Argentina's 1833 myth - a "Population Expelled" - De-bunked yet again...!

[AndyD]

Why would Vernet get it countersigned by the British Consul? He was then an Argentine citizen and the "land grant" was awarded to him by the Argentine Government of the time.
It wasn't until 1829 he was announced as the Commander of the Falklands and Tierra del Fuego. Which Britain protested.

Well, that's what P&P say. Their text hasn't earned my trust but I guess it's plausible that Vernet got the grant countersigned, like an equivalent of what today is having a signature certified by a notary with a Hague Convention "apostille".

I've checked their "Getting it right" doc again, I was wrong to say that they claim that Vernet asked for British permission. What they mention are approaches that he supposedly had towards the British diplomats, like having the grant countersigned, giving them a copy and asking the Consul to invest in his village. Maybe, given the way it's written, some people derived that he was asking for permission as if he were attributing ownership to Britain, and that Britain acted in consequence, but none of the alleged acts implies that. Someone entered that version in Wikipedia, alongside other absurdities in P&P's text such as the insinuated non-existence of Argentina and its refusal to arbitration, and it disseminated on a few other sites.

In any case, the bottom line is that that story is not present in authoritative literature, while these other texts don't provide any valid support to it.

Where are Jewett's orders to claim the islands for Argentina? Why did he not mention it in any report of his voyage to Argentina?

See footnote 8. Gustafson makes the point that, if there really were no orders, Jewitt proclaim could be validated by just a confirmation from Buenos Aires. This happened, at least, in 1823 when they granted land there, and also when they appointed Areguati as governor (P&P deny that he was appointed but see footnote 6).

Besides, though it's not important, how can we know that Jewitt didn't inform Buenos Aires? To support that assertion, P&P only mention that he didn't include it in one report he wrote, of which they don't offer a reference. Was one report the only communication he had with his superiors?

Borders were VERY flexible. Texas later became part the the USA, Bolvia lost access to the sea.

Mexico relinquished Texas in the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American war, with the precedent of a successful secession of the state years before, and Bolivia ceded its access to the sea in a treaty some years after the War of the Pacific. To attain title, there had to be a case according to the law of the time which, as I said before, included a right of conquest that made borders more flexible compared to our days. But it didn't mean that everything was valid. Argentina's case takes that law into account.

Lets ignore the few months that Vernet actually had a colony there.

There were years, not months. He started it in 1826, as it is mentioned in several good sources. In 1828 he was granted more land and moved his family to the islands. Would you move your family, including young children, to a harsh place if there is not a settlement working yet?

What about the Arana-Southern Treaty? Where Argentina effectively gave up any right they had to the islands?

Why were there annual protests from when Britain reasserted her right to the islands until 1849 but these suddenly stopped after the treaty was signed?

38 years later they protested in 1888 and then stopped again until it was well into the 20th century.

I will get into that on the third post. To put it short, the Treaty refers to something else and, a few months before, the British FO had "asked" Argentina to stop sending complains by stating, in writing, that a lack of protest should not be considered as acquiescence. The latter point is treated by Hope in the paper I referenced before.

That 35-year period without protests was the longest one. According to Gustafson in his book published by Oxford University, 'The Argentines have continued to regularly register official protests against the British. After Moreno's second protest in 1841, they protested in 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the United Nations.'

These 'points' you're mentioning are not made in proper literature, only in P&P's pamphlet, Wikipedia, and a few non-rigorous texts around the Internet like the one that opens this thread.

Their right to self determination should be respected.

The self-determination principle requires a territorial argument. It doesn't mean that people are entitled to whatever land they occupy, the world would be a mess if it were so. This is consistent with UN documents and it is explained by Brilmayer in this paper from Yale Law School. I will get into this subject on my third blog post.

 

[wreReynolds]

Locals here, especially upon hearing that I am an ex-Royal Navy officer, always pester me with questions about the ownership of the islands. This has become very annoying. I have found that telling them that I believe that Zheng He, a famous and remarkable Chinese admiral, found them in the 15th century and claimed them for China. They generally stare blankly for a moment abd change the subject.

