by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
LMSA - Please could you answer a question for me?
Who should decide the sovereignty of the Falklands Islands (or Las Malvinas as you would call them)?
I would REALLY like you to tell me who should have the final say in this "conflict" out of the following:
Looking forward to your answer...
Cedars
LMSA, if HMS Dauntless is nasty to you, just let us know, there will always be an Exocet ready.
Qcmbr: Yes, we know you have the military hardware and will to fight for the Malvinas. You don’t need to issue threats like some old cowboy movie. No one here wants an invasion either, so we can scratch that off your list. I do not believe in the threatened blockade at all. They don’t work. Look at the US-Cuba blockade. It has not brought the desired effect of regime change. But to say that we have no claim to the island ignores all pre-1833 history. If you believe that Malvinas history began on 1833, then there’s no purpose arguing with you. It’s a rather convenient way to ignore that an Argentine governor and settlers were forcible removed then.
cedars: I’ll answer your question by logical deduction. First, if a vote on the Malvinas came up in the UN General Assembly on negotiating sovereignty rights (Argentina’s current position), Argentina would have a plurality of votes in favor. As always with UN resolutions, they are non-binding and practically useless. Furthermore, the UK has a permanent veto on the Security Council, and it will use it. Possibly the USA and France would use theirs as well. So the UN is out.
Secondly, the UK has reiterated time and time again that it will respect the wishes of the islanders. In the unlikely event that they wish to become independent or re-unite with Argentina, the British will leave. My point is that this is not up to the UK. They just enforce the islanders’ will.
The real question is whether it should be up to Argentina or the islanders. Our position now is that the islanders do have a right to stay where they are and settle there. No one wants to see Argentine troops landing there and start evicting peaceful civilians. Our previous control and administration of the islands is the basis of our claim. Currently the population of the Malvinas is 3140, with 2/3rds of that population living in Stanley. There are many natural harbours and “towns” that have only a handful of people. Open the islands to Argentine settlers and entrepreneurs. Set up an Argentine ‘Consulate’ in Stanley to facilitate this in cooperation with the ‘Falklands’ authorities. Do not allow squatters and listless people. Give these newcomers a chance to see what they can do with what still is a sparsely populated colony. Give a finite timetable to this like 50 years or so. The new settlers can have Argentine passports with ‘Falklands’ residency permits which only expire if the resident has been absent from the islands for a certain amount of time. The UK prides itself on being multi-cultural today. Why should the same principle not be applied to the Malvinas? After this period of time has elapsed, take a vote under international observeration. Allow the option of joint-sovereignty. Allow the islanders to keep their sheep and Union Jack flag. I think cooperation with Argentina would be preferable to just keeping up this state of hostility in perpetuity. We don’t seek a colony either. What we do want is our rights to the islands to be internationally recognized. The residents now are British and we can’t change that and shouldn’t. But due to the unique nature of the Malvinas issue, we should be allowed to live there if we are to open enterprises and profitable ventures.
So in answer to your question, we should not enforce our will on a population of 3000. But since they are a settler population, we should be allowed similar rights which were taken from us so long ago. The islanders can benefit from a democratic and open Argentina with regular trade and cultural exchanges. Sovereignty issues have to wait due to the still sore feelings about the war. All we want right now is a peaceful and civil exchange of ideas.
I have a silver ‘Liberation’ Crown coin with Elizabeth II on the front, and the Union flag on the back. I do consider it as one of my prized possessions. It’s an ever present sign that war should always be a final alternative, not a quick solution. My greetings and best wishes to my British friends. May we never raise a sword against one another again.
Emilie
Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
LMSA, if HMS Dauntless is nasty to you, just let us know, there will always be an Exocet ready.
HMS Dauntless is an air defense vessel, which includes antiship missile defenses. It is like a British equivalent of an AEGIS CS equipped Arleigh Burke class ship--only newer, more dedicated to area defense and with improvements.
It eats Exocets for lunch.
Actually - it's your government who are issuing the threats - the British are merely ensuring you remember we carry a bigger stick.
When you go to war and get spanked you lose your rights. Had you not gone to war this conversation would be very different. You don't ignore international law, invade a soveriegn territory , get beaten and then get a chance to come back via the legal route. We know very well that if the Argentinian army was strong enough you'd be there in a flash.
You lost them multiple times, the oil isn't yours, the people are British (they aren't settlers anymore no matter how much you'd like that to be so.)
The thing is, Emilie, that you really do not have rights to the Falklands. It is very hard to see why you could possibly think that you do.
http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history6.pdf
Yee-haw!! Ride ‘em cowboy! Yes, we sent some Banana Republic recruits in there, while you sent the Colonial Cops and the Death Star in response. Yes, we lost. If defeating recruits abandoned by their drunk and discredited leaders makes you feel any better about your victory, then so be it. But the fact remains that we did not kill a single civilian or even a British soldier in the initial invasion. In fact, the worst we did was rip your flag down and force you to drive on the right. There have been no threats issued by our government which imply war. There is talk about imposing a blockade, and ships cannot dock in Argentine ports while flying the sheep flag. These are bureaucratic formalities, not invitations to war. We lost them twice. The first time was when we couldn’t defend ourselves, and the second was when our dictators threw an ill-equipped and disorganized crew on the islands and hoped to God that Thatcher would turn around. Just because we got thrown off of our islands twice doesn’t make them any less ours in our eyes. I sought a civil discussion on the Malvinas issue, but you seem to want to shoot off a few rounds in the air to celebrate a victory achieved 30 years ago. I hope you enjoy it. Meanwhile you have an adjacent country of 41 million who want it back. No matter how many times you congratulate yourself, this dispute is not going away.
Charliko - Then Tibet has no right to their land and should just cede it to China. The Palestinians should have just shrugged it off about Palestine and settled in Damascus, Amman, and Cairo. An invasion and subsequent occupation does not make this land yours! A duly appointed Argentine governor and Argentine settlers were expelled. Why do you ignore this?
Emilie
Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
You don't want it "back".
You just want it.
It wasn't yours in the first place.
LMSA - Your reasoning is very colonnial. I would have thought option 4 was obviously the correct answer. Your answer was, in effect, option 1 which was entirely predictable, i.e. "the islands are ours because they're close to Argentina and we want them, and once upon a time someone landed there who liked Paella, so they're ours and who gives a shit what the islanders themselves want?" Fair enough, I've heard it from an Argentinian directly, which was the entire point of this thread. You've also proven that reason, logic and common sense have absolutely nothing to do with it - it's just about land-grabbing, bruised egos and, quite possibly, a greedy eye on oil revenues.
FYI - If the islanders were to vote by majority to become Argentinian, I would support that whole-heartedly (I would have little choice in the matter). The fact is they haven't, and they're the ones who bloody-well live there, so what does it matter what you or I or anyone else has to say either for or against?
I think you're the victim of your country's propaganda machine. Obviously I'm biased, but if the roles were reversed I would be ashamed to find myself on the side that opposes the islanders' right to self-determination.
Cedars
There have been no threats issued by our government which imply war. There is talk about imposing a blockade... These are bureaucratic formalities, not invitations to war.
A blockade is an act of war. If your country attempts this, it will get what it deserves.
And, incidentally, you mentioned that the US maintains a blockade of Cuba. It does not.
