Falklands or Malvinas


Mahone
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those that don't know, the falkland islands are a British overseas territory, actively run by the British government. However, Argentina also claim responsibility for the Islands, and have done primarily since 1945. They base their argument on the basis of our illegal occupation of the islands in 1833, and that they legally obtained the Islands from Spain when they gained independence from it in 1816.

This subject has become contentious again in recent years, with Argentina once again trying to resume talks regarding the sovereignty of the falkland islands, and the UK essentially refusing to enter any more negotiations, especially since the Argentinian attempted invasion of the islands in 1982, which the British military successfully repelled after 2 months of battling.

The falkland islanders are, by virtual of their residency on the falkland islands, British citizens. They themselves are determined that the islands should remain under British rule and retain their British citizenship. The Argentinians however, claim that the islanders themselves do not have a right to self determination and do not recognise the islanders as a valid entity in any debates regarding the the islands jurisdiction - only today in fact they re-emphasized that they wouldn't meet with representatives of the falkland islands.

The Argentinians also don't recognise the name 'falkland islands', insisting on calling them the Malvinas. Signs such as these are common across Argentina:

Posted Image

This translates to: "The Malvinas are Argentine". They have also been known to approach the waters surrounding the islands in warships, and radio messages to nearby fishing vessels that they are breaking Argentinian law - so far these messages have been ignored and Argentina have not tried to take the islands by force since they were forced to retreat in 1982.

Something tells me that this issue is not going to go away by ignoring it like we have been in recent years. What do you think? Should the British give the islands back to their "rightful" owners?

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they do hand over the islands I'd hate to see the British citizens hung out to dry. If things did go that route it'd be nice if the UK could assist in relocation. It's gotta be cheaper to move those who want to leave than fight over it, the islands population isn't that large and I doubt everyone would want to leave. That's all if though, I understand there is the principle of the thing involved that isn't just a straight cost analysis.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer. If the islands should be "given back", how far do we take that principle? How many decades/centuries/millennia should pass before we no longer recognize such ancient claims? Can the current Argentinian government even lay claim to being a legitimate continuance of the Argentinian government from the early 19th Century? If the island's residence have no right of self-determination, does anyone else? Who? When?

If Florida or Texas suddenly decided they were part of Mexico, I wouldn't be happy about it and would assume the rest of the US wouldn't just let them go. Even if a majority in those states voted for a union with Mexico, I would not recognize such as legitimate. Such "ownership" seems a national concern, not merely local. So ultimately, I don't know the right answer, and I suspect there is no single "right" answer. Or if there is a right answer, it's probably something like, "It's always better to be on the stronger side."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the residents have declared themselves to be British - that should be enough surely?

I think they should let the residents of the Island decide who they want to "belong" to.

Using the scenario that Vort gave above, if Mexico invaded and successfully took forceful ownership of Florida, kicked whatever current residents they wanted to out of Florida and allowed thousands of their citizens to live for a couple of centuries there, would you also agree in this case that the current Mexican residents of Florida should be allowed to determine whether it remains in Mexican ownership, or the US regains what was legally/originally theirs?

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Kirchner is whipping up nationalism against Britain to distract attention from her own role in her country's anemic economy and her scandal-prone administration. We've seen that strategy in play before . . .

Indeed. It's a argument that's been going on for considerably longer however, she is just bringing it up again with a vested interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the two combatant countries can/will do whatever they think they can get away with. But as a third party observer, I'd prefer to stay the heck out of it. Quite bluntly--they're both "right", to some degree; but neither one of them is right enough to make it worth the shedding of American blood. (Ditto for Israel and the Palestinian refugees.)

(Though I'm something of an anglophile and would prefer to see Britain hold the islands, contingent on the wishes of the locals; and from what I can gather it doesn't seem that there was a substantial population of Argentines driven out when the Brits took over in the 19th century. The Mexican War doesn't seem to have resulted in a lot of war refugees either--it seems most of those who were living in the region simply accepted American rule and continued their regular lifestyle; making your hypothetical a little inapposite.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Britain should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish while they are at it.