If I really want to piss them off, I tell them my very first submarine cruise in the Navy was aboard HMS Conqueror, although it was two years after the war. (True)

 

[jlsronce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vys78sGB7Y

 

[scotttswan]

Well, that's what P&P say. Their text hasn't earned my trust but I guess it's plausible that Vernet got the grant countersigned, like an equivalent of what today is having a signature certified by a notary with a Hague Convention "apostille".

Why would he get it "apostilled" by a foreign government?
He wasn't British nor did he come from the Britain.

I've checked their "Getting it right" doc again, I was wrong to say that they claim that Vernet asked for British permission. What they mention are approaches that he supposedly had towards the British diplomats, like having the grant countersigned, giving them a copy and asking the Consul to invest in his village. Maybe, given the way it's written, some people derived that he was asking for permission as if he were attributing ownership to Britain, and that Britain acted in consequence, but none of the alleged acts implies that. Someone entered that version in Wikipedia, alongside other absurdities in P&P's text such as the insinuated non-existence of Argentina and its refusal to arbitration, and it disseminated on a few other sites.

In any case, the bottom line is that that story is not present in authoritative literature, while these other texts don't provide any valid support to it.

What do you class as authoritative literature?

See footnote 8. Gustafson makes the point that, if there really were no orders, Jewitt proclaim could be validated by just a confirmation from Buenos Aires. This happened, at least, in 1823 when they granted land there, and also when they appointed Areguati as governor (P&P deny that he was appointed but see footnote 6).

Besides, though it's not important, how can we know that Jewitt didn't inform Buenos Aires? To support that assertion, P&P only mention that he didn't include it in one report he wrote, of which they don't offer a reference. Was one report the only communication he had with his superiors?

Where is the report that he completed his "mission" to get the Falklands?
Why is it not included in the one report of his adventures?

Mexico relinquished Texas in the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American war, with the precedent of a successful secession of the state years before, and Bolivia ceded its access to the sea in a treaty some years after the War of the Pacific. To attain title, there had to be a case according to the law of the time which, as I said before, included a right of conquest that made borders more flexible compared to our days. But it didn't mean that everything was valid. Argentina's case takes that law into account.

And Argentina ceded in 1850 any claims to the islands.

There were years, not months. He started it in 1826, as it is mentioned in several good sources. In 1828 he was granted more land and moved his family to the islands. Would you move your family, including young children, to a harsh place if there is not a settlement working yet?

He also actively sought protection from the British and British rule of the islands.

still 5 years < 179 years.

I will get into that on the third post. To put it short, the Treaty refers to something else and, a few months before, the British FO had "asked" Argentina to stop sending complains by stating, in writing, that a lack of protest should not be considered as acquiescence. The latter point is treated by Hope in the paper I referenced before.

That 35-year period without protests was the longest one. According to Gustafson in his book published by Oxford University, 'The Argentines have continued to regularly register official protests against the British. After Moreno's second protest in 1841, they protested in 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the United Nations.'

The treaty is available for anyone to read and it clearly states.

"putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship"

one of those differences was obviously the Falklands and so since it didn't mention the Falklands it was clear Argentina ceded all claim to them. To say otherwise is blatantly a lie.

These 'points' you're mentioning are not made in proper literature, only in P&P's pamphlet, Wikipedia, and a few non-rigorous texts around the Internet like the one that opens this thread.

This may be a pamphlet but it has its sources in it. Have you looked up the sources?

The self-determination principle requires a territorial argument. It doesn't mean that people are entitled to whatever land they occupy, the world would be a mess if it were so. This is consistent with UN documents and it is explained by Brilmayer in this paper from Yale Law School. I will get into this subject on my third blog post.

They have lived on the islands since 1833 they have the rights to the islands.

 

[AndyD]

Why would he get it "apostilled" by a foreign government?
He wasn't British nor did he come from the Britain.

I don't know, maybe to ensure the recognition of Britons passing by the colony... My point is not that he had it countersigned, but that the only fact resembling support to that story about him asking for British permission is that he supposedly had it countersigned.

What do you class as authoritative literature?

