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

[AndyD]

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.

There is an insane amount of business in the extraction of resources from those territories. I'm not talking about the royalties, which you may argue that it would go to the islanders, though it evidently would benefit the rest of the Commonwealth anyway. I mean the investments, the equipment and construction employed, which may amount to hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of pounds in the following decades alone. Besides the economical gains, add up the political influence that can be obtained from all this.

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

Yes, my country should apologize for such blatant breach of decency standards.

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.

Not to share "the" resources but to share "some" resources, not from the region that is being explored now unilaterally. Argentina had understandable reasons.

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.

I would assume that you're typecasting and looking down on that community if it weren't well-known that such prejudice is archaic. There is more in Tierra del Fuego than electronics factories, the islanders have a very small community that would benefit from exchange with much larger ones such as these.

For example, in a 2002 documentary by Discovery Network (unfortunately deleted from YouTube) there was a sturdy guy who said that he had stopped talking to his brother because he had "defected to the enemy" (the brother had moved to mainland Argentina). This guy may benefit from inspiration obtained by chilling out at the yearly festival of classical music in Ushuaia, whose 8th edition took place days ago, or at the jazz festival that will soon start.

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

Sorry, the families are not included, but people present in the islands in connection with military personnel are. It is interesting to note that there was a sharp increase in population with the creation of the base.

Only 55% may have been born on the islands but this is irrelevant.

55% were born outside of the islands. I'd never attributed much importance to this fact, but I was offering more precision to the statement about the population being century-old Falklander families. If these kinds of details are irrelevant, please say it to those who repeat the latter statement all the time.

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...

What did I say that has anything to do with this?

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

The UN charter doesn't give people the right to decide the sovereignty of whatever land they live in. That's an oversimplification. As I said repeatedly, if you're interested, Brilmayer's paper gives you some pointers, you'll have others in my future blog post.

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.

I don't want to sound leftist, which I'm not, at all, but are you considering the possibility that, partly, you may be buying propaganda aimed at you justifying that British tax money is spent on weapons and soldiers, that are mostly intended for the security of the economic interests discussed at the beginning of this message?

 

[scotttswan]

There is an insane amount of business in the extraction of resources from those territories. I'm not talking about the royalties, which you may argue that it would go to the islanders, though it evidently would benefit the rest of the Commonwealth anyway. I mean the investments, the equipment and construction employed, which may amount to hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of pounds in the following decades alone. Besides the economical gains, add up the political influence that can be obtained from all this.

Which will all be lost by Britain if these overseas territories decide to go it alone in the future. Such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Belize etc...

Not to share "the" resources but to share "some" resources, not from the region that is being explored now unilaterally. Argentina had understandable reasons.

understandable? Nestor wanted it all! How much of the 600 odd million dollars from the sale of YPF in Santa Cruz went to the people of Santa Cruz?

I would assume that you're typecasting and looking down on that community if it weren't well-known that such prejudice is archaic. There is more in Tierra del Fuego than electronics factories, the islanders have a very small community that would benefit from exchange with much larger ones such as these.

For example, in a 2002 documentary by Discovery Network (unfortunately deleted from YouTube) there was a sturdy guy who said that he had stopped talking to his brother because he had "defected to the enemy" (the brother had moved to mainland Argentina). This guy may benefit from inspiration obtained by chilling out at the yearly festival of classical music in Ushuaia, whose 8th edition took place days ago, or at the jazz festival that will soon start.

I'm not looking down on the people of Tierra del Fuego the fact is that the economy of that region is largely down to the factories that are subsidised by the national government.

The people of the Falklands can already visit those events if they wished to, is there not 1 flight a month from Argentina to the Falklands?

Maybe they could charter a flight there if Argentina hadn't banned them?

Sorry, the families are not included, but people present in the islands in connection with military personnel are. It is interesting to note that there was a sharp increase in population with the creation of the base.

55% were born outside of the islands. I'd never attributed much importance to this fact, but I was offering more precision to the statement about the population being century-old Falklander families. If these kinds of details are irrelevant, please say it to those who repeat the latter statement all the time.

