Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Anything else you want to talk about.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:05 pm

Some Argentinians are freely allowed, indeed encouraged, to go to the Falklands, as some of their war dead are buried there. This is done by international agreement between Britain and Argentina, agreed as a condition of the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries after the end of the Falklands War.These Argentine families have never posed a problem.

Argentine citizens can get to the Falklands via Montevideo (Uruguay) in the same way as any other foreign citizens, subject to the immigration checks on arrival. There is no bar as far as I am aware from an Argebtine national going to live there, provided they accept the existing legal and language structures of the community.
Before the 1982 Argentine invasion there were several Argentine nationals living on the islands. They had escaped from the military regime of Galteieri and wanted nothing to do with Argentine invasion, which in fact put them in a greater danger than the British nationals there faced.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby paul.mercer » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:55 pm

RF wrote:Britain no longer has the military or naval strength to refight the Falklands campaign of 1982 - no carriers for a start.

The strategy is to keep the islands from being invaded - using the bare minimum of military forces on the islands.

The problem are politicians who no longer believe in Britain being a genuine independent country, who would rather use billions of pounds of taxpayers money to bankroll the European Union and bail out the Euro, rather than spend on the military. This CONservative coalition government has cut British military spending even more rigourously than the previous Labour government would have done.

If the Falklands were American, with US civilians there - the Argentinians wouldn't dare make a peep, not even with Obama as president.


Oh, well said, could'nt agree more!

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby Vic Dale » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:46 am

Every time a politician gets themselves into a scrape they find some long lost cause to campaign for.

In 1982, General Galtieri the military dictator of Argentina was facing a massive general strike and was about to be ejected from power, so he started banging the Falklands/Malvinas drum and many of his people fell for it. His mistake lay in believing his own propaganda - the idiot actually invaded.

At about the same time, Margaret Thatcher, having butchered British industry to the point where one third of manufacturing was lost, was well and truly on the political skids and about to receive a visit from the men in grey suits who would relieve her of her responsibilities.

With Galtieri banging the war drums like mad in Argentina, someone among the British elite had the brainwave of removing the long standing naval patrols around the Falklands. All the time those ships were there, Galtieri could bang on all he liked about British Imperialism, but there was nothing he could do about it. When the Fleet withdrew it's ships, Presto! Now there was something he could do about it. His bluff had been called and there was no where for him to save face except through an invasion.

Now forgive me for being a cynical old bugger, but doesn't withdrawing the fleet at that time look a bit suspect? A bit of an opportunity? A come-on for Galtieri? As far as Thatcher's political future was concerned she now secure and I can recall watching her at the time and thinking, "She knows she's got it made and she is cock-a-hoop - though playing it down for all she is worth."

I don't personally accuse Margaret Thatcher being a schemer, she never had the brains for that, but someone knew full well what to do and it only cost 258 British lives, 700 wounded, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels sunk. That moved saved Thatcher, only so she could shoot her political brains out years later with the Poll Tax stupidity, which brought the men in grey suits to her house. Some people never learn.

Now for Thatcher's bete noire - Niel Kinnock. He found his own personal side issue to get involved in and you have to hand it to him for originality. When British miners were battling it out with Margaret Thatcher - 1984 -'85, he suddenly discovered the issue of all time, the Elgin Marbles. Instead of answering the convoluted (his favourite big word) and extremely complex question, regarding whether or not a labour leader should support striking men, he decided to do all he could to restore the Marbles to their rightful owner - Greece - and spent the whole year "Romancing the Stones" and allowing the strikers and the country to go hang.

To this day, as a tribute to his untiring work, the stones still reside in the British Museum. Niel Kinnock's contribution to international culture and understanding should never be forgotten. A modest soul himself, Niel has tried his best to avoid the limelight on this moment in history, but the man has made his mark and he should never be allowed to forget it.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:10 am

Vic Dale wrote:Now forgive me for being a cynical old bugger, but doesn't withdrawing the fleet at that time look a bit suspect? A bit of an opportunity? A come-on for Galtieri? As far as Thatcher's political future was concerned she now secure and I can recall watching her at the time and thinking, "She knows she's got it made and she is cock-a-hoop - though playing it down for all she is worth."

