but the most jaundiced eyes.
I think that if you dug a little deeper, you'd see this isn't just about oil. There is some pressure from that, but also there is a larger issue of a permanent seat on the UN's security council. Latin America has been lobbying for a while now that there should be a seat on the security council the only rotates amongst Latin American countries. Argentina has up until now not been a big pusher of the idea. But Venezuela, Mexico and Brazil all have been. So there is some back scratching going on. The big 3 are now suddenly supporting the Argentinian claim in the UN in exchange for Argentina's support for the permanent seat. So it's easier for Argentina to bluster about sovereignty when it has firm support from big military spenders. Just look at Venezuela's hardware purchases over the last 3-4 years. It adds a different dynamic in the region instead of the upgraded A4's that Argentina would rely on. This won't get to blows, but it will see a lot air time as more countries in the region fell in behind Argentina. And there will be a cost involved in keeping the power shifts in South America stable.
Regardless of whether this suits the UK Government or not, they are right. It has been a British settlement for longer than Argentina has been a country. It was uninhabited prior to it being found (although there were natives in Argentina, the Falklands themselves were barren). The only times Argentina have owned it have been during the Falklands War for a few weeks and back in the 1800s when periodically Argentianian pirates (when Argentina was part of Spain) took over the islands. Spain left "La Islas Malvinas" to Argentina when it became independent. However, Spain were not in control of the Flaklands at that time and hadn't been in control for a number of years. Essentially, the Argentinians don't have a leg to stand on here. I for one would be apalled if we let the Argentinians get any form of control over the Falklands. This would be one war I would support and would even sign myself up for. And believe me that's saying something.
Never realised that Johnny, that certainly adds a new dynamic to this issue. Your right, I don't think it will come to blows as it gets to a "my dad is bigger than your dad" argument. I can't see NATO standing by while one of it's members fights a war against Latin America. I also can't see anyone in Latin America risking that. It will be debated, argued and aired for a while. I just hope that Britain doesn't give any concessions of ownership away. I can settle for Argentina having a share of oil if they are involved in setting up the infrastructure there but they had that agreement previously and ripped it up.
That is incorrect. Britain left the islands in 1776 well before Spain did in 1811. Before that there awas an uneasy sharing of sovereignty between the two. So Britain was in no more control of the Falklands than Spain was. Argentina already existed as a country (est. 1816) when the British returned to the islands in 1833 to re-assert sovereignty.
I stand corrected. I still think 170 years of consistent governance by the British is more of a claim than the Argentinian continental shelf and 300 miles away from mainland claim.
Not in itself, no. That's like saying that the UK has a claim on Northern Ireland based on its governance of that territory over the last 210 years, or that it has a claim over the US, Australia and New Zealand because it was in charge there once. History shows that what matters is who the indigenous population want to belong to. Of course who that 'indigenous population' is, is a matter for another debate. Australian Aboriginals? Native Americans? Patagonian Indians? Or the more recent White settlers? Let's face it: all parties involved live in glass houses. It is just territorial squabble. Now there is oil in them there hills the squabbling is set to intensify.
But the fact of the matter is if you had a referendum there tomorrow too see if the people wanted to stay British it would be a land slide.
