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

[Matt84]

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.

Fair enough, and thank you for your honesty. I can see now that you regard this issue in a purely legalistic manner. If that's the case, I'd like to know what kind of protection or special status would the islanders receive, when according to law of the land they are by birth as Argentine as anyone born in Buenos Aires or Ushuaia.
My guess is that no special status would be awarded.

So let's forget about what would give the Argentine Gov the right to seize the lives of the Falklanders, and rather consider that the instant the UK somehow cedes the islands to Argentina, the Falklands would declare independence, get taken off that ridiculous and obsolete UN list, and continue having, de lex, Her Majesty (QEII, not CFK) as their head of state.

How would Argentina relate to a fully independent Falkland Islands?
Would it recognize the "new" country?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

I have a thing for a maps, you see..
Blue means the territory used to be on the U.N. list, like Alaska, Greenland, and most of Africa (which betrays the real and sole purpose of this 1961 Special Committee)
Red means it's still on the list, like indeed Bermuda, Cayman is, Saint Helena, indeed the Falklands, etc.

 

[scotttswan]

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.

I included Bermuda in that list and they are included in the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories even though as i said before they have the third-oldest continuous parliament in the World, 73.6% voted against independence.

They have the same situation as the Falklands with a governor. You should maybe give the falklands islands constitution a wee read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermudan_independence_referendum,_1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_on_Decolonization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

I have a thing for a maps, you see..
Blue means the territory used to be on the U.N. list, like Alaska, Greenland, and most of Africa (which betrays the real and sole purpose of this 1961 Special Committee)
Red means it's still on the list, like indeed Bermuda, Cayman is, Saint Helena, indeed the Falklands, etc.

Lets look at this list.

Western Sahara (Spain?) is a difficult one as for some reason it is still considered as being administrated by Spain even though they gave to to Morocco and Mauritania. You also have the Sahrawis who live there. Its a clusterfuck of a situation but who is the colonizing force now? Spain isn't. Mauritania withdrew in 1979 so that leaves the native Sahrawis and Morocco....

Saint Helena (UK) Is a simple one. a population of 7600 they're quite happy with the situation.

Presently, Saint Helena had no aspirations towards independence. As far as its people were concerned, the “ins” were “out”. It could not afford independence, nor did it want a flood of visiting Europeans, anyway. Regarding independence, perhaps the formula of sports teams should be applied, wherein the rules of the game were changed to fit the circumstances. He hoped the United Kingdom delegation had listened carefully to the discussions. Saint Helena was “very satisfied” with what the United Kingdom had done for it, by balancing the books year after year. Like the others, it would like to have more say in managing its own affairs.

Why are they still on the archaic list?

Bermuda (UK) I mentioned above.

Falkland Islands (UK) are quite happy with the current situation and are not reliant on handouts from the United Kingdom. (ignoring the airbase that is required as a preventative measure for power hungry Argentine Politicians.)

Anguilla (UK) There are talks of independence but there has been no referendum on independence from the UK. They did secede from St Kitts and Nevis in the 70's and whilst St Kitts and Nevis became independent in 83, Anguilla has yet to do so but like St Kitts and Nevis they will be allowed to once a vote has been completed. (note Nevis had a vote for independence from St Kitts in 98)

British Virgin Islands (UK) They've not had a referendum and the former premier (elected guy) has previously said that they are not ready for independence. Again if they wish they will go on to become independent.

Cayman Islands (UK) Formally part of Jamaica they became a separate entity in 1962. Cayman Islands residents have expressed the strong wish to remain British dependents; this position was voiced twice to United Nations groups, in 1977 and again in 1981. The finance secretary commented that "venturing into independence" was not a viable route to prosperity for small countries and that the British link inspired investor confidence. If they wish for this to change they may well go with independence in the future or they may wish to join Jamaica who knows but it is up to them.

Montserrat (UK) appear to have had quite a few people posting in blogs for independence in the past but there has been no official poll as of yet. The Economy is in a mess just now so they appear to be trying to fix that before independence is a possibility. It is important to note that Chedmond Browne, former Member of Parliament of Montserrat claimed they were not happy with the current situation in 2001 and proposed the UN govern them...

Turks and Caicos Islands (UK) are a mess of corruption and the UK stepped in and removed the government and are set to have new elections this year. They have also proposed that they become a province of Canada with around 60% of the people being in favour of this. But surely they wouldn't be taken off the list then and we'll just see Turks and Caicos Islands (Canada) in the future

United States Virgin Islands (US) had a referendum in 1993 and attracted only 31.4% turnout who voted in favor of the status quo but because so few bothered to vote the results were considered void. There is a movement to allow them represented in Congress and vote for U.S. President.

Gibraltar (UK) voted heavily in favour for keeping the status quo (99%) and have asked to be removed from this archaic list. Spain wish to have sovereignty over this area and there were secret talks between Britain and Spain which culminated in 2002 with an announcement by Jack Straw in the Houses of Parliament that both countries had agreed to share sovereignty over the territory, provided that Gibraltar consented. For which the referendum said cheers but no thanks.

American Samoa (US) are happy with the status quo and have requested that they be removed from the list but somehow they're still there....

Guam (US) wish to have more rights as part of the US and there is a small independence movement there are many options for Guam and i'm sure the US will help them in whichever way they choose.

New Caledonia (France) The only French territory to be named on the list. They've been on and off the list a few times now. They will be granted the right for a referendum after 2014.

Pitcairn Islands (UK) a population of 50 who were quite keen on rape and child abuse a while back. Their future will probably result on them becoming like the cook islands i.e. self-rule and Free association with New Zealand, Australia or possibly French Polynesia.

Tokelau (New Zealand) It was proposed that they become like the Cook islands but the referendum failed to provide the required votes for. So they tried again the next year and again failed. Should they keep on forcing the people of Tokelau to vote again and again? or maybe just leave them be until they themselves decide they wish to change their status.

So that's the whole list...

maybe some of these countries or these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputesshould join the list or is it only a colony when there is salt water involved?

The UN list drastically needs to be updated so that the wishes of the people in it can be considered.

 

[AndyD]

Fair enough, and thank you for your honesty.

You're welcome.

I can see now that you regard this issue in a purely legalistic manner.

I don't think that's a fair representation, but if your opinion about the Argentine case has shifted from it's stupid, ungrounded, bla bla, to it's legalistic, that's very good in my opinion.

BTW, as I asked scotttswan, if all that matters here is the islanders' comfort, then Britain may offer that security in exchange of the vast uninhabited territories, and other resources, that are associated with her claim for the islands, which far exceed what the islanders require. In doing so, she would also preserve the world's 'legal' system instead of misrepresenting it to the point of you seemingly underestimating it. But Britain's not doing it. Food for thought.

If that's the case, I'd like to know what kind of protection or special status would the islanders receive, when according to law of the land they are by birth as Argentine as anyone born in Buenos Aires or Ushuaia. My guess is that no special status would be awarded.

If full-sovereignty is recognized to Argentina (this being only one possible outcome of negotiations) I see several layers in that issue:

1) Argentina has a federal system, each province has a degree of legal autonomy, so her constitution would require almost no changes in the current legislation and statutes at Malvinas/Falklands. E.g., the Constitution accepts that a province has an official language besides Spanish, like with Corrientes, that uses Guaraní.

2) When needed, ad-hoc laws may be created to respect the compromise of maintaining their way of life, like allowing the pound as official currency or keeping their school curricula. If you think this is unlikely, you may read, in Annex I of the Rattenbach report, that these ad-hoc measures were in the Junta's secret plan for the islands, despite their questionable human-rights record and that they believed to be in a position of strength (they didn't put them there because they were nice people, of course, but to prevent a plummeting international image.)

3) On top of the security offered by the points above, it would be good to have economic guarantees so that their autonomy and well-being are not tampered by national taxes. Britain is in a position of strength, able to negotiate on these things and much more (e.g., lease-back, joint sovereignty, the maintenance of the naval base). That's as long as the dispute is not resolved by the ICJ.

This wouldn't be the first pseudo-province with an ad-hoc organization. Ciudad de Buenos Aires is one, Tierra del Fuego was another.

A further reason to be optimistic about this, is that the islanders are rather few, so it shouldn't be hard to offer them real guarantees and support. You recently said that population density was similar to Patagonia's but that's not accurate, Patagonia has several times the population density of the islands despite its much larger surface. If we take into consideration the whole surface being claimed by Britain based on the population argument, that difference increases dramatically.

continue having, de lex, Her Majesty (QEII, not CFK) as their head of state.

A change of status is certainly not going to happen under CFK. Whatever rapprochement I'm proposing here, don't think it as towards the CFK administration but towards an hypothetical future administration that puts, to work on this issue, people with a different capacity and understanding, like there was here during the 90s yet they achieved very little --unless you call achievement to sign agreements where one is binding undisputed resources while the other binds disputed ones-- giving way to some of the resentment and rigidity that you find here today.

How would Argentina relate to a fully independent Falkland Islands? Would it recognize the "new" country?

I believe I have answered this question a few messages above, in a response to scotttswan.

