Argentina has politicised the London Olympics over its Falkland Islands' sovereignty claim by making a television advert of one of its athletes training there, on what it calls "Argentine soil".
President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner's government released the television advert linking the Games to its demand to rule the South Atlantic islands.
The 90-second commercial shows Olympic hopeful Fernando Zylberberg training in the Falklands.
The advert was filmed with a handheld camera and shows the 35-year-old Argentine hockey player training outside a typical pub, the Globe Tavern.
The footage also shows Zylberberg running past the offices of the local newspaper, the Penguin News, and an iconic red British telephone box.
Reportedly created by the US-based Young & Rubicam advertising agency, it was shot early in the morning and no islanders can be seen in the footage.
The glossy advert, filmed beneath rolling grey clouds, also uses rousing music for dramatic effect.
It finishes with the slogan, "To compete on English soil, we are training on Argentine soil".
It adds that it is a "tribute to the fallen and ex-combatants" of the 1982 Falklands War.
The advert was screened on several Argentine TV stations on Wednesday night to coincide with the the 30th anniversary of the torpedo attack on the cruiser General Belgrano by a British nuclear-powered submarine during the conflict.
"This is going to generate international repercussions," one official said.
Senator Anibal Fernandez tweeted: "Very good advert about the Malvinas and the Olympics", using the Argentine name for the archipelago.
The Argentine government did not say how the commercial was filmed or whether they had permission to shoot in the Falklands.
But the stunt may backfire as many Argentinians were highly critical of the advert.
One wrote on the website of newspaper La Nacion: "This advert seems to me to show a lack of respect for the soldiers who died in the Malvinas and what our claims to sovereignty mean. Will winning medals at the Olympics make us feel closer to the islands?
"It is a disgrace and a game aimed at submerging people in greater ignorance."
Another wrote: "A tribute to who? People on both sides died in this absurd war."
And another joked: "At least on the islands they won't steal his trainers and tracksuit at gunpoint!"
Zylberberg is a member of the men's hockey team and will be competing in his third Olympics after previously taking part in Sydney in 2000 and Athens in 2004.
Oh and I should note, although they aren't showing a pic of it on the site, the title references the fact he is shown for a moment doing some kind of step based excercise off the steps of the British war memorial there.
Reminds me of youtube videos for Urban Exploration. Any minute now the landlord of that pub is going to come out and shout 'OI, GERROF THAT BENCH.' and chase the cheeky beggar away. Rightfully so.
The Argentinians are burning effigies of William, lighting flags, shouting, stomping and throwing things, banning trade, harassing the islanders and are attempting to bully their neighbours.
The Islanders and the British are being typically quiet and cracking on with their lives.
I know who looks the most dignified.
Dignity aside, If they try anything again I will rejoin 40 commando and personally hog tie that poor mans Maggie Thatcher who is running things over there, before bending her over my knee and slapping her arse with a flip flop on national television.
Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?
mattyrm wrote:
Dignity aside, If they try anything again I will rejoin 40 commando and personally hog tie that poor mans Maggie Thatcher who is running things over there, before bending her over my knee and slapping her arse with a flip flop on national television.
Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?
We haven't done that because we've run out of boats
Half of me wants to see him banned from entry to the UK. The other half recognises that not doing so is one of the many reasons we are better than Argentina.
The Argies try to politicise sport at every opportunity. Last time it was the Argentina football association boss who said that he would only vote for the UK to hold the World Cup if the islands were 'returned'.
Orlanth wrote:Half of me wants to see him banned from entry to the UK. The other half recognises that not doing so is one of the many reasons we are better than Argentina.
The Argies try to politicise sport at every opportunity. Last time it was the Argentina football association boss who said that he would only vote for the UK to hold the World Cup if the islands were 'returned'.
I don't think we need to. He'll be kept waiting in Immigration at Heathrow for long enough anyway.
Orlanth wrote:The other half recognises that not doing so is one of the many reasons we are better than Argentina.
Word.
To be fair to the Argentines, a lot of them think this advert was a PoS. It's just the government riling up a discontented underclass with petty nationalism in order to deflect criticism about their otherwise lacklustre performance. Sensible people aren't being taken in.
I really like the official response from the Falklands Islands government, well written and though provoking. Its nice to see that the representatives for the Islanders are showing twice the dignity and sense that the Argentines are showing:
"It is deeply sad to see Mr Zylberberg clambering over a war memorial, especially in this anniversary year. Sadly, this illustrates the disrespect the Argentine authorities have for our home and our people. Unsurprisingly, at no stage does the video feature any Falkland Islanders – a clear reflection of Argentina’s policy, which is to pretend that the people of the Falkland Islands do not exist. It is time the world took note – we do exist, and as with all people we have rights, which the Argentine Government is trying to deny us. We are our own people, who through nine generations have lived and worked in these islands for nearly 200 years."
Orlanth wrote:Half of me wants to see him banned from entry to the UK. The other half recognises that not doing so is one of the many reasons we are better than Argentina.
The Argies try to politicise sport at every opportunity. Last time it was the Argentina football association boss who said that he would only vote for the UK to hold the World Cup if the islands were 'returned'.
Exactly. Dont go down the banning road, the Argies are acting like savages. In civilised places we sue each other.
