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

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  tornapart - Yes, I did indeed read the link. The problem is that my position on the Malvinas has been so distorted on this thread that I’ve been painted as some sort of irrational Third-World neo-colonialist. In previous postings, I reiterated my respect for the islanders rights and have no desire to evict them. A diplomatic solution which President Obama and Hillary Clinton support would be to find a unique solution to the unique nature of the Malvinas dispute. I suggested cooperation with Argentina regarding the resources, and a gradual opening to Argentine investors, entrepreneurs, and settlers. If the UK actually believes in multi-culturalism as they say they do in Britain, then why not apply the same standard to the Malvinas? So please, go back and read my postings on the matter and you will find that I have consistently argued for a fair solution for all sides.

  SixofNine – I agree with you about the world re-aligning behind different alliances. Latin America has solidified support behind Argentina. Before it had been the likes of Castro and Chavez. The EU has recognized British rights, and France in particular has been the UK’s main ally in this dispute. However, there are ambiguities over the Spanish position, as they seek the same principle as the Malvinas one with trying to get Gibraltar back from the UK. There have been discussions in Italy as well about supporting Argentina, in no small part due to the high Italian population in Argentina. The US position is rather new and came with the new administration. Bush had been firmly with Britain on this, but Obama has changed to an official policy of neutrality. However, as noted before, his State Department has encouraged both parties to settle their differences at the negotiation table. While this doesn’t implicitly support Argentina’s claim, it does tacitly acknowledge that there are some unsettled issues with the Malvinas that need to be discussed.

  Personally I do not agree with my government’s sharp public statements on the subject and threatening a blockade. This is not how you settle a dispute. A more benign policy would be to officially apologise to the islanders for the Malvinas War and offer compensation for losses incurred. During the war, our government unloaded several crates of colour TVs (a pretty big deal back in 1982) to give to the islanders. The Argentine soldiers, who was already malnourished and poorly clothed for the weather were angry about this, but there wasn’t anything they could do about it. Sometime in the late 90’s, our government sent Christmas cards to all Malvinas residents, and even used the word “Falklands” in the address. The Argentine government needs to go further with this, and build up a history of economic cooperation and intergration before any real steps toward sovereignty can take place. Show them the possible benefits first-hand regarding links to Argentina.The islanders might and probably will be suspicious, but there will eventually come a generation that will forget the war. This is how I hope to see things unravel as time heals some wounds. This has always been my position as articulated on this thread.
• 

  tornapart

  Personally I think maybe the Argentine government has blown it bigtime with their policies in recent years. They certainly haven't done themselves any favours in making the Islanders even want to come to the table to talk about it.

  If they could have done some of the things you have suggested something might have taken place but I think all trust has been lost now.

  In the letter from the MLA they said

  " Argentina were working towards a relationship of cooperation in the 1990s, and we entered into Joint Statements in 1990, 1995 and 1999 to co-operate in a number of areas, including hydrocarbons exploration, sustainable management of fish stocks and transportation links. However, cooperation has proved impossible in recent years. Despite the Falkland Islands upholding its side of the agreements, Argentina has unilaterally withdrawn from almost every element.

  More recent Argentine actions – such as attempts to ban our ships from entering South American ports, Decree 256 which seeks to restrict innocent passage of vessels transiting to and from the Falkland Islands, the banning of charter flights in support of our tourism industry, laws taking sanctions against companies involved in peaceful commerce in both countries – all point to a desire by Argentina to frustrate our international trade and an attempt to isolate us. We live under constant threat and harassment from Argentina, and are currently experiencing its attempts at an economic blockade. We would ask that our rights, our points of view, and above all our wishes are respected and considered as enshrined in the UN Charter."

  I think if Argentina wants to get even close to sitting at the table with the UK, they need to start mending quite a few bridges first!
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Unfortunately, President Fernández seems to have bought into the ‘Bolivarianism’ rhetoric of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, with the support of the Castros. She has taken the socialist wing of Peronism and made it her own. Her husband (the previous president) began to get vocal about the Malvinas, but was wise enough not to inflame relations just for the sake of getting attention. Like Galtieri and the junta before her, she has turned the Malvinas issue into a political one for her personally. She knows quite well that the blockade will not work and will set relations back even further. This position is giving her talking points internationally and preferential seating next to the world’s socialist or left-leaning leaders. Regaining the Malvinas would be an incredible coup for her, but that’s not in her plans. Her strategy is simply not a logical way forward in the Malvinas dispute. Having Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn and the Castros give speeches and write opinion pieces in support of the Malvinas claim is a dead end. The support of Obama and Clinton for a negotiated settlement is worth more than the other available options, but I’m afraid she’s not seriously aiming for that. She beamed with pride when Hillary Clinton gushed about the negotiations, but I’m afraid that she’s so inept that the American path will not be utilised the way it could and should be.
• 

  cedars

  Emilie

  "I suggested cooperation with Argentina regarding the resources, and a gradual opening to Argentine investors, entrepeneurs and settlers"