I have a thing for a maps, you see..
Blue means the territory used to be on the U.N. list, like Alaska, Greenland, and most of Africa (which betrays the real and sole purpose of this 1961 Special Committee)
Red means it's still on the list, like indeed Bermuda, Cayman is, Saint Helena, indeed the Falklands, etc.

Now I realize that, although he opened a paragraph when he said it, scotttswan was referring only to Bermuda and not to the whole list including Australia and Canada, plus Barbados (by mistake, I replaced Bermuda with the latter). I thought he meant the Governor General at these nations, thanks for the clarification. Anyway, I still don't see the relevance of this in the conversation. It seems Scotttswan was somehow trying to explain that I 'really don't have a clue about how the Falkland islands and the overseas territories of the UK currently operate'. If you feel that's accurate and helpful, that's OK with me.

 

[glasgowjohn]

What is the official story on Guadeloupe and Martinique?

Or have the French been very astute by calling them provinces instead of countries?

 

[Matt84]

What is the official story on Guadeloupe and Martinique?

Or have the French been very astute by calling them provinces instead of countries?

Well, French Guiane is not on that list, you can see all three Guyanas blue, as in matter solved, like French Polynesia.

Only the British are colonialists.

 

[scotttswan]

What is the official story on Guadeloupe and Martinique?

Or have the French been very astute by calling them provinces instead of countries?

They made them officially part of France with free movement between France and their "provinces"/territories etc (and the EU so presumably anyone with an EU passport could move to one of them?). They also get seats in the French Parliament/vote for the president etc.

UK Overseas territories citizens are are allowed to move to the UK, get UK passports and vote in UK elections if they live in the UK. Brits are not allowed to move to the territories unless they fill the requirements set by the overseas territories governments.

 

[Matt84]

You're welcome.



I don't think that's a fair representation, but if your opinion about the Argentine case has shifted from it's stupid, ungrounded, bla bla, to it's legalistic, that's very good in my opinion.

BTW, as I asked scotttswan, if all that matters here is the islanders' comfort, then Britain may offer that security in exchange of the vast uninhabited territories, and other resources, that are associated with her claim for the islands, which far exceed what the islanders require.

btw, comfort does not equal rights or security.

Am I understanding this correctly? You're proposing that in exchange for the uninhabited islands and 'other resources' Argentina would lay down its claim to the Falklands and thus 'offer that security' to the locals?
Did I get that wrong or is it an awful lot like bullying?

In doing so, she would also preserve the world's 'legal' system instead of misrepresenting it to the point of you seemingly underestimating it. But Britain's not doing it. Food for thought.



If full-sovereignty is recognized to Argentina (this being only one possible outcome of negotiations) I see several layers in that issue:

1) Argentina has a federal system, each province has a degree of legal autonomy, so her constitution would require almost no changes in the current legislation and statutes at Malvinas/Falklands. E.g., the Constitution accepts that a province has an official language besides Spanish, like with Corrientes, that uses Guaraní.

2) When needed, ad-hoc laws may be created to respect the compromise of maintaining their way of life, like allowing the pound as official currency or keeping their school curricula. If you think this is unlikely, you may read, in Annex I of the Rattenbach report, that these ad-hoc measures were in the Junta's secret plan for the islands, despite their questionable human-rights record and that they believed to be in a position of strength (they didn't put them there because they were nice people, of course, but to prevent a plummeting international image.)

3) On top of the security offered by the points above, it would be good to have economic guarantees so that their autonomy and well-being are not tampered by national taxes. Britain is in a position of strength, able to negotiate on these things and much more (e.g., lease-back, joint sovereignty, the maintenance of the naval base). That's as long as the dispute is not resolved by the ICJ.

This wouldn't be the first pseudo-province with an ad-hoc organization. Ciudad de Buenos Aires is one, Tierra del Fuego was another.

A further reason to be optimistic about this, is that the islanders are rather few, so it shouldn't be hard to offer them real guarantees and support. You recently said that population density was similar to Patagonia's but that's not accurate, Patagonia has several times the population density of the islands despite its much larger surface. If we take into consideration the whole surface being claimed by Britain based on the population argument, that difference increases dramatically.



A change of status is certainly not going to happen under CFK. Whatever rapprochement I'm proposing here, don't think it as towards the CFK administration but towards an hypothetical future administration that puts, to work on this issue, people with a different capacity and understanding, like there was here during the 90s yet they achieved very little --unless you call achievement to sign agreements where one is binding undisputed resources while the other binds disputed ones-- giving way to some of the resentment and rigidity that you find here today.



I believe I have answered this question a few messages above, in a response to scotttswan.