I don't personally accuse Margaret Thatcher being a schemer, she never had the brains for that, but someone knew full well what to do and it only cost 258 British lives, 700 wounded, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels sunk. That moved saved Thatcher,


I doubt this for two reasons.

Firstly the Falklands campaign was a very close run thing. Not because of the Argentinians but because of the sheer logistics of the operation and the small resources overall at Britain's disposal. The political elite in Britain, including the senior civil servants, expected that the UK would break off dipolmatic relations and freeze whatever Argentine assets they could. They didn't expect a military campaign to recover the islands - that was Margaret Thatchers' personal decision and initially even some of her cabinet colleagues such as Lord Carrington didn''t go along with it.
To plan such a move to trick the Argentinians into invading would require an almost Hitlerian like gamble and Machiavellan cynicism at the top levels of government - it isn't credible. The British Foreign Office civil servants wanted Britain to negotiate an Argentinian takeover of the islands - Galteiri's brinkmanship stopped that.

Secondly, just as with Watergate any such plot as you suggest would ultimately be fully exposed. Nothing to back your theory has come to light even after thirty years and the death of Thatcher. And as the case of Jimmy Saville demonstrated, it is just after you die that the skeletons really do pile out of your cupboard.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby Vic Dale » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:42 pm

This is one of the Reasons I do not attribute it to Thatcher's thinking, I just don't think she'd have had the Brain to work it out, though the comparison with Hitler and Machiavelli do seem to fit the bill. Saddam Hussein took matters into his own hands when he invaded Kuwait, a territory he had been promised in the past. He acted without thinking it through.

Withdrawing the fleet at that time does make for a wonderful coincidence and as far as the dirt coming out in the wash goes, there were a great many things about the Falklands war which would not be likely to come out until everyone involved is dead and gone. The true facts about Col. H Jones VC for instance have not had much of an airing, despite word of mouth tales about the use of idiotic tactics and from where the bullets which killed him actually came. It is widely thought among service personnel I have spoken to that those were not Argentinian bullets.

If the intelligence services were involved in withdrawing the Fleet, in order to wrong foot a dictator, call his bluff and make him shut his mouth and which ultimately back fired, then that would be something to cover up long after Thatcher was dead. It might have been thought that actually strengthening Thatcher against the rather left wing Micheal Foot, with a little war would be a good thing. If we are looking for an unstoppable right wing backlash which would set the British labour movement back 30 years and more and make the outcome of the future clash with the miners a foregone Tory victory, then planning the Falklands war will have been a brilliant tactic.

Not for nothing did G W Bush get into power. It was his dull wits, inaudible speech and lack of command of his native tongue which made him the perfect cover for more deadly and devious brains - Rumsfeld and Cheney for example. Thatcher played it dumb right to the end and it is this which makes me think the issue goes far deeper than even she knew.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:12 pm

It is noticeable that things in Argentina have appeared to have gone rather quiet on this issue.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby Byron Angel » Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:22 am

Indeed, Maggie was such a notable dunce. It' a wonder how she stumbled through Oxford. And God only knows how she then ended up as Prime Minister of Great Britain ..... what .... three times? And that thing with the Miners' Union ..... dumb luck? And the education reform ..... had to have been more dumb luck.

Absolutely certain ..... Maggie was a really stupid woman: one for the ages.

[/sarc]

B

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby paul.mercer » Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:07 pm

Nicely put Byron!

Benjamin
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby Benjamin » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:52 am

But one thing you people forget is that the Falkland islanders are not entitled to the right of self-determination because the Falkland Islands (Malvinas in Spanish) are a colonial territory included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories awaiting decolonization. Local referendums are not recognized by the UN.
Gibraltar is a similar example.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:03 am

This is a contradiction of terms.

