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

[scotttswan]

All people are entitled to self determination, what I'm saying is that it doesn't imply that they can decide which country is sovereign over whatever territory they live in. Bear in mind that the self-determination principle was advanced to liberate peoples who didn't have the possibility to live under their free political organization. The islanders can live under the political organization of their choosing, because they have the choice to move into Britain. There is a different matter in discussion regarding Falklands/Malvinas, which is the right of the British people, or of that British 'minority', to that territory.

You seem to misunderstand the current situation with the people of the Falkland islands. They run their own affairs in the same way Bermuda and Gibraltar run their own affairs.

They see themselves as a separate country, they elect their own government to run their own affairs. A Congressman from America recently went to the islands and said:

Before the Kirchner government pleas to the UN, she should note the issue of self-determination has a long history, and Argentina has a record of defending self-determination before the UN. According to a 2010 UN release, Argentine Senator Rubén Giustiniani called for self-determination of Puerto Rico, stating that “Argentina deemed Puerto Rico’s cause to be its own and reaffirmed the calls for recognition of its right to self-determination”. He also stated that the Argentine Senate fully supported Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination. Clearly, Argentina wants to dictate when self-determination should apply, regardless of the expressed opinion of the affected population. Notably, support for Puerto Rican independence has never received more than 5 per cent of the vote on three separate referendums.

Before my visit, I thought the Falkland Islands were a colonial backwater. I spent my time in the Falklands learning about the economy, meeting business leaders and factory workers, touring schools and visiting the British defence facility at Mount Pleasant. I saw for myself that Falklanders have a democratic system of government, an effective Chamber of Commerce, produce annual budget surpluses and maintain excellent primary and secondary schools. The Falkland Islands has determined for itself that it wishes to remain associated with Britain. It is not a colonial outpost held hostage by a foreign military.

The choice to move to the UK is irrelevant as the islands are their home and has been for over 170 years.

The right to self-determination includes the right to keep the status quo. Why should Puerto Rico, The Falklands or Gibraltar be forced to declare independence when they do not want it?

The UN's Special Committee on Decolonization is a joke, most of the places named there do not wish to change their current status and all the British ones have the right to become independent if they wish. Just like many of the former territories have done in the past.

To answer, we would need to define a scenario where those provinces would want to succeed, entering a very-hypothetical territory. So let me answer with a more palpable example: let's say the German community at Villa General Belgrano, in Córdoba, wants to secede. Would they have that right? Not according to Brilmayer's interpretation at the very least, because they wouldn't have an argument for that territory, as they simply immigrated into that piece of Argentina, and they most likely wouldn't be considered 'a distinct people' with the strength required by the secessionist argument, but rather as a small German-Argentine community. Not surprisingly, awarding them that right would mess up things with immigrant communities and minorities all over the world.

There are twice as many people in Villa General Belgrano than in the islands, where the territory being claimed is perhaps a million times larger, literally. Therefore, to make the analogy with the islands fairer, let's imagine there's a hefty gold mine in V.G.B., and Germany offered the town folks a piece if they secede, opening the opportunity for Germany to enjoy that mining business and build a military base there...

This is a ridiculous comparison. The Falklanders didn't emigrate to Argentina they Emigrated to an island that belonged to the British crown and had been used by the Brits for many many years.

A better comparison would be if in the future Argentina continued to go down its crazy peronista ways of isolation and the Mercorsur countries had already kicked her out and gone towards a Union of South America.

The Guarani and European population on the borders of Paraguay have enough of the crazy politics of Rio Plata and move towards seceding from Argentina and joining this new union. Would they have the rights to do that? I believe they would.

We all have the right to self determination, we just need to see what it implies and what it doesn't. If Scotland decides to secede, it will put on the table its particular characteristics as a distinct 'people' and its argument regarding that territory, which obviously have nothing to do with the arguments of the islanders or the people at Villa General Belgrano, Tierra del Fuego and Rio Negro.

Of course it has things to do with the Falklands population. They have their own way of life and are also a distinct people.
You're missing the most important fact about the dispute.

The people who have lived there for 8 generations do not want to become a colony of Argentina. Just like the population in Gibraltar don't want to become part of Spain. It is their right to decide that and saying "well they can just go live in the UK" is not acceptable.

How many Argentines have European passports ? Should they be forced to leave their land, head back to Europe and return the land to the native population? No as that would be a ridiculous thing to say!

 

[AndyD]

You seem to misunderstand the current situation with the people of the Falkland islands. They run their own affairs in the same way Bermuda and Gibraltar run their own affairs.

They see themselves as a separate country, they elect their own government to run their own affairs. A Congressman from America recently went to the islands and said:

The choice to move to the UK is irrelevant as the islands are their home and has been for over 170 years.

