Argentina and Great Britain Diplomatic Spat

[Napoleon]

Just out of consideration was the idea of joint-sovereignty ever considered?

Seriously?

For a few years over 175 years ago, Argentina laid claim to those islands. I just don't understand the whining about the islands when there is so much more important stuff to worry about back here.

The islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, but Argentina has claimed sovereignty since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833.

In pursuit of this claim, which is rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982.

OK, so Argentina became a nation in 1816. And so for 17 measley years (1816 to 1833) they had some control over some islands that were founded by the British.

The islands are called "[The] Falkland Islands" in English. This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland.

The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name "Îles Malouines", bestowed in 1764 by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who became the island's first known settlers. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands

So the islands were first named by the British and THEN THE FRENCH. Eventually Spain and/or Argentina snagged them and changed the name again.

THE FIRST NAME WAS THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

So then Argentina had the islands for 17 measley years (I know I've already mentioned that) which is less than 10% of the time they've been under British control and yet they are still whining about them.


That's like Mexico whining about Texas! Mexico had Texas for 26 (or only 15) measley years (1810/1821-1836... depending on which date you officially recognize as their indepedence) ...and they're not whining all the time about Texas. Or New Mexico, or Arizona, or Colorado, or California...

The Falklands are "The Falklands". This bullshit is the same stuff religious zealots/sheiks use in the Middle East to distract their downtrodden masses from the fact that they are incompetent leaders who are raping their own country.

When the people of Argentina can stop whining and start working to fix their own problems, it will be better for everybody. In general I like the 2nd/3rd World charm of Argentina, but this topic is ridiculous.

 

[fedecc]

Just out of consideration was the idea of joint-sovereignty ever considered?

I believe there were talks about granting Argentina sovereignty over one of the island in 25 years and then the other island in the another 25. Something like that.

OK, so Argentina became a nation in 1816. And so for 17 measley years (1816 to 1833) they had some control over some islands that were founded by the British.

Even if Argentina only had control of the islands for just one year, it doesn't change anything. The British occupation would still be an ilegitimate act of aggression.

So the islands were first named by the British and THEN THE FRENCH. Eventually Spain and/or Argentina snagged them and changed the name again.

THE FIRST NAME WAS THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

So then Argentina had the islands for 17 measley years (I know I've already mentioned that) which is less than 10% of the time they've been under British control and yet they are still whining about them.

The first to "settle" the islands were the French, to this the Spanish protested as they saw the islands in their jurisdiction. There was an agreement and the islands passed to Spanish administration. In the meantime, while the French-Spanish negotiation was going on, the British sneaked out an outpost on the far side of the one of the islands. Again the Spanish made a diplomatic protest and the British abandoned the outpost. Then Argentina (Buenos Aires to be more precise) took over. And is not a minor fact that by the time the British recognized Argentina's independence (in 1824), the Buenos Aires government was in full control of the islands and there was no protest from the British. The 1833 invasion was a typical act of piracy and colonialism.

That's like Mexico whining about Texas! Mexico had Texas for 26 (or only 15) measley years (1810/1821-1836... depending on which date you officially recognize as their independence) ...and they're not whining all the time about Texas. Or New Mexico, or Arizona, or Colorado, or California...

Is not the same since Argentina has never recognized the British claim, while Mexico has indeed recognized Texas as part of the US a long time ago. In fact the falklands issue is probably the only states policy Argentina has ever maintained coherently, no matter the government. Argentina has protested the occupation ever since it occured and has tried to get the island back through any means, with not much result of course, but we can wait...

 

[Conorworld]

I remember reading that the British were willing to offload the islands in the early 70s for various reasons, including financial reasons. Then the junta took over and it was not seen as best to consider such a change of sovereignty with the new government but the junta took this and the concept of a patriotic war and ran with it. Well, that's one of the things I have read about the whole issue.

I am neither British or Argentine but I can understand Argentine anger at this. Many nations during that period that were still planting/discovering their hinterland and surroundings have always staked a case for jurisdiction over land and sea near them. Whether it would be the mid-West in early 19th century USA to Patagonia for Chile and Argentina. To stake a claim over islands such as the Falklands/Malvinas is a bit different but still understandable from the perspective I mentioned.

However the British have settled there and have appeared to have been there before many other nations took the effort to do so, such as Argentina. Maybe that was just a case of a very well established nation with a vast navy such as Britain and a new nation such as Argentina not having the resources to do it themselves.

