ElQueso said:
Andy, you replied to pieces of my text, strengthening your argument, based on what you've read and researched. I must say that out of all Argentinos I've ever read on this subject, with the exception of some scholars who happen to have concluded the same thing I have, you are the most lucid and reasonable arguer I've come across.
Queso, thanks for the compliment. I think there are many Argentine scholars who, being more lucid and reasonable than me, reach conclusions that are more akin to what I've argued here. Virginia Gamba offered several talks recently now that she's back from Britain, there's the experts at CARI who offer quality events about various international-relations subjects besides Malvinas, competent ex-diplomats as Emilio Cárdenas and Andrés Cisneros who often appear in the media and publish work, etc.
ElQueso said:
One side says one thing and has proof to back it up. Another side says another thing and has proof to back it up.
We could refute anything by saying that some have presented proof of the opposite therefore we don't know. The quality of the proof matters. Where is that good support to those alternatives, that you mention here and in your previous message, that contradict some things that I've argued before? With the exception of the argument about Vernet's settlement offering no more than an inchoate title, which, though disputable, can be considered part of a well-founded British case, the rest I have read only in the dubious references. Those points are not what can be read in quality and thorough studies.
It's not just a matter of who said what, though the authority of the writers is critical, but the reasonableness of the arguments matters, as well as compatibility with other knowledge, as I said when scotttswan asked me to define authoritativeness.
Let me explain it concretely with an example. You hint an importance in the 1850 Treaty, at least by its contribution to the alleged counterarguments that supposedly cast serious doubt over the Argentine historical case. I explained the 1850 text some messages above, but you claim good sources attribute much importance to it anyway. My point is that this Treaty is presented as a weakening factor not by authoritative literature but by Pepper and Pascoe in their pamphlet, being reproduced in Wikipedia and such.
According to the argument, a crucial segment of the Treaty reads 'putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship'. If we search for this phrase between quotes, in Google, prepending 'falkland' or 'falklands', we find several messages of non-rigorous origin supporting the British case, some with jingoistic titles. We search for it in Google Books instead, with the comma and without, and get nothing, despite there being lots of books about the dispute there. The site can search inside of the books even when there's no preview or full view offered. The same experiment on Google Scholar (academic articles) yields the same, nil, result, though in that case I think it looks no further than in the first twenty or so pages of each article. Such an important matter and we can't find one simple quote in any book or paper of the vast Google base? Google includes about every mainstream publication.
Just to test the method, we may try the same queries without the 'falklands' part. Unrelated results are obtained.
This is not an example picked up with bad faith because it served my purpose, I have only chosen it because it was easy to derive a straightforward, easily-reproducible experiment, as it is with the point you're giving about the Argentine Congress. In that case, crucial text is 'esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste' and, in another year, 'Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciones: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas'--to find these portions, I just had to look into P&P's text. Same nil results, unless we look outside of the context of the dispute.
This is compatible with my memory from reading extensively about the dispute from good and not-so-good sources. With all due respect, I don't think that you have found these counter-arguments in good sources (except the inchoate-title one) but in tendentious and non-authoritative ones instead, though you're claiming now that they're as good as the ones I've offered.
For an example of the 'not everything is who says what' part, let's look at one element in the support for the alleged importance of the 1850 Treaty. As I mentioned in my explanation of the non-relevance of the Treaty, the British FO had accepted, shortly before, that lack of further protest wouldn't imply acquiescence. Hope writes the following:
On July 27, 1849 Palmerston was interrogated in the House of Commons by one Mr. Baille as to whether Buenos Aires still claimed the Falkland Islands. According to the newspaper reports of the following day, i.e., the "Times" and the "Daily News," Palmerston responded that correspondence with Buenos Aires had been discontinued some years back and, according to the newspapers, took the position that it would not be advisable to revive a correspondence that had ceased by the acquiescence of one of the parties (Argentina) and the perseverance of the other (Great Britain). [A letter from Moreno to Arana offered as a reference]
On July 31, Moreno's instant reaction was expressed in an official letter to Palmerston referring to the episode in the House of Commons and expressly stating that the discontinuation of correspondence on the subject on the part of his legation in London should not be taken as acquiescence and that the Argentine Confederation had never consented to the usurpation of the islands. Palmerston's response to this letter stated that:
"... the reply which I was reported by some of the London Newspapers to have made by a question put to me by Mr. Baille in the House of Commons on the 27th of July, did not correctly describe the State of the question between the British Government (and) Buenos Aires respecting the Falkland Islands; and I have the honour to acquaint you that whatever the Newspapers may have represented me as having said on that occasion above referred to, I have always understood the matter in question to stand exactly in the way described by you in your letter."
This exchange shows that the British government not only did not want to receive any more protests but was even prepared to acknowledge in writing an understanding between the parties to the effect that the absence of additional protests would not imply acquiescence.