Now I realize that, although he opened a paragraph when he said it, scotttswan was referring only to Bermuda and not to the whole list including Australia and Canada, plus Barbados (by mistake, I replaced Bermuda with the latter). I thought he meant the Governor General at these nations, thanks for the clarification. Anyway, I still don't see the relevance of this in the conversation. It seems Scotttswan was somehow trying to explain that I 'really don't have a clue about how the Falkland islands and the overseas territories of the UK currently operate'. If you feel that's accurate and helpful, that's OK with me.

Well, do you have a clue as to how a diverse collection of islands and archipelagos can retain cohesion under the symbolic one crown?

I believe you missed my point about independence. I'm simply saying that if in some future Britain is extorted to cede the Flklands or the sub-Antarctic islands that lie far east than them, then the inhabitants of the Falklands can chose (a costy) independence and nullify Argentina's claims before the UN forever. And the new country would still have practically the same ties with the UK as it does now, by being part of the Commonwealth.

 

[AndyD]

btw, comfort does not equal rights or security.

Am I understanding this correctly? You're proposing that in exchange for the uninhabited islands and 'other resources' Argentina would lay down its claim to the Falklands and thus 'offer that security' to the locals?
Did I get that wrong or is it an awful lot like bullying?

You got that wrong, I meant securing their [full] comfort, meaning to agree on the other things in exchange for having Argentina cede sovereignty over, e.g., Soledad (East Falkland) island, where most islanders live. But Britain hasn't shown any advancement in that direction, ever, which hints that there's something else in dispute.

I take it that Argentina guarantees their security and rights, what it may not guarantee is their full comfort, referring to the discomfort arising from a change of status in itself. I'm not threatening anyone and you have enough elements to know that already, I'm simply acknowledging that receiving the news of a change of status quo wouldn't be a happy picnic for them. Can we spare ourselves and others from these silly clarifications?

Well, do you have a clue as to how a diverse collection of islands and archipelagos can retain cohesion under the symbolic one crown?

I believe I do. What I don't have a clue of, is how anything I said leads to thinking that I don't, or what has this to do with what I was arguing. Talking of British military, I feel this guy is appearing any minute now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZKUozrBl4#t=3m55

I believe you missed my point about independence. I'm simply saying that if in some future Britain is extorted to cede the Flklands or the sub-Antarctic islands that lie far east than them, then the inhabitants of the Falklands can chose (a costy) independence and nullify Argentina's claims before the UN forever. And the new country would still have practically the same ties with the UK as it does now, by being part of the Commonwealth.

It's not that simple. It would be a secession, which is the subject of Brilmayer's paper. I answered to this in a response to scotttswan, look up some messages above, more or less where I quote Brilmayer.

 

[scotttswan]

You got that wrong, I meant securing their [full] comfort, meaning to agree on the other things in exchange for having Argentina cede sovereignty over, e.g., Soledad (East Falkland) island, where most islanders live. But Britain hasn't shown any advancement in that direction, ever, which hints that there's something else in dispute.

Are you proposing that Britain gives up West Falkland and the other south Atlantic islands for Argentina to give up its claim to East Falkland?

I don't think that this has ever been proposed as its quite ridiculous.
The Falklanders rely on fishing rights as well as farming on both islands to provide for themselves.

As for the other islands. They've never been part of Argentina and she has no rights at all to the islands.

How about Argentina gives up its ridiculous claim to the islands and enters into some agreements for preserving the fish, oil and other things that could benefit both populations.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Historically Argentinian governments have been happy enough for plebiscites by small communities determining which country they wish to belong to.

so long as they vote to live in Argentina!

I had the pleasure a year or so back (before the volcanic eruptions) of visiting the originally Welsh founded community of Trevelin in the cordillera - now part of Chubut.

In the interesting local museum I read about the plebiscite (as recently as 1902!) where the inhabitants voted to join Republica Argentina as the judgement on the watershed and international dispute resolution had resolved that they be awarded to Chile in the west.

You can read about this on http://www.patagonia.com.ar/Esquel/41E_More+than+100+years+since+the+referendum.html

(In English as well as Castellano!! but not Welsh - why??)

I'l try to establish how many people voted at the time - but my guess is that these were less than the current permanent adult population of the Falklands/Malvinas

So if self-determination was ok for this small enclave then why not applied here?

As for suggestions that both UK and Argentina should go for arbitration my understanding is that historically neither side wants to because neither side has that degree of confidence in any overwhelming merits of their case. UK now rests it's case on self determination by the indigenous population anyway so the Uk isnt going to push arbitration, whilst Argentina hasn't a track record of any persuasive argument "winning" at Arbitration either - not even over the tiny little islands in the Beagle Channel and that was even after arbitration #2 direct with the Pope not being satisfied with what Queen Elizabeth II had awarded.