The Falklands Referendum

[JadedWolf]

 

 

I can speak on behalf of a large slice of the British Armed Forces when I say that the last thing we want to do is get into another bloody war over the Falklands. I know several (old) bastards who fought and not a one hates any Argentines.  The whole thing is nonsense dreamed up by failed Argentine politicos.

 

However, I can equally say that to many people there is more cause to defend the Falklands than, say, Falkirk. Almost every bastard in the Falklands wants to be British. But not nearly so many in Scotland.

 

Naurgalen, can I confirm that the claim is based - as I've been told by British media - on the _Spanish_ Empire?

 

I haven't read all the official / political documents as a common person that I am, but there are at least 3 claims that are really common here:

1 - 2) Historic and legal rights: Based on a) the legacy from Spain, b) resettlement from Argentina while the isles were abandoned and the c) expulsion/problems that came later when the British arrived again.

3) Geographical rights: The islands are not only near Argentina but in fact they are part from its continental shelf, so they are literally in Argentinian territory by most treaty's. (+ its has given many complicated problems with the sea regulations)

 

Ofc they are far more complicated and detailed than that but that's the reason why the conflict still exists.

 

The fun thing about this all is that I don't like nationalism, it blinds people and makes people feel superior to others. But if a give my opinion in this kind of debates its cause this is greater than Argentina or The United Kingdom, its about law and justice: how we make our relations with other country's / people and respect them. Don't be mistaken, if tomorrow I see some kind of convincing proof of ownership I would totally defend the British. Its just, that this time I don't think they have the upper legal (*) and moral ground.

 

(*) PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the beginning.

 

PS2: Yes, I play lawfull good characters xD

 

 

Good post  But don't you think the interest that Argentina has in reclaiming these island has anything to do with the oil that has been discovered there?

 

Of course it is about the resources. Even so, I suspect the actual motive of the Argentinian government to stir this up is to deflect attention from a poor record at home. When you're having trouble at home, stir up something abroad to make people look the other way. The average Argentinian can't care less about a rocky outcrop far out sea with a few sheep on it.

 

As for "PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born

in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a

strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the

beginning." What was wrong at the beginning? Are you saying people shouldn't have a right to want to belong to what country they feel they belong to? Or is it because the British are supposedly colonial? All the states in South-America have a history in colonialism. Now, if you're saying we should hand the whole lot back to the native population, that's something else...

Edited March 16, 2013 by JadedWolf

[JFSOCC]

If proximity was determining factor in ownership the biggest country in the world would rule all of it.

[Raithe]

I haven't read all the official / political documents as a common person that I am, but there are at least 3 claims that are really common here:

1 - 2) Historic and legal rights: Based on a) the legacy from Spain, b) resettlement from Argentina while the isles were abandoned and the c) expulsion/problems that came later when the British arrived again.

3) Geographical rights: The islands are not only near Argentina but in fact they are part from its continental shelf, so they are literally in Argentinian territory by most treaty's. (+ its has given many complicated problems with the sea regulations)

 

My key issue with the "Historic and legal rights: Based on the a) Legacy from Spain", is that the Spanish came after both the initial French and English colonies.  In fact, Spain conquered the French colony and claimed it, then later stole the English colony, but to prevent war from erupting made a peace treaty that legally gave the colony back to England.

 

The British presence pulled back in the late 1700's because of troubles with the US. Just after the American Independance, an Argentine Entrepreneur supposedly set up some effort to monitor and handle uncontrolled seal hunting or some such and ended up seizing some American ships. Which prompted the Captain of the USS Lexington to come in and pretty much shoot up the port.

 

There's also a few running arguments from various historians over whether there was anyone on the islands in an official capacity when the British came back.

 

To go with some comments from Klaus Dodds (a History Professor, who yes, teaches Geopolitics at the University of London) during an interview over the Argentine President's letter she sent  a couple of months ago:

 

 

“In the 1760s and 1770s you find a fundamentally messy history of the Falklands, involving the British, the French, the Spanish, and the nascent Argentine republic as well as a little Irish presence as well,” he said.

 

“When the president claims the British threw out the Argentines, I think that’s a little bit of a rhetorical over-flourish. It wasn’t as if there was an indigenous Argentine population there for centuries; far from it.”

