Will the Falklands debacle soon be repeated?
- Thread starter scarface
- Start date
scarface said:
The UK doesn't own the islands, and doesn't see a penny from the oil. All the oil revenues go to the islanders. They get the revenue from granting exploration licenses, and if oil is struck the revenues will be split between the islanders and the company which extracts oil. The UK treasury won't see a penny.
The UK treats the Falklands as an independent county which chooses to be British. It has no claim over the islands resources, and doesn't benefit from the islands economically.
There was an agreement between the Falklands and Argentina to share any hydrocarbon reserves that were found. It had been in place since the 90s, but the current administration withdrew from the treaty, because they consider the natural resources of the islands exclusively theirs. So in effect they rejected sharing, in favour of having nothing whilst claiming everything.
Not got much to add to this tired debate, but its interesting that every time this story rears its head, the same fallacies are trotted out by journalists, pundits, politicians and opinionated hollywood celebrities.
El chabon said:
Can someone take this seriously? I guess they do, as I saw this kind of argument repeated elsewhere. Such a claim would be nothing like the Argentinian for Malvinas/Falklands because:
1) Paraguay hasn't been claiming those territories for about 140 years. So the matter, if there was one, would have prescribed.
2) That period started when she signed a treaty agreeing to those territories being Argentine.
3) Before that treaty, those territories were disputed by both nations as part of the struggle for the formation of the nations of South America. There were pending claims and some land had changed de-facto control shortly before.
4) Moreover, before the treaty, Argentina could claim some right based on conquest, given that it was the XIX century and a struggle between nascent nations with unclear boundaries. Just to be clear, she returned much of the land occupied in that (Triple Alliance) war, which started when Paraguay invaded Brazil and Argentina.
For the Argentine claim, the first three points clearly don't apply.
1) She never signed a comparable treaty.
2) Her claims were regular with the exception of a 35-year silence, but that's not enough time for such rights to prescribe according to international law. Besides, near the beginning of that period, the British authority agreed, in written form, that a lack of mention in formal correspondence from Argentina shouldn't be interpreted as an abandonment of her claim.
3) At the time of her takeover in 1833, the UK had no valid claims as there was a prescribing 55-year silence from Britain before 1829, and Argentina was exercising the rights she acquired either, or both, through res nullius or uti possidetis, geographical considerations being just the cherry on the top.
Yet, the fourth point could lead to an interesting discussion. The UK could claim rights based on conquest. But, even though it was the XIX century, would rights from conquest be acceptable for this case? This was not a struggle for the formation of new nations, there were no troubled populations, etc. On the other hand, would the UK be comfortable claiming rights from the conquest of a distant territory from an infant, friendly country?
I'll be happy to provide sources for anything written above.
AndyD said:
But guarani is still spoken in the NorthEast Provinces, while not much Spanish is spoken on the Falklands. The people that now constitute Paraguay - the only nation of the Americas to have a relevant and alive native official language en par with Spanish - extend a lot (like 100%) more to Argentina and Brazil, than Argentina's people language and culture extends to the Falklands
The most amusing thing about this is that every nation seems to live on stolen territory, and in like 99% of the cases this is true. But in one territory of the United Kingdom, the Falklands, the people migrated to a uninhabited land- never inhabited by humans before the French, English, Spanish, Scottish, Americans and Uruguayans settled them.
The Aymara that settled Tierra del Fuego knew about Isla de los Estados, but the Falklands were a lot farther, it's the only part of the Americas that was actually not "stolen" from the natives. It's tremendously amusing how Argentina plays the indigenous or "extended continental shelf" card on this.
Even more amusing than China claiming islands that are far more South than her borders...
Matt84, in your argument you are considering Paraguay as a kind of successor of a 'Guaraní nation'. Guaraní heritage is present in Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil, with the Guaraní people having their share of trouble with authority in each of these nations. In Paraguay, their legacy is predominant, but I'm sure that Argentines who speak Guaraní don't consider themselves somewhat Paraguayan, to put an example. Unless they or their close ancestors are immigrants from that country, of course, but I guess welcoming immigrants shouldn't be a reason for losing territory...
The fact that the Guaraní language is official in Paraguay (BTW, it is also in Bolivia and the Argentine province of Corrientes) is not the reflection of a political representation of these indigenous peoples in Paraguayan governments. When South American nations formed, most of the Guaraní descendants were of mixed, Spanish descent. Many of these 'mestizos' spoke Guaraní, or rather a modern version that had been mixed with Spanish, because the Guaranís were particularly friendly to the Spaniards at the time of the 'conquest', thus the latter didn't crush their culture, and because the Jesuits worked on unifying different dialects, producing one that was more useful and, therefore, more resistant. National (or regional) pride supported the language through more recent times, sometimes spurred by government. There are people who speak Guaraní who have little indigenous ancestry, if any.
