Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  besty

  CONVENTION between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship.—Signed at Buenos Ayres, November 24, 1849.

  ---

  [Ratifications exchanged at Buenos Ayres, May 15, 1850.]

  ---

  Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation.

  If Las Malvinas was important it would have been included. Period. If I'm buying your house we don't exclude mention of the garden in the contract because we can't agree on who gets it. Duh. We would agree to call it out and settle later - or much more likely - no deal. Even as a footnote*

  For context the Brits and the French wanted to go home, having defeated the Argentines at great cost. The Argentines wanted their river back and the establishment of free trade. Please - its insulting our intelligence to suggest that Rosas and the Brits couldn't agree on a couple of rocks 2000km away to sweeten the deal one way or the other. The most likely truth is the Brits said 'no way Hose' and your man at the time rolled over to get his river back. The islands were not important to him - he had bigger fish to fry locally and wasn't in a position to project naval power 2km never mind 2000km.

  I accept there may not have been consecutive 50 year gaps in diplomatic protest, but the point remains that it was sufficiently unimportant as an issue for multiple decadal periods to elapse on numerous occasions.

  And your thoughts on the Argentine rejection of the International Court offer in 1947?

  * PS this convention of perfect friendship and settlement of existing differences excludes Las Malvinas because we can't fix that one in this particular Treaty. Watch this space.
• 

  cedars

  After taking advice from another JWN poster, and I'm signing off on this thread.

  I must reluctantly question Emilie's motives for joining this forum when she contributes so heavily to this thread and barely touches others. Besides, in attempting to reason with her I am only giving her the platform she craves. I also believe the strange formatting she uses makes it difficult for all but the most committed of posters to interject in the discussion.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fair and reasonable debate. However, I believe Emilie is trying to drive home a political agenda here and shows little interest in dwelling for any length on opposing views. Therefore, a thread that was intended for debate is turning into a soap box for one poster, and I've had enough. I simply have better things to do with my time than try to convince someone that 3,500 islanders should have their rights to self-determination respected. For me, it's a cut-and-dried issue, but if Emilie thinks differently, then she's entitled to think that way.

  Emilie, the floor is yours. Go nuts. I look forward to seeing you around on other threads and hearing your views on all things JW-related.

  Cedars
• 

  besty

  cedars - the thread is in Politics and Current Affairs so no expectation of JW related stuff

  Its not an issue I have considered in detail before so I am pleased to expand my knowledge on the subject - I am in no hurry to conclude the debate although I think once I see her thoughts on 1947 I am about done too. She has responded in detail on all the points I have raised in a fair and reasonable way, which I have been impressed by.

  As I mentioned earlier I avoid the soap operas of the 'who are they, why are they here' - its the fuckin' Internet - you will likely never know so i proceed on the basis that I don't care.

  PS - if anybody want to PM me and tell me to stop posting on a thread I will tell them politely they are confusing me with someone who cares :-)
• 

  cedars

  besty - of course this is a political thread, and I never said this should be anything other than that in my comment above. I'm just saying it's a shame Emilie has so much to say on this subject but comparitively little to say on anything else on this forum. There is more to life than endlessly arguing over the minutae of historical events that happened 180 years ago, and I look forward to the day Emilie realizes this, for her sake.

  I'm glad you've enjoyed this thread and learned something from it. At least somebody is able to process facts!!

  Cedars
• 

  cofty

  I am enjoying the debate. I agree that the wishes of the Islanders are paramount but its interesting to see more about the history of the Falkland's dispute.

  I think Emilie has shown dignity throughout. So what if she turns out to the Argentine minister of information, its been informative.

  I'm glad besty has had the energy and interest to present the UK side of the argument so effectively.
• 

  besty

  hey cofty

  My 0.02 on the whole Falklands things is this:

  In life we all get a variety of breaks - good and bad. And that shapes who and what we are, what we achieve etc. In business, the same - and frequently timing is the most important part of a successful outcome.

  Countries likewise - hence my earlier reference to Guns Germs and Steel*. The UK cannot have a 1 billion population. The UK cannot have land borders with other trading partners. The UK cannot have the climate of California. The UK cannot have the mineral resources of Australia.

  Modern 'Britain' dates to 1066 - we have had a lot of experience in war, victory and defeat, nation and state building, diplomacy etc. Argentina is 150 -200 years old - they are still learning this stuff, and to a background of economic volatility.

  Argentina cannot rewind history and be born into a different time period, nor can either party rewrite the Falklands outcome on what look to me like flimsy claims on either side. That might suck for a variety of reasons, but unless Argentina has the appetite for invasion, I don't think there is a diplomatic solution anytime soon.

  Once they figure out the difference between honey and vinegar maybe they can make some progress.

  * Life isn't fair--here's why: Since 1500, Europeans have, for better and worse, called the tune that the world has danced to. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond explains the reasons why things worked out that way. It is an elemental question, and Diamond is certainly not the first to ask it. However, he performs a singular service by relying on scientific fact rather than specious theories of European genetic superiority. Diamond, a professor of physiology at UCLA, suggests that the geography of Eurasia was best suited to farming, the domestication of animals and the free flow of information. The more populous cultures that developed as a result had more complex forms of government and communication--and increased resistance to disease. Finally, fragmented Europe harnessed the power of competitive innovation in ways that China did not. (For example, the Europeans used the Chinese invention of gunpowder to create guns and subjugate the New World.) Diamond's book is complex and a bit overwhelming. But the thesis he methodically puts forth--examining the "positive feedback loop" of farming, then domestication, then population density, then innovation, and on and on--makes sense. Written without bias, Guns, Germs, and Steel is good global history.
• 

  cofty

  Besty I agree.

  As I get older I find pragmatism has a calming effect on my idealism.
• 

  besty
• 

  tornapart

  Besty: unless Argentina has the appetite for invasion, I don't think there is a diplomatic solution anytime soon.

  True... they tried it 30 years ago and it didn't work then, I don't think they will try it again. And they've burned their bridges on the diplomatic front. If they want to keep hankering after those islands it's up to them but they'll be doing it for a long long time.
• 

  Abaddon

  The Falklands are British due to historical accident, just as Gibraltar is.

  This means the resident populations regard themselves as British. There are votes to be gained from political posturing about keeping them British because that is what the residents want. Thatcher would probably not have been re-elected were it not for the Falklands.

  What government would be re-elected after giving up a wind-blown rock covered in sheep or a sun-baked rock covered in macaques after television coverage of the protesting residents and the arrival of ‘refugees’ damning the cowardly government?

  And now oil reserves have been discovered near the Falklands. So, the chances of Britain ceding the Falklands is, ooo, about zero. And the Argentinians have no military ability what-so-ever to successfully take the Falklands, but there are votes to be gained from political posturing in Argentina, just like everywhere else.