In scrubber country's they chop each other up.
Who do the Argies remind me of?
Thats right. fething Iraqis.
I suggest we remain stereotypically British and remain smugly silent like this.
So: did they succeed in renaming their football league "The Crucero General Belgrano First Division"? I think there was some dispute over whether subs would be allowed.
mattyrm wrote:
I suggest we remain stereotypically British and remain smugly silent like this.
WRONG!
A propper British gentleman should have a pipe, and prefrably a suitably natty 'tash.
If your going to make comments like that at least get your facts right man! Next you'll show someone drinking coffee... I mean coffee for fecks sake? Real men drink tea, or bitter.
RossDas wrote:So: did they succeed in renaming their football league "The Crucero General Belgrano First Division"? I think there was some dispute over whether subs would be allowed.
Well, 'the waiting game' is skewed against us given the ascendancy of the South American economies, surely.
I can't speculate with any authority, but surely it's a no-brainer that within 200 years we'll be unable to compete?
One also has to ask if the Falklands are worth the money.
I'm of the opinion that the government is obligated to protect its subjects by any means necessary; since the very reason we surrender our personal rights to governance is because we expect security of our lives, property and rights in return. But despite these principles, one must ask if it would be ridiculous if it got to the stage where a huge portion of the defence budget was going toward defending 4,000 people.
In 200 years?
I doubt any of us will care...
I know a lot of people don't particularly have strong feelings concerning the Crimean War.
It's not like our defense budget is really needed for anything else right now and this is probably a better use than guarding a sand dune in the Middle East...
This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (while the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion the garrison is much stronger today) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.
Palindrome wrote:This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (although the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.
True, though whether that would motivate anyone to stop them is another question.
The Argentinians would have more trouble invading in the first place...
Palindrome wrote:This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (although the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.
True, though whether that would motivate anyone to stop them is another question.
The Argentinians would have more trouble invading in the first place...
No it wont fizzle out.
Argentinas claim is not based on any logic but race politics.
Hispanic nations in the Americas will support Argentina, Anglic nations will not. Actual legality has nothing to do with it, only the Canadian press is bothering to look at the actual facts. "Returnas los Malvinas" stamp, stamp, is a cheap way to gain votes in any Latin American country. Mainly because the UK doesnt do much to defend its position and because painting the UK as the colonial bogeyman diverts attention away from themselves..
The big problem is Obama, he hates the UK, and would like some Hispanic vote and that combo isn't nice. He will turn on us without warning if he could see profit in it.
Once the oil is being mined there will be enough cash to ensure that the Falklands get properly defended, until that time we have to hope that the politicians in Westminster have the balls. Cameron does, but if Milliband gets in there may be problems.
One also has to ask if the Falklands are worth the money.
Well we can always save money by removing your human rights, take away your home and your job and tell you to feth off elsewhere.
Indeed, as always Henners has the ability to make me rage with his poorly thought out posts.
I feel strongly about it not for any monetary reason.
Those people, some of which are 9th generation and whose family have lived there for 200 YEARS should not and can not be moved. Its an absolute disgrace to even suggest it.
Can you imagine the BNP saying that black people should be deported unless they were 9th generation or above? And where would you send them? English speaking Black people who have never been anywhere other than England?! It is the exact same thing.
To suggest the islanders just give up and "become" Argentinian or move is an absolute joke, and that middle class British twits like Henners can happily put it down to a simple economical argument makes my blood boil, and any man who values human decency and justice should feel the same. I honestly think that the Islanders have the right to choose their own destiny, and I don't believe that any impartial observer would side with the Argies over this matter.
Well, except Sean Penn, but I would guess he is ignorant of such things and supports the IRA, so he is hardly impartial is he?
Argentina has politicised the London Olympics over its Falkland Islands' sovereignty claim by making a television advert of one of its athletes training there, on what it calls "Argentine soil".
President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner's government released the television advert linking the Games to its demand to rule the South Atlantic islands.
The 90-second commercial shows Olympic hopeful Fernando Zylberberg training in the Falklands.
The advert was filmed with a handheld camera and shows the 35-year-old Argentine hockey player training outside a typical pub, the Globe Tavern.
The footage also shows Zylberberg running past the offices of the local newspaper, the Penguin News, and an iconic red British telephone box.
Reportedly created by the US-based Young & Rubicam advertising agency, it was shot early in the morning and no islanders can be seen in the footage.
The glossy advert, filmed beneath rolling grey clouds, also uses rousing music for dramatic effect.
It finishes with the slogan, "To compete on English soil, we are training on Argentine soil".
It adds that it is a "tribute to the fallen and ex-combatants" of the 1982 Falklands War.
The advert was screened on several Argentine TV stations on Wednesday night to coincide with the the 30th anniversary of the torpedo attack on the cruiser General Belgrano by a British nuclear-powered submarine during the conflict.
"This is going to generate international repercussions," one official said.
Senator Anibal Fernandez tweeted: "Very good advert about the Malvinas and the Olympics", using the Argentine name for the archipelago.
The Argentine government did not say how the commercial was filmed or whether they had permission to shoot in the Falklands.
But the stunt may backfire as many Argentinians were highly critical of the advert.