Just to be clear, a good portion of the territories that were gotten in the Triple Alliance war, mainly in Chaco and Formosa, were inhabited by other indigenous peoples. Some disliked Paraguay and helped the Argentine army.
I never heard anyone claiming that the British stole the islands from indigenous peoples, the claim is that they 'stole' them from Argentina. The 'extended continental shelf' argument is not the basis of the claim. The quid is that Argentina was the legal possessor of the islands when the British took them illegally in 1833. One of the reasons for not seeing remnants of Argentine culture is that they expelled the Argentine settlers and didn't allow more to go there. Some may argue that only the authorities and soldiers were expelled, not the settlers, but see this response by Andres Cisneros.
For a number of reasons, the legal framework used to organize the world has disregarded indigenous peoples. Therefore, now that we are not looking down on these populations as our ancestors did, our sense of justice tells us that their territories were stolen, but attempting to revert that situation would be pretty much unfeasible. However, with Malvinas, the legal framework does apply and it is not impossible to work together on enforcing rights attributed by that framework. So, I agree that the islands were one exceptional piece of territory as they weren't 'stolen' from Amerindians. They were 'stolen' from a formal nation and that is why it corresponds to treat this case differently.
I believe there may be, hopefully, one parallel with the case of the northern provinces after all, because the region blossomed after the Triple Alliance war and the boundary treaties that followed. I'm not interested in chauvinist rhetoric, name giving or troubling the islanders, what I would like to have are conditions for a peaceful and straightforward settlement of sovereignty in the Southern Atlantic and Antarctic territory when its time comes, as it may come in a few decades -- the hypothetical Malvinas oil is most probably just the tip of the iceberg regarding to what the region has to offer resource-wise, given the increasing demand for commodities. We most certainly agree that all countries would benefit from a civil settlement, one that doesn't have us, or our descendants, wasting time, spending on the military and distracting attention from other problems. Just like South America benefited from agreeing on its boundaries 140 years ago. But for that we first need to talk about these islands and make historical and legal reasons better known.
The fact that the Guaraní language is official in Paraguay (BTW, it is also in Bolivia and the Argentine province of Corrientes) is not the reflection of a political representation of these indigenous peoples in Paraguayan governments. When South American nations formed, most of the Guaraní descendants were of mixed, Spanish descent. Many of these 'mestizos' spoke Guaraní, or rather a modern version that had been mixed with Spanish, because the Guaranís were particularly friendly to the Spaniards at the time of the 'conquest', thus the latter didn't crush their culture, and because the Jesuits worked on unifying different dialects, producing one that was more useful and, therefore, more resistant. National (or regional) pride supported the language through more recent times, sometimes spurred by government. There are people who speak Guaraní who have little indigenous ancestry, if any.
Just to be clear, a good portion of the territories that were gotten in the Triple Alliance war, mainly in Chaco and Formosa, were inhabited by other indigenous peoples. Some disliked Paraguay and helped the Argentine army.
I never heard anyone claiming that the British stole the islands from indigenous peoples, the claim is that they 'stole' them from Argentina. The 'extended continental shelf' argument is not the basis of the claim. The quid is that Argentina was the legal possessor of the islands when the British took them illegally in 1833. One of the reasons for not seeing remnants of Argentine culture is that they expelled the Argentine settlers and didn't allow more to go there. Some may argue that only the authorities and soldiers were expelled, not the settlers, but see this response by Andres Cisneros.
For a number of reasons, the legal framework used to organize the world has disregarded indigenous peoples. Therefore, now that we are not looking down on these populations as our ancestors did, our sense of justice tells us that their territories were stolen, but attempting to revert that situation would be pretty much unfeasible. However, with Malvinas, the legal framework does apply and it is not impossible to work together on enforcing rights attributed by that framework. So, I agree that the islands were one exceptional piece of territory as they weren't 'stolen' from Amerindians. They were 'stolen' from a formal nation and that is why it corresponds to treat this case differently.
I believe there may be, hopefully, one parallel with the case of the northern provinces after all, because the region blossomed after the Triple Alliance war and the boundary treaties that followed. I'm not interested in chauvinist rhetoric, name giving or troubling the islanders, what I would like to have are conditions for a peaceful and straightforward settlement of sovereignty in the Southern Atlantic and Antarctic territory when its time comes, as it may come in a few decades -- the hypothetical Malvinas oil is most probably just the tip of the iceberg regarding to what the region has to offer resource-wise, given the increasing demand for commodities. We most certainly agree that all countries would benefit from a civil settlement, one that doesn't have us, or our descendants, wasting time, spending on the military and distracting attention from other problems. Just like South America benefited from agreeing on its boundaries 140 years ago. But for that we first need to talk about these islands and make historical and legal reasons better known.
pauper
Registered
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,557
- Likes
- 2,029
Meanwhile Sean Penn has now definitively solved the Falklands issue:
I have to say is it any surprise that a pompous buffoon brimming with self importance and unable to engage in the barest minimum of critical analysis of his own deluded ego let alone the tired dogma he subscribes to has attached himself with such leg humping fervour to La Patria Argentina?