The right to self-determination includes the right to keep the status quo. Why should Puerto Rico, The Falklands or Gibraltar be forced to declare independence when they do not want it?

Scottswan, what did I say that makes you ask me this? Are you reading my messages before answering to them? I didn't say anything that contradicts the degree of autonomy of the F.I. government relative to the UK government. The relevance of the choice to move to the UK or to another British soil is explained by Brilmayer in the parts I quoted (and elsewhere in that paper).

I'm not impressed at a U.S. congressman supporting the islanders' position. I can't read anything mind boggling in that short article, quite the contrary, that paragraph about self-determination doesn't sound as coming from a versed source, particularly when he writes 'wants to dictate when self-determination should apply, regardless of the expressed opinion of the affected population' which is almost an oxymoron. He seems to think that self-determination means independence--as you well say, it doesn't, I never said that it did, so don't tell me, tell him . Added to what he says later, that he didn't know about the situation of the islands before his visit, it doesn't seem that he had the chance to inform himself properly of the subtleties of this matter, by talking with the other part too, for example.

This is a ridiculous comparison. The Falklanders didn't emigrate to Argentina they Emigrated to an island that belonged to the British crown and had been used by the Brits for many many years.

In this phrase, you're resorting to (one version of) the historical arguments. My point exactly: the self-determination principle doesn't make these arguments irrelevant. Quite the contrary, they are a prerequisite for the applicability of the principle to a sovereignty decision.

The Guarani and European population on the borders of Paraguay have enough of the crazy politics of Rio Plata and move towards seceding from Argentina and joining this new union. Would they have the rights to do that? I believe they would.

It sounds like you're talking about a minority, so secession doesn't seem justifiable (see Brilmayer's quote in my previous message), but the scenario may have particularities deserving consideration. Bear in mind that people who speak Guaraní are (mostly) not members of a distinct 'Guaraní people', I elaborated on this point in another thread here (I missed Uruguay in that list).

Of course it has things to do with the Falklands population. They have their own way of life and are also a distinct people.
You're missing the most important fact about the dispute.

You're taking us back to square one, we already discussed all this. 55% of the islanders were born elsewhere, the rest descend from immigrants (recent and non-recent ones) who arrived in the midst of a dispute and a discriminatory immigration policy, they are all recognized to be British citizens now. If Argentina is correct about its rights in 1833, there is a certain analogy with the silly example I gave about Villa General Belgrano.

At least, we may agree that, for the reasons and grounds given, it is not an indisputable self-evident truth that the self-determination principle settles the dispute and makes everything else irrelevant. Therefore, Britain should sit down and talk, regardless of the islanders not wanting it.

How many Argentines have European passports ? Should they be forced to leave their land, head back to Europe and return the land to the native population? No as that would be a ridiculous thing to say!

Of course it would be ridiculous, I never said they should. Now if, for example, the Italo-Argentine community said that they want to be governed by Mr. Monti's administration and demand it invoking their right to self-determination, they are free, not forced but free, to leave to Italy in order to achieve that goal, so no one is denying them that right. If it sounds silly, I refer you to Brilmayer's paper, at least what I quoted from it, she's a professor of international law at Yale.

 

[Matt84]

I'm sorry Andy but you seem be to be ridiculous dissecting every post instead of addressing certain simple questions that everyone outside Argentina is asking. I mean a Brazilian is just as baffled as a Brit as to why Argentina is so obsessed with this issue (in the face of Venezuela's light dispute over half of (British now fully independent) Guyana, and Brazil's non dispute with French Guiane)

I take it you are well read on the subject matter, run a blog, etc, but I hope you can also pick your battles. For instance this is "Buenos Aires EXPATS forum". Rather than the legal technicalities of the issue, we'd all like to know what right gives one country the ability to force an expansion over another, in this case the Falklands, and change its laws, directly disrupting, if not destroying, the way of life (the lives!) of thousands!

And speaking of hundreds of direct descendants of pioneer families, or thousands of newcomers... the population density of the islands is not lower than in any given part of Patagonia, so there is really no "biological" imperative either.

So please excuse my lengthy rant and simply answer what gives Argentina the right to change the laws on the Falklands, to assume sovereignty over an utterly unwilling population with no ties to Ar?

Ties that were btw severed or never created solely because of Argentina's stubbornness, denying opportunity to the Patagonian local population.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

I've been following this debate with much interest. It has achieved a depth that goes beyond much I've heard on the subject. I think AndyD should be thanked for being prepared to become engaged and debate on an expat website in a cogent and well mannered as well as persistent way and with a depth of understanding of English which would be churlish to fault in any way. I wish my rioplatenese was anywhere so good.