But Northern Ireland got to vote on it back in the 1920s and chose to stay. Even so, Churchill offered it to the Irish in exchange for their support in World War II - and was declined. Public opinion in Northern Ireland seems to remain heavily in favor of staying with the UK.

Just how many mulligans do the Irish (or the Argentines, or the Palestinians) think they deserve to get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the residents should be able to determine whose rule they should be under. It seems to me once upon a time I heard that there is more to this fight than just a small island, something to do with rich natural resources under the water. I believe that is what Argentina is really after. If it weren't for those resources, Argentina likely wouldn't care about the islands very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that is what Argentina is really after. If it weren't for those resources, Argentina likely wouldn't care about the islands very much.

I respectfully disagree. If you search Argentine history (1970's, early 80's just before democracy was restored and after many years of military governments and more than 30,000 people missing), you will know exactly why this conflict is so sensitive and important for Argentinians and it's definitely not related to any sort of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. If you search Argentine history (1970's, early 80's just before democracy was restored and after many years of military governments and more than 30,000 people missing), you will know exactly why this conflict is so sensitive and important for Argentinians and it's definitely not related to any sort of resources.

Okay, I'm confused. So you're saying that the reason Argentina wants the Falklands is because there are 30,000 people missing from the islands? That's quite a large number considering there are less than 3,000 people living on those islands. And you're positive that there isn't any oil in their territorial waters that the Argentines would want? Because I just read a page on wikipedia (admittedly not a great source) that claims there may be as much as 60 billion barrels of oil there. Wow, someone screwed up on that report, didn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the two combatant countries can/will do whatever they think they can get away with. But as a third party observer, I'd prefer to stay the heck out of it. Quite bluntly--they're both "right", to some degree; but neither one of them is right enough to make it worth the shedding of American blood. (Ditto for Israel and the Palestinian refugees.)

To my knowledge, very little American support was requested or given during the falklands war. Certain, no US soldiers were ever on the falklands islands during the war itself and I'm only aware of logistical support being offered.

(Though I'm something of an anglophile and would prefer to see Britain hold the islands, contingent on the wishes of the locals; and from what I can gather it doesn't seem that there was a substantial population of Argentines driven out when the Brits took over in the 19th century. The Mexican War doesn't seem to have resulted in a lot of war refugees either--it seems most of those who were living in the region simply accepted American rule and continued their regular lifestyle; making your hypothetical a little inapposite.)

I'm not aware of how many people left the islands after we took over, however 70% of the islanders are of British descent which I think makes my argument valid - that's from an Argentinian perspective of course.

The islanders, other than being mostly of British descent anyway, also gain far greater economical benefits to being under British rule, not to mention the Argentinian corruption scandals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed- having been ruled by one corrupt military junta after another for the last two centuries (each claiming to be an effort to "restore democracy", Argentinian hands are hardly clean.

And given that they fought their own wars of conquest against their neighbors (right around the time we were fighting our own civil war), they have no room to throw out accusations of "taken by force"- unless, of course, they want to give back portions of Chile and Paraguay that have been "Argentina" for less time than the Falklands have been "British".

Somehow I don't suspect the Argentinian government is quite that enlightened...

Two further things need to be clearly established:

First, if the head-harpy-what's-in-charge of the Argentinian government had been serious, she'd have made her demand through diplomatic channels.

She didn't.

She instead took out a full page ad in a London tabloid and started stirring up the State-owned press in her own country.

That clearly indicates she's interested in publicity, rather than a solution.

For floundering President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner (the woman who would be Evita 2.0), this is a wag-the-dog campaign to distract from her corrupt government's incompetence and failure- nothing more.

But since she's a South-American dictator, that's acceptable behavior in certain circles.

Two: According to Wiki, the discoverers were alternately French, Portugese, Dutch, and British.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was British, established in 1765- and the British never relenquished their claims to that island.