PS - Mr. Penn, or should I address you by your job description, Useful Idiot at Large for Argentina, there are some Mexicans waiting for you to hand over your Malibu house.
It's just a shame that the Guardian chose to use Google Translate to try to make comprehensible in English what Sean wrote in... whatever Sean's native tongue is.
I have to say is it any surprise that a pompous buffoon brimming with self importance and unable to engage in the barest minimum of critical analysis of his own deluded ego let alone the tired dogma he subscribes to has attached himself with such leg humping fervour to La Patria Argentina?
PS - Mr. Penn, or should I address you by your job description, Useful Idiot at Large for Argentina, there are some Mexicans waiting for you to hand over your Malibu house.
Andy,
So far the most interesting and intelligent - stupidity lacking argument Ive read.
I thank you for refreshing my neurons.
One question ...
183something argentina.
Can we , consider argentina to be a nation ? or a group of warring states ?
Im not arguing your point at all , nor am I refutting anything you wrote , on the contrary , what you wrote made me think.... Can argentina at the time ( 183somthing) actually be considered a constituted nation ?
So far the most interesting and intelligent - stupidity lacking argument Ive read.
I thank you for refreshing my neurons.
One question ...
183something argentina.
Can we , consider argentina to be a nation ? or a group of warring states ?
Im not arguing your point at all , nor am I refutting anything you wrote , on the contrary , what you wrote made me think.... Can argentina at the time ( 183somthing) actually be considered a constituted nation ?
AndyD said:
Thank you for your expanded notes on Guarani and the formation of Argentina as a nation state, you seem reasonable enough to discuss this without chauvinistic rhetoric.
As for troubling the islanders, I'd say that they've already been "troubled" and continue to be troubled daily (by the embargo) and still they have already reached a consistent decision to remain as British as the collection of people living in Saint Helena, Pitcairn Island or Gibraltar. For this to be settled then Argentina should apologize for what happened in 1982 and lift the embargo so that the growing Patagonian economy can benefit from a second trading partner besides Chile.
But you mention history and nation state formation so I found this map of the "United Provinces" in 1833 - twenty years before the Argentine Republic would be established and constituted. There are other historical maps as well.
It would seem that before the conquest and settlement of Patagonia (and much of the Pampas) and Chaco, the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata was an outgrowth of the Alto Peru ( Bolivia-Tucuman) that stretched to the brackish waters of the Rio de la Plata never quiet touching the ocean.
I read parts of Almirante Brown's autobiography or something of the like and it seems that proto-Argentines, or criollos, were not a very sea-faring people.
Mar del Plata was not settled until 1874
Granted, with permission of Buenos Aires, Ushuaia was founded as an Anglican mission by British Priests around the 1860s and remained as such for twenty more years until the first criollos arrived (with the establishment of the penal colony).
Before the opening of Panama some of the major trade routes, the ones traveled by the Clippers, had to go through that area between the Continent and the Falklands. It is by all means more likely that the British were the people that most visited those coasts with the exception of the native inhabitants, which in the case of the Falklands were not there in the first place!
Consider the Argentine Louis and Clark, Perito Moreno, began scouting Patagonia only in 1873.
By all accounts I could find, Carmen de Patagones was the southernmost Spanish/Provincias-Unidas/Argentine settlement in existence before 1852/3, and Patagonia in general not properly settled until the 1880s, Take a look at the reverse of a 100 peso note.
On the Pacific side however I find Fuerte Bulnes and the more seafaring nature of the Chileans (consider the migration of so many Chiloeans to Magallanes and Southern Chile's Geography - and the fact that they settled Robinson Crusoe Island and even projected on to another Continent, Oceania by taking control of Easter Is).
But how am I to believe that there was an actual "Argentine" or at least criollo settlement in the Malouines in 1833 when everywhere I read that the frontier was set at Rio Saladillo, some 100 miles from Buenos Aires, until Rosas accomplished that first Campaign del Desierto?
In my view it simply doesn't add up.
glasgowjohn
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,510
- Likes
- 1,374
A couple of cruise ships with the British flag were refused entry to the Port of Ushuaia this morning.
The ships continued on to Punta Arenas in Chile.
Someone should ask CFK if she thinks it is OK that the cruise ship passengers spend $US 500,000 in Chile instead of Argentina
The ships continued on to Punta Arenas in Chile.
Someone should ask CFK if she thinks it is OK that the cruise ship passengers spend $US 500,000 in Chile instead of Argentina