Work that has earned authority through editorialization by reputed institutions, peer review, positive citations in quality studies, or recognition, by other means among learned communities, of the author's capacity and honest approach to knowledge. You may see that I'm using, in my blog post, sources like a paper published by Yale Law School authored by Reisman, who is a reckoned expert in international law, a book published by Oxford University and Vattel's classic on international law.

Moreover, there are elements in the work itself that hint authority or lack thereof. P&P's text has dubious reasoning, like repeatedly saying that there is much evidence for something, but then providing no more support than a loosely-connected fact, or failing to mention well-documented facts that contradict many of their points, and suggesting "ad-hominem" arguments, like stressing the nationality of the authors they want to discredit -- e.g., that Groussac was French, Goebel was the son of a German, Palacios was an admirer of France, Cisneros is supposedly anti-British based on who knows what...

Where is the report that he completed his "mission" to get the Falklands?
Why is it not included in the one report of his adventures?

Who says there was an obligation to write those kinds of reports? It there was one, history books would be packed with references to such reports, but they aren't. If the alleged report of Jewitt's adventures had the role and relevance that P&P are attributing to it, why do they fail to provide a proper citation? Besides, as I said before, it is not important if there was such a mission or not.

And Argentina ceded in 1850 any claims to the islands.

The treaty is available for anyone to read and it clearly states.

"putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship"

one of those differences was obviously the Falklands and so since it didn't mention the Falklands it was clear Argentina ceded all claim to them. To say otherwise is blatantly a lie.

Read under that intro for precisions about what it means. The 'existing differences' were those 'which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata'. This has nothing to do with the islands, it doesn't say 'all of the existing differences'.

'Perfect friendship' was a commonly-used term at the time, it didn't mean there were no disagreements. The details of the treaty say ' Under this Convention perfect friendship [...] is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.' There was never a 'former state' where Britain had de-facto control of the islands and Argentina was ok with it.

Furthermore, this Treaty was not signed in the context of discussions about an Argentine renouncement of sovereignty. Quite the contrary, months before, Argentina protested and Britain stated that future lacks of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence.

Some Argentine historians and politicians have criticized Rosas for not including the islands in this text, and Palermo even interprets that it implies a tacit renouncement, but that's just their opinion, let's bear in mind that Rosas was a very controversial political figure. Not surprisingly, authoritative literature about the dispute rarely mentions this treaty.

This may be a pamphlet but it has its sources in it. Have you looked up the sources?

Having sources doesn't make it rigorous. Any kind of bs can be said while providing sources, if these are selected with a bias and dubious reasoning is derived, which is something that P&P do abundantly and is mirrored in the articles on Wikipedia. E.g., I could write:

Hitler was raised in a humble multi-cultural home; his maternal lineage being traditionally German while his paternal grandfather belonged, as it is believed, to a well-established Jewish family [sources provided here]. His creative inclinations were manifested when he sustained himself as an artist in Vienna [source], one of the world's cultural capitals, frequently joining discussions about world politics and the arts, that took place in the city's taverns [source].

Sources would be legitimate and numerous but the result would be manipulative rubbish anyway. No-one would base their opinions on this paragraph because we're abundantly exposed to who Hitler was. But I think that Britons and foreigners are generally not too interested in taking time to learn about the dispute for Falklands/Malvinas, and I assume there is also an inclination, among some, to believe that Argentineans are being unreasonable and brain washed on this subject, partly due to an unfortunate reputation that we have deservedly earned and partly due to the remnants of British wartime propaganda.

They have lived on the islands since 1833 they have the rights to the islands.

Ok, maybe if we repeat it many many times, it becomes true despite legal arguments.

 

[Matt84]

They have lived on the islands since 1833 they have the rights to the islands.

Ok, maybe if we repeat it many many times, it becomes true despite legal arguments.

Why do you fail to address the legal and moral justifications of transferring sovereignty over an unanimously unwilling population that has lived there for more generations than Argentinians have lived in Argentina!

