LMSA is doing as her government asks - to spread this stupid debate on as many forums as possible. LMSA does not care about this rock.
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty 182 Replies latest social current
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I give a damn because the world is not a buffet table where you can take as much as you want. I've been to this 'rock' you speak of. Have you? Defend your imperial adventures all you want. Attack the messenger as a government propagandist at your pleasure. There are many outside my country who have no connection to the place that feel the same way as I do. If that's the case, then Argentina must have a pretty large payroll.
-
Qcmbr
I hope you cleared some mines when you went there. I've been to Ireland but I don't think that the Uk has a right to demand it because it happens to be close by. As for imperialism - grow up.
-
Chariklo
Israel/Palestine is by no means the "same principle, different century", as you so flippantly put it, with flagrant disregard for the truth.
There you have two nations, the Palestinians who have long lived in their own land, and the nation of Israel, long wandering all over Europe and beyond and subject to much persecution, who regard that land as theirs historically.
In the Falkland Islands you have some rocky islands whose history of being a dwelling place does not yet go back much more than 200 years, apart from settlement from time to time. Those islands were already established as British. When you say, as you and Cristina Fernandez insist on saying at every opportunity...honestly, LMAS, you almost sound like the same person at times!...that Britain invaded the islands in 1833, you conveniently overlook the fact that they were already acknowledged as British, that the Argentinians had ended up there after act after act of piracy and a serious rift between Buenos Aires and Washington, and that the British had had to come in after gross acts of murder and intimidation by the Argentinians there.
When the maps are drawn up, they should be called "Malvinas/Falklands" with the flag of the Sun of May prominent.
It's very hard to see why the Falkland Islanders, British to the core, should display or owe any allegiance whatsoever to a flag bearing an Inca symbol.
Bit of a stretch, even for you, isn't it, LMAS?Let's talk.
This is the same plea we hear over and over again from you and from Cristina Fernandez. But with her it only goes one way, doesn't it? She made a huge song and dance when Cameron turned down her oh-so-innocent-sounding request to talk. Did she conveniently forget how on June 14th she'd turned down the Falkland Islanders request for the same thing and wouldn't even accept a letter from them? How much more two-faced can you get?
You fall back again and again on Simon Jenkins and his Guardian article. Yes. in Britain we have free speech, as you know, and he is entitled to his opinion. But the British people look after their own, and don't like to see others being bullied by a country whose record has got stuck in a groove that just repeats 1833, over and over again, and who bleat colonialism whenever they can, hoping to arouse passions and sympathy in the rest of the world.
The world has moved on. We are not in colonial times, (never forgetting the history of South America and how the Spanish colonised and mistreated so many native South Americans). We are in a world that values self-determination, and the Falkland Islanders, who have their own flag, thank you very much, have stated very clearly with whom their self-identification and allegiance lie.
-
slimboyfat
So your reason why the people of the Falklands should not be able to decide who rules them is because of a legal document from nearly 200 years ago. Is that your answer? Do you think that's a good enough reason to deny self-determination?
If we are talking about the rights of people long dead then why should the Incas or other native people have less claim to Argentina? Because their territory would be small and insignificant? That seems a precarious route for argumentation for someone arguing about the Falklands.
The sad truth is the when the Palestinians who were displaced by the Israelis die off then Palestinian claims to the land will become less potent. That is not a moral judgement it is a fact. And it is what gives urgency to the case for justice now.
We have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be if wrongs were not committed hundreds of years ago. Punishing Falklanders today by denying sovereignty because of something that happened hundreds of years ago is hardly enlightened.
-
cedars
Good reasoning Slim.
Cedars
-
Chariklo
Punishing Falklanders today by denying sovereignty because of something that happened hundreds of years ago is hardly enlightened.
You're absolutely right, slimboyfat, but the only thing is, they're NOT punishing Falklanders today for something that happened hundreds of years ago, but for something that didn't happen but which they say did.
It's the same inconsistency that whines that they want to talk and Britain won't talk to them, but when the people who really matter, the Falklanders, actually try to communicate, they turn their backs.
Edit and PS:
LMAS says she gives a damn because the world is not a buffet table where people can take as much as they want. Er....just who invaded the Falklands 30 years ago?
See what I mean?