 

"The thing about the letter which I think is very telling is the notion that somehow Britain is the only colonial power. It is laughable,”

 

“For much of the nineteenth century Argentina did one thing terribly well and that was to colonise other territories. It also, like Britain, makes a claim to the Antarctic and behaves in a colonial-like manner.”

 

He said Mr Cameron should acknowledge the letter, but added: “I frankly would not take it very seriously. If anything it is a sign of profound weakness and frustration.”

 

Mrs Kirchner insisted her claim on the Islands was backed by her South American neighbours, but Prof Dodds said it had left Argentina isolated in the region. Chile runs a successful airway to the Falkland Islands, supporting trade and tourism.

 

“This is inconvenient truth for the Argentine president. Argentina is not always the most-liked country in Latin America. It is perceived as a rather arrogant country and a country that is very capable of promoting its own interests when it suits. The frustration for her is she hasn’t got more support

from its neighbours.”

 

[Raithe]

Although it's always nice to see that the US has such a clear and valid position on it all after their joys of democracy and right of self-determination..

 

Telegraph Blog: The State Departments Falklands press-briefing was a diplomatic disaster for the US/

 

QUESTION: You don’t have anything to start off about the awesome referendum in the Falkland Islands?

MS. NULAND: I was hoping you would ask, Matt. Was there a question in there?

QUESTION: Yeah. What do you think about the results of this? Do you think that the three people who voted against should get their way and that you should – you’ll start encouraging the Brits to hand over the islands to the Argentines, or what do you think?

MS. NULAND: Well, we take note of the results of the recent democratic referendum in the islands, where the residents voted to retain the islands’ current political status as a British overseas territory. The residents have clearly expressed their preference for a continued relationship with the United Kingdom. That said, we obviously recognize that there are competing claims. Our formal position has not changed. We recognize the de facto U.K. Administration of the islands, but we take no position on sovereignty claims.

QUESTION: So you don’t think that this referendum enhances the – or augments the British claim?

MS. NULAND: What we have said is that the residents have clearly expressed themselves and expressed their will, but we also acknowledge the competing claims.

QUESTION: Well, I’m sure, but you do agree with the principle of self determination? You do agree with that, correct?

MS. NULAND: Let me say it one more time, that the residents have expressed their clear preference. We acknowledge that there are conflicting claims, and we recognize the U.K. de facto administration.

QUESTION: Can you explain to me why it is that on this issue you refuse to give the Brits any leeway? I mean, they are your closest ally, arguably. And you’re just – you’ve just refused to – all they’re asking for – they’re not asking for much here. They’re just asking you to recognize the vote. And if you do agree with the principle of self determination, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t – this wouldn’t affect your policy.

MS. NULAND: And as I said, we’ve been very clear about what we see in this referendum and the will that’s been expressed by the people of the island, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are competing claims. Our own legal position has not changed.

QUESTION: So are you going to now take a look at your position and perhaps review it going further down the line?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think I just stated where we are. I don’t have anything further to announce.

QUESTION: So no change in the U.S. position?

MS. NULAND: As I said, conflicting claims, but we recognize the de facto U.K. Administration of the islands. We don’t take any position on sovereignty claims. We do think it’s important for the parties to continue to have – to be constructive in their approach and focus their own efforts on a resolution.

QUESTION: So would you consider this referendum a failure then? Because part of the reason for holding it was to demonstrate to the world that the people who live in the Falkland Islands want to remain British and to validate that position before international bodies and other governments. If the United States, which, as Matt said, is the closest ally of Britain, is not going to change its longstanding neutrality on this position, then by definition the referendum has failed to convince you of that.

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, we have been very straight up here about acknowledging what happened in this referendum, which is that the residents have expressed their preference. But with regard to our legal position, it is as I stated.

[Malcador]

Or it's part of some broader strategy they're trying with South America or Argentina and don't mind hurting the precious UK's feelings.

[BruceVC]

Or it's part of some broader strategy they're trying with South America or Argentina and don't mind hurting the precious UK's feelings.