"Jaw-Jaw" is better than "War-War": but am I wrong that Argentina had passed an amendment to her constitution which had the effect of rendering it illegal to discuss the future of the Malvinas/Falklands as anything other than Argentinian?

If so then there appears to be a mismatch between what Argentina are pushing for at the UN (i.e. "negotiation over the Falklands/Malvinas") and what their Constitution says. So either Argentina is behaving unconstitutionally or in fact saying one thing and meaning another. Does negotiation in fact mean capitulation in CasaRosada speak?

Lost in translation perhaps? Hardly any point in negotiation if not willing to compromise - just leads to further frustration and disappointment. And Argentina cannot compromise – their Constitution forbids this. Or is there some other agenda at work Andy?

p.s Cameron refused to support a Tory motion to resolve that the Falklands will always be British. Presumably the British Government thought to do so would show contempt for the UN. So there is a question "Has Argentina's current Government demonstrated contempt for the UN with this constitutional amendment" and rendered sophistry and semantics about negotiation vacuous?

 

[AndyD]

Matt, asking me why one country would have the right to force an expansion over another doesn't reflect an effort to understand the other part's position. In Argentina's view, that's what Britain did in 1833 and, as I was arguing, the passage of time or the establishment of a population doesn't clean it up. Understanding is not the same as justifying.

I'm sorry but I can't offer a convincing and grounded argument in short form. I could answer with simplistic statements that go no further than negating yours, but that would be unhelpful. If you're looking for such statements, many Argentines will entertain you.

I believe I have answered, in previous messages, several points made in your last message. The issue is important to Argentina partly because it is the key to vast sea and Antarctic territory; the dispute is not equivalent to other cases put across (e.g, Brazil accepted the cession of Guyane Fr. in a treaty, except some territory on which France accepted an arbitration that awarded it to Brazil) and neither it's the same as ancient conquest or subjugation of indigenous peoples because there was a legal framework, despite it being the 19th century, and both countries belonged to it; the discomfort for the islanders may be minimized, Britain has a certain responsibility for any remnant; and I doubt Argentines are as obsessed about this as it seems you think.

 

[AndyD]

Thanks Phil!

"Jaw-Jaw" is better than "War-War": but am I wrong that Argentina had passed an amendment to her constitution which had the effect of rendering it illegal to discuss the future of the Malvinas/Falklands as anything other than Argentinian?

That's a good point. I wish I had the chance to read or hear opinion on this from more sources but I didn't, so I'm just going to say my first thoughts.

The clause is a transitory provision included in the latest version of the constitution, passed in 1994. It ratifies the Argentine sovereignty over the islands and its associated territory, and says that it is an objective of the Argentine people to obtain its 'full exercise' and recover those territories, but only in accordance with international law and maintaining the way of life of the inhabitants.

We will agree that the latter points are positive, but I understand it if the ratification of sovereignty and the mandate to respect this national objective looks like a bad precedent for any talks. Yet, I doubt it is as bad as sometimes proposed. My intention is not to justify the clause, as I think it was inserted to attend other objectives, but let me explain.

Nations are not required to weaken their claims when they enter a negotiation, and neither it should be implied that accepting negotiations weakens their position. A dispute is, by definition, the existence of contradictory claims. The parts sit at the table with the only precondition of having the good will to solve the dispute and, if there are any concessions to be made, these are generally offered secretly during the process. Britain also claims the islands to be hers, in internal documents and international treaties, notably in the EU Consitution, and I'm sure its authorities have a mandate to defend its territory. That's not an impediment, they wouldn't need to change that before entering talks, afaik.

I guess another civil precondition is to respect the other parts position... I remember reading that Lord Chalfont, who worked on the first talks after the UN resolution of 1965, was questioned by a member of parliament on how he could amicably negotiate with a country that has the audacity to claim that the islands were theirs; Chalfont answered that, in order to maintain good relations, Britain has to recognize that Argentina believes in its position as much as Britain believes in hers. I wish we saw more of that nowadays.

Let's bear in mind that negotiation may be a complex and long process. There may be, for example, a creation of committees to research things, consultation, request for mediation or arbitration on specific points, discussions about the practicalities of changing the status quo and interests that are not mutually exclusive, negotiations on related subjects (eg., Antarctica, lease for the military base)...

If any of the parts needs to ratify a decision that, even though popularly supported, seems to contradict the popular mandate according to the cold letter, I guess they may resort to a binding or non-binding referendum, like it happened here with a dispute with Chile in the early 1980s. In any case, I don't see that point anywhere near. For the time being, I would be happy if there were some civilized advancement, for example by making a common effort to clarify the historical and legal foundations.

p.s Cameron refused to support a Tory motion to resolve that the Falklands will always be British. Presumably the British Government thought to do so would show contempt for the UN. So there is a question "Has Argentina's current Government demonstrated contempt for the UN with this constitutional amendment" and rendered sophistry and semantics about negotiation vacuous?