  What you mean is, you want Argentina to take custody of the natural resources of another sovereign nation.

  Last time I checked, nobody in Britain is stopping anyone from Argentina from investing in the Falklands, or even settling there. If Argentina wants to have a meaningful relationship with the British falkland islands, they can start by lifting naval embargos on the islands and not acting like spoiled children in the corridors of the United Nations.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Her strategy is simply not a way forward in the Malvinas dispute.

  As far as the Falkland Islanders are concerned, there is no "dispute". They're happy with the way things are. It's Argentina who are 'disputing' their rights to self-determination. It's like your nextdoor neighbor wanting your house and raising it as a "dispute" with the local authorities because you won't give it to them. You're the ones with the problem here, not the UK, and certainly not the Falkland Islanders.

  Having Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn, and the Castros give speeches and write opinion pieces in support of the Malvinas claim is a dead end.

  The whole Malvinas claim is a dead end, because there is no claim! It's infantile and petty, and ultimately a thinly veiled distraction (which is evidently succeeding in your case) from your country's far more serious issues of corruption and financial meltdown.

  Cedars
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  cedars – Thank you for articulating the British position. I understand fully that there are British interests there, as well as a settled population. Despite what you think about the Malvinas claim and the claim that there is no real claim, we believe and continue to believe that we were forcibly ejected from the islands and a British settlement was thus planted. It’s obvious you feel quite strongly about this, and I don’t seek to upset you or stir up emotions on the subject. But our claim is based on the ejection of 1833, and no matter which way you can spin that, it counts as an example of 19 th century British colonialism. Up until 1833, the British had a short lived and thereafter abandoned settlement at Port Egmont, on Saunders Island. The plaque they left there refers to “Falkland’s Island” in the singular. Puerto Luis had never been theirs, nor had what you call today East Falkland. You can’t take what is not yours, plant your own settlements and people in their place, and then take a vote. But we are expected to accept this. And then to add insult to injury, we are accused of being colonialists by the original colonialists. The crux of your argument is that there are no Argentines on the island today. You claim that the UK is not preventing Argentine settlers there. Do you even know how difficult it is to get a residence permit on the Malvinas? Your only hope if you are Argentine is to marry a local.

  I find your house analogy one-sided and prejudicial. I consider it this way: We had a plot of land with a rudimentary cabin situated on it. You came by from the other side of the world, ripped up the ownership documents, counted it as yours, and built a better building and moved your people in. You then tell our administrator that he has no further authority there. When we ask for it back, you say that we need to ask the current occupants if they want to re-draw up the ownership documents, which of course they refuse to do. The passage of time is also a foundation stone for your argument, in that even if the occupation is illegal, if it goes on for a long time and the original settlers have kids, they become native and legitimate. It doesn't make it right. If I stole a luxury car and held onto it for 50 years, does that make it mine? Can I go to the registry office and say that it's mine because the original owner failed to take it back from me and that my kids are using it now? The only way your argument works is to prove that Argentina did not claim the islands, have a settlement there, nor a governor before 1833, which of course you cannot do. I keep on hearing all this talk geared toward me accepting that there had never been an Argentine settlement there. That contention is false, and can be disproven several times over.

  But hey, you are in a better negotiating position than we are. It has always been that way. You are firmly entrenched there and have no intention of leaving or discussing anything. Don’t think for a second that the heavily stacked deck in your favor is going to make us forget that this land was once ours and was illegally obtained and invaded. To support fully the British cause, you have to concede that invading and occupying a territory is legal. I don’t buy that, and my government’s own propaganda makes no difference. As I mentioned before, I do not support their current policies there. To say that I am a victim of propaganda is a diversionary tactic to to distract from the real issue of original sovereignty.
• 

  cedars

  Emilie, I'm sorry but your lengthy replies are increasingly self-indulgent and sparing with facts and common sense.