There was a sharp increase due to an increase of jobs relating to both the fisheries and the base.

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.

What did I say that has anything to do with this?

You are trying to insinuate that the citizens of the Falkland islands are an implanted population rather than the result of emigration to the islands in much the same way people emigrated to Argentina and the rest of the Americas.

I am putting forth the idea that these people have as much right to their country as the millions of Italians, Spanish, Brits and other nationalities who emigrated to Argentina.

What did I say that has anything
The UN charter doesn't give people the right to decide the sovereignty of whatever land they live in. That's an oversimplification. As I said repeatedly, if you're interested, Brilmayer's paper gives you some pointers, you'll have others in my future blog post.

The Purposes of the United Nations Chapter 1. Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

The Falkland Islanders are peoples who over the years have emigrated to the islands. You can choose to emigrate there too if you wanted!

quote=AndyD;161512]
I don't want to sound leftist, which I'm not, at all, but are you considering the possibility that, partly, you may be buying propaganda aimed at you justifying that British tax money is spent on weapons and soldiers, that are mostly intended for the security of the economic interests discussed at the beginning of this message?[/quote]

I'm a pro independence scot. I hate the idea that there are nuclear weapons not far from where i was born and brought up. The Falklands airbase and the ship that patrols the water is there to prevent any hostilities towards the islands.

I'm not naive i understand that the media manipulates many things but i believe without any military presence on the islands now, Argentina would invade again.

 

[AndyD]

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.

Matt, I think I understand you're reasoning, but I'm not treating anyone like a piece of chess, what I'm saying is that the whole package of rights that you attribute to the islanders is not legally sound, which doesn't imply that they are refused their share of rights as human beings and citizens of dual British and Argentine nationality, or that their comfort and desires don't deserve attention. I'm just saying that the world order doesn't give them a right to veto, or to put it in other words, to decide which country is sovereign over their home land.

This is not a heartless technicality, like one to let a murderer free. The international order is well constructed with the objective of promoting peace and preventing humane disasters, it shouldn't be undermined. If you let any population decide on the sovereignty of whatever land they live in, minorities and immigrant communities everywhere would be harassed, and other peoples may be used as instruments of territorial expansion. That's not how it works. I see you considering, maybe relating to, the islanders' feelings, but a more-encompassing picture needs to be acknowledged.

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....

You shouldn't mind my "vote", it's not important. What I can offer you, I believe, is a grounded discussion on reasons that I don't see present in your discourse, even though they are important to this subject. That's why I was referring you to my future blog post, where I'll provide more references than I did here.

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.

It's curious that, when you see the cordiality between Argentina and its neighbors, and the peacefulness in which those other issues were solved, you don't question your view that Argentineans are unreasonable, brain washed by nationalistic distractions, and maybe aggressive, but somewhat find it as support to it... Beats me.

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.

OK, and their claim on Antarctica is much smaller. I hope I was clear that I'm not saying Britain shouldn't get sea and Antarctica, or that it is the nation with the largest claims. I was just putting this issue in a context that I find relevant.

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.

Of course, more so considering that all of Argentina's claim is overlapped by the British claim, the islands being important to that argument. So, can our governments start solving the dispute by, for example, sitting down to talk, without requesting Argentina to drop its sovereignty claim first based on a disputable justification? It's not unreasonable to ask, the UN itself is requesting it but Britain keeps refusing.

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.

I think the educated classes have seen that, but it doesn't imply that resources are to be given away.

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.

A characteristic of the Armenians, that I believe was crucial to that success, is the high value put on education. I'm trying to apply that maxim here, by paying attention to proper sources and grounded arguments.

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.

OK, yes, every day we wake up and think about Falklands/Malvinas. Our problems are due to us spending so much time and energy thinking about them.

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.

Being unreal makes something stronger than it being real, good. Real is boring, unreal is hip.

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.

Yes, each and every one of us is also traumatized by the success of the Japanese. They claim to have invented sushi, those f%$@ers! Do you really believe that these reasons are more plausible than simply Argentina's case having merit?

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.