The British have settled there and have so for over 150 years. To reverse that would create a precedent for innumerable other issues and claims going back centuries. It is not like Britain and Hong Kong where a treaty stipulated a return to China. There is none here bar such ideas and rumors like the one I mentioned in the first paragraph.

In these instances I think that the population of the Falklands, as the people who live on the islands for decades and more should decide. These are the people who live there and should not be considered some pawns in an international struggle. They should decide themselves. But we know what that will lead to.

 

[tangobob]

Quote
The islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, but Argentina has claimed sovereignty since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833.

In pursuit of this claim, which is rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982.

I ask, how can it be an occupation, when the Islands are a self governing group? I have seen many threads here as elsewhere about peoples not being allowed self determination. Are we saying here that a people should be governed by the man with the biggest gun, by the country that has the best claim over them, or by themselves. When the British arrived is then to some extent irrelevent.
There is only one way for Argentina to gain (or regain if you prefer) the Falklands. And that is to have a consistant and fair government, and show the people there that they would be better off under Argentine rule.

In the end this would save the British taxpayer a lot of money.

 

[fedecc]

In these instances I think that the population of the Falklands, as the people who live on the islands for decades and more should decide. These are the people who live there and should not be considered some pawns in an international struggle. They should decide themselves. But we know what that will lead to.

I ask, how can it be an occupation, when the Islands are a self governing group? I have seen many threads here as elsewhere about peoples not being allowed self determination. Are we saying here that a people should be governed by the man with the biggest gun, by the country that has the best claim over them, or by themselves. When the British arrived is then to some extent irrelevent.

The issue of self determination is actually a non issue. The people of the falklands are British, they do not constitute a distinct "people" in international legal terms. The same way that you can't gather your neighbors and make a claim of selfdetermination on your neibhorhood. The falklanders are not imparcial part on the issue and as such they can't decide over it, specially when the other part in conflict (the argentines) are not allowed to go and settle themselves in the islands. Otherwise it would be quite easy for a couple of hundreds Argentinians to go to the islands and then make a claim of selfdetermination.

There is only one way for Argentina to gain (or regain if you prefer) the Falklands. And that is to have a consistant and fair government, and show the people there that they would be better off under Argentine rule.

I agree with keeping good relations with the people of the falklands. But do you honestly think people change the country they belong to just like that, becasue the other has a better administration. Argentina could be the most rich and prosper nation in the world and still the falklanders would want to remain british, why? well, because they are british.

 

[Conorworld]

It's pretty interesting this argument and the different yet somewhat similarly contested Gibraltar (but that was given to Britain in a treaty, nevertheless a disputed one). They unilaterally have referendums all the time that are not binding on the British government. It's pretty interesting that the Falklands have not gone down the same route of having referendums as a means to slap Argentina in the face.

 

[Recoleta Carolina]

This forum is filled with foreigners/expats living in Argentina. It is inconceivable to me that anyone living in this country would use the word "Falklands."

It shows a very superficial understanding of the country you choose to reside in.

 

[nikad]

This forum is filled with foreigners/expats living in Argentina. It is inconceivable to me that anyone living in this country would use the word "Falklands."

It shows a very superficial understanding of the country you choose to reside in.

I thought I was never going to agree with you on anything!

 

[cujodu]

This forum is filled with foreigners/expats living in Argentina. It is inconceivable to me that anyone living in this country would use the word "Falklands."

It shows a very superficial understanding of the country you choose to reside in.

I regularly, when the topic comes up, hear Argentine's call them the Falklands as nothing more than a way to make sure the listener (an English speaking person) fully understand what they're talking about, followed by "but we call them the Malvinas." It's pretty standard when you want to discuss anything with someone who might be unfamiliar with your terms to use the most descriptive language possible.

You're right, this is a forum for expats from other countries living in BA. Why wouldn't we use our language here when we want to? It's great that you want to participate, but remember where you are, respect the theme of the forum. I remember in college my friends would always get upset when international students were speaking their own language nearby. I would always say "they're not talking about you, it's none of your business."

 

[harpo]

I'm English, my wife is Argentinian. We agree to disagree and don't get upset if the topic comes up.

I occassionally tease her that the British embassy is pushing its walls outward to gradually take over the whole of Buenos Aires.

Frankly, it's history. If the people there want to be British, why argue with them - any of you portenos volunteering to settle there?