Can you consider that maybe the symbolism of ''Malvinas' has something to do with the worse aspects of Nationalism, the ones that betray the nation's own interests__

Why is every school children is taught about that archipelago, even before the war, but not much about the border concessions to Bolivia Chile.. and I believe the Province of Misiones was twice its size, occupying the towns where Gisele Bunchen was born.

Are the icy Falklands more relevant than the land that sprouts Gisele Bunchens?

 

[scotttswan]

I don't know, maybe to ensure the recognition of Britons passing by the colony... My point is not that he had it countersigned, but that the only fact resembling support to that story about him asking for British permission is that he supposedly had it countersigned.

Maybe the fact that he knew Britain still claimed it and many British and American sealers were still actively using it?

Work that has earned authority through editorialization by reputed institutions, peer review, positive citations in quality studies, or recognition, by other means among learned communities, of the author's capacity and honest approach to knowledge. You may see that I'm using, in my blog post, sources like a paper published by Yale Law School authored by Reisman, who is a reckoned expert in international law, a book published by Oxford University and Vattel's classic on international law.

Moreover, there are elements in the work itself that hint authority or lack thereof. P&P's text has dubious reasoning, like repeatedly saying that there is much evidence for something, but then providing no more support than a loosely-connected fact, or failing to mention well-documented facts that contradict many of their points, and suggesting "ad-hominem" arguments, like stressing the nationality of the authors they want to discredit -- e.g., that Groussac was French, Goebel was the son of a German, Palacios was an admirer of France, Cisneros is supposedly anti-British based on who knows what...

Facts are facts...

Who says there was an obligation to write those kinds of reports? It there was one, history books would be packed with references to such reports, but they aren't. If the alleged report of Jewitt's adventures had the role and relevance that P&P are attributing to it, why do they fail to provide a proper citation? Besides, as I said before, it is not important if there was such a mission or not.

Its very important as if it was not an official claim then there would be no need for Britain to dispute the claim like they did later when Argentina officially started talking about penal colonies etc...

Read under that intro for precisions about what it means. The 'existing differences' were those 'which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata'. This has nothing to do with the islands, it doesn't say 'all of the existing differences'.

'Perfect friendship' was a commonly-used term at the time, it didn't mean there were no disagreements. The details of the treaty say ' Under this Convention perfect friendship [...] is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.' There was never a 'former state' where Britain had de-facto control of the islands and Argentina was ok with it.

Furthermore, this Treaty was not signed in the context of discussions about an Argentine renouncement of sovereignty. Quite the contrary, months before, Argentina protested and Britain stated that future lacks of protest wouldn't imply acquiescence.

Some Argentine historians and politicians have criticized Rosas for not including the islands in this text, and Palermo even interprets that it implies a tacit renouncement, but that's just their opinion, let's bear in mind that Rosas was a very controversial political figure. Not surprisingly, authoritative literature about the dispute rarely mentions this treaty.

You can't pick and choose disputes. The islands were an existing difference and this effectively finished all disputes.

Having sources doesn't make it rigorous. Any kind of bs can be said while providing sources, if these are selected with a bias and dubious reasoning is derived, which is something that P&P do abundantly and is mirrored in the articles on Wikipedia. E.g., I could write:

You are writing bullshit you are picking and choosing historical texts to support the Argentine claim whilst ignoring many other texts that counter the claim.
It's irrelevant as modern law dictates that the people on the island have the right to choose their own future and i hope they do go down the independent route but with only 3000 people it will be very hard for them.

Sources would be legitimate and numerous but the result would be manipulative rubbish anyway. No-one would base their opinions on this paragraph because we're abundantly exposed to who Hitler was. But I think that Britons and foreigners are generally not too interested in taking time to learn about the dispute for Falklands/Malvinas, and I assume there is also an inclination, among some, to believe that Argentineans are being unreasonable and brain washed on this subject, partly due to an unfortunate reputation that we have deservedly earned and partly due to the remnants of British wartime propaganda.

Argentinians are being unreasonable and are brain washed on the subject.

It happens from a VERY young age. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eh1B4a-RMA

There were talks in the 90's on sharing oil, sharing fisheries and helping each other for the common good.

If that had continued who knows 4-5 generations further down the line they might want to join the united states of mercosur or whatever future political organisation exists in the future.

