Falklands

[Gonzalez]

So my point remains, what's the difference between the Spanish occupation of a former British settlement, and the subsequent British occupation of the Argentinian settlement 60 years later? Both acts of aggression but with an important caveat 'Britain were there first'.

Now we are moving into more factual grounds and for that I will have to do some research.

I'd argue that the interests and opinion of the current residents of the islands, who are now presumably about 10th generation is just as valid an argument as the "culture" one is for Argentina though.

Argentina already said that all of the islander rights would be safeguarded and their decisions respected. They will be able to stay as long as they want, no one will kick them out.

Now, as for deciding to be governed by the UK that is based on their claim of right for self determination and I already posted the reasons of why the UN has in fact already determined that right void.

 

[Moe Canibo]

It would be the best to hammer the islands back into the ocean with nukes. McAMERUKAH!!!!!!!111

 

[Gonzalez]

Okay. I've said our diplomats have it far more better than I do so rather than try to give the long and complicated reasons myself going back and forth and verifying data I'll just give you the link to them: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html

It's on spanish and english, I left the link to the english version I think, if not then click where it says "English Version". I'm reading trough it right now. Hope it helps to clear any doubts you may have. If there is any point you would like to discuss just let me know, but I think I would most likely agree with the official version mostly. Again, they know far more than I do and probably have reasons to state what they state.

 

[McCabbe]

 

[Makenshi]

Argentinas claim on the islands is definitely no better than the UK's with the possible exception of geographical proximity.

That's exactly the reason Argentina's claim is better than UK's. Even if both have no good historical reason to claim it, it's so damn close to Argentina (almost inside it, Argentina's curved coast forms a kind of gulf) and so fucking far from UK that you know what.

Other options are to turn the damn place independent (like Trinidad&Tobago, Bahamas) or to split it in half (the western island to Argentina, the eastern to UK). The last one is not very compatible with the geographical argument but hey, half is better than nothing, right?

 

[TheGM]

The comparison with Texas suggest you didn't get it, so maybe I should enlighten you with a different kind of example. Suppose China invaded some islands off the coast of Alaska, claiming them for themselves. Would you recognize them as theirs? Would you just let them have the islands just because they took them by force? Or would you try to get them back? Maybe even complain in the United Nations? What if the Chinese would just simply refuse to negotiate and make deaf ears to everything you say?

OH NO!!!! NOT THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS!!! Those are like the Falklands of the North Pacific(I.E. giant frozen turd)

also reminds me of the time that totally happened but with the Japanese. Except we took them Back!!!(Americans gotta America)

The big difference being we got them from buying Alaska from the Russians and they added it to the sale as a joke because those islands suck, and not because some other people owned them and us but left us then lost them, and we be proxy should own them because....fuck you that's why!

Now that I think about your country's claim that you should own them because they are closer to you then the other people that owned them it makes perfect sense. My neighbor's pool is closer to my house then his.....I'm claiming it as my own from now on.

GM GONNA GET HIS POOL ON!!! IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER!!!

 

[Gonzalez]

That's exactly the reason Argentina's claim is better than UK's. Even if both have no good historical reason to claim it, it's so damn close to Argentina (almost inside it, Argentina's curved coast forms a kind of gulf) and so fucking far from UK that you know what

Yeah, but Britain sure doesn't care about such things. Look at Gibraltar, it's not like it's not an obvious continuation of Spain, but they are still firmly emplaced there and are never going to leave.

On the other hand Gibraltar is still relatively close to them, however the Falklands are so far away that without the cooperation of south american governments (wich they don't have) the isles are nothing but a big money dump they can get no benefits from.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/falklands-economic-crisis-politics-argentina

Other options are to turn the damn place independent

Like it was posted before, for reasons already explained, the UN has already ruled out independency as a possibility (not to mention they already expressed they don't want independence). Also by wanting to stay British they further deny themselves any say in the matter, precisely because they are Britain, and our claim is with the british government. They are not a separate entity and therefor they don't get to have a separate voice. Their voice is represented by their government wich is precisely who we are presenting our claims to.

