Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Damien you have your dates and chronology mixed up.

Where?

The UK and Argentina are both signatories to the UN so it is somewhat inevitable that the UN will be involved in some way. We can only hope that the outcome is arrived at by peaceful means.

The UN aren't going to deal with it. What outcome could we possibly have? As Chris said Argentina don't have any cards left in this matter. Britain has the land, the will of the people, and the means to defend it. The UN has nothing to work with to appease the Argentinians. Especially since the right to self-determination will override anything else.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Again Mr A, I am not addressing the issue of nationality. I am addressing the issue of governance and ownership. The Argentine cry of 'colonialism' is entirely bogus because there is no way for Argentina to govern or own the islands in any way other than the UK currently does. The Argentine argument that their status is different to that of the UK rests on the idea of proximity - the "salt water fallacy" referenced in Damien's link yesterday.

I take you points Chris and I broadly agree with your overall assessment. Jingoism (by either party) based on disputed historical claims is not the answer.

Originally Posted by Chris

Argentine ownership would be colonialism of a particularly unpleasant kind because it would involve subjecting the occupants to a government that they almost universally reject as foreign, if not outright hostile.

Nobody is saying that colonialism, by either party, is the answer. A negotiated settlement is the way forward and diplomacy ought to be the means by which that is achieved.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Nobody is saying that colonialism, by either party, is the answer. A negotiated settlement is the way forward and diplomacy ought to be the means by which that is achieved.

Don't think anyone disagrees with that.It's just rather hard to keep negotiations going when one side seems determined to be more jingoistic purely to achieve political power and fails entirely,repeatedly to see the point about the situation.

As a point of discussion what do you think could be a solution both sides could live with?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Don't think anyone disagrees with that.It's just rather hard to keep negotiations going when one side seems determined to be more jingoistic purely to achieve political power and fails entirely,repeatedly to see the point about the situation.

As a point of discussion what do you think could be a solution both sides could live with?

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!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Don't think anyone disagrees with that.It's just rather hard to keep negotiations going when one side seems determined to be more jingoistic purely to achieve political power and fails entirely,repeatedly to see the point about the situation.

That, of course, applies to both parties to the argument.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

As a point of discussion what do you think could be a solution both sides could live with?

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.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That, of course, applies to both parties to the argument.



I think elements of our experiences here in Northern Ireland could be applied / would be worthg 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.

The issue with Northern Ireland is rather different to the issue with the Falklands, but we can learn from the NI experence!

[Maggy J]

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?

[Damien]

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.

[Damien]

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.

[Hugh]

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?