You are saying that a ''colonial'' people are not entitled to vote in an election or referendum to decide whether they wish to remain ''colonial'' or become independent or become part of another country. If the Falkland islanders did want to join Argentina and voted for it in a referendum you can be pretty sure that Argentina and the United Nations would be the first to recognise that referendum and congratulate the islanders on their ''wise'' decision. Puerto Rico is in a similar position, it has votes every decade or so on its future, to retain US Commonwealth status, or become a US state, or become independent. These referendums aren't disputed by anybody, and consistently produce three way splits. But of course an outside country doesn't want to take it and that is the crucial distinction.

As for colonial - well wasn't Argentina once a Spanish territory, is it not ex-colonial? Does it not have a right to decide its future, to elect its government? The British were in the Falklands, as indeed were the French, before Argentina became an independent country, the Argentines held it for nine months in 1832 and even then they were not formally recognised at the time by the Argentine government.

As for territory being stolen, well let Argentina set an example and return the Formosa province back to Paraguay after Argentina annexed it after the War of the Triple Alliance ended in 1870 so that Asuncion would be right on the Argentine border.

Gibraltar is an entirely different issue as both it and Spain as well as Britain comes under the ambit of the EU. But there again, if Spain would like Gibraltar then would the Spanish like to set an example and restore Ceuta and Mellila to Morocco?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Benjamin
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby Benjamin » Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:49 am

In the case of colonial territories the principle of territorial integrity prevails over the right to self-determination. That is why the UN declares these Refedendums as not valid because they are contrary to the principle of territorial integrity. Imagine if a group of people from say Ireland had established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland. Can you imagine the threat to world peace and stability that would ensue if such action were legal? That's the logic behind the legal criteria that limits the right to self-determination and why as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser can't legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonizing.

If the Falkland islanders did want to join Argentina and voted for it in a referendum you can be pretty sure that Argentina and the United Nations would be the first to recognise that referendum and congratulate the islanders on their ''wise'' decision.

But a colonizing power would never allow a referendum to take place if it knew it would go against its wishes in the first place. These referendums are really just a tool used by the colonizing power to legitimate their position over the country whose territorial integrity is being threatened.

You also mentioned Puerto Rico, and Ceuta and Melilla, but these territories are not colonies. The Spanish enclaves for example, are fully integrated into Spain's political system and have full representation in Madird just like any other region of the Spanish mainland. The Falklands and Gibraltar on the other hand, don't have a seat at Westminster. I don't know much about the Formosa province or if it is still disputed by Paraguay, but the UN does not consider that territory a colony either.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:56 am

Benjamin wrote:In the case of colonial territories the principle of territorial integrity prevails over the right to self-determination.


This is why I call the matter of listing ''colonial'' teritories and then denying the right of self-determination for people's therein a contradiction of terms. It is done by the sponsors of this move assuming that the population of such ''colonies'' have no free will and act as an occupation force for the ''colonial power.''

In the case of the Falklands, Gibraltar and also Belize, successive British governments have made it clear by public pronouncement that these territories remain British only because the local poulations wish to remain British. If these populations didn't want to remain British then the British government would recognise that. If the population of the Falklands wanted to join Argentina then the British government would accept that and negotiations would be opened for a transfer of sovereignty and the Falklands would become the Malvinas. The UN is assuming that such a thing couldn't happen - but Britain and the Falklands are a democracy and I can tell you that if the Falkland islanders didn't want to be British then the British public and government would be very happy to pull out and save themselves all the huge amounts of taxpayers money that is being poured into these islands, not to mention the military commitments that distorts Britain's defence budget.