 

[popej]

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Essential reading for anyone remotely interested.

 

[Gonzalez]

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Essential reading for anyone remotely interested.

The article claims omissions and errors, nevertheless this article does exactly that very thing.

It only refutes the points that are "convenient" to refute and ignores everything else in the original article. It adds a lot of cosmetic details while in the end still says the argentines claimed the islands from a beginning, had a population there and then the UK took them by force, thus changing nothing. It also uses every single chance to show Argentineans as mass murders and nazis.

They keep talking about self determination like they knew what they were talking about. The principle of self determination is not what you think or feel it "should" be, it's a legal term with specific rules, none of wich apply to the Falklands case.

And since the article is obviously aimed at making Argentina "look bad" and show us as evil colonialist who want to suppress the locals, let me link you to a documentary that shows how much the UK cares about the free choice of local populations. And this is not something from eons ago, this started in the 60's and continues today.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0C044962162DE626

After watching that I would say that stating that the UK domain over the islands is just to protect the freedom of the local population while to this day the UK govt fails to obey their own supreme court rulings of their illegal and inhumane actions is nothing but hypocrisy.

 

[Arden]

Did not think argentinians were racist until I read about your attitude towards the Brits

Anyway, someone accusing a nation or an ethnic group of racism is a racist and thus should not be taken seriously.

Thanks to this thread I finally got around to find out about this Falkland war thing. Interesting. In this age of desert warfare and airstrikes what we really need is a bit of naval action. Settle the whole thing with a duel between two subs or a couple destroyers where the winner gets it all. Who knows, if a nuclear sub or two get blasted near the islands nobody might want to keep the rocks anyway.

 

[Gonzalez]

Did not think argentinians were racist until I read about your attitude towards the Brits

Anyway, someone accusing a nation or an ethnic group of racism is a racist and thus should not be taken seriously.

Thanks to this thread I finally got around to find out about this Falkland war thing. Interesting. In this age of desert warfare and airstrikes what we really need is a bit of naval action. Settle the whole thing with a duel between two subs or a couple destroyers where the winner gets it all. Who knows, if a nuclear sub or two get blasted near the islands nobody might want to keep the rocks anyway.

And when, may I ask, was I racist toward British people?

In any case you would be thrilled to know that such was has indeed already happened in 82, but it was only because of a fight between politicians who sent people to die only to increase their popularity, in this case Tatcher and Galtieri. Galtieri made a mistake he couldn't turn away from and Tatcher sealed the deal by sinking an Argentine ship that was in neutral territorial Argentine waters without warning or provocation during a cease fire in the middle of negotiations, thus causing the death of at least some 250 british by provoking a war.

So no, no such war would happen today, when it did happened was because of specific circumstances that could hardly be repeated today, so some people wanting a war should stop getting off to battles that are never going to happen.

 

[popej]

The point of that article was to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the Argentine argument. It does this very well.

I don't harbour any false illusions as to the authors intentions. The fact is though, he's right.

I'm definitely bias but I still think the British argument is stronger.

 

[Gonzalez]

The only thing that has been inconsistent over time is exactly the british argument. First they claimed that they discovered the islands first, then they admitted that the islands were first sighted by Magellan, something this unofficial article denies, then they alleged that they possessed the land for too long and by law belonged to them, wich is something not widely accepted, but those who do accept this law demand that the territory had to be taken peacefully and no other nation has questioned the occupation, wich Argentina did. Now they base their arguments solely in the right of self determination of the islanders scraping everything else, while the argentines always maintained the same argument.

The first and most important thing the article you presented fails to point out, is that the article they are trying to refute is an official document, accepted by the british government as true, while the article you presented is unofficial, is not the british posture, it's some sort of "research" supported probably by private interest of the companies who have always been pressuring and campaigning against returning the islands to Argentina.

