Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy? (page 22)

besty

@LMSA - Please acknowledge that the 1850 Convention and subsequent 92 years of silence fatally undermines any prior position dating to the 1820's?

If you don't acknowledge this, then please explain why not.

Thanks in advance.

besty – Sorry it has taken me so long to answer a direct question from you! As you might have known, I’ve been busy with chatter about my birth control, sex life, minor cyber-bullying, and whether or not it was ethical for me to lie to the elders. I must also tell you that as a new user I am limited to 10 posts a day, and was unable to reply when I would have otherwise liked to. Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question exactly as you posed it. It’s a loaded question that has your desired conclusion already drawn out for me in the body of the question. A more fitting question would have been to ask what my thoughts are on the 1850 convention and the 92 years which followed. Since you asked it several times in different manners and underneath that question lies some relevant information, I will do my best to provide my opinion as asked.

The question is two-fold. First, what do I think about the 1850 Convention of Settlement and what it means about the Malvinas claim? As with some treaties, this one is open to interpretation. The fact remains that the Malvinas are not mentioned, either by name or by implication. There can be no Argentine cession of the Malvinas without explicit wording. On the other hand, you seem to have interpreted this treaty as a settlement of all disputes, including the Malvinas. For the answer to that I believe we need to go into the intent of the treaty itself, which was drawn up specifically to address the British occupation of the island of Martin Garcia, to lift the British blockade, to return captured vessels, to recognize Argentine rights on the Paraná, and to mediate the Argentine-French dispute in Uruguay. Since Juan Manuel José Domingo Ortiz de Rozas y López de Osornio and his advisors are no longer with us, and I certainly am no expert in the Argentine foreign policy of the 1850s, I would have to venture that the dear general had more pressing issues than the Malvinas, such as a possible French or British invasion of the Argentine mainland. He simply wasn’t in a position to negotiate. It would be like a barrister worrying about a petty theft charge when his client was also charged with murder.

Now for the “subsequent 92 years of silence” as you put it, on the matter of the Malvinas. Formal diplomatic protests over the Malvinas takeover were given once the deed had been accomplished, and in the annual Argentine congressional discussion all the way up to the treaty. Perhaps the period of silence was due to a fear of angering British sensibilities and to avoid the threat of war. At any rate, Argentine maps continued to show the Malvinas as belonging to us, and in 1885, the issue was brought up in the fallout of the map issue with the British. In 1888, a formal protest was issued, but dismissed by the British Foreign Office. There are Argentine sources that claim that further protests were lodged, either to Britain directly or to third parties. The British government, however, acknowledges no further protest until 1941, which is where you have come up with your figure of 92 years. Given the conflicting information, it really depends on what source you are getting your information from. You should look up “Malvinas” on the Spanish wiki page, and you’ll get some different information. So my viewpoint is that protests have been made since the original invasion, with a few years’ worth of gaps in between, but nothing like the 92 year old gap you mention. I don’t acknowledge that, and I just explained why.

I suspect that you are trying to draw a parallel between the British period of abandonment between 1774 and 1833 and the Argentine period of 'silence'. I’ll cede you the point that Britain never gave up claims to the Malvinas by silence if you can cede me the point that silence is not necessarily a disavowal of sovereignty. From my understanding, the Argentine position in those intervening years was to not anger the British by protesting formally, while never formally giving up their claims of sovereignty. The Malvinas issue was put on the backburner, and it was only until the worldwide period of decolonisation was upon it that Argentina dared to broach the subject again. You certainly have drawn your own conclusions from that. So have I.

Let’s move up the calendar to 2012, if you will. Based on the flag logo and California location beneath your avatar, I am assuming you are American. If you are not, then I withdraw this question. But as an American, what is your viewpoint of the Obama Administration’s position on the Malvinas? In 2010, Secretary of State Clinton in response to a question posed to her in a joint news-conference with President Fernández, stated the following: “ We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.” Asked to clarify, Secretary Clinton said further: “As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.” To further illustrate that this was no slip of tongue or rogue comment, the USA signed an Organization of American States (OAS) declaration entitled ‘Declaration On The Question Of The Malvinas Islands’. I won’t burden you with further quotes, but the declaration requested that the governments of the UK and Argentina sit down and negotiate the Malvinas issue diplomatically. Nowhere in the document was the term ‘Falklands’. It was approved unanimously by all OAS states. The UK also lodged several diplomatic protests against these incidents, as well as a State Department (USA) official using the term “Islas Malvinas” in official dialogue. Please share your thoughts regarding your government’s Malvinas policy.

I do apologise for taking so long to respond to your question.

cyberjesus

I like Argentina's empanadas!

Podobear

soft+gentle

testing

soft+gentle

was hoping to join this discussion as I have been researching some of the issues (they are very complex). but I cannot see my posts so will try again later

jamesmahon

Odd topic this one I think. It appears to me to be that there is an absence of any real legal case for Argentina to claim the islands, but even if they did have the real right has to be the self determination of the islanders. If they want to be British, Argentine or even just Falklanders it is up to them. Ultimately the claim any of us have to the land in which we live is dependent on our ancestors at some point either staking a claim to something uninhabited or kicking the people off who already lived there. I mean, what right do people currently have in Argentina or Britain to claim that the boundaries they class is their country is theirs? It is only based on some land grabbers in the distant past pushing out the previous occupants. All so last century all this. I think most people in the UK don't think we 'own' the Falkland Islands but rather the people their do not want to be Argentine and so we defend them against that being forced upon them. But if they did want to change the allegiance then fine. Why a person living in Argentina thinks they have a greater claim over a rock in the middle of an ocean compared to the people who have lived there all their lives is a bit beyond me.

tornapart

LMSA.. have you actually read the link that Cedars posted? (post 2186). Do you not think that the Islanders rights are what are the important issue in all this? Surely it's what THEY want that matters. It seems to me that the Argentians don't give a toss about their feelings in all this.

Please, read the link. It's enlightening.

SixofNine

We haven't heard the last of Argentina.

Nor have we heard the last from you, I suspect. This makes me sad.

LMSA, as an American, I'll comment on Sec Clinton's comments and actions just to reiterate that it's more evidence (and clear evidence, to me) of which way the political winds are blowing both worldwide and specific to this issue. Here is what the wind is saying, imo:

South America has come together to the point it can't/wont be ignored or bullied anymore.

The US is not going to be pulled into or jump into misadventures down there nearly as easily as the past.

As the world gets flatter, Geopolitics are going to be more to the USA and old imperial relationships are going to be less important.

World opinion is going to matter more, and raw power less. Everywhere.

The dispute IS still open; it's not settled.

If England wants to exploit any claim to the Islands, it will need Argentina's help to do so (because of the above).

If Argentina wants to exploit any claim to the Islands, it will need the UK's help to do so (because the Islanders consider themselves Brits).

Oil is not considered a forever resource anymore. So costly wars for oil don't have "guaranteed" payback anymore either.

and last but not least,

Morrissey says "Las Malvinas son Argentinas". I think Brits think Morrissey es (a) dios, so.... ;)

tornapart

The 'Malvinas'/ 'Falklands' belong to the people that live on it.

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

Share this