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

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  besty

  What did Argentina do to warrant this invasion?

  Too simplistic - the Buenos Aires government (no Argentina in those days) and British government were both claiming rights to different parts of the island. The British asserted their claim more forcefully and backed it up.

  Argentina (as was) failed to carpe diem in the null periods between French, Spanish, British and American presence. Post 1811 for example 'Argentina' could have walked in and owned it. Why not? Too far away? Not worth it? Better things to do?

  What was so important that the UK thought they had to invade a territory they abandoned 59 years earlier?

  Other distractions concluding in 1815 meant we turned our greedy colonizing eye back to less important matters :-)

  How did the British claims to Port Egmont transfer to the entire archipelago?

  To the victor the spoils. Countries with the means and desire to project power have frequently gained territorial and resource advantage. In this case I don't see much harm in 'capturing' some remote islands with next to nobody on them.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  I’m so sorry, Chariklo, that I am wasting so much of your dear time spent on re-educating me. “*sigh* Oh dear. One more time”. WTF was that? If you have an opinion, then just state it. Arrogance and condescension toward me proves nothing. So, the British did NOT invade in 1833 because the islands were already theirs. Tell me please, what, when, and where exactly did they have this phantom British settlement after the abandonment of Port Egmont in 1774? How could the British have already owned the islands in 1833 when they had absolutely no official presence or settlement from 1774 to the taking of Puerto Luis in 1833?

  So if I am reading you carefully, there was indeed an Argentine governor (Luis Vernet) in place in 1831, but the settlement was sacked by the Americans in Vernet’s absence and his deputy arrested. The Argentines then sent a new governor in 1832, but he was soon killed by mutineers. The highest ranking Argentine officer in the Malvinas at the time took de facto control, which you counter was illegal. So how was this remedied? After a 59 year absence from their failed Port Egmont settlement, British warships entered Puerto Luis and took it upon themselves to expel the acting governor.

  So indeed the colony was in a state of transition, some might even say civil war or unrest. So, as you tell it, is this the British Doctrine of the day? Wherever there is an uprising, restive population, and/or lack of a permanent governor, then British warships have the right to swoop in, install a governor of their own, claim the entire colony for the Crown, and send in settlers? The French have an island in the South Indian Ocean called “Kerguelen”. The French and Britain’s Captain Cook both discovered it around the same time, with Cook naming it “Desolation Island”. There is no real government set up there, and it is populated by French scientists. Are you ready to send warships down there because you don’t consider Kerguelen a duly constituted colony?

  The Argentine claim to the Malvinas has its holes for sure. I can admit that; the main one being that the settlement was in disarray by the time the British arrived. I just don’t see how the British claim would supersede ours based on one abandoned post in Port Egmont in 1774. The British claim is even more tenuous when you throw in that they did not found Puerto Luis, nor did it ever serve as their administrative centre until 1833. If you want to go by treaty, then Britain had a right to re-occupy Port Egmont only. New settlements were forbidden by the Nootka Sound Conventions of the 1790’s. Spain gave up her claims to the Pacific Northwest, while Britain agreed to stay away from Spain’s colonial possessions. This treaty was not honoured, and so the original fall of the Malvinas can be attributed to an act of piracy by the Americans in 1831, and the British takeover in 1833.

  Please don’t sigh to me or speak down to me again as if I were a little girl. We are here for discussion and debate, and I certainly did not sign up to be in your classroom. It was rude and un-called for.
• 

  dgp

  Bookmarked for later.
• 

  Diest

  Besty's chart said it all....Spanish ownership does not convert to Argentine ownership. Should Cuba get Puerto Rico because it was realitively close and both were owned by Spain?

  After hear Emile talk about this, I am starting to think it is a South American Past time to go on worring about wars that were decieded 100+ years ago.(Boliva and Chile, Chile and Peru, Brazil and Paraguy)

  Granted most governments like to distract from the main issues at hand by using nationalistic false crisis. It just seems that some group latch on harder than others.
• 

  Chariklo

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention

  First Nootka Convention

  The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements. [ 5 ] [ 6 ]
• 

  cyberjesus

  Please dont roll your eyes at me!
• 

  Chariklo

  LOL!
• 

  moshe

  You want to talk about injustice? Try looking at what happened to the Cherokee indian nation - the Falklands is nothing compared to their Trail of Tears.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Even if we were to ignore the rights of successor states such as Spain to Argentina, this proves nothing. Fine, throw out the Nootka Convention and let’s call it null and void. What it does is allow any party (British, Spanish, Argentine, Chilean, etc.) to found new settlements on the Malvinas. Britain of course retained her rights to Port Egmont as well. We still have a long road to justifying Britain taking Puerto Luis and claiming the entire colony. When Britain abandoned Port Egmont in 1774, they left a plaque claiming “Falkland’s Island” (notice the singular tense). (Later plaques, including the reproduction on Saunders Island are careful to say “Falkland’s Islands”) They were well aware of the establishment of Puerto Luis in the east and did not claim it.

  Sorry, but there is no “South American pastime” to flesh out previous grievances. We have a shared history, but ultimately we have different national characters. It is not just because the Malvinas lie off our coast that we claim them. We had a continuous establishment there from 1821 to 1833. Though we were forced out, we don’t buy into the “we won, you lost” argument. We looked forward to having our rights re-established there during the decolonisation period. This was not to be, and now we look with sorrow towards our islands. Our “lost southern pearl”, as the Malvinas March song states. We don’t delude ourselves into think that we are just going to get them back all of a sudden. But we refuse to give legitimacy to what we consider to be an illegal invasion and occupation of our territory.

  Then start a thread on the Cherokee for God's sake! This one is about the Malvinas.
• 

  Chariklo

  Well, Emilie, you arrived on this board three days ago. We welcomed you, despite your confrontational choice of nickname.

  Now, three days later, after shifting ground again and again as one argument and another is disproved, you choose to pontificate about what people should or should not say here, how they should behave, and even what should be talked about.

  You complain about an injustice that did not even take place. Moshe reminded you quite correctly of just one of the real injustices in the world...a very dreadful instance indeed.

  As to your latest argument...oh, for goodness sake, there was no "continuous establishement of the Falklands by the Argentinians between 1821 and 1833". Read the history. Reading the history will tell you also that the islands were already British.

  But it seems to me that we could spend hours proving to you that red is red and you would still shift your ground and say that we had stolen its colour from blue.

  Ridiculous!