The only official british posture is that of defending the self determination of the inhabitants, wich as i said, their self determination has not only been voided by the UN, but it's defense by the UK govt is also hypocritical, since they defend the will of the people only when it's in their best interest to do so. Everything else, including historical factors, they granted to the argentine claim.

 

[popej]

*Sighting does not equal claiming.
*The evidence that Magellan saw the islands first is tenuous at best.
*Argentina isn't Spain and Spain were not involved with a claim to the island until after Britain. (Spain and Portugal agreeing to divy up half the globe without asking anyone else is not a claim, nor was the popes irrelevant opinion).
*Britain has had de facto control of the island for much longer than any other nation.
*The residents on the island do not want the situation to change.
*The Spanish settlers who lived on the island were not forced to leave, they were encouraged to stay. When this happened Britain was exercising an earlier claim to the island than Spain.

If you're going to state that British government accepts this pamphlet from 2007 as fact then you're going to need to provide a source...

The 'islanders self determination' isn't the sole argument is it? The British claim has never officially lapsed, unlike the Argentinian claim.

Basically, the guy who wrote the article responding to what he perceives, to be the false bits of the Argentinian argument. He has backed up his argument repeatedly with assorted references. You haven't and neither has the Argentine government. They have adopted a position of ignoring what is plain as day and stamping their feet like an angry child. That won't work on the international political stage.

Britain offered mediation on a number of occasions during the last century. It was turned down each time for no justified reason.

 

[Gonzalez]

To respond to each of your questions in order.

1-No, but the british were the first ones that claimed they sighted them first and say that's why it was theirs.
2-But since you said yourself sighting does not equal claiming why should I bother to argue.
3-But in any case it is undeniable that Spain had a formal claim on them first, even if britain didn't protested nor agreed. And Argentina did claimed those territories that were spanish at the time invoking existing laws for it at the time of the claim.
4-No, they didn't, the first settlement was french, the british had a small outpost a bit after the french and wasn't even a proper settlement. Spain protested as soon as they found out and both the french and british left the illegally occupied spanish territory.
5-Except is not up to them to decide, UN resolutions are very clear about it, explained it several times here already. But let me make it clear to you. The british government claims the principle of self determination. The principle of self determination has been created for native populations that want to stop being controlled by a colonial power, not for a nation who has their own citizens occupying a disputed territory. Also it must not interfere with the territorial integrity of a nation, and it does, in this case, with Argentina's.
6- The argentine settlers, you mean. And all argentine authorities and the garrison were forced to leave. Still means the islands were taken by force without provocation. Either remain here and subjugate to our authority or leave is not much of a choice, so all the article does is twist the argument so it sounds more favorable to their point of view, but changes nothing in the end.

So now I have to do you work of you now? The "pamphlet" is based on the official posture by the argentine government, the article forgets to mention that. The link I already provided is not a pamphlet but the official argentine chancellery website. In any case it is you who has to provide sources of the article that you posted being the official british posture and that the british government officially refutes anything on the official argentine posture.

And the only time the british offered "mediation" was just a proposal to let a third party decide, something that would take away all the power of the argentine arguments. That might have been just fine with the british in the face of their weak arguments, but Argentina is not just going to accept something that works against their interest.

Other two times the british did tried to return the islands to argentina, but the local government in the islands was the one that opposed, not Argentina.

 

[Yoshi525]

Out of interest Gonzalez, what's your opinion regarding the first Gulf War - namely was Iraq's claim on Kuwait justified?

 

[Gonzalez]

I don't know enough about the Iraqi claim as to judge if it was justified or not. It seems Iraq claimed Kuwait to be one of their provinces.

In any case Kuwait was actually a recognized independent state at the time, and it was not under the direct control of the british by a de facto british governor. So I don't really see any comparison to the Malvinas case, wich is not independent, nor a state, and neither their 2000 inhabitants even want it to be and independent state.