Everywhere there's people who mind other business instead of deepening their basic knowledge about history and international law. I have frequently found Britons who, despite them voicing out strong opinions, knew little about the dispute and believed unsupported facts like those that I have answered in this thread. But there are also discussions that have more to offer.

 

[scotttswan]

sitting down to talk, without requesting Argentina to drop its sovereignty claim first based on a disputable justification? It's not unreasonable to ask, the UN itself is requesting it but Britain keeps refusing.

They did sit down to discus things but Argentina later invaded the islands.

Also is this not the UN request that indicates that the talks should be in the "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands?"

Later the Brits and Argentina entered into talks again but Argentina walked out because they didn't accept the rights of the Falklanders to choose their own destiny.

I have frequently found Britons who, despite them voicing out strong opinions, knew little about the dispute and believed unsupported facts like those that I have answered in this thread.

You have answered nothing! you've given a biased view that ignores completely the rights of the population of the Falkland islands.

 

[glasgowjohn]

Scotttswan,
Think you missed Scotland off that list....!!
Cheers,GJ

 

[AndyD]

They did sit down to discus things but Argentina later invaded the islands.

I have no intention to defend the 1982 invasion, but those discussions were pretty much in a stalemate by then. The Argentine government believed that it had gathered enough evidence to prove, at the UN, that Britain wasn't really interested in solving the issue. For example, according to documents annexed to the Rattenbach report, Britain had refused to offer an educational campaign to the islanders about the subtleties of the dispute (and I don't mean one written by Argentina). The Junta expected to justify the invasion that way.

Anyway, besides it being odd to accuse Argentina of not reaching any advances in the 15+ years of negotiations preceding the invasion, the failure of some talks long ago is no reason to avoid talking now.

Also is this not the UN request that indicates that the talks should be in the "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands?"

It says that those interests are to be respected, which is not quite the same, because there are other interests involved besides theirs. And it is not the same as saying that their desires will be respected, which would imply a veto to any solution that contradicts their desires. That's why Argentina's discourse has always been to respect their "interests" while Britain's version changes that word into "desires". The UN resolutions adopt the first version. The struggle between these two words was particularly interesting in the mediation during the 1982 conflict.

Later the Brits and Argentina entered into talks again but Argentina walked out because they didn't accept the rights of the Falklanders to choose their own destiny.

I doubt there were any talks about sovereignty after the war. Argentina doesn't accept the alleged rights giving proper justification. Interestingly, the UN assembly changed the wording, from "desires" to "interests", of a resolution entered by Britain shortly after the war, so perhaps it is not an unacceptable sin to put that matter into discussion.

You have answered nothing! you've given a biased view that ignores completely the rights of the population of the Falkland islands.

That's ridiculous, but I doubt that I can convince you. I have given arguments and good references. You're quick to say that we're brainwashed and that I picked self-serving references; usually, there has to be research before making such strong statements. I invite you to search for authoritative references with which you can build a case against what I said.

Besides, if references from Oxford Univ., Yale Law School, classics in international law, etcetera, become self-serving while 'the other side' is based on Wikipedia, some websites ranking well on Google and postings on Flickr, well, it says something...

There is a British case that can find backing in authoritative literature, I've never denied that. But it's not what you're advancing from tendentious references. If you made an effort to learn it, you would also see that the Argentine case is far less idiotic than you seem to think.

 

[scotttswan]

Anyway, besides it being odd to accuse Argentina of not reaching any advances in the 15+ years of negotiations preceding the invasion, the failure of some talks long ago is no reason to avoid talking now.

15 years... much longer than the Argentine colony existed...

The table for talks is open on many many things but the rights of self determination is not on the table.

That's ridiculous, but I doubt that I can convince you. I have given arguments and good references. You're quick to say that we're brainwashed and that I picked self-serving references; usually, there has to be research before making such strong statements. I invite you to search for authoritative references with which you can build a case against what I said.

Besides, if references from Oxford Univ., Yale Law School, classics in international law, etcetera, become self-serving while 'the other side' is based on Wikipedia, some websites ranking well on Google and postings on Flickr, well, it says something...

