Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

That suggestion presupposes that there is a claim to be settled. Just because Argentina makes a claim, it does not follow that the claim is legitimate. And at this point the British government has no reason to acknowledge, and therefore legitimise, Argentina's claim by agreeing to talk about it.

The UK holds all the cards here. Despite petty manoeuvres such as barring Falklands-flagged vessels from South American ports, ultimately Argentina will lose out. It stood to gain from the construction of any on-shore processing facilities required once oil starts to flow from the seabed around the islands but that is now increasingly unlikely.

There is also the issue of the UN resolution on colonialism which, as I understand it, is what the Argentinians may be relying on. In that context the claim is not solely an Argentenian one but an obligation under the terms of the UN.

Either way, as I have already stated, diplomacy would be the preferred option.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

There is also the issue of the UN resolution on colonialism which, as I understand it, is what the Argentinians may be relying on. In that context the claim is not solely an Argentenian one but an obligation under the terms of the UN.

Either way, as I have already stated, diplomacy would be the preferred option.

It's only the preferred option if you accept that something needs to be done, and therefore an option needs to be taken. If you do not - and the UK Government does not - then no options are preferred.

The appeal to a resolution on colonialism is laughable; if the UK were to cut all sovereign ties with the Falklands that would still not deliver them into Argentine hands. The islanders retain the right to determine their own government and their preferences are already well known.

In the absence of any involvement by the UK whatsoever, Argentina would still have to mount a military operation in order to take control of the islands.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, it is quite a good post - mildly amusing in parts - if a little jaundiced.

The alternate view , including actual cabinet office references and UN Resolutions, is equally interesting.

Either way, given that the nationality of the islanders is not in dispute then it is better that the territorial claim be settled once and for all via diplomatic means rather than militaristic jingoism.

The only way to settle this is a UN managed referendum, maybe that will prove the UN (and others) that the people of the Falkland Islands want to remain British!

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

It's only the preferred option if you accept that something needs to be done, and therefore an option needs to be taken. If you do not - and the UK Government does not - then no options are preferred.

The appeal to a resolution on colonialism is laughable; if the UK were to cut all sovereign ties with the Falklands that would still not deliver them into Argentine hands. The islanders retain the right to determine their own government and their preferences are already well known.

In the absence of any involvement by the UK whatsoever, Argentina would still have to mount a military operation in order to take control of the islands.

The Falkland Islands (along with the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) are a British Overseas Territory and they largely run their own affairs, all the UK government does is defend them and represent them overseas, so they basicly rule themselfs under UK rule!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's only the preferred option if you accept that something needs to be done, and therefore an option needs to be taken. If you do not - and the UK Government does not - then no options are preferred.

The appeal to a resolution on colonialism is laughable; if the UK were to cut all sovereign ties with the Falklands that would still not deliver them into Argentine hands. The islanders retain the right to determine their own government and their preferences are already well known.

In the absence of any involvement by the UK whatsoever, Argentina would still have to mount a military operation in order to take control of the islands.

Again Chris the islanders nationality, as far as I can tell, is not currently disputed. This is more an issue of ownership rather than occupancy.

I am not advocating an Argentinian invasion or war of any sort I'm merely suggesting people take a look at the bigger picture rather than doing what the UK and Argentinian politicians are doing by sabre rattling.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

There is also the issue of the UN resolution on colonialism which, as I understand it, is what the Argentinians may be relying on. In that context the claim is not solely an Argentenian one but an obligation under the terms of the UN.

Either way, as I have already stated, diplomacy would be the preferred option.

The UN resolution is superseded by the UN's policy of self-determination. Besides the UN's whole view of decolonisation is to recongise self-determination in those colonies. The UN could get involved if the Islanders wanted to be rid of the UK, they don't.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Damien

The UN resolution is superseded by the UN's policy of self-determination. Besides the UN's whole view of decolonisation is to recongise self-determination in those colonies. The UN could get involved if the Islanders wanted to be rid of the UK, they don't.

To be honest a lot of the entries in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories are already Self-Governing, so it is not very accurate in my opinon (with the exception of Western Sahara)

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's only the preferred option if you accept that something needs to be done, and therefore an option needs to be taken. If you do not - and the UK Government does not - then no options are preferred.

The appeal to a resolution on colonialism is laughable; if the UK were to cut all sovereign ties with the Falklands that would still not deliver them into Argentine hands. The islanders retain the right to determine their own government and their preferences are already well known.

In the absence of any involvement by the UK whatsoever, Argentina would still have to mount a military operation in order to take control of the islands.

Sums it up for me.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

The UN resolution is superseded by the UN's policy of self-determination. Besides the UN's whole view of decolonisation is to recongise self-determination in those colonies. The UN could get involved if the Islanders wanted to be rid of the UK, they don't.

Damien you have your dates and chronology mixed up.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again Chris the islanders nationality, as far as I can tell, are not currently disputed. This is more an issue of ownership rather than occupancy.

I am not advocating an Argentinian invasion or war of any sort I'm merely suggesting people take a look at the bigger picture rather than doing what the UK and Argentinian politicians are doing by sabre rattling.

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.

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.

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.

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!