It would rather be more comparable to Argentina claiming Uruguay as one of their provinces because that's what it was before the war with Brazil, a notion no one here would support.

 

[Crni Vuk]

funny to discuss claims about people and situations which are literally 300 years old.

I am curious if it is worth waging a war.

History is a funny thing.

 

[Muskeato]

Bare with me here.

The first widely accepted sighting of the islands was by a Dutchman (Sebald de Weert). The first undisputed landing on the island was by an Englishman (John Strong). The British claim is/was based upon this landing, I think.

Britain rejects a Spanish interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht (That the Treaty granted Spain sovereignty).

The French established a colony in 1764. In 1766 the Spanish told them to leave and because the nations were friendly they did, and as far as I know relinquished any claim.

A British fort was established in 1765/6, and as far as I can tell a colony at Port Egmont. The Spanish forcibly evicted the British, but to avoid war were allowed to return. Neither side relinquished their claim.

In 1776, the British leave due to financial constraints, but leave a plaque proclaiming their sovereignty. The Spanish leave in 1811, also leaving a plaque.

Vernet requested permission from the British to build his settlement in the 1820's. This seems to imply that he at least thought that the issue of sovereignty was far from settled.

1833, Britain forcibly asserts sovereignty over the islands. Apparently contemporary sources indicate that Argentine colonists were encouraged to stay. I can't be more specific than that I'm afraid.


That series of events hardly indicates a strong Argentinian claim. I'm not sure you fully understand third-party mediation. The third-party is supposed to analyse and respect both parties points. I don't see how mediation (especially by the ICJ) would take any power away from an argument.

 

[.Pixote.]

Who cares about The Falklands - when people first went there, they were unoccupied, in other words no-one lived there, because it was cold, wet and miserable. At the time Argentina didn't even exist (as a country), and the didn't have any interest in the place, they were too busy slaughtering the local natives.

In those days the guys with the biggest guns basically took what they wanted, and the Falklands ended up being just another land grab by the English - All the European countries indulged in the same shit - Check the list -

[spoiler:7b00225505]North America

France
Canada (most of eastern and central Canada)
United States (entire basin of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, Great Lakes)
Haiti

Britain
American territories east of the Mississippi (in modern USA)
Thirteen colonies
roughly the area of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin
Minnesota east of the Mississippi River
Belize
Canada
Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, lands administered by the Hudson's Bay Company (Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory)
Mosquito Coast
Oregon Country

Netherlands
New Netherlands (Nieuw-Amsterdam / New York)

Portugal
Claim to Labrador
Settlement in Terra Nova (Newfoundland)

Russia
Alaska

Spain
Costa Rica
El Salvador
East Florida and West Florida
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Settlement at Nootka, near Vancouver Island, Canada
Southwestern United States - Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah

Sweden
New Sweden (Nya Sverige)
[edit]
West Indies and the Caribbean

Brandenburg
St Thomas

Britain
Bahamas
Barbados
Jamaica
Leeward Islands
Antigua and Barbuda
Dominica
Saint Christopher (St Kitts)-Nevis
Windward Islands
Grenada
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Courland
New Courland (Tobago)

Denmark
Danish West Indies

France
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Montserrat
Nevis
Saint Christophe (St Kitts)
Saint Croix
Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
Sainte-Lucia (St Lucia)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sint Eustatius
Tobago

Knights of Malta
Saint-Barthélemy
Saint Christopher (St Kitts)
Saint Croix
Tortuga (off coast of Haiti)

Netherlands
Anegada
New Walcheren (Tobago)
Saint Croix
Tortola
Virgin Gorda

Portugal
Barbados

Spain
Bahamas
Cuba
Island of Hispanola (Dominican Republic and Haiti)
Jamaica
Puerto Rico
Trinidad