Spain had a territorial governor there for some time, but never clashed with the British over their claim of sovereignty.

Assuming you grant the legitimacy of La Primera Junta, Argentina didn't become a sovereign nation until 1810- nearly fifty years after the British colony was founded in the Falklands.

In point of fact, there has never been a legitimate Argentinian colony, settlement, or government on the island.

Contrary to the myth being painted here and in the media, it is more than arguable that it is the Argentinians, not the British, who are the usurpers and invaders.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm confused. So you're saying that the reason Argentina wants the Falklands is because there are 30,000 people missing from the islands? That's quite a large number considering there are less than 3,000 people living on those islands.

I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. No, there aren't 30,000 people missing from the islands. The 30,000 people I was referring to were kidnapped, tortured and presumably killed (missing) during Argentina's Dirty War from 1976 to 1983. The military government at the time, used the conflict as a mere distraction for the awful state of affairs of the country (in all levels).

At the time of the conflict, Argentina's military service was military conscription and 18 year old kids were sent to fight this war completely unprepared and untrained (in a lot of cases, they didn't even know how to hold a weapon) compared to the professionalism and experience of British soldiers. Hence, the numbers of 649 deaths for Argentina and 255 for the British. So for the typical Argentine, getting back the "Malvinas" isn't about oil or resources or even national pride, it's about rationalizing that if they get their islands back, the deaths of these young men wasn't after all in vain. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner seems to be trying a similar approach as the military government at the time and is trying (very unsuccessfully) to win back support by touching a very sensitive issue for the population.

Even though Argentina was able to receive the support of 32 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean, we all know that Britain won't allow any sort of "negotiation" or "communication" with regards to the sovereignty of the islands, (even when the UN requested such communication).

And you're positive that there isn't any oil in their territorial waters that the Argentines would want? Because I just read a page on wikipedia (admittedly not a great source) that claims there may be as much as 60 billion barrels of oil there. Wow, someone screwed up on that report, didn't they?

Yes, there is oil there of course. What I am saying is that I don't think the issue of getting the islands backs is the oil. For the people, as I explained it's about the loss of their children and for the President is just a way to distract the population from a failing economy and corrupt government and deep inside, with high expectations of becoming the second "Evita".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that don't know, the falkland islands are a British overseas territory, actively run by the British government. However, Argentina also claim responsibility for the Islands, and have done primarily since 1945. They base their argument on the basis of our illegal occupation of the islands in 1833, and that they legally obtained the Islands from Spain when they gained independence from it in 1816.

This subject has become contentious again in recent years, with Argentina once again trying to resume talks regarding the sovereignty of the falkland islands, and the UK essentially refusing to enter any more negotiations, especially since the Argentinian attempted invasion of the islands in 1982, which the British military successfully repelled after 2 months of battling.

The falkland islanders are, by virtual of their residency on the falkland islands, British citizens. They themselves are determined that the islands should remain under British rule and retain their British citizenship. The Argentinians however, claim that the islanders themselves do not have a right to self determination and do not recognise the islanders as a valid entity in any debates regarding the the islands jurisdiction - only today in fact they re-emphasized that they wouldn't meet with representatives of the falkland islands.

The Argentinians also don't recognise the name 'falkland islands', insisting on calling them the Malvinas. Signs such as these are common across Argentina:

Posted Image

This translates to: "The Malvinas are Argentine". They have also been known to approach the waters surrounding the islands in warships, and radio messages to nearby fishing vessels that they are breaking Argentinian law - so far these messages have been ignored and Argentina have not tried to take the islands by force since they were forced to retreat in 1982.

Something tells me that this issue is not going to go away by ignoring it like we have been in recent years. What do you think? Should the British give the islands back to their "rightful" owners?

that should be up to the majority of the islanders. If the islanders for the most part want to remain part of the UK, then no it shouldn't be given to argentina.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share