  There is no "claim" on the falkland islands, because it doesn't belong to Argentina. The only ones with a say in which country has sovereignty are the islanders themselves - not the UK, and certainly not Argentina. Your shed analogy is flawed, because as has been demonstrated already on this thread the Argentine "claim" to the islands is tenuous at best. Please refer to besty's timeline which shows that arguably the French have more of a claim to the islands than you do.

  1833 was a long time ago, and what you call an "ejection" I call an armed conflict that you lost, at a time in the world's history when territorial disagreements were settled by force. Even if what you say is true, and a small number of Argentinians were forcibly thrown off the island by the British, that does not alter the fact that the islands are now British (after a colorful history in which mutliple nations staked territorial claims) and inhabited by people who want to remain under British rule.

  It wasn't that long ago (by your standards, that is) that America forcibly evicted Mexicans from their own territory. Should America give this territory back too? You seem to live in an idealistic bubble where all the conflicts of the past should now be put right according to the Argentinian preference, but it simply doesn't work that way. Even if your version of events is true - there was a conflict, the British won, you lost, and you didn't lose much because you hadn't been on the Islands for a long time anyway. End of story. Suddenly there's a sniff of oil and the government needs the heads of its people to be turned the other way, and boom! There's a Falklands "dispute".

  You keep beating the colonnial drum, but you fail to see that it is Argentina who are being colonnial by craving territory that is not yours. Argentina's very existence is as the result of "forced eviction" of the native peoples encountered by Spanish settlers. Heck, the whole Americas are the product of colonnialism. Suddenly you want to rewrite history, and write the wrongs of past centuries just because your ancestors lost some skirmish on a bunch of islands you weren't that bothered about anyway?

  As regards residence permits, I know how hard it is to get residence permits in any country, even when you have a legitimate right. You don't need to lecture me on that, because I have more experience in that area than you realize. My point is that your arguments for the supposed aims of Argentina, i.e. "investment" and "settlement" can all be realised now, albeit with a bit of effort, without taking what is not yours, or kicking and screaming at the UN.

  We aren't interesting in being in any "negotiating position" because there is nothing to negotiate. The islanders have spoken unequivocally. Their voices must be heard. Your country just refuses to back down in pursuit of an agenda that is both futile and diversionary.

  Cedars
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Just shake it off. No biggie!

  Your attempt to tie this directly to the oil exploration is misleading. There was a ‘Falkands dispute’ long before anyone said anything about oil. In fact, in 1982 they were a colonial backwater more or less deemed to be economically worthless by Lord Shackelton. Argentina still wanted them back, and oil was definitely not on the menu. Protests were made all the way up into the current century, and indeed, the discovery of oil was yet another cause to throw on the heap of the injustice of the entire situation.

  So no, I won’t buy your ‘finders keepers, losers weepers’ argumentation. I had civilly explained my position and Argentina’s on this thread for some time now. My last few postings expressed regret for my government’s current policy, and I acknowledged the islanders rights to live in peace. You immediately get on your high horse and start typing in exaggerated sentences as if you were a schoolteacher exasperated by a student’s unwillingness to take what you give them. Don’t you realise that your position on the Malvinas is just as exasperating to me as it is for you? Yet I don’t feel the need to force-feed you carefully refined and sifted data about my position. Why are you so heated? Is disagreement not allowed on this board? Did you think I was going to charter a yacht and head into Stanley and pull out an Kalashnikov while raising the Argentine flag? You are over-reacting, and it’s not doing you or anyone else here any good. Please let’s just agree to disagree. That’s the best I can offer you.
• 

  cedars

  Emilie, you're mistaken.

  "Finders keepers, losers weepers" is only my second line of reasoning!

  My first and kick-ass line of reasoning which you seem to fail to grasp is this....

  .................the Islanders want to be British!!

  Even if your country's claim wasn't tenious (which it is, I've just been brushing up on the neutral version of history), the rights and wishes of the Islanders themselves are and should be the first and over-riding concern.

  The fact that you ignore them, and even disrespect them with your silly olympics advert, running up and down a war memorial, speaks volumes.

  http://www.falklands.gov.fk//news/

  Cedars

  [edit post: by "you" and "your", I obviously refer to the Argentinian government, not you personally! ]
• 

  james_woods

  I have not been able to see a thing on this thread past the bottom of page 11.

  Can anybody else read it? I assume some can because I see people keep on posting here.