There is another aspect to the quote above. I think we are agreed that the inhabitants of the Falklands are the decendents of the original colonists and later immigrants thereto. However the greater part of the population of Argentina are also the decendents of colonists and later immigrants so to that extent does the ''European'' ethnicity of that population have any greater right to self-determination in the eyes of the UN than those of the Falklands? Are not the population of Argentina a ''colonial'' people derived principally from Spain? Is not therefore the concept of Argentina as a political entity an entirely artificial one based on the original administrative demarcations of the Spanish colonial regime? Does ''Argentina'' not therefore belong to the idigenous South American Indian tribes who alone should determine their future and of the territory called Argentina?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:17 am

Benjamin wrote: Imagine if a group of people from say Ireland had established an Irish colony on the eastern coast of England and then claimed a right under the principle of self-determination to have the land they are occupying declared a part of Ireland. Can you imagine the threat to world peace and stability that would ensue if such action were legal?


If its legal and done by popular consent then I would have no problem whatsoever with part of the North Sea coast of England being part of Ireland. Neither would the rest of the people in England.
Neither for that matter would I have any personal problem about Scotland or Wales becoming indepedent of Britain and being independent countries if that is what their electorates want.

What would happen if part of the eastern coast of England were part of Ireland is that with open borders and the process of trade the Irish part of England would very quickly become Anglicised and almost indistinguishable from the rest of England. In time it probably would vote to be part of England purely because of convenience and the economic benefits.
A lot of Irish and Scots have lived and worked in England for many generations without any major problems. I assume that in using this example you are thinking of the nineteenth century problems over Irish nationalism and over who rules Ireland, and the later terrorism campaigns of the Irish Republican Army. But that really relates to the territory of Eire. The issue of Northern Ireland and its sovereignty is the same as for the Falklands, it remains British only if the local population desires it. If the six counties of Northern Ireland wished to join the twenty six counties of Eire then so be it.

If you alternatively are thinking of geography then I would point out that the country of Eire is much closer to England (let alone Wales and Scotland) than the Falklands are to Argentina.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:36 am

Benjamin wrote:I
That's the logic behind the legal criteria that limits the right to self-determination and why as a matter of common sense and international law, a coloniser can't legally disrupt the territorial integrity of another State by implanting its own population unto the territory it is colonizing.


This is more applicable to countries like the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania where after annexation by the USSR in 1940 and after world war two Stalin displaced a large part of the original population and implanted over a million ethnic Russians. However for political convenience this is not an issue recognised by the UN not least because the USSR was a member of the Security Council, with its veto!

The Falklands had no idigenous population (unlike Arghentina). The British settled there, displacing alleged pirates of Argentinian nationality that the Argentine government at the time didn't support or recognise. Logically as I see it the Argentines have no more of a valid claim over this territory than they would, to use your examples, of say Gibraltar or eastern England.
Neither is there any economic affinity or cultural links of the type that would have existed using your example of an Irish territorial enclave in England. The Falklands and Argentina are entirely separate entities with no natural or economic links. Indeed in terms of economic links these are closer to Uruguay and Chile than they are to Argentina because Argentina refuses to trade with the ''colonials.''
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Argentina's latest claim on the Falklands

Postby RF » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:45 am

Benjamin wrote:
But a colonizing power would never allow a referendum to take place if it knew it would go against its wishes in the first place. These referendums are really just a tool used by the colonizing power to legitimate their position over the country whose territorial integrity is being threatened.


This is an argument more appropriate to the Axis countries of world war two, or to the like of Saddam Hussein in Iraq/Kuwait, or to Stalin in the USSR.

Britain is a democracy with responsibilities to outlying territories originally part of the British Empire. It doesn't regard these territories as conquests to be held at all costs. These resposibilities remain only for so long as the peoples of those territories wish Britain to be the protecting power.

As I have said - the islanders are of the Falklands, they are not a tool of anybody but themselves, they have no automatic right to live in the UK unless they have British citizenship by previously being born in the UK. If they want to be independent or part of Argentina then the British flag over Port Stanley goes. Its as simple as that.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest