Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )

[azerty]

A few points :

1/ Historically, the falklands should be spanish, as Louis the 15th sold those barren islands to Spain as a sign of friendship a few years before the french revolution. Argentina never "gained" those islands. Even the name is not spanish, malvinas derived from Malouines, which means the land from the people of Saint Malo, the french port from where the first settlers were originated.

2/ There is an important fact that i didn t see mentioned in posts here. Those islands are dependant logistically from the continent. They need a aerial bridge to survive. An argentine blocus would mean the empoverishment of local populations, with a much higer cost of imported goods.

3/ When Argentina attacked the Falklands, militaries were in power. It was logical for a military government to seek military solutions. With a democratic goverment, chances for a war are extremely minimal.

There won t be any war because both governments would have too much to loose. Each side is showing muscles for a forthcoming negociation. Most likely, the brits will have to finish that decolonisation process started after ww2, and a treatee similar to the Honk Kong deal will emerge. It will satisfy Argentina who will be able to legitimate its national map including the Falklands (but not the antactic stretch) and satisfy England, since it will be allow them time to make some cash out of mineral reserves.

 

[ElQueso]

Argentina, btw, does have a legal claim on the islands, but that's all it is, a claim.

How do they have this claim? I've been asking all this time why and no one answers that I have seen. Just keep stating over and over again this statement.

Below is a link to an extremely interesting booklet put together to answer Argentina's distorted history that Argentina presented to the world in 2007, as a part of making their claim to the Falklands. That distorted history was decreed by the military junta in 1943, by way of making it a law to teach to kids in school the translation of a book that was written in the 1920s (I believe, ironically enough, the book was written in the States by an idiot). The book was full of all kinds of wrong "facts". Peron was a major player in the junta itself, of course, and indeed, the book and getting the Falklands in Argentina's pyche by making it a law that Argentine kids were taught a very distorted version of the history of the Falklands was his idea.

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

It's about 40 pages of detailed history of the Falklands and points out the errors that the Argentines consistently make in claiming the Falklands.

What I think would be great is if those who think that Argentina has any claim whatsoever would read that, and let me know what they think is wrong with the history in this booklet, as well as the reasoning presented. And those who say that the writings of the Argentines are true and correct - read the stuff that was written by the Argentines who are acknowleged experts on the history of the Falklands and say that what their fellow countrymen wrote was not correct.

As an example, the British settled the Falklands before the Argentines even came anywhere close to Patagonia (one of the settlements on the Falklands is actually the oldest in the world, that far south). It wasn't until the end of the 1870s, when Roca (the butcher of the indigenes in Patagonia) slaughtered the inhabitants of Patagonia by the tens of thousands with Remington rifles (Rifle Patria - invented in the States during the Civil War) and allowed Argentina to move into Patagonia. The British were already there more than 40 years previously.

The Argentines HAVE NOT objected to British occupation of the islands continuously for 177 years as some have said in rebuttal to my previous comments. In fact, in statements in the 1860s in front of the Argentine Congress, the presidents of the nation explicitly stated that there were no unresolved issues with Britain. There is a period of nearly 100 years (from 1849 to 1947 [that last date may be a couple of years off]), after Argentina signed an accord with the Brits stating that there were no issues between the two countries while Britain occupied the land, in which Argentina did not officially protest Britain's occupation of the islands, and only a few times during that period where it was even mentioned (again, unofficially).

In the mid-1800s many maps were made by Argentina that either did not show the islands (usually hidden by the map legend), or showed the islands as not being controlled by Argentina when they were shown. In fact, Argentina lost some islands to Chile over the same sort of issue - Argentina claimed the islands were theirs, but the mediator that handled the controversy pointed to maps that Argentina had made in the same time period and showed that they, by their own admission through the maps, had not claimed those lands.

There are so many things that back up British claims to the islands and practically nothing to show any claim for the Argentines, except those which they have fabricated.

The only other thing I have seen is that people seem to be saying that because the Falklands are close to Argentina, that Argentina should control them. How far does that go, I wonder? Watch out Chile and Uruguay, to start with...

 

[ElQueso]

1/ Historically, the falklands should be spanish, as Louis the 15th sold those barren islands to Spain as a sign of friendship a few years before the french revolution. Argentina never "gained" those islands. Even the name is not spanish, malvinas derived from Malouines, which means the land from the people of Saint Malo, the french port from where the first settlers were originated.

The British and the Spanish had a treaty in which they both allowed each other use of islands in the Atlantic. The French actually discovered the islands officially (first actual report authenticated of the islands), about a year before the British put their first settlement on the islands (the British didn't know the French were there).

The Spanish took over the French settlement (the French allowed it - is this what you were talking about? Louis never "owned" it and I never saw anything that made mention of him giving the islands to Spain. Spain itself never thought they owned the islands.) and then kicked the British off. When Britain and Spain almost went to war over this, the Spanish checked their treaty again and said "oh, sorry" and reinstated the British colony. The Spanish then left shortly after, never having a permanent outpost on the islands.

IN FACT, in the late 1800s (don't remember the year), the Spanish actually put a consulate on the Falklands, which was solidly under British rule, which no country would do if they didn't recognize the right of the other country to occupy those lands.

The closest thing I saw that gave Spain any right to the islands at all was a papal bull mandated by Pope Alexander the VI in 1493, who was a spanish pope in a time of a very corrupt church, and who was related to the Spanish king at the time. That has no say in the matter at all. Hell, that bull gave just about the entire western hemisphere to Spain!

2/ There is an important fact that i didn t see mentioned in posts here. Those islands are dependant logistically from the continent. They need a aerial bridge to survive. An argentine blocus would mean the empoverishment of local populations, with a much higer cost of imported goods.

So you're saying that if Argentina were to blockade something that is not theirs, it would cause the people being blockaded to suffer, and that is something for which they could make a claim?

Crap, Argentina effectively blockades itself from the rest of the world and it is suffering. Should we give Argentina back to the Spanish?

3/ When Argentina attacked the Falklands, militaries were in power. It was logical for a military government to seek military solutions. With a democratic goverment, chances for a war are extremely minimal.

There won t be any war because both governments would have too much to loose. Each side is showing muscles for a forthcoming negociation. Most likely, the brits will have to finish that decolonisation process started after ww2, and a treatee similar to the Honk Kong deal will emerge. It will satisfy Argentina who will be able to legitimate its national map including the Falklands (but not the antactic stretch) and satisfy England, since it will be allow them time to make some cash out of mineral reserves.

As far as this being at least one reason why another war won't happen, I tend to agree with you, but maybe not. But not about the British eventually giving up the islands. Hong Kong is/was a different story.

I haven't read the details on this yet, but I've heard that Cristina shut down talks this year, related to profit sharing of the mineral resources (namely the oil). Why would she do this, unless she either thought 1) she had some chance to press the claim and be successful (I can't imagine that happening without Britain's consent, and I can't imagine Britain consenting) or 2) she would just make another grab for it, perhaps around election time.

I wouldn't put that past her and Nestor, but I would rather think that they just have what I consider to be the wrong opinion of what's going to happen related to sovereignity of the Falkland Islanders.

I mean, does anyone not realize that the people who live on those islands, some who have lived there for 9 freaking generations, do not want to be a part of Argentina? Do those people have no say in the matter?

The Brits couldn't hang on to Hong Kong.

China was/is a major power. Argentina is not, and is not exactly at least half of the world's favorite country, having defaulted on debt in a major way and then blaming said half of the world for its own problems, without looking at how much they were actually spending on corruption and innefficient social programs.

Hong Kong was Chinese under British rule. But the Chinese people still have strong ties to their Chinese kindred in the PR. The Flkaland islanders do not want to be under Argentine rule. They are not of Latin descent, they are not "long lost Argentinos" to be re-patriated.

The biggest, I think: the British and the Hong Kongese knew that the Chinese would keep their bargain and allow Hong Kong to function as it had previously because the Chinese are not anti-capitalist or stupid - they like little already-existing money engines and won't disrupt them, at least not very much. As soon as the Falklands is under Argentine rule, it will become part of Argentina.

