So my understanding is that Spain owned it then Argentina then uk. Who owned it before Spain? All these squabbles when really. No one has greater rights than anyone else.
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Chariklo
Wikipedia gives an excellent historical account of the early history of the Falkland I slands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
It really could hardly be clearer. And the clincher is that the people themselves are British, of British descent and British by self-identification. And it is not that "Spain owned it first". Britain was there before Spain, but it was a mixed tale of Portuguese, French and predominantly British settlements from as early as the sixteenth century and then subsequent landings and shipwrecks. There were no native inhabitants at all. Not until 1821 did a pirate named Jewett land there for six months and claim the island for the United Provinces of the River Plate, for the puropses of securing a claim to a wreckked ship and its booty.
"Finally Jewett seized an American flagged ship named Rampart, committing piracy for a second time. Jewett sent a long report to Buenos Aires dated 1 February 1821 in which he described his journey. He did not, however, make any mention whatsoever of his claim over the Falklands. News of Jewett's claim over the Falklands was reported first in the Salem Gazette, a Massachusetts news paper and then re-printed in the Times of London. The Spanish newspaper Cadiz then reported the story and it was only when this report reached Buenos Aires, as a foreign news story, was it published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821. More than a year after the event. The Argentine government itself made no announcements. This was probably because Jewett had made no report of his 'acquisition' and so they were completely unaware that it had taken place.
Jewett departed from the Falkland Islands in April 1821. In total he had spent no more than six months on the island, entirely at Port Luis. In 1822, Jewett was accused of piracy by a Portuguese court, but by that time he was in Brazil."
It's pretty clear.
Geographical proximity to South America means nothing.
-
besty
I think the ways lines are drawn on a map today typically reflect land-grab by military or diplomatic means in the past.
Redressing that history to what is 'right' today is significantly more problematic - see continental North America for details.
It can be done - the UK had certain rights in perpetuity over parts of Hong Kong, and we know China and the UK worked that one out a few years back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong
Money, power, geography and lack of will on both sides for armed conflict produced an equitable result.
Argentina tried and failed to regain the islands with military means. Therefore the subsequent diplomatic process becomes infinitely more difficult and probably, if ever, on significatly diminshed terms for them.
-
Chariklo
Besty, there's a big difference between Hong Kong and the Falklands.
The population of Hong Kong has always been largely Chinese, and has been there for a very long time. There was no pre-existing population on the Falklands. The people are British, all the way back to their great great great (and maybe great great!) grandfathers.
-
-
jookbeard
if the Argies had seen the civilian supply ship advancing towards the Falklands 1982 and bombed it the there would have been no war in the first place the British fleet would have U turned. The Gurkhas were unbelievable when the ground forces started going, I know a lot of ex marines and paras who served in that war and their contribution cannot be forgotten.
-
nugget
The history of the Falklands does make interesting reading with the Argentinian claim being as tentative as any other. It is interesting that prior to European interest no native people settled on the islands so there were no prior inhabitants or prior claim. The British seem to have held the longest interest and the span of time the islands were held by the British far exceeds the tenure of the Argentinians. The British were there both before and after the Argentinians.
The people who live there now wish to be British. Perhaps the Argentinians should have done more to woo the inhabitants to make their governance seem more appealing. At the end of the day it is a challenging place to live and kudos to those that have invested in the place. Let the people who live there be given the dignity of being considered important. They after all have staked money, time and effort into the island and they love the place for what it is not what it represents or whether or not there is oil there.
-
besty
I wasn't attempting to make the case of parity between HK and the Falklands :-)
Simply that where sufficient interests are at play, the UK has conceded territorial rights. China successfully made that case re HK, with Mrs Thatcher no less.
In the case of the Falklands, Argentina has yet to convince Britain (Britain defined to include the islanders and the UK government) that such a concession is worthwhile.
Argentina tried and failed to make a military case in 1982 and they rejected the UK offer of an International Court of Justice decision in 1947.
Until they win the hearts and minds of the islanders and/or outbreed them numerically and/or make it economically inviting to the islanders to desire Argentinian control I personally don't see a quick resolution.
-
Chariklo
if the Argies had seen the civilian supply ship advancing towards the Falklands 1982 and bombed it the there would have been no war in the first place the British fleet would have U turned.
Oh no, jookbeard. Never. You could not be more wrong.
-
Phizzy
The argument from history reminds me of a story told by the comedian and Rambling enthusiast Mike Harding it goes something like this :
"My grandfather was walking across the moors one day, miles from anywhere, when a posh looking geezer rode up on his horse and said
"I say my good fellow, do you know you are on my land ?"
"How coomits yor land" sez grandad in a good honest Yorkshire accent.
"Because I am Lord ........" says Snooty, "Well where did you get it from ?" "From my father, and he from his before him, right back to the first Lord ......."
"Well where did he get the land from ?"
"He fought for it"
"Well" sez grandad taking off his jacket, "get down off your bloody high horse , and I'll fookin' fight yer for it !"
That story just shows that history is not a good argument, even if it were on the Argies side, how far back do you go ?