Sweden
Guadeloupe
Saint-Barthélemy
[edit]
South America

Britain
British Guyana
Berbice, Essequibo, Demerara

France
Brazil (Rio de Janeiro briefly, and São Luís briefly)

(see France Antarctique and France Équinoxiale)
Iles Malouines (Falkland Islands)

Netherlands
Berbice (Guyana)
Demerara
Dutch Guiana (Suriname)
Essequibo
New Holland (Brazil - Half the capitanas)

Spain
Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)
Paraguay
Panama (formerly a part of Colombia)
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela

Portugal
Brazil
Cisplatina (Uruguay)
French Guiana
[edit]
Africa

Belgium
Belgian Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Lado Enclave
Ruanda-Urundi (Rwanda and Burundi)

Brandenburg
Arguin (in Mauritania)
Brandenburger Gold Coast (coastal settlements in Ghana)

Britain
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Sudan)
Basutoland (Lesotho)
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
British East Africa (Kenya)
British Somaliland (northern Somalia)
British Togoland (eastern Ghana)
Cameroons (split between Nigeria and Cameroon)
Egypt
Gambia
Gold Coast (Ghana)
Nigeria
Northern Rhodesia (Zambia)
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Cape Colony
Natal
Orange Free State
Transvaal
Zululand
South-West Africa (Namibia)
Walvis Bay
Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)
Swaziland
Tanganyika (mainland Tanzania)
Uganda
Zanzibar (insular Tanzania)

Courland
St. Andrews Island (in Gambia)

Denmark
Danish Gold Coast (coastal settlements in Ghana)

France
Albreda (in Gambia)
Algeria
Cameroon (91% of Cameroon)
Chad
Dahomey (Benin)
French Congo (Republic of Congo)
French Guinea (Guinea)
French Upper Volta (Republic of Upper Volta, Burkina Faso)
French Somaliland (Djibouti)
French Sudan (Mali)
French Togoland (Togo)
Gabon
Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire)
Mauritania
Morocco (89% of Morocco)
Niger
Oubangui-Chari (Central African Republic)
Senegal
Tunisia
Zanzibar (Tanzania)

Germany
German East Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania)
German South West Africa (Namibia)
Kamerun (split between Cameroon and Nigeria)
Togoland (split between Togo and Ghana)
Wituland

Italy
Eritrea
Italian Somaliland
Libya

Netherlands
Angola (Luanda, Sonyo and Cabinda)
Arguin Island (in Mauritania)
Dutch Gold Coast (settlements along coast of Ghana, including El Mina)
Goree (in Senegal)
Moçambique (Delagoa Bay)
Sao Tomé
South Africa. The Dutch Cape Colony (Kaapstad / Cape Town)

Portugal
Ajuda (Whydah, in Benin)
Angola
Annobon
Cabinda
Ceuta
Goree (in Senegal)
Malindi
Mombasa
Morocco enclaves
Agadir
Alcacer Ceguer
Arzila
Azamor
Mazagan
Mogador
Safim
Mozambique
Portuguese Gold Coast (settlements along coast of Ghana)
Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bissau)
Quíloa
São Tomé and Príncipe
Tangier
Zanzibar
Ziguinchor

Spain
Bona
Bougie
Jerba
Fernando Po and Annobon (insular Equatorial Guinea)
Oran
Port Guinea
Rio Muni (mainland Equatorial Guinea)
Spanish Morocco
Ifni
Spanish Sahara
Río de Oro
Saguia el-Hamra
Tarfaya Strip

Sweden
Swedish Gold Coast (coastal settlements in Ghana)
[edit]
Indian Ocean

France
Comoros
Ile de France (Mauritius)
Madagascar
Seychelles

Netherlands
Mauritius

Portugal
Laccadive Islands
Maldive Islands
Socotra
[edit]
Middle East

France
Hatay (Sanjak of Alexandretta, now called Hatay province)
Lebanon
Syria
Yemen (Cheik-Saïd peninsula)