There is a British case that can find backing in authoritative literature, I've never denied that. But it's not what you're advancing from tendentious references. If you made an effort to learn it, you would also see that the Argentine case is far less idiotic than you seem to think.

did you actually read the document on flickr? it clearly shows who was on that boat and that the 1833 expulsion is a complete myth!
Argentina loves to throw out the myth that Britain threw out all the poor Argentines who had moved there and the fact that it is latently not true is quite important.

You accept there is a British case yet completely ignore it...

You will never accept the rights of the Falklands Islanders and the fact that don't is your own problem. You could become a Falkland Islander if you wished but you obviously don't.

I have better things to do with my time than look up documents that are over 100 years old (anything written after 1910 is irrelevant as that is when Argentina went against the 1850 agreement and started the nationalist propaganda.)

May i ask why an Argentine is on an Buenos Aires expat forum posting on nothing but posts relating to the Falklands?

 

[expatinowncountry]

15 years... much longer than the Argentine colony existed...

The table for talks is open on many many things but the rights of self determination is not on the table.



did you actually read the document on flickr? it clearly shows who was on that boat and that the 1833 expulsion is a complete myth!
Argentina loves to throw out the myth that Britain threw out all the poor Argentines who had moved there and the fact that it is latently not true is quite important.

You accept there is a British case yet completely ignore it...

You will never accept the rights of the Falklands Islanders and the fact that don't is your own problem. You could become a Falkland Islander if you wished but you obviously don't.

I have better things to do with my time than look up documents that are over 100 years old (anything written after 1910 is irrelevant as that is when Argentina went against the 1850 agreement and started the nationalist propaganda.)

May i ask why an Argentine is on an Buenos Aires expat forum posting on nothing but posts relating to the Falklands?

It is sad that you have no arguments to offer in a post you started and you try to get around the well thought and respectfully presented arguments from AndyD asking why he is posting here about Falklands. We often criticize Argies for being populist hooligans and when you find someone who shows us otherwise, you prefer to attack the person instead of the argument. This is called BTW the ad-hominem fallacy. This is not the only fallacious argument in your post as you appeal to inappropriate authority (what is called the ad verecundiam fallacy) on matters that you seem, with all due respect, to not understand well. There are arguments in favour of the British in the Falkland issues but they contradict some of the stance of British diplomacy in the past. This sort of inconsistencies show, among other things, the double standards the British government applies to international affairs.

 

[jp]

It says that those interests are to be respected, which is not quite the same, because there are other interests involved besides theirs. And it is not the same as saying that their desires will be respected, which would imply a veto to any solution that contradicts their desires. That's why Argentina's discourse has always been to respect their "interests" while Britain's version changes that word into "desires". The UN resolutions adopt the first version. The struggle between these two words was particularly interesting in the mediation during the 1982 conflict.

Its also interesting, bearing in mind article 73 of the UN charter.

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

 

[scotttswan]

It is sad that you have no arguments to offer in a post you started and you try to get around the well thought and respectfully presented arguments from AndyD asking why he is posting here about Falklands. We often criticize Argies for being populist hooligans and when you find someone who shows us otherwise, you prefer to attack the person instead of the argument. This is called BTW the ad-hominem fallacy. This is not the only fallacious argument in your post as you appeal to inappropriate authority (what is called the ad verecundiam fallacy) on matters that you seem, with all due respect, to not understand well. There are arguments in favour of the British in the Falkland issues but they contradict some of the stance of British diplomacy in the past. This sort of inconsistencies show, among other things, the double standards the British government applies to international affairs.

The document posted at the start shows who was on the boat that supposedly was the British expulsion of Argentine citizens on the Falklands.

It shows that the myth of Britain sending all the colonists back to Argentina is just that. A myth!

AndyD has not signed up to this forum to interact with expats like yourself and many others have. He's here for one thing and that is to post a one sided argument for Argentina's claim on the Falklands on any forum post relating the the Falklands. He completely ignores the rights of the people on the islands and tries to portray them as an implanted population which they clearly are not.