 

I found her answers to be annoying, she refused to answer a direct question. But I suppose she is being told what not to say. In other words " don't openly support the UK claim to the Falklands"

 

Its a brave new world under Obama. I suspect if the Republicans were in power they would be much more openly supportive of the UK but we have to take the bad with the good under Obama. I still think he is the  right person to lead the USA, and one of  the things his foreign policy has been is to be much less belligerent and careful not to upset other countries. But the UK doesn't need the USA on this, the Falklands will stay in there hands. They just need to manage the negative press from some. Its not like there will be an invasion from Argentina

Edited March 16, 2013 by BruceVC

[Naurgalen]

 

 

 

Good post  But don't you think the interest that Argentina has in reclaiming these island has anything to do with the oil that has been discovered there?

 

Of course it is about the resources. Even so, I suspect the actual motive of the Argentinian government to stir this up is to deflect attention from a poor record at home. When you're having trouble at home, stir up something abroad to make people look the other way. The average Argentinian can't care less about a rocky outcrop far out sea with a few sheep on it.

 

As for "PS: I feel this needs to be made clearer: Falklands are occupied with UK people from 1833, its only logical to conclude that people who was born

in British ambient, culture, with British parents, grandparents etc... and are having a good way of live wont feel like suddenly having a

strange urge to be from Argentina. The referendum is just a political propaganda so the people don't think about what was really wrong at the

beginning." What was wrong at the beginning? Are you saying people shouldn't have a right to want to belong to what country they feel they belong to? Or is it because the British are supposedly colonial? All the states in South-America have a history in colonialism. Now, if you're saying we should hand the whole lot back to the native population, that's something else...

 

The claims are long before all the oil thing, it sure gives more reasons to both country's to appeal but its not the key thing: The peoples arguments are mostly the ones I said.

About the other thing, ofc people  have the right to belong the country they want (well if said country accepts you =P) but that doesn't necessarily makes the territory where they live from that country. Specially if we want to be legal about it. If that would be right all china-towns in the world can just call their own determination rights and conquer the world little by little xD.

 

 

 

My key issue with the "Historic and legal rights: Based on the a) Legacy from Spain", is that the Spanish came after both the initial French and English colonies.  In fact, Spain conquered the French colony and claimed it, then later stole the English colony, but to prevent war from erupting made a peace treaty that legally gave the colony back to England.

 

The British presence pulled back in the late 1700's because of troubles with the US. Just after the American Independance, an Argentine Entrepreneur supposedly set up some effort to monitor and handle uncontrolled seal hunting or some such and ended up seizing some American ships. Which prompted the Captain of the USS Lexington to come in and pretty much shoot up the port.

 

There's also a few running arguments from various historians over whether there was anyone on the islands in an official capacity when the British came back.

 

To go with some comments from Klaus Dodds (a History Professor, who yes, teaches Geopolitics at the University of London) during an interview over the Argentine President's letter she sent  a couple of months ago:

 

 

“In the 1760s and 1770s you find a fundamentally messy history of the Falklands, involving the British, the French, the Spanish, and the nascent Argentine republic as well as a little Irish presence as well,” he said.

 

“When the president claims the British threw out the Argentines, I think that’s a little bit of a rhetorical over-flourish. It wasn’t as if there was an indigenous Argentine population there for centuries; far from it.”

 

"The thing about the letter which I think is very telling is the notion that somehow Britain is the only colonial power. It is laughable,”

 

“For much of the nineteenth century Argentina did one thing terribly well and that was to colonise other territories. It also, like Britain, makes a claim to the Antarctic and behaves in a colonial-like manner.”

 

He said Mr Cameron should acknowledge the letter, but added: “I frankly would not take it very seriously. If anything it is a sign of profound weakness and frustration.”

 

Mrs Kirchner insisted her claim on the Islands was backed by her South American neighbours, but Prof Dodds said it had left Argentina isolated in the region. Chile runs a successful airway to the Falkland Islands, supporting trade and tourism.

 

“This is inconvenient truth for the Argentine president. Argentina is not always the most-liked country in Latin America. It is perceived as a rather arrogant country and a country that is very capable of promoting its own interests when it suits. The frustration for her is she hasn’t got more support

from its neighbours.”