One wrote on the website of newspaper La Nacion: "This advert seems to me to show a lack of respect for the soldiers who died in the Malvinas and what our claims to sovereignty mean. Will winning medals at the Olympics make us feel closer to the islands?
"It is a disgrace and a game aimed at submerging people in greater ignorance."
Another wrote: "A tribute to who? People on both sides died in this absurd war."
And another joked: "At least on the islands they won't steal his trainers and tracksuit at gunpoint!"
Zylberberg is a member of the men's hockey team and will be competing in his third Olympics after previously taking part in Sydney in 2000 and Athens in 2004.
Simple solution. When he shows up at Heathrow, lose his passport and put him in a holding cell until after the Olympics as a precaution.
We have some DEA agents you coould contact on how to "forget" people for a few days.
Palindrome wrote:This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (although the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.
True, though whether that would motivate anyone to stop them is another question.
The Argentinians would have more trouble invading in the first place...
No it wont fizzle out.
Argentinas claim is not based on any logic but race politics.
Hispanic nations in the Americas will support Argentina, Anglic nations will not. Actual legality has nothing to do with it, only the Canadian press is bothering to look at the actual facts. "Returnas los Malvinas" stamp, stamp, is a cheap way to gain votes in any Latin American country. Mainly because the UK doesnt do much to defend its position and because painting the UK as the colonial bogeyman diverts attention away from themselves..
The big problem is Obama, he hates the UK, and would like some Hispanic vote and that combo isn't nice. He will turn on us without warning if he could see profit in it.
Once the oil is being mined there will be enough cash to ensure that the Falklands get properly defended, until that time we have to hope that the politicians in Westminster have the balls. Cameron does, but if Milliband gets in there may be problems.
I think that legality probably rests with the Argentines if I am honest.
If you want a good read on the subject, try Metford, 'Falklands or Malvinas? The Background to the Dispute'... though I dunno if you can get a .pdf around anywhere. Alternatively, any faithful chronology kind of makes the case pretty clear.
The French settled East Falkland, the Spanish purchased it from them in order to avoid a war between the two Bourbon monarchies. Britain had simultaneously colonised West Falkland. The Spanish asked us to get off (they were still going on about that Treaty of Tordesillas nonsense) and we wouldn't vacate; it nearly went to war. The Spanish backed down and ceded our sovereignty over Port Egmont, the settlement we'd established, but not the Falkland Islands as a whole. The British left in the 1770s (my dates are sketchy, it was a while ago I wrote an essay on this) and only left behind a plaque asserting sovereignty, whereas the Spanish continued to administer their holdings. Argentina asserted sovereignty over the islands in 1814; claiming that, as the islands had been administered from Buenos Aires, Argentina possessed a claim as a successor state. Luis Vernet administered a settlement. The British returned in 1833, over fifty years (apparently it is a general consensus that a state loses rights to a territory if it fails to administer them for 50+ years), and took the colony. Argie settlers did flee but apparently returned over time.
Legal claims in international law apparently derive from (source: Bluth, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict'):
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
(2)Accrestion, whereby the geography of an area is altered by the forces of nature
(3)Cession, whereby title is transferred from one state to another by treaty
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it
The French settled the islands first, which gave them sovereignty under point #1. They then sold their claim to the Spanish, who gained their claim under point #4. The Argies succeeded in their claim.
The one complicating factor that makes the discussion less clear-cut, however, is that the Spanish actually supported the British in the contest, and didn't give up their claim to the Falklands until quite a way after the dispute. Argentina was also silent for a period in the 19th century; even opening congress by saying that there were no complaints with Britain.
But, imo, we have a very weak legal claim. Our moral force to any argument is that the descendants of many of the Argentine settlers are still present on the islands and wish to remain British. Governments have an obligation to defend all those who wish to be under its sovereignty; it's the basis of the social contract.
I think the best outcome would be if the islands would be assimilated into Argentina peaceably and culturally, and there was a real chance of this happening in the 1970s; Argentina provided healthcare, education (and Spanish classes), transport infrastructure and all kinds of investments... as well as rights for Falklanders to travel in Argentina and, if they chose to live there, be exempted from conscription. But that damned Junta got impatient with the islanders reluctance to acquiesce in sovereignty negotiations and had to launch that invasion. Now it's a point of pride for all parties involved and I can't see a peaceable solution for a long time. The islanders are a thorn in Britain's side, but morals dictate that we defend them... just like those bloomin' Northern Irelanders.
...Nothing like writing an undergraduate essay to give one a smug sense of knowledge and authority on any subject
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Indeed, as always Henners has the ability to make me rage with his poorly thought out posts.
I feel strongly about it not for any monetary reason.
Those people, some of which are 9th generation and whose family have lived there for 200 YEARS should not and can not be moved. Its an absolute disgrace to even suggest it.
Can you imagine the BNP saying that black people should be deported unless they were 9th generation or above? And where would you send them? English speaking Black people who have never been anywhere other than England?! It is the exact same thing.
To suggest the islanders just give up and "become" Argentinian or move is an absolute joke, and that middle class British twits like Henners can happily put it down to a simple economical argument makes my blood boil, and any man who values human decency and justice should feel the same. I honestly think that the Islanders have the right to choose their own destiny, and I don't believe that any impartial observer would side with the Argies over this matter.