The Falklanders would be dragged into Argentina kicking and screaming so that Cristina can stop drooling over that unlimited amount of power she sees in the oil - which could grant her the ability for her to play on a stage perhaps bigger than Senor Hugo Chavez...and I doubt very much that the Falklanders would profit.

 

[cabrera]

Mr Cheese you make comments about Malvinas like you are an expert on the subject but the issue is the exclusion zone of 500 square kilometres which is not recognised by anyone except the United Kindgom itself.

The Malvinas islands do not have any f...... oil just the ocean around that the United Kindgom has stolen and claimed they deserve.

What gives United Kindgom the right to this ocean and the reserves? I find it suprising that someone could live in a country and support another country coming to its shores and stealing its assets. Argentina needs the oil much more than the United Kindgom and of course it is economic. We do not have the wealth nor the international support financially that Great britain has meaning that for us this issue is mighty important.

There is absolutely no legal claim that the United Kindgom has over the oil nor the 500 kms exclusion zone . There is no precedent in the world for this and as stated before Argentina is 100 percent right to pursue this accordingly.

 

[ElQueso]

cabrera, it appears that you do not read everything that I write When I started commenting, at some point I mentioned that the exclusion is a different story. I have been writing about the possession of the islands and the proper exclusion zone is indeed a different story which I have admitted to not knowing much about.

I do know that the intention of the Argentine government is to kick Britain out of the Falklands and claim it 100% for Argentina, which is what I'm objecting to. Please use some critical thinking, looking at what I've said in my posts (if you've actually read them).

I have read in a couple of places comments that mention Cristina Kirchner shutting down negotiations with the British over sharing in the profits of the oil. I have not yet found the report for that and cannot ascertain why she shut down talks.

Either way, talk about the exclusion zone being too big, talk about negotiating over mineral rights and oil profits and participation, but the fact is that Britain has occupied a group of islands the size of Ireland (in area) for at least 177 years continuously and Argentina can't just have it all because they sau so.

If Argentina wouldn't have played things so stupidly all along, from 1982 on, as I have said before, I think we would be looking at a different situation right now. But Argentina shot itself in the foot on that, in my opinion.

 

[ssr]

2/ There is an important fact that i didn t see mentioned in posts here. Those islands are dependant logistically from the continent. They need a aerial bridge to survive. An argentine blocus would mean the empoverishment of local populations, with a much higer cost of imported goods.

Argentina doesn't have the capacity to do anything other than make noise.

 

[malbec]

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

ElQueso, thank you for your own version of a very distorted history of the Malvinas

You don't see any reasonable argument on Argentina's side because you are blinded by emotion.

Denying the reasons the other party has doesn't make you right.

 

[ssr]

Another view from the islands:

Stuart Wallace: We watch Argentina's behaviour with bemusement

I particularly like this bit:

We do discuss what the Argentines are up to, and we take what action we can, but I think the most common reaction is one of bemusement that our neighbours seem to be caught in some sort of time warp, dissipating what little reputation they have for seriousness left by adopting polices guaranteed to alienate people – Falkland Islanders and others in the international community – even further. All while their own economy implodes. But it is summer here, and I'm going fishing at the weekend with my granddaughter. So sod the Argentines.

Hah! "...dissipating what little reputation they have for seriousness..." Ouch!

Er, for the non-British (like myself):

Wikipedia: Sod (vulgarity)

 

[MaGRon]

Much British distress! Argentina’s method of calculating territorial seas from their mainland continental shelf is agreed by the UN. Cuba is now part of the United States of America and President Sarkosy is now on his way to London to take control of Westminster.

 

[jp]

Cabrera - you need to read up on territorial waters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Exclusive_economic_zone

Despite your claim that "there is no precedent for this", its actually a well defined concept in international law that applies to pretty much every country in the world. Including Argentina, who ratified the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

This is why everything hinges on the sovereignty of the islands.