By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Falkland Islands debate

What's up with all the British empire hate? Have you seen how small our country is?



Around the Network

An argentinian here!

I believe that the revival of the sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands is a smokescreen; nationalist propaganda to cover up serious problems the government is facing, for the first time in a while.

I would like to quote Jorge Ernesto Lanata, one of the only local journalists with whom I identify. He said:

"Our country's policy towards the Malvinas is insane, erratic, senseless. Blocking the ports is more of the same madness. Argentina needs to integrate the islands, not isolate them. We have to face up to the fact that we lost the war. Malvinas is not part of Argentina; it is part of our imagination. We're so blinded by years of rhetoric that we can't see reality."

I perfectly agree with this guy! 30 years have passed since the war and instead of recognizing the consequences of what happened, subsequent governments turned the Falkland Islands into another national symbol like Evita, el Che and Maradona. Argentina never cared about these islands, except when politics needed to use them as a distraction tool. Now, the president constantly boasts of the country's democratic progress, criticizing the attitude of the de facto government that took us to war, but at the same time using equal resources to those utilized by the military 3 decades ago, pretty ironic...

Argentina should take advantage of its geographical location to strengthen relations with a world power like the United Kingdom. But that's probably never gonna happen.

An imminent war? Who said that? It's completely impossible...

Basically, that's my position on the current situation.



From the beginning of time, history is different and way more complex. But the highlights are the following:

1776: Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
1790: Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas.
1816: The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, later called Argentina, claimed independence from Spain.

[That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.]

1825: The United Kingdom recognised Argentina's independence from Spain.
1833: A military operation from the UK took control of the islands after the american sloop USS Lexington destroyed the argentine military defenses of the settlement of Puerto Soledad. Then, despite being in peaceful relations with the Confederation of Argentina, the British expelled the argentinian garrison of 26 soldiers.
Since then, the islands have been under British rule, except during the war.

These points show us why the islands should belong to Argentina. However, in more than a century, the South Americans never protested or tried to regain that territory. Having done that peacefully, perhaps history would have been different. But the desire of the Argentine military junta to distract attention from domestic economic and political ills, led to a non-diplomatic resolution. Not surprisingly! After all, an awful lot of lunatics had the power these days. The war started.

What still amaze me today is how fast the british struck back. Obviously Thatcher didn’t give a fuck about her people. It seems she wasn't very different from our dictators. Stuff like this, is far more important than any debate we could have about any particular conflict. The sad part is, no matter what we do, it will always happen again...

 



Naninho said:
What still amaze me today is how fast the british struck back. Obviously Thatcher didn’t give a fuck about her people. It seems she wasn't very different from our dictators. Stuff like this, is far more important than any debate we could have about any particular conflict. The sad part is, no matter what we do, it will always happen again...


I find this bit interesting. How does Thatcher striking back make her alike to a dictator? Even democratic countries have militaries and they often use them at far less provocation than they got.



From a realist perspective, Argentina would never attack/invade the Falklands. They realise that the UK defense budget is approximately 18 times their own, and so would not want their arses handed to them again ;)

There is no reason why Argentina would even have support of other nations in South America anyway. They introduced 11 percent import tariffs, which really annoyed their local trading partners too.

Either way, the only reason this is becoming an issue is because Argentina makes it so. With inflation running in double digits and rubbish wage increases, this is becoming just like the 80's and the Argentinian junta- focus on supposed inequalities with Britain, trying to ignore the rubbish way the country is being handled. It all ended quite well if memory serves me well. Oh wait.



The Islanders wish to remain British so their will must be respected. Infact they probably have a stronger British patriotism than the actual British themselves. Think I read somewhere that there is a plan to allow the Falkland Islanders to be able to vote for an MP into westminster which will give them a voice in the U.K. government affairs.



Around the Network
Naninho said:



1776: Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
1790: Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas.
1816: The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, later called Argentina, claimed independence from Spain.

[That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.]

1825: The United Kingdom recognised Argentina's independence from Spain.
1833: A military operation from the UK took control of the islands after the american sloop USS Lexington destroyed the argentine military defenses of the settlement of Puerto Soledad. Then, despite being in peaceful relations with the Confederation of Argentina, the British expelled the argentinian garrison of 26 soldiers.
Since then, the islands have been under British rule, except during the war.


 


not being on the islands you cant actually rule there.   you cant claim an island by sight alone(or the imaginings either), which is why the british couldnt claim it when they first discovered the islands. 

 

britain never gave up its claim on the island, the nootka sound convention doesnt apply to the island, and any discussion over the islands over breach would have to take place between them and spain, not argentina.

 

the argentinian claims of independence were unilateral and there was no authority on the island by either spain or the new argentinian government thus it was outside its borders and not claimable under what you are claiming.   spain would have had to cease their claims on the territory to inherit it, which only happened in...'59? and no mention of the islands is made in their agreements at that time.  it was also some years after the british were already in full control of the island and that situation had already been settled between them. 

 

a settlement was established that also had british permission to be there and the head of the settlement asked for british assistance in protecting the islands which they showed up to do. 



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

RedInker said:
The Islanders wish to remain British so their will must be respected. Infact they probably have a stronger British patriotism than the actual British themselves. Think I read somewhere that there is a plan to allow the Falkland Islanders to be able to vote for an MP into westminster which will give them a voice in the U.K. government affairs.

Argentine are going to love that, that would mean rather than being an overseas territory they become fully incorporated into the UK. 



The Falkland Islands should have self determination and decide for themselves who they want to be a part of... if anybody.

What the UK did to get them was shady no doubt, but it would be a double disservice to the people to force them back to a country they do not wish to be ruled by.

It's a lot like East Jerusalem, where the majority of arabs there would prefer their districts remain in Israel.



kowenicki said:
brendude13 said:
What's up with all the British empire hate? Have you seen how small our country is?


they resent the fact that we dragged most of them out of the dark ages and into civilisatioin....

I'm joking... of course....


Reminds me of that joke in the life of Byran.



Naninho said:

An argentinian here!


1776: Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
1790: Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas.
1816: The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, later called Argentina, claimed independence from Spain.

[That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.]

1825: The United Kingdom recognised Argentina's independence from Spain.
1833: A military operation from the UK took control of the islands after the american sloop USS Lexington destroyed the argentine military defenses of the settlement of Puerto Soledad. Then, despite being in peaceful relations with the Confederation of Argentina, the British expelled the argentinian garrison of 26 soldiers.
Since then, the islands have been under British rule, except during the war.

Again my question: Is that what they teach you in school in Argentina, or is this just the story told by tabloids (I suppose there is something like "The Sun" or "The Weekly World News" over there) ?