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Actually, the UK still has a significant slice of Ireland that it keeps under the guise of 'self-determination'. The Ulster Plantations were founded in what was once the most Gaelic section of Ireland. It is not me who needs to come to terms with imperialism. Your comments betray a particular apologist nature.
I was referring to the legality of settling a land militarily conquered, not just a blanket conparison to Israel/Palestine. Is a settler population a legal precursor to owning the land under international law? That's the question which was posed. Since the answer is obviously no, then it comes as no surprise as to why I can't get a straight answer on that one.
To say that the Malvinas were already established as British conveniently ignores the Treaty of Utrecht and the agreement Lord North signed with the Spanish government. How can British title to the land be 'established' when sovereignty was renounced several times by treaty, and all they had to prove it was a short lived military post at Port Egmont? There was no British establishment in the Malvinas. If there was, then why did they have to go to Puerto Luis, a settlement the British had absolutely no connection with to take formal control of the islands? If they were simply re-establishing sovereignty on deserted islands, then why didn't they go back to Port Egmont and do it? To do so would ignore the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis.
Though it certainly wasn't intended as a compliment, I am flattered to be compared to an accomplished woman, regardless of my disagreement with a few of her stances on the issues. Fernandez is simply doing her job - representing the people of Argentina. People act like she's taking a pistol into international conferences. All she was doing is bringing documents to support her position on talks. Her confrontation with Cameron was initiated by him. If you read the Spanish language materials on the meeting, you get the distinct impression that Fernandez didn't want to bring up the issue directly to Cameron. He forced the issue, and taken aback, she tried to hand him documents. It's apparent that she wasn't prepared for such a confrontation. I don't know why she didn't accept the letter from the islanders. I would guess that she felt that to accept it would be a tacit acknowledgement of the FI government, which Argentina does not recognise. Since we do recognise the UK, that was the more appropriate channel. But since I am not Fernandez, I can't speak for her anymore than you can speak for Cameron.
I trust Simon Jenkins as an authority on the matter sue to his diligent research into the Foreign Office's own admissions on the subject. It's not like he's just some random jounalist. My point is, you can't paint everyone who supports the Argentine position as a propagandist. You might even say that today, Fernandez has more support for their position than Cameron does. It's not an issue that is going away, as much as some would like it to. Our history is short, and 1833 is our defining point as a nation. A foreign power took what was naturally and legally ours, and this injustice continues to this day. What seems to others as a strange and misguided attempt to right historical wrongs, this is a flesh and blood issue for us. It's quite easy to 'move on' when your imperial stamp is an established fact on most of the world. Others don't have that luxury.
-
Diest
When I lived in Mexico I had several friends from Spain who talked wistfully of the past. They lived in a world of counterfactuals. If only Spain had done this, and if only the British had not done that. The Spanish seem to forget that the stole a huge amount of gold from the Americas and ended up with almost nothing for it. If only….
It wasn't just them, it seemed to be a common theme throughout Latin America.
If only Mexico had won the war and kept California, we would be sooo rich.
If only Bolivia had won the war with Chile we would still have a port and we would be soo rich. We would not be the poorest nation in South America.
If only Argentina had not lost our Islands 170 years ago...bla bla bla.
We can't blame the past for the realities of today. It is over, and it is not changing. Bolivia will never get a port. California may be ruled by people of Mexican descent but never by Mexico, and Argentina will never get the Falklands. If these groups just stopped complaining and started using their political capital for attainable goals, they would be a lot more successful.
PS I was amazed to learn that almost all of South and Central America viewed North and South America as one continent "America" rather than two. It is almost as if none of them believed in continental drift theory.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Thus the Argentine argument for the Malvinas became less potent due to the time involved. The self-determination principle is a strong one, but it's also the only one on that side. The colonial takeover of the Americas is a deeper issue altogether. The British sack of the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis was unecessary and consisted of a more naked colonial aggression. They seemed to have wanted them just for the sake of having them. The colonies in North America were established to shelter religious refugees. What were the Falklands about? They didn't even know what to do with them until decades later.
I would hope that our worldwide community is based on laws set down in the Geneva and Hague conventions. It's still a valid legal title, and one which can be solved a lot easier than inviting the Incas, Aztecs, and the Aborigines back to the negotiating table.
The Malvinas were the only dish on our plate. Take an introspective look at the world map and you'll see what I mean by 'buffet'.