Ok, maybe if we repeat it many many times, it becomes true despite legal arguments.

like malvinas son argentinas?

 

[AndyD]

Why do you fail to address the legal and moral justifications of transferring sovereignty over an unanimously unwilling population that has lived there for more generations than Argentinians have lived in Argentina!

Can you consider that maybe the symbolism of ''Malvinas' has something to do with the worse aspects of Nationalism, the ones that betray the nation's own interests__

Matt, OK, I avoided the legal justifications on that silly line with which I closed my last message, but I've talked about them previously in this and other threads, offering references like Brilmayer's paper yesterday. Plus I wrote that I will elaborate on that specific point on a future blog post. We can talk about it as much as you want, here or with some beers in between.

If your point is that my messages are sort of composed of technicalities that become unimportant when contrasted with the islanders' feelings, let's check the whole picture:

There's a huge amount of sea and Antarctica tied to this dispute. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'm sure it's many times the size of Great Britain. Britain is claiming, around the globe, such a large amount of maritime and Antarctic territory that it would make Wellington blush. I have absolutely no problem with it acquiring most of its claims, just don't take (so much of) Argentina's part.

These are increasingly-valuable resources, which could be put to good use for the less fortunate in this country. It sounds outdated to be speaking of frontiers in a globalized world, but we still use a nation system. Right now, most of the islanders' GDP originates from royalties and business from fishing and oil exploration. That money is bound to increase vastly in the not-so-near future. Depending on the future political status of the islands, it will provide, to some extent, for the development of my underdeveloped country, or just engross fatter wallets in the islands and the UK instead. Plus, there is common opportunity which will be hard to unleash if the Argentine case remains disregarded by Britain.

I mean that something considerable and palpable is in dispute. As you say, there is a nationalistic usage of this matter, but that doesn't imply that there isn't a valid side to it. Chauvinists in this country have done regrettable things in the name of this cause, but others have contributed amazingly. I don't think it's morally elevated to just forget it and watch Tinelli instead, however tempting that may be at the light of CFK's actions and discourse. We can deal with our other problems while we take care of this one, I hope it's not naive to say that I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

The islanders may be troubled by a change of status but, as we discussed before, we can work on minimizing those troubles, which would certainly not amount to inhumane treatment as you once said. A negotiation can guarantee political and financial security to them, Argentina is not interested in changing their way of life and those sorts of things, that's not the matter here. Besides, there are opportunities that would compensate for some of the annoyance -- e.g., neighboring Tierra del Fuego alone has around 50 times as many people, with culture, industry and tourism.

On the other hand, let's apply a sense of proportionality and not exaggerate their demographics. The territory in question is enormous, but there are only about 3000 civilians living in the islands, which is more or less the quantity of people who live in the block where I live in Belgrano and the block next to it. According to the islands' census, 55% were born elsewhere. Several hundreds are relatives or employees of the military personnel that is temporarily stationed at the base.

Don't get me wrong. However few, their rights should be respected and their troubles minimized. My point is that these facts discredit the view that there's the risk of an humanitarian disaster overshadowing everything else. Being few people, it's easier to ensure their well-being. So let's give the legal details their proper place and work towards a solution that reckons everyone's rights and exploits common opportunity.

Why is every school children is taught about that archipelago, even before the war, but not much about the border concessions to Bolivia Chile.. and I believe the Province of Misiones was twice its size, occupying the towns where Gisele Bunchen was born.

I don't think the archipelago is given as much space in school curricula as sometimes said. It's a national cause, therefore I think it's reasonable to give it some space so that it doesn't die among everyday-life distractions. Those other disputes were resolved and, if there ever was any bitterness, it's gone and no one wants to resurface it.

By the way, according to SIPRI, Britain spends 2.6% of its GDP in the military, while Argentina --which, according to some media and conservative politicians, poses an expansionist threat-- spends only 0.9% of its own. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Argentina increases that number by few decimals of percent sometime, as it may do in some years for other reasons, I have a hunch that some of those politicians will scream that Britain needs more military spending...