I'm not informed about this case, but let's bear in mind that, as the islands are not self-governed and there is a lot of salt water between them and the UK, they are considered (by the UN and others) to be a colonial country, which, according to Britain, is alright because the population accepts being a British non-self-governing territory. If they no longer accept it, Britain says it would comply. This position would contradict a declaration stating that 'the islands will always be British'. If you mean '...as long as the islanders wish so', I think that legislation passed before the 1982 conflict (need to check on that one).

 

[scotttswan]

I'm not informed about this case, but let's bear in mind that, as the islands are not self-governed and there is a lot of salt water between them and the UK, they are considered (by the UN and others) to be a colonial country, which, according to Britain, is alright because the population accepts being a British non-self-governing territory. If they no longer accept it, Britain says it would comply. This position would contradict a declaration stating that 'the islands will always be British'. If you mean '...as long as the islanders wish so', I think that legislation passed before the 1982 conflict (need to check on that one).

The islands are self governed and manage all their own affairs apart from Military and Foreign affairs. They have the option to become fully independent if they wish like many former overseas territories have.
The timing of the legislation being passed isn't that important as many former territories have gone it alone without this legislation and it was more to create a formal way for it to happen.

The amount of salt water between the UK and the Falklands is also irrelevant as Argentina are proposing to create their own colony there against the wishes of the now native population. This colony will again have a lot of salt water between her and the Falklands.

The Tory motion was as misguided as Cristina and her idiot staff Timmerman and the ambassador to the UK.

 

[AndyD]

scotttswan, besides military and foreign affairs, the governor is appointed by the Queen and acts in her representation. Therefore, formally, there are affairs ruled by authorities that are geographically very separate. Thus, in Britain's view of the islanders being a distinct people according to the self-determination principle, if the islanders did not accept British involvement in their affairs, they would be considered a subjugated people as stated by decolonization doctrine. Geographical proximity would be a criterion for not classifying, within that group, the inhabitants of Ciudad de Buenos Aires if we happened to dislike Argentina's choice of president, or the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego if they did, despite there being salt water between them and the rest of the country (though I must say that geographical criteria such as the salt-water test are unclear and disputed *). That's why the UN lists the islands as a non-self-governing territory, partly due to geography. It means it remains vigilant about the islanders' opinion, Britain agrees with that.

That's what I meant and I don't see any essential disagreement with what you wrote regarding this point... Just in case, let me say that Britain had an essential role in both the creation of the UN and the inclusion of territories in that list.

* But even if an extreme form of the salt-water test were applied, it would not define Argentina's stance as 'colonization' due to the transplanted-population argument.

 

[scotttswan]

scotttswan, besides military and foreign affairs, the governor is appointed by the Queen and acts in her representation. Therefore, formally, there are affairs ruled by authorities that are geographically very separate. Thus, in Britain's view of the islanders being a distinct people according to the self-determination principle, if the islanders did not accept British involvement in their affairs, they would be considered a subjugated people as stated by decolonization doctrine. Geographical proximity would be a criterion for not classifying, within that group, the inhabitants of Ciudad de Buenos Aires if we happened to dislike Argentina's choice of president, or the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego if they did, despite there being salt water between them and the rest of the country (though I must say that geographical criteria such as the salt-water test are unclear and disputed *). That's why the UN lists the islands as a non-self-governing territory, partly due to geography. It means it remains vigilant about the islanders' opinion, Britain agrees with that.

Andy you really don't have a clue about how the Falkland islands and the overseas territories of the UK currently operate.

Does the fact that Canada, Australia, Bermuda etc... have a govenor appointed by the queen mean they are "ruled by authorities that are geographically very separate." Of course not. Bermuda has one of the oldest parliaments in the world and 73.6% of their population were quite happy with their current status.

They are also on the UN decolonisation list. Should they be forced to declare independence even though the vast majority of the people don't want it? Maybe they should be given to the states or another country as we couldn't possibly let them decide their own future now they're on the UN decolonisation list....

 

[AndyD]

scotttswan, in which 'UN decolonization list' are those countries? As I made it clear, I was referring to the UN list of non-self-governing territories, they're not there. I don't know the exact criterion, there's an evident difference with the islands as the executive positions in Australia, etc., are led by elected prime ministers, with the 'Governor' having just a ceremonial function under the Queen of Australia, Canada, Barbados, etc., while the Governor at Malvinas/Falklands, to whom I was referring to, carries on practical functions despite being advised by an elected body, and works under the Queen of the UK. I'm sorry if you found my summary to be deficient, it probably was, but I don't think I was making any point dependent on these details. As I wrote repeatedly, I never implied that any territory has to claim its independence.