Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )

[Futboljunkie]

The law is unfair. It has been done by the people who ruled the world in the past and wanted to continue ruling it. That´s why we still don´t have a limit to the acumulation of wealth. Soon the 100 richest people of the world we´ll have more money that the poorest half of the world´s population. But of course, you will say it´s fair becaue the laws permit it.

That´s my preface.
Now how can it be that the 200 miles zone around the islands is bigger than the islands themselves? How can it be that a huge country like Argentina in comparison with the islands has the same 200 miles zone? from the coast?? So make the comparison between the size of Argentina and the waters she controls and the size of the islands and its water domains.

Apart from this, I´ve read that England sent a nuclear submarine, the HMS York.

How is that not fair?

Country A has 200 miles
Country B has 200 miles

If country A is more powerfull then country B does it have the right to get 400 miles and country B none?

 

[jp]

The law is unfair. It has been done by the people who ruled the world in the past and wanted to continue ruling it.

No it hasn't. Its a UN agreement, ratified by 160 countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Argentina, Chile, Peru & Ecuador were some of the first countries to take advantage of the 200 mile economic protection zone off their coast.

So long as Britain has a claim to sovereignty of the Falklands Isles, it has a valid claim to 200 miles of seabed off the coast of its territory. Whilst there is a potential overlap on claims between the islands and the mainland, Britain isn't claiming anything that falls within Argentina's 200 mile claim.

The issue is the sovereignty of the islands, not the legality of the exclusion zone.

 

[azerty]

If you guys can t find an agreement, give it to the French. After all, they were the first europeans to start a settlement there, they gave the malvinas name (Saint Malo, Malouines, Malvinas) and economicly it makes sense. England has oil (Brent) already, Argentina has oil (Mendoza) as well, France doesnt.

Let s be fair

 

[Liam3494]

Maybe we could have it .. (The Irish I mean)..... OK, that was a throw away comment in a serious debate. But given that I was born in Northern Ireland, and know a little about having an occupying army on the soil of my country, I follow the debate with interest. Interesting points being made by many on both sides, and we can argue for ever (as Argentina and the UK do) as to who was there first, etc....

When it comes down to it, in todays (so called) civilized world, the self determination of the people who reside on any land mass should be the determining factor in deciding where the sovereignty lies. As an Irishman, from the North, I accept that the majority population in the North wants to remain a part of the UK at this time. That may change in time, and then we shall see what happens. I see no point in arguing over the way the country was divided by those in authority some 90 years ago - we can't change that - all we can do is move forward to reach a conclusion over time.

The same applies here, with the Malvinas/Falklands. As far as I am aware, the population of the Falklands (sic) wants to remain under the sovereignty of the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, so the issue of self determination is redundant. As for the practicalities of dealing with the issue of resources, which may or may not be abundant, then diplomatic ways of resolving those issues must be found - Not emotional, "We want our land back" arguments.... These will never hold sway, and all they do is cause resentment between people, and get in the way of achieving an amicable resolution to the problem.

Just some thoughts.......

(As an aside.... - While on my Spanish Course at UBA, we were discussing the way that Antartcia is divided up, with all the countries claiming bits of it - I was asked if Ireland had a claim, and answered, "No, but I bet there is an Irish Pub there" - Thats the way we conquer the world - With Guinness!)....

 

[cabrera]

The United Kingdom and it many supporters talk about laws and fair but look at the history of this empire which has strected its tentacles everywhere to exploit and steal the resources that are not rightfully theirs.

Do you guys know when India was independent ? Malaysia? Burma? We are talking just a few generations ago and did they care about the self determination of the inhabitants of those countries.

I do not buy this that they care about the kelpers as they just about wanted to give the islands away 30 years ago as they did not discover the petroleum. Now with the potential resources there they are talking about caring . Mighty convenient is it not......

 

[jp]

The difference between malaysia, india & Burma is that the Falklands have shown unwavering support for being british for the past 177 years.

Whilst the UK might have wanted to give the islands away, the people living there were very vocal about remaining british. So thats the way they have remained.

 

[ElQueso]

Liam, one thing that Ireland has that the Falklands doesn't is a prior history of humans living on it before the English invaded, etc.

The point I would make here is that there were never ANY indigenes living on the islands when the Frensh and British first put settlements on the island. There was never a government-sponsored colony from Spain (that lasted any time) or Argentina on the islands.

If any territory ever occupied by Britain was more clearly theirs I can't think of what it is.

I agree with what you said about the past being the past. You come from a country riddled with political disturbance over the British, have fought the British tooth and nail, and yet can admit that the fact becomes the fact at some point,

Argentina argues from a position so much weaker than that of Northern Ireland and I, personally, can't see a case for it, and it goes on and on and on. If they weren't so bellicose about it to begin with, I have little doubt that the British would have included them in some fashion related to the oil finds at the very least, but why should they when Argentina is the one rattling sabres and then blaming it on Britain? Particularly after having caused a thousand some odd people to be killed because they were just going to take it.

Something Britain NEVER DID to Argentina. Even if you take the 20 some-odd soldiers that Britain returned to Buenos Aires in 1833, they didn't kill a single Argentino, related to the Falklands.

I find it ironic that a Yankee would defend the right of Britain to occupy something that is so far from Britain to begin with, but in international law distance has nothing to do with possession nor rights - and in this case Britain clearly was among the very first to occupy the islands (where Spain and Argentina didn't) and with zero doubt have occupied the islands themselves longer than Patagonia even has been an official part of Argentina.

Self determination says that since those people aren't going to want to be a part of Argentina (made obvious by their own statements) that they shouldn't be, given the manner in which they came to be occupying the islands particularly.

Someone once mentioned previously that if Argentina would have a free market system, a decent judiciary, etc, that it's possible that the islanders would have a different opinion. I'm sorry, but it's very true - what possible reason would they have for wanting to go from a reasonably capitalistic country where progress is possible and the government is stable, not in friendship with people like governments like Chavez's, to a country where the government doesn't care much about its people and the politicians are worse than most at least semi-developed countries or higher (outside of Latin America, anyway) in regards to being in power soley for the money they can get out of being in office?

BTW - I'm not saying that any country is free of that - and the US is going through problems right now specifically because the politicians are too corrupt and looking out for themselves, their power and their money. I see a time in the US where it will be as screwed up economically and politically as Argentina, but with that damned Puritan morality to go on top of it, making it an even worse place! (I mention this because I don't want anyone to think I'm just picking on Argentina - any country that ignores it populace and where the populace believes the lies its government tells while staying in power is going to be int he same boat).

 

[bigbadwolf]

The difference between malaysia, india & Burma is that the Falklands have shown unwavering support for being british for the past 177 years.

Whilst the UK might have wanted to give the islands away, the people living there were very vocal about remaining british. So thats the way they have remained.

Before the '82 spat the British government was discussing stripping them of their citizenship. The unwavering support ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

 

[malbec]

Even if you take the 20 some-odd soldiers that Britain returned to Buenos Aires in 1833

Some families were there too...you know, without women there couldn't have been a "first person born on the islands". She happened to be Argentine.

Britain clearly was among the very first to occupy the islands

Aha. You admit they weren't the first. The first were the French, who handed the rights on the islands to Spain.

what possible reason would they have for wanting to go from a reasonably capitalistic country where progress is possible and the government is stable, not in friendship with people like governments like Chavez's, to a country where the government doesn't care much about its people and the politicians are worse than most at least semi-developed countries or higher

You could start asking the many expats reading this forum

 

[jp]

Before the '82 spat the British government was discussing stripping them of their citizenship. The unwavering support ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

It does.
The Islanders have long had a very vocal lobby in westminster which has made any discussions of sovereignty difficult. This dates back for decades.

The UK would be much better off cooperating with Argentina over the development of the oil fields, but there's a stalemate between two non-negotiable positions of the islanders insisting on remaining british, and argentina insisting that everything is theirs.