Are the icy Falklands more relevant than the land that sprouts Gisele Bunchens?

Despite the potential sexiness of islander girls in Union Jack sweaters, and without meaning any disregard of it, I guess the answer would be no, at least if we don't count the whole dependencies. But the case is not just a matter of claiming territory with whatever argument can be thought of.

 

[scotttswan]

If your point is that my messages are sort of composed of technicalities that become unimportant when contrasted with the islanders' feelings, let's check the whole picture:

There's a huge amount of sea and Antarctica tied to this dispute. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'm sure it's many times the size of Great Britain. Britain is claiming, around the globe, such a large amount of maritime and Antarctic territory that it would make Wellington blush. I have absolutely no problem with it acquiring most of its claims, just don't take (so much of) Argentina's part.

Britain claims the sea around its overseas territories for the citizens of these territories. i.e. the seas around the Bahamas has been claimed for the citizens of the Bahamas. If they choose to become independent in the future they won't have problems claiming the territory around their islands.

Speaking about claims for Antarctica you don't see pictures of it on UK passports like you do in Argentina.

These are increasingly-valuable resources, which could be put to good use for the less fortunate in this country. It sounds outdated to be speaking of frontiers in a globalized world, but we still use a nation system. Right now, most of the islanders' GDP originates from royalties and business from fishing and oil exploration. That money is bound to increase vastly in the not-so-near future. Depending on the future political status of the islands, it will provide, to some extent, for the development of my underdeveloped country, or just engross fatter wallets in the islands and the UK instead. Plus, there is common opportunity which will be hard to unleash if the Argentine case remains disregarded by Britain.

And there were agreements to share the resources for the mutual benefits of the islanders and Argentina. It was Argentina that pulled out of these.

The islanders may be troubled by a change of status but, as we discussed before, we can work on minimizing those troubles, which would certainly not amount to inhumane treatment as you once said. A negotiation can guarantee political and financial security to them, Argentina is not interested in changing their way of life and those sorts of things, that's not the matter here. Besides, there are opportunities that would compensate for some of the annoyance -- e.g., neighboring Tierra del Fuego alone has around 50 times as many people, with culture, industry and tourism.

What opportunities are these? They have their own culture, industry and tourism. They are already looking at a possible huge number of foreigners coming to work in the oil industry.

I'm pretty sure they don't want government subsidised factory jobs putting together Chinese made electronics.

On the other hand, let's apply a sense of proportionality and not exaggerate their demographics. The territory in question is enormous, but there are only about 3000 civilians living in the islands, which is more or less the quantity of people who live in the block where I live in Belgrano and the block next to it. According to the islands' census, 55% were born elsewhere. Several hundreds are relatives or employees of the military personnel that is temporarily stationed at the base.

wrong of the 2,955 civilians live on the island. No military people are included in the census of the islands.

Only 55% may have been born on the islands but this is irrelevant. The others were born in many other places and have emigrated to the islands, Britain, St Helena and Chile provide most of the others but don't forget 29 were even born in Argentina.

How many Argentines are First and Second generation European? I know many who have got their Spanish, Italian and German passports through their parents or grandparents.

If i was to become a citizen here would i not be considered Argentine? If not what does that make Vernet and Jewlett neither of whom were born in Argentina...

Just because the majority of new emigrants to the islands come from the UK doesn't mean they suddenly don't become Falkland Island Citizens with full rights to self determination of the country they moved to.

You could emigrate there yourself if you wished. Have a look here or here for some jobs. Once you have one you will fill the residence requirements just like any other country.

Don't get me wrong. However few, their rights should be respected and their troubles minimized. My point is that these facts discredit the view that there's the risk of an humanitarian disaster overshadowing everything else. Being few people, it's easier to ensure their well-being. So let's give the legal details their proper place and work towards a solution that reckons everyone's rights and exploits common opportunity.

However few? What about their right to decide their own future as the UN charter gives them?

By the way, according to SIPRI, Britain spends 2.6% of its GDP in the military, while Argentina --which, according to some media and conservative politicians, poses an expansionist threat-- spends only 0.9% of its own. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Argentina increases that number by few decimals of percent sometime, as it may do in some years for other reasons, I have a hunch that some of those politicians will scream that Britain needs more military spending...

