Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy? (page 18)

dgp

Since I am also of Latin American descent, and have relatives of Argentinian descent, I tend to side with Emilie in this. But I only tend to, and probably I will get criticism from both sides.

The way I see it, both England and Argentina have something to back their claims over the islands. The British could argue that nobody was really there and so they took the place. Or that they conquered the islands and so they are British. The Argentines could say that nobody was there, but that doesn't mean the islands were British, and that force alone does not give anyone rights over any land, unless we decide that international law should not matter. And then Argentina has always pushed for the islands to be under its effective control.

I understand that not all the Orkney Islands are inhabited. Does that mean Argentina could send someone to settle there and claim those islands as its own? Before someone says that those islands are very small or whatever, I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

I feel that, in a way, this is very much the same case as in Israel. You can't say the Israelis really had a right to settle there and remove the Palestinians, but the Israelis are there, have been for a long time, and they exist. You can't just shoot them back until they drown in the sea.

I think we all have to deplore the embargo that Latin American countries are imposing on the islands. Not that it has much effect on them, really, but I don't think hunger or economic pressures should be used to make a number of people want to join (or rejoin) a country. We don't like the trade embargo on Cuba. Why should we have a different opinion on the islands?

What I deplore the most is the sad situation of the Argentine people. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is not a democratic president. The claim over the islands serves the purpose of making her appear as a good woman. She clearly isn't. Galtieri did the same thing back in 1982, and now it is in fashion to criticize him over the war, but he did essentially the same thing CFK is doing now, for identical reasons.

The Argentines will be in the bind of supporting "that woman" or being called anti-patriotic. In the meantime, no one will be allowed to complain that she is ruining that great country.

I also deplore that Latin Americans are being told to "unite" behind such an antidemocratic person. Or the high profile that gives to absolute clowns such as Chávez, or the bloody bearded mummy which is Fidel Castro.

dgp

By the way, while I think some things said about her are not right, I also find that Emilie chose a nickname that she should have expected to create more than a stir in a forum populated by people of English descent and culture. Like joining an Jewish forum with "Adolf Eichmann" as a nickname. I think that was not necessary.

Chariklo

What the heck is an argy-bargy?

Rebel8, and Twitch...interesting that you had to ask. If, as I think, you're both American, that's a good reminder that slang is not the same each side of the Atlantic, and what is easily understood in Britain might not be understood in the US. And vice versa!

The argy-bargy in the thread title is a pun. Argy-bargy means a dispute, an altercation, probably a noisy altercation, exactly what we have as the thread has evolved. (I think it is of Indian derivation...I might be wrong.) Argy is also British slang for an Argentinian...just because it's shorter, I think. It doesn't imply any kind of slight.

I still did not get my answer about how Britain was established in the Malvinas between 1774 and 1833.

Again, Emilie? You didn't read it last time round? (Page 7 of this thread.)

January 22nd 1765, was when British ownership of the islands was declared by Commander John Byron for George III on his instructions, confirmed in 1776 by Governor Samuel Clayton.

The period 1820-1833, that you asked about earlier, began with Jewett's double acts of piracy and ended with Vernet. Far from being an Argentinian Governor, as I've said earlier, Vernet acknowledged the primacy of the British sovereignty claim and lodged with the British Consul General a request that his colony be taken under British protection.

Not really the action of an Argentinian Governor, i.e. someone governing on the exclusive behalf of the Argentine, was it? And the subsequent British action in dealing with the crime of multiple murder indicates that Britan was not only the effective authority at that time but was maintaining law and order, something demonstrably absent without them.

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

1765 doesn’t fall between 1774 and 1833, which was what my question was about. Britain abandoned then Port Egmont settlement in 1774, which was what my reasoning was based on. Confirmation of such fact in 1776 carries no weight since the settlement had already been abandoned for two years.

This still does not account for the fact that Vernet was duly appointed as governor of the Malvinas by the Argentine government, and he accepted this commission. The British had made their claims known to him, and for this reason, Vernet asked for British protection should warships come and try to take over the colony. In fact, the British protested against Vernet’s appointment as governor, and pointed out their own claims. Vernet for his part placated the British by claiming that his interests were solely commercial. However, he accepted and never renounced his governorship as an Argentine subject.

Hardly the action of a British governor to accept an Argentine commission as governor, was it?

No, it's not my problem. When a settlement was abandoned in 1774, and the administration continues as de jure and not de facto, it has about as much worth as modern-day Taiwanese claims to mainland China. It's not my fault you can't understand that when a settlement is abandoned, there is no further jurisdiction. It's only a piece of paper, which you seem to value more than facts on the ground.

The omission of the Malvinas issue in the British/Argentine agreements assumes that there were no agreements forthcoming on the issue itself. Both governments could not agree on anything related to the islands, hence they were not mentioned. Argentina refused to cede sovereignty on them, and Britain refused to acknowledge Argentine claims.

Chariklo

Your questions have already been answered. In full, with sources.

If you can't understand that a situation established in 1765 creates a de facto situation already extant in 1774, then that, frankly, is your problem and not mine.

besty

I will answer your 1774 - 1833 question when I have a moment. But that question seems to me to have made irrelevant by more recent Argentine actions, and lack thereof.

Specifically I refer to:

- Why you think the 1850 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 doesn't mention the Falklands.

- Secondly I'd like to know why Las Malvinas issue was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1849 and 1941?

Thanks in advance

Paul

cedars

I'm just testing if this thread still works before I comment???

Watch this space...

Cedars

The omission of the Malvinas issue in the British/Argentine agreements assumes that there were no agreements forthcoming on the issue itself. Both governments could not agree on anything related to the islands, hence they were not mentioned. Argentina refused to cede sovereignty on them, and Britain refused to acknowledge Argentine claims.

@LMSA: Is this in reference to the 1850 Convention for the settlement of existing differences and restoration of perfect relations of friendship?

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

Share this