This is from page 433 of "Sovereignty and Decolonization of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands", from a journal published by Boston College in the US. Now let's see what P&P publish in their self-published text which, as I believe and is compatible with the results of the 'experiment' above, was a crucial source for that argument about the 1850 Treaty:
It is untrue to say that the British Foreign Secretary recognised the issue as “unsettled”. The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, was well aware that the negotiations for the Convention of Settlement were proceeding in Buenos Aires and that Argentina was showing signs of acquiescence in Britain’s possession of the Falklands. On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
"… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Is lands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain. 10 or 12 years ago the Falkland Islands, having been unoccupied for some time, were taken possession of by Great Britain, and a settlement had ever since been maintained there; and he thought it would be most unadvisable to revive a correspondence which had ceased by the acquiescence of one party and the maintenance of the other." [The Times offered as reference]
The Argentine ambassador in London, Manuel Moreno, clearly unaware of what Rosas was negotiating, wrote to Lord Palmerston on 31 July 1849 protesting against that statement. His letter quoted Palmerston’s phrase about the “acquiescence of one party [i.e. Argentina] and the maintenance of the other [i.e. Britain]”, and he also quoted several recent protests including some from the Messages to Congress. On 8 August 1849 Palmerston replied briefly, stating that “I have always understood the matter in question to stand exactly in the way described by you in your letter.” In other words, Palmerston himself had indeed mentioned Argentina’s acquiescence just as Moreno had said, and the Argentine protests had indeed been made just as he had stated too, so Moreno’s letter was a correct statement of the case – including Palmerston’s mention of Argentina’s acquiescence. Palmerston did not say the question was “unsettled” – indeed quite the reverse; he said it had been ended by Argentina’s acquiescence.
It would be good to be able to read the complete exchange, to analyze the context of the quotes. But considering the fragment quoted by Hope, can you tell us, with a hand on your heart
, that you believe the latter to be an honest and accurate summary? That one can think that Palmerston, when he said 'the way described by you [Moreno] in your letter', was referring to quotes in Moreno's letter from his speech at the House of Commons as reported by the newspapers, and not to Moreno's response to those reports? Note that Palmerston says that his speech was misrepresented by the newspapers.
Not surprisingly, Hope's interpretation was published by a reputed US law school while P&P's was published just on a site. Plus, the latter has other odd statements, plenty, some of which I've treated here and in my blog post. Yet, the
article in Wikipedia copies P&P's interpretation word by word.
ElQueso said:
When we start talking about a few people that may have been thrown off the island and replaced by British (again, my opinion is that that didn't go down that way. I've seen your sources, and I've read other sources that are equally as well supported, it seems), that PALES IN COMPARISON to what Argentina herself did to indigenous population, well after BTW, GB was in control of the Falklands.
It has been 180 years roughly, since Argentina in anyway can even possibly claim that region. It's been less time than this that the indigenous population was wiped out by Argentina with rifles from the States (yes, we did some pretty bad stuff too).
I believe it is pointless to accuse each other of colonialism. Believe me that I'm not saying it because it suits my points; when you say "we did some pretty bad stuff too" you reckon that British records are far from impeccable, including contemporary times with the Diego Garcia case. But it's not clear to me if you acknowledge, by that phrase, that "the indigenous population was wiped out by Argentina with rifles from the States" is an absurd summary to put in the context of a comparison with British colonialism. Argentines leaning to the left can entertain you with facts and narratives relating British colonialist and neo-colonialist interests to the Argentine campaigns against its indigenous people, many of these stories being well founded. But I don't want to get into these kinds of arguments, which generally end up in over-simplifications and pointless accusations.
I don't mean that I discard there being colonial elements in this dispute, but to call Britain 'colonialist' while implying that Argentina is saint-like, would be unfair and childish. Still, I would take into consider that Cameron's rhetoric may have had a role in that verbal escalation.
ElQueso said:
If Argentina was truly interested in the "interests" and welfare of the people of those islands, it would agree that the best method for determining the future of those people would be for them to determine that future for themselves.
Argentina is obviously considering the interests and welfare of its own people too. When I referred to current doctrine protecting less-fortunate ones, I meant it to validate the characteristics of the international system that I was describing, despite your disagreement with the conditions for legal secession.
ElQueso said:
It is an absurdly hipocritic position of Argentina, in my opinion, that they would subject islanders who have lived there for generations (and improved the land and constructed their own society, never interfered with Argentina herself), to a war and continued pressure, all the while taking so inane a high road about anti-colonialism while they're trying effectively to bring people under their control who have never been under their control to begin with (I'm talking about the people who remained who were there prior to, and those who came after, Vernet's colony, no matter how his colony ended).
No one wants to "bring people under their control", Argentina just wants territory it considers herself entitled to. If the islanders are not content with the plentiful rights they have, plus what they may obtain from a negotiation, they would be free to leave. Also, a negotiated deal may lead to lease back, joint sovereignty, etc., even a return of territory other than Stanley, meaning solutions that differ from controlling the people, whatever that means.
ElQueso said:
And everyone knows that Argentina is really concerned about people and their well-being. Sure. Just look at the injustices that are COMMON here, much more so than any real justice, and tell me with a straight face that it would be in any interests of the islanders to be a part of Argentina.
The only interests for Argentina that are served at this juncture is a rallying point for corrupt leaders and a possibly large reserve of petroleum and natural gas that Argentina would probably be incapable of taking advantage anyway, given their track record with what they currently own legitimately.
It's not just oil but, if we add up enough elements, I guess that's what territory resumes to, a place to live and take resources from, with an influence on defense too. If it's unimportant and all that matters is respecting the desire of the islanders to Britain being sovereign over their homeland, I assume Britain would have no problem to negotiate on keeping the islands but giving back its uninhabited dependencies--Antarctica, Georgias, Sandwich and its associated sea, which exceeds what the islanders need.
I hope you understand that I'm not giving out these latter statements out of insensitivity, but for the purpose of calling things as they are. Anyway, I hope we can wrap up this long exchange.