It is irrelevant how much the uk spends on the military. Any money spent in the islands is as a prevention of another Argentine politician deciding the usual sabre rattling isn't convincing enough people to stop looking at whatever disaster Argentina is currently going through at the time.

 

[Matt84]

Matt, OK, I avoided the legal justifications on that silly line with which I closed my last message, but I've talked about them previously in this and other threads, offering references like Brilmayer's paper yesterday. Plus I wrote that I will elaborate on that specific point on a future blog post. We can talk about it as much as you want, here or with some beers in between.

If your point is that my messages are sort of composed of technicalities that become unimportant when contrasted with the islanders' feelings, let's check the whole picture:

It is a bundle of trivia. I don't need to wait for your blog post to know whether you consider 1, 2, 3, 1000, 2500, people as human beings with rights or dispensable pieces of chess.
The islanders FEELINGS/ I believe they've felt badly already in 1982.

Now are you gonna answer whether you believe they have a right to vote and decide (again!) where do they want their administrative capital to be, London or Buenos Aires. or are you leaving it to the imagination....

There's a huge amount of sea and Antarctica tied to this dispute. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'm sure it's many times the size of Great Britain. Britain is claiming, around the globe, such a large amount of maritime and Antarctic territory that it would make Wellington blush. I have absolutely no problem with it acquiring most of its claims, just don't take (so much of) Argentina's part.

Argentina's Antarctic part.... Argentina did not have any trouble finding a civilized and some would say humiliating diplomatic solution when discussing the same issue with Chile.

If you had the statistics at hand, or just google EEZ World map, you'll find France is the biggest hoarder of the sea. You pass trhough Mayotte, you're in Metropolitan France-, bouvet, kerguelen, polynesia, etc.

In any case Argentina can gain even more natural resources when the Antarctic treaty expires, which as I pointed out some months ago, it would do a lot better for Argentina if it solved its dispute with Britain by then.


One would think that a in a country with as many natural resources and such incogruent poverty, the educated classes would have already guessed that land and minerals are not the keys to wealth.
The... say, any arbitrary example... why not.. the ARMENIANS have lost almost all their territory, much of their blood, and still they are some of the most successful people because they know how to trade, and how to save and how to keep it in the family.

These are increasingly-valuable resources, which could be put to good use for the less fortunate in this country. It sounds outdated to be speaking of frontiers in a globalized world, but we still use a nation system. Right now, most of the islanders' GDP originates from royalties and business from fishing and oil exploration. That money is bound to increase vastly in the not-so-near future. Depending on the future political status of the islands, it will provide, to some extent, for the development of my underdeveloped country, or just engross fatter wallets in the islands and the UK instead. Plus, there is common opportunity which will be hard to unleash if the Argentine case remains disregarded by Britain.

I mean that something considerable and palpable is in dispute. As you say, there is a nationalistic usage of this matter, but that doesn't imply that there isn't a valid side to it. Chauvinists in this country have done regrettable things in the name of this cause, but others have contributed amazingly. I don't think it's morally elevated to just forget it and watch Tinelli instead, however tempting that may be at the light of CFK's actions and discourse. We can deal with our other problems while we take care of this one, I hope it's not naive to say that I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

Yes it is mutually exclusive and betrays terrible naivite. The naivite of not knowing what a scapegoat is.
So long as Argentina keeps obsessing oer the Falklands it will never move on to solve those other (Real) issues. \

The falklands are a national issue as you said, unlike Misiones/Brasil, Tarija/Bolivia, much of La Puna, most of Patagonia/Chile, because it's

1) Not real. The claims are purely symbolic part of a rather sick popular imagination.

2) IT-s pretty obvious that the issue with the European country, and not with Bolivia or Chile, is more relevant only because of some twisted psychological mechanism of over compensation.

The funny part is how successful the public schools have been in hammering this into every Argentine I've met. Some could not recite the 23odd provinces but they were all expert Geographers, specialized in the geopolitical implications of a continental shelf.