 

 

The french colony was pretty much bought, and that works like today: when you buy something its yours with all the legal things (rights and responsibilitys) it has. The British -if we want to be legal- should have never constructed a colony there, they only did it cause they didn't know that the isles were already claimed. Thats why they almost went to war with Spain. Luckily for both country's that didn't happen and they left the problem for later.

 

About the capacity its allways debatable, and we can talk about it eternally. But the fact that almost no Argentine was left at the end and the population replaced is not.

 

About the letter, well its biased so I wouldn't take it to the letter even if he was the better professional in the world. The relations with Chile aren't all the nice I would like, but with all latin america? That are some big words that are far from reality.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Naurgalen

[Rostere]

Or it's part of some broader strategy they're trying with South America or Argentina and don't mind hurting the precious UK's feelings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[Walsingham]

It annoys the bojangles out of me that we have to accept weak spirits from the Obama administration over the Falklands. Arguably, such indecision helped provoke a war in the Falklands last time, and (much more famously) the invasion of Kuwait.

 

As the interviewer above said, we NEVER fail to back up the US in a fight. Returning the favour might be gauche, but could make a real difference aroudn the world. Taiwan, anyone?

 

I can only hope that this is a case of playing the public game different from the private. Britain is an old diplomatic hand. And while the Foreign Office were scandalously complicit in encouraging the Argentines in the 1970s/80s I don't get the feeling they're like that any more.

[Gfted1]

According to Wiki the US supported Britian in the Faulklands war. Is that not correct? (see "Position of third party countries")

[Zoraptor]

The US ultimately supported the UK, tepidly. But they did try to persuade the UK not to respond as they were worried about the stability of Argentina's pro west dictatorship if it lost, and what would replace it.

[Rostere]

The US ultimately supported the UK, tepidly. But they did try to persuade the UK not to respond as they were worried about the stability of Argentina's pro west dictatorship if it lost, and what would replace it.

 

What the **** is up with the US and "pro-West" dictatorships? You would think that their entire foreign policy is based around wiping the ass of every banana republic there is, when they even do so at the expense of their relations with allied democracies.

[Hiro Protagonist]

If the Falkland Islands go to Argentina then they won't be able to compete in the Commonwealth Games. That's bad news all around.

[Walsingham]

According to Wiki the US supported Britian in the Faulklands war. Is that not correct? (see "Position of third party countries")

 

My understanding was that the Executive operated a 'dual (****ed up) policy, resulting in both sides getting assurances of support that succeeded merely in instigating then prolonging the war.

 

In fact, the Reagan Administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on April 5, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger favoured backing Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S. anti-communist efforts in Latin America. He received the firm backing of U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haig's nominal subordinate and political rival. Kirkpatrick was guest of honour at a dinner held by the Argentine ambassador to the United States, on the day that the Argentine armed forces landed on the islands.

 

The White House continued its neutrality; Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "that little ice-cold bunch of land down there". But he assented to Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's position. Haig briefly (April 8–April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission between London and Buenos Aires. According to a BBC documentary titled "The Falklands War and the White House",[19] Caspar Weinberger's Department of Defense began a number of non-public actions to support and supply the British military while Haig's shuttle diplomacy was still ongoing. Haig's message to the Argentines was that the British would indeed fight, and that the U.S. would support Britain, but at the time he was not aware that the U.S. was providing support already.

 

A bit hackneyed, compared with other analyses I've read, but at least you can access it!

 

EDIT: It is a personal maxim of mine that there is no such thing as divided loyalty. Loyalty is an integer of either one or zero.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Walsingham

[Malcador]

What the **** is up with the US and "pro-West" dictatorships? You would think that their entire foreign policy is based around wiping the ass of every banana republic there is, when they even do so at the expense of their relations with allied democracies.

Well if the alternative is anti-West democracy, it's in their interest to maintain that, depending on the nation, I'd imagine. Their 'allies' probably don't care that much, or at least when push comes to shove.

[Walsingham]

Ultimately, for my money I'd accept either British affiliation or complete independence. But Argentine rule is just ****ing nuts.

 

Actually, somewhat reminds me of Solomon and the women and the baby.