Netherlands
Jemen, Al Mukha (Mocca)
Mesopotamia (Iraq, Al Basrah)

Britain
Aden Protectorate
Bahrain
Egypt
Kuwait
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
South Arabia
Transjordan
Trucial Coast (United Arab Emirates)

Portugal
Bandar Abbas
Hormuz
Manama
Muharraq Island
Muscat
Qeshm
[edit]
Indian Subcontinent

Austria
Nicobar Islands

Britain
Bhutan
British India (After independence from Britain,` British India became Pakistan (East and West) and India - later Pakistan's eastern territories were to become Bangladesh)
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Ceylon (Sri Lanka)


Denmark
Frederik Oerne Islands (Nicobar Islands)
Serampore
Tranquebar

France
India
Pondicherry, Karikal, Yanaon, Mahé, and Chandernagore

Netherlands
Bengalen (Bangladesh)
Burma (Myanmar) (Mrohaung (Arakan), Siriangh, Syriam, Ava, Martaban)
Ceylon
India (Suratte, Malabar, Coromandel)

Portugal
Bombay
Calicut
Cambay
Cannanore
Ceylon (Cilão)
Chaul
Chittagong
Cochin
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Goa
Hughli
Masulipatnam
Mangalore
Surat
Syriam
[edit]
Asia-Pacific

Britain
Australia
Brunei
New Zealand
Malaysia
British Malaya
Federated Malay States
Straits Settlements
Unfederated Malay States
British North Borneo
Kingdom of Sarawak
Singapore
Western Samoa
Philippines
Phoenix Islands (part of Kiribati)
Solomon Islands
Hong Kong

Belgium
Tientsin (concession territory)

France

Kwang-Chou-Wan (廣州灣) leased territory, now the city of Zhanjiang (Guangdong province)
French settlements (concessions) in Shanghai, Guangdong, Tianjin, and Hankou
French zone of influence officially recognized by China over the provinces of Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan, and Guangdong
Indochina
Cambodia
Laos
Vietnam
Annam
Cochin China
Tongking
New Hebrides (Vanuatu, condominium with Britain)

Germany
Bismarck Archipelago
Caroline Islands (Karolinen)
German Samoa
Jiaozhou Bay (Kiautschou)
Kaiser-Wilhelmsland
Marshall Islands
Nauru
North Solomon Islands
Northern Marianas Islands (Marianen)
Palau

Netherlands
Dutch East Indies (Indonesia)
Malacca
Taiwan (Tayowan)
Tonkin/Annam (Vietnam) (Tonkin, Hoi An)

Portugal
Flores
Macau
Malacca
Moluccas
Ambon
Ternate
Tidore
Portuguese Timor (Timor-Leste)

Spain
Philippines
Spanish East Indies
Marianas Islands (Ladrones)
Guam
Northern Marianas Islands
Marshall Islands
Caroline Islands
[edit]
Europe

Austria
Austrian Netherlands
thea

France
Saarland or Saar (protectorate)

Britain
Corsica (the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom was a protectorate or in personal union with Britain)
Cyprus
Heligoland
Ionian islands
Ireland (first as the Lordship of Ireland, later not a colony but an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)
Malta
Minorca

Denmark
Danish Estonia
Iceland

Greece
Magna Graecia

Italy
See also: Colonia (Roman)
Albania
Dodecanese
Sazan Island

Norway
See also: Viking expansion
Faroe Islands
Hebrides
Iceland
Isle of Man
Orkney
Shetland

Russia
Finland

Spain
Spanish Netherlands

Sweden
Main article: Dominions of Sweden
Swedish Estonia
Swedish Ingria
Swedish Livonia
Swedish Pomerania[/spoiler:7b00225505]

History can be a bitch sometimes. Think about Hong Kong, and how it sat like a pimple on the arse of China, the Chinese has better things to do than worry about Hong Kong, especially after Mao took over. It would be better if 1 million Argentinians became British citizens and then moved there...take over quietly.