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

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  leavingwt

  Argentina warns London, NY stock markets: Exploring for oil in Falklands is ‘illegal’

  Argentina has asked stock markets in New York and London to warn investors of its claim that five oil exploration companies are working illegally off the Falkland Islands, which Argentina contends were stolen by Britain more than a century ago.

  Foreign Minister Hector Timerman announced Thursday that he had sent letters to the directors of both markets urging them to force any company involved in oil exploration near the islands to warn investors that the companies risk civil and criminal penalties in Argentina, which considers the “Islas Malvinas” to be part of its sovereign territory.

  . . .

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/argentina-warns-london-ny-stock-markets-exploring-for-oil-in-falklands-is-illegal/2012/03/22/gIQAmGCCUS_story.html
• 

  mP

  while the falklands potentially have oil, everyone forgets the british like to keep hold of what has been termed strategic choke points. the entire empire was built upon the need to control the important points around the world along the trade routes.

  singapore controls the most dire t path to china and japan. this was of course given independence.

  cyprus the sovereign bases here give britain a unique position near to egypt and the middle east. these bases were used to hit iraq after 9/11.

  gibraltar no need to mention the obvious, it controls entry to the entire med.

  diego garcia, helps guard the gulf. it was held previously because of india

  england itself has the unique ability to choke exit thru the channel and the baltic. the hap between scotland and norway is narrow. in the cold war, the uk was given the task of choking the giuk and stopping the soviets breaking ino the atlantic from the northern submarine bases in murmansk etc.

  now finally, the falkl#nds give control over the drake passage below south america. not all ships can pass thru panama.

  english defence, commerce and so on has always been about controlling these choke points. this legacy continues today. today america provides the might while the uk provides some very strategic lands. this cannot be denied.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  BTT.
• 

  wha happened?

  wow we get one Argentine and this comes back
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Who knew there was already a Malvinas thread?! No, Sean Penn doesn’t do this cause any justice. He obviously doesn’t know much about the conflict and looks at it from a viewpoint of a Chavista and he’s just repeating what he has been told. No one who wants a serious discussion of this should ever quote Sean Penn. Also, I don’t think anyone should concern themselves over an Argentine invasion. Most Argentines never supported the war, and it was the desperation of a sick regime which caused it. The British base on the Malvinas is heavily fortified and Argentina cannot afford a costly invasion in terms of money, deaths, and poor international opinions of an invasion. They will not be invaded again unless this base is closed or severely depleted. The cost in lives would be horrific. Argentines would topple the government of whoever started a new Malvinas War.

  The Malvinas (sorry, but I cannot even in good humour call them “The Falklands”) have the misfortune of being wanted more than they are loved. It is correct to assume that Argentines would not be flooding the islands in order to settle them. But some would if they had the chance. An invaded or occupied territory is never an easy topic to discuss. Personally I do not object to some sort of English presence on the islands. Many British people have come to Argentina and continue to live here today as citizens. We cannot ignore the fact that the Malvinas were a Spanish, and then Argentine territory, and that this was forcibly taken in the early years when Argentina could not defend herself. What many seek is a dialogue on this, and not war. The passing of much time does not make this any more right. The presence of the Malvineros (OK, Kelpers or Falklanders if you insist) on the islands is not something we take lightly down here either. This is not the old days where this history books told us that there was no one but British troops living there. Some progressives here took the opinion that immigration to the islands should be open to Argentines as well, and I agree.

  I said this in my other thread, but I’ll say it here. Just because they have been taken 179 years ago and settled does not make these islands British. This is why Argentines will never give up our claims to the islands. But we’ll do it in business suits, not in army uniforms. Please understand that.

  Emilie

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas!
• 

  cofty

  A diplomatic solution to the Falklands question may indeed have been possble by now if Galtieri hadn't invaded in 1982 to distract from his failures in domestic politics. Modern Argentinian citizens might deplore his actions but I'm afraid you are stuck with his legacy.

  With 255 UK servicemen killed in the conflict there is not the remotest chance any Brittish government could survive giving them back. Unless the inhabitants vote to secede it won't happen and there is no sign of that any time soon.

  I suspect the UK government would be happy to dispense with the huge cost of maintaining our miltary base there but its politically impossible.
• 

  Chariklo

  Territorial ownership has always been founded upon history and conquest...well. that is, conquest and/or negotiation or even trade-off. And sometimes even marriage!

  The Shetland Islands were first of all settled by Picts from Scotland. Later, after they had been colonised by Viking invaders, just like so many other lands initially raided and then settled by Vikings, they became part of Norway for 600 years. Then they were given to Scotland as part of a marriage dowry.

  Are they Norwegian? No. They are part of the UK. Interestingly, although they are the part of the UK furthest from England and nearest to Scotland, the Shetlanders are the least favourable to Scottish independence and much prefer to be part of the UK.

  The Falkland Islands, although for a shorter period, are similarly British from historical events, and the Falkland Islanders are of British ancestry and identity. Obviously they are British.

  Cofty, I very much doubt that the British government would be happy to dispense with the huge cost of maintaining the military base there. I think that commitment will be firmly and unwaveringly adhered to no matter which party is in government.
• 

  cofty

  I think that commitment will be firmly and unwaveringly adhered to no matter which party is in government.

  I agree it will always be non-negotiable. Any wavering on that would be political suicide.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Why not just sell them? No free hand-outs, no political suicide.
• 

  Chariklo

  Why on earth would Britain want to sell them?

  The Falkand Islanders are British and see themselves as such. To sell the islands would be an ultimate betrayal, and foolish too.