Well, except Sean Penn, but I would guess he is ignorant of such things and supports the IRA, so he is hardly impartial is he?
Care to address my point on Diego Garcia? Or is it only heartbreaking when the settlers aren't white descendants of Englishmen?
I honestly think the only reason we are so impassioned about this issue is because British servicemen died.
Nevertheless, I once again stress that I am for the islands' retention for the time-being... and I do urge you to read the first part of this post as I hope you will find it well-reasoned... I am not deliberately trying to make anyone 'rage' and, for once, I am on the same side as the Sun & Daily Mail readers, so to speak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I must also ask if it really would be a terrible tragedy were the islanders to be gradually assimilated, culturally, over a century?
Let's imagine the war never happened... that process I described in the '70s was ongoing.
Falkland Islanders are all learning Spanish in schools as a second language, every day they use Argentine products... they use Argentine energy (before the agreements with Argentina, they were still using peat). They have subsidised air travel to Argentina... Argentines are travelling to the islands too.
Does nobody think that after a century or so in such an environment, the islanders might not have opened up to concepts such as, union with Argentina as a self-governing territory? It's not like English couldn't have been retained as their first-languages. Cultural assimilation is hardly unprecedented.
Were this to happen, the islanders would not have been repressed or forced into anything, the British would have been rid of an irritating cancour and international embarrassment (Argentina did a pretty good job of getting the Falklands onto the UN agenda) and we might actually have normal relations... not to mention the fact that many people would not have died in 1982.
Why am I downright evil for considering that to be the ideal solution?
But nope, just like how the Emprah's dream shattered in our beloved 40k, so too has this one shattered the moment Galtieri thought an invasion would be a good idea.
That being the case, I am disposed toward upholding the islanders' wishes, as it's what we are obligated to do... and has been our position since the 1960s.
I merely made the point earlier that I can imagine there being a time, again, a century from now, wherein commitments will dictate that we abandon them. I think that given the rise of non-Western nations, it's inevitable that we will have to surrender ourselves to the tide of the times.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And apologies, Mattyrm, if I took too long putting my second appended post onto that point, I realise that my first one looked a little... crass... Especially if I am implying that many Britons might disregard Diego Garcia out of racism and only care about the Falklands because of the loss of 'our own'.
Henners91 wrote:
Care to address my point on Diego Garcia? Or is it only heartbreaking when the settlers aren't white descendants of Englishmen?
I dont see that its really relevant mate. DG is still a British territory! I know that from experience because you can get a draft there with the RM and everyone puts in for it because you spend two years sun bathing and shagging American women.
Im aware that we displaced some native Chagossians, and I of course disagree with that as well.. but it isn't something we feel as strongly about thanks to a big ass war, surely that makes logical sense right?
Henners91 wrote:And apologies, Mattyrm, if I took too long putting my second appended post onto that point, I realise that my first one looked a little... crass... Especially if I am implying that many Britons might disregard Diego Garcia out of racism and only care about the Falklands because of the loss of 'our own'.
No need to apologise I enjoy a robust debate.
You may well have a point, of course we feel more strongly about it because a few hundred British soldiers lost their lives in the conflict, as I said, is that so silly?
Of course, regards the rest, you pretty much agree with my position anyway (retaining the Falklands) so I dont think there is much more to argue about.
Diego Garcia is still British, but 2,000 inhabitants were effectively evicted to let the base get built there as the US stipulated for an uninhabited island. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, but my point was that British strategic interests have come before the welfare of our citizens before.
It's not silly, it's just tragic that it ended that way. I'd still say the ideal solution would be if the islanders ever came around to the idea of assimilation, but they shouldn't be compelled to do so.
I think that legality probably rests with the Argentines if I am honest.
You might be honest, if honestly misinformed.
Henners91 wrote:
The French settled East Falkland, the Spanish purchased it from them in order to avoid a war between the two Bourbon monarchies. Britain had simultaneously colonised West Falkland. The Spanish asked us to get off (they were still going on about that Treaty of Tordesillas nonsense) and we wouldn't vacate; it nearly went to war. The Spanish backed down and ceded our sovereignty over Port Egmont, the settlement we'd established, but not the Falkland Islands as a whole.
The French colonised in 1764 the British in 1765, both colonies were valid as neither were aware of the other or intentionally interfered with each other.
However it doesn't start there. In starts in 1690 when the UK claimed the entire islands, so in terms of date of claims the Uk predates the Spanish and French. Funny how your revisionist history seems to forget this. Anyway lets move on.
Henners91 wrote:
The British left in the 1770s (my dates are sketchy, it was a while ago I wrote an essay on this) and only left behind a plaque asserting sovereignty, whereas the Spanish continued to administer their holdings. .....
This erroneously implies Spain continued to administer holding on the Islands rather than holdings on mainland South America. Spain never had holdings on the islands.
Henners91 wrote:
Argentina asserted sovereignty over the islands in 1814; claiming that, as the islands had been administered from Buenos Aires, Argentina possessed a claim as a successor state. Luis Vernet administered a settlement.
The United Provinces of the River Plate, which later became Argentina, attempted a claim from 1814 based on a claim the Spanish never had, and as you mentioned backed down from. This post dates the first colonisation by British peoples by 49 years and the claim by the British crown by 124 years. In other words the claim has no validity.
Henners91 wrote:Luis Vernet administered a settlement. The British returned in 1833, over fifty years (apparently it is a general consensus that a state loses rights to a territory if it fails to administer them for 50+ years), and took the colony. Argie settlers did flee but apparently returned over time......
Luis Vernet administered a settlement as a straight economic concern, not as a colony of the River Plate Provinces. He even sought permission from the British consulate in 1826 as well as the River Plater authorities to settle and raise sheep and hunt seals. Later the United Provinces appointed him military commander retrospectively in 1829, which raised immediate protest from the British government. Vernet tried to flex his muscles resulting in the capture of US whalers and the consequent raid on the colony by the USS Lexington who accused the colony of being pirates. Later in 1833 the United Provinces tried to establish a penal colony on the islands but there was a rebellion with the prison governor was killed.
The British government had had enough, the colony which was set up initially with their approval as a purely economic settlement had attracted a garrison and adjoining political claims from Buenos Aires which the British government had not agreed to. HMS Clio was sent to the Falklands and took control. Counter to Argentine claims the populace were not removed from the islands, only the garrison was. In fact the polulace approved of the take over on the grounds that the United Provinces had not paid them and the British government took responsibility for their missing wages.
Henners91 wrote:
Legal claims in international law apparently derive from (source: Bluth, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict'):
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
(2)Accrestion, whereby the geography of an area is altered by the forces of nature
(3)Cession, whereby title is transferred from one state to another by treaty
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it
Lets look at these.
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
Henners91 wrote:
The French settled the islands first, which gave them sovereignty under point #1. They then sold their claim to the Spanish, who gained their claim under point #4. The Argies succeeded in their claim.
The British claimed the islands in 1690, the first people to do so, and have never relinquished that claim. the British also settled the islands in tandem with the French as both colonies were unaware of each other. Sovereignty point is clearly in favour of the UK ever since France relinquished its competing claim. Even if the Frecnch had not it would still be at worst a join sovereignty and at best a wholly British claim. Spain doesn't come into it.
Spanish claims date from a treaty between Spain and Portugal which divided the new world between them. The Falklands are apprantely in the Spanish half. This however is irrelevant, the treaty claim was a blanket claim based on serctions of ann unexplored globe. The British and French and Dutch simply ignored it. Had it any validity then for example the USA and Canada dont exist (they rightfully belong to Spain) and Japan should be ceded to its rightful owners, the Portuguese.
This claim is as invalid on the Falklands as it is almost everywhere else.
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it
The Spanish never had any valid claim to the Falklands.
Henners91 wrote:
But, imo, we have a very weak legal claim. Our moral force to any argument is that the descendants of many of the Argentine settlers are still present on the islands and wish to remain British. Governments have an obligation to defend all those who wish to be under its sovereignty; it's the basis of the social contract.
Your argeument is very thin.
There were NO Argentine settlers on the islands. when Vernet opened up his colony, with British approval, Argentina did not exist.
Secondly the colonists that Vernet did import were mostly European settlers, later some Native South Americans. The colonists included some from the UK.
Henners91 wrote:
I think the best outcome would be if the islands would be assimilated into Argentina peaceably and culturally, and there was a real chance of this happening in the 1970s; Argentina provided healthcare, education (and Spanish classes), transport infrastructure and all kinds of investments... as well as rights for Falklanders to travel in Argentina and, if they chose to live there, be exempted from conscription. But that damned Junta got impatient with the islanders reluctance to acquiesce in sovereignty negotiations and had to launch that invasion. Now it's a point of pride for all parties involved and I can't see a peaceable solution for a long time. The islanders are a thorn in Britain's side, but morals dictate that we defend them... just like those bloomin' Northern Irelanders.
The population of the islands see it differently and it is transparent that any attempt of peaceful assimilation as suggested by bleeding heart liberals and other idiots is pie in the sky fancy.
Argentina cannot be trusted, not by the UK and nor by the islanders:
Evidence for this assumption.
1. Islanders repeatedly receive hate mail and malicious phone calls from Argentina.
2. Argentinians repeatedly refer to the islanders by racist epithets, for example 'kelper'. This is not discouraged by the government
3. Argentina speaks a different language and has a different demographic and cultural base.
add these three together and you can see what the islanders would be as part of Argentina, an unwanted ethnic minority that is likely to be short changed on equality and opportunity.
4. The Islanders gain most of their income from fishing. Argentina has tried to remove those fishing rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
5 The Islanders are set to inherit great wealth from oil. Argentina has tried to remove those mining rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
If Argentina manages to obtain the islands the oil and fishing wealth of the islanders would revert to the mainland. As the islanders are an unwanted minority and a tiny proportion of what would be the Argentina population they would be very hard done by.
6. Argentina recently removed oil mining rights from Spanish company YPF in a nationalisation move without compensation.
If Argentina is willing to nationalise the oil mining rights of a Spanish company without compensation, with Spain being seen as and island and the cultural origin of the Argentine state, how much worse will it be for Falkland islanders (who are entirely unwanted according to the Argentine government). It is clear that any transfer will result in the complete disenfranchisement of the Falkland islanders.
7. Argentina has repeatedly referred to the islanders as a non-people. They have flatly denied their right to claim self determination as described in the UN charter..
This should be seen as proof that Argentina will not honour the rights of the islanders after a transfer and thast they would become second class citizens.
8. Argentina is not a stable country, while it is currently a democracy it all too frequently arranges issues of race politics, of which the Falklands is one.
What guarantee do we have that the islanders will not become 'disappeared' at some point in the future. I find it a rather hard call frankly, if we cannot remove terrorists from our shores in case they get mistreated, why should we remove loyal citizens?
I would not fancy my chances long term as an Argentine citizen who was once a pro-British Falklander, the discrimination may well pass through to future generations. Its not worth the risk, except paradoxically to the liberal set.
I find is depressing that papers like the Guardian constantly spout 'ethical transfer of sovereignty'. There is no such thing. It may be politically correct but it would be the most ethically unsound move the UK could make over the issue. The Guardian however is more concerned with a misplaced colonial guilt than any form of rationality. there is not colonial guilt on the Falklands, the current population were the original settlers. were the Malvinas in Africa they might have more of a point. They are not though, but bleeding heart liberals cannot see the difference.
Henners91 wrote:
...Nothing like writing an undergraduate essay to give one a smug sense of knowledge and authority on any subject
Smug, if you say so, but hardly an educated opinion. Look again.
mattyrm wrote:
I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.
Which is why the UK offered to take the discussion to the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1947 and 1955, on both occasions the the Argentine government refused.
mattyrm wrote:Well, unless they invade again obviously.
Then we shall crush them.
Yeah, if that happens, I hope your gov't is able to convince the Obama administration that Argie needs a spanking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact the polulace approved of the take over on the grounds that the United Provinces had not paid them and the British government took responsibility for their missing wages.
mattyrm wrote:Well, unless they invade again obviously.
Then we shall crush them.
Yeah, if that happens, I hope your gov't is able to convince the Obama administration that Argie needs a spanking.
Ridiculous! No way would we need American assistance to beat the Argies, unless the issue was settled with a game of football.
Id advise against it, we would probably lose.
In this day and age I doubt they would even be able to get ashore. The islands are pretty well defended, and speaking from experience, amphibious landings are no cake walk, even if your up against a skeleton crew.
We all know we wouldn't get a hand anyway!
Plus we have me. I can hold Port Stanley on my own against Argie conscripts!
Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?
Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?
mattyrm wrote: Henners, I cant see them having legality surely?
It was uninhabited when it was settled, it has been settled for 200+ years, and now its full of British citizens?!
I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.
Was it uninhabited in the way that the empire considered most tropical islands to be "uninhabited" (lack of white people)? Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British. It's practically touching them and it's on the other side of the world from you and was claimed during a period of imperial expansion that resulted in virtually every other inhabited place turning into a sovereign nation or being absorbed into the most local states when the empire dissolved. Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
ShumaGorath wrote:. Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
Yes, definitely would.
The vast majority of British citizens dont give a gak about the prospect of oil, its the principal of the matter.
Plus, how is it practically touching them!? Its about as close as Iceland is to us!
Your a smart bloke Shuma, you must know the history of the place, are you just trying to wind people up or do you genuinely think that the Argies claim is as strong as the current people who inhabit it? I cant p[ossibly see it, and that's with my impartial hat on.
The British empire was doing fethed up stuff sure, but it was a long time ago.
At the end of the day, its 2012, and fething the rights of 4000 people who settled the place over 200 years ago is bs. It didnt even had an Argies on it anyway!
ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
Yes.
Yes we would.
I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.
Than why didn't you throw a fit with every other territory you spun off? Because these ones are mostly light skinned? I didn't see as much flexing when Hong Kong had it's birthday. I understand that having been attacked there would make you bristle and grasp. Americas certainly had it's little adventures with that kind of thing, but the most realistic solution for the Falklands is likely autonomy as a sovereign nation. It's not going to stop being a hot spot until oil stops being valuable.
Totally different, its in mainland China and it was leased!
It really isnt the same thing. As I said, I can see it being an issue to some Argentinians, but they definitely have no better claim than the people who currently live there.
The vast majority of British citizens dont give a gak about the prospect of oil, its the principal of the matter.
I suppose I should of said "your government" rather than "You". The average citizen of the world doesn't really care that much about individual resource holdings but everyone has pride.
Plus, how is it practically touching them!? Its about as close as Iceland is to us
The distance being about .5 texas'! I guess my scales for territorial proximity are a bit different being from a very large country.
Your a smart bloke Shuma, you must know the history of the place, are you just trying to wind people up or do you genuinelly think that the Argies claim is as strong as the current people who inhabit it?
I think it's better off being spun off to form it's own state. At that point it becomes a scenario of pure territorial aggression from the Argentinians, rather than some sort of pity play at having "rightful ownership" to a landmass whose current owner isn't visible on the same satellite map. At that point Argentinas belligerence becomes a world problem, and the world has much better force projection than just you guys.
The British empire was doing fethed up stuff sure, but it was a long time ago.
At the end of the day, its 2012, and fething the rights of 4000 people who settled the place over 200 years ago is bs. It didnt even had an Argies on it anyway!
Hence my belief that it's probably better off being a city state solution, rather than a tenuous and likely resource driven territorial holding by a former imperial power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: Hong Kong had it's birthday
Totally different, its in mainland China and it was leased!
I don't know if I would use a coerced "lease" in a place that remembers you for a war forcing legal opium sale is the best defense . I'll agree that it's a different situation though. There are probably small colonies in Africa and south america that got spun off or absorbed that are far more similar to the situation in the Falklands.
It really isnt the same thing. As I said, I can see it being an issue to some Argentinians, but they definitely have no better claim than the people who currently live there.
I aggree. I think the people that live there have the best claim at all and are a pawn in what is little more than a series of resource conflicts. Argentina certainly wouldn't care about the islands were they dry and I doubt the British government would rattle so many sabers if it wasn't so transparently valuable.
ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
Yes.
Yes we would.
I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.
Than why didn't you throw a fit with every other territory you spun off? Because these ones are mostly light skinned? I didn't see as much flexing when Hong Kong had it's birthday. I understand that having been attacked there would make you bristle and grasp. Americas certainly had it's little adventures with that kind of thing, but the most realistic solution for the Falklands is likely autonomy as a sovereign nation. It's not going to stop being a hot spot until oil stops being valuable.
You might remember they already had one war over the Falklands, long before the prospect of oil. British tend to be s tubborn lot, especially when they've already kicked the crap out of you for it.
The government would care... The first party to abandon the Islands (Unless the Islanders wanted it) wouldn't get into power for a very long time... Argentina messed up by invading it the first time. Now it's a point of pride as well as self-determination.
ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
Yes.
Yes we would.
I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.
Than why didn't you throw a fit with every other territory you spun off? Because these ones are mostly light skinned? I didn't see as much flexing when Hong Kong had it's birthday. I understand that having been attacked there would make you bristle and grasp. Americas certainly had it's little adventures with that kind of thing, but the most realistic solution for the Falklands is likely autonomy as a sovereign nation. It's not going to stop being a hot spot until oil stops being valuable.
You might remember they already had one war over the Falklands, long before the prospect of oil.
True. There was considerable resistance to the idea of deploying initially and they had an exceptionally aggressive and nationalistic administration in power at the time. The dissolution of the empire was a more open wound during the recession 30 years ago and the height of the cold war gave them serious impetus to not appear "weak" internationally. The Argentinians also aren't being led by the same Junta now.
I think this situation has a different political foundation than the previous one.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Hence my belief that it's probably better off being a city state solution, rather than a tenuous and likely resource driven territorial holding by a former imperial power.
I agree with you then!
Honestly, I know its probably hardly reported in the US, but take my word for it, Im pretty sure most Brits care nothing at all if it remains British, it means nothing to me. Its just the prinicpal of the matter, if the Falklands islanders said they wanted independence, I would support that whole heartedly. They are entitled to make their own minds up and I truly believe that.
But the thing is, they say that they don't want to be independent, so we cant turf them out can we? Thing is, dont ask me why, but the British are a patriotic lot, and our forefathers seem to have had a talent for passing that onto others, maybe its misguided, but they seem to like having a queen and strike me as being very "British" in the way that lots of people are who are from British stock or the old empire, gak, Ive even met plenty of Anglophiles in America, and when I was in Asia I met loads of Chinese guys in England shirts who loved the UK, I don't think many of the residents of Hong Kong wanted to go back to China either!
As I said, it is an odd situation, and I can understand your cynicism, but I truly dont believe this is about oil and resources, not from our part anyway. The first war was before they even thought there was oil under the Falklands anyway right?
The political situation is definitely different, however it includes a foundation of already having fought one war to preserve the Falklands, also the UK forces are in a good state of fettle from experience Afghan, etc.
There isn't much of a public mood at the moment, but if the Argentinians actually did invade the Falklands, that would change very quickly I am sure.
The two most important factors in winning a modern war is continued vocal support from the populous, and the state of your armed forces.
The vast majority of our combat troops are grizzled veterans, we fight lots of wars (probably a bad thing) and they don't. Veterancy in real life is almost as important as in Warhammer! Who would take scouts to beat first company veterans?
Our soldiers.. take the Royal Marines, last time out many were merely highly trained, nowadays 99% of them will have done several hard tours in Afghanistan and are used to combat, they would absolutely eat them for breakfast.
Regards support, the British public would be behind it as well.
For both these reasons an invasion will never happen, they aint that stupid.
I do find the commercial offensive though. As I said, I only hope the the majority of international observers see their endless whinging, illegal blockades (The poor buggers cant get two eggs with their breakfast anymore!) and propaganda TV commercials and rightly think that the British are being far more dignified about the whole thing.
I'd rather be petty than dignified. Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.
The two most important factors in winning a modern war is continued vocal support from the populous, and the state of your armed forces.
The vast majority of our combat troops are grizzled veterans, we fight lots of wars (probably a bad thing) and they don't. Veterancy in real life is almost as important as in Warhammer! Who would take scouts to beat first company veterans?
Our soldiers.. take the Royal Marines, last time out many were merely highly trained, nowadays 99% of them will have done several hard tours in Afghanistan and are used to combat, they would absolutely eat them for breakfast.
Considering they have little experience and spend less than 1% of their rather small GDP on military expense while the UK has quite a lot and spends 2.6% of it's comparatively titanic GDP... I think you could probably just shoot down their three bi planes and roll up in a rubber boat to send them packing!
I do find the commercial offensive though. As I said, I only hope the the majority of international observers see their endless whinging, illegal blockades (The poor buggers cant get two eggs with their breakfast anymore!) and propaganda TV commercials and rightly think that the British are being far more dignified about the whole thing.
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified. Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.
The way I see it, the Argies are going to complain and moan about the Falklands forever, too scared or maybe intelligent to try anything again... at least until the generation who lived through it dies, then they might forget what the score was and try again...
Same as always mate, I can fully understand why the Palestinians despise the Jews, but I still side with the latter over the former due to an entirely irrational blanket hatred of the other guys thanks to many years spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hey, admitting you have a problem is the hardest part!
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified. Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.
Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified. Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.
We should make our own commercial.
The British people have always been happy to help the Argentinians train for the Olympics.
In the 1980s we helped them learn to swim, and trained them in running faster.
Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?
Wasn't that HMS Dauntless? Anti-aircraft sensors-a-sensing rather than guns ablazing but still.
I think that legality probably rests with the Argentines if I am honest.
You might be honest, if honestly misinformed.
Henners91 wrote:
The French settled East Falkland, the Spanish purchased it from them in order to avoid a war between the two Bourbon monarchies. Britain had simultaneously colonised West Falkland. The Spanish asked us to get off (they were still going on about that Treaty of Tordesillas nonsense) and we wouldn't vacate; it nearly went to war. The Spanish backed down and ceded our sovereignty over Port Egmont, the settlement we'd established, but not the Falkland Islands as a whole.
The French colonised in 1764 the British in 1765, both colonies were valid as neither were aware of the other or intentionally interfered with each other.
However it doesn't start there. In starts in 1690 when the UK claimed the entire islands, so in terms of date of claims the Uk predates the Spanish and French. Funny how your revisionist history seems to forget this. Anyway lets move on.
I'm not aware of the *English* explorers making any formal claim.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
The British left in the 1770s (my dates are sketchy, it was a while ago I wrote an essay on this) and only left behind a plaque asserting sovereignty, whereas the Spanish continued to administer their holdings. .....
This erroneously implies Spain continued to administer holding on the Islands rather than holdings on mainland South America. Spain never had holdings on the islands.
The Spanish possessed the old French settlement (it had Louis in the name...), which they renamed Puerto Soledad. It was administered from Buenos Aires.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
Argentina asserted sovereignty over the islands in 1814; claiming that, as the islands had been administered from Buenos Aires, Argentina possessed a claim as a successor state. Luis Vernet administered a settlement.
The United Provinces of the River Plate, which later became Argentina, attempted a claim from 1814 based on a claim the Spanish never had, and as you mentioned backed down from. This post dates the first colonisation by British peoples by 49 years and the claim by the British crown by 124 years. In other words the claim has no validity.
Well, my point above once again shows that the Argentines had a basis for claiming they were a successor state. The complicating issue is that Spain contested this and continued to claim the islands.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:Luis Vernet administered a settlement. The British returned in 1833, over fifty years (apparently it is a general consensus that a state loses rights to a territory if it fails to administer them for 50+ years), and took the colony. Argie settlers did flee but apparently returned over time......
Luis Vernet administered a settlement as a straight economic concern, not as a colony of the River Plate Provinces. He even sought permission from the British consulate in 1826 as well as the River Plater authorities to settle and raise sheep and hunt seals. Later the United Provinces appointed him military commander retrospectively in 1829, which raised immediate protest from the British government. Vernet tried to flex his muscles resulting in the capture of US whalers and the consequent raid on the colony by the USS Lexington who accused the colony of being pirates. Later in 1833 the United Provinces tried to establish a penal colony on the islands but there was a rebellion with the prison governor was killed.
The British government had had enough, the colony which was set up initially with their approval as a purely economic settlement had attracted a garrison and adjoining political claims from Buenos Aires which the British government had not agreed to. HMS Clio was sent to the Falklands and took control. Counter to Argentine claims the populace were not removed from the islands, only the garrison was. In fact the polulace approved of the take over on the grounds that the United Provinces had not paid them and the British government took responsibility for their missing wages.
Vernet sought permission of the United Provinces of the River Plate (ta for the name, forgot it) when he set up this colony, as he was doing it under their sovereignty. I've read that he would have preferred British protection, mind, but I didn't explore that issue.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
Legal claims in international law apparently derive from (source: Bluth, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict'):
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
(2)Accrestion, whereby the geography of an area is altered by the forces of nature
(3)Cession, whereby title is transferred from one state to another by treaty
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it
Lets look at these.
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
Henners91 wrote:
The French settled the islands first, which gave them sovereignty under point #1. They then sold their claim to the Spanish, who gained their claim under point #4. The Argies succeeded in their claim.
The British claimed the islands in 1690, the first people to do so, and have never relinquished that claim. the British also settled the islands in tandem with the French as both colonies were unaware of each other. Sovereignty point is clearly in favour of the UK ever since France relinquished its competing claim. Even if the Frecnch had not it would still be at worst a join sovereignty and at best a wholly British claim. Spain doesn't come into it.
Spanish claims date from a treaty between Spain and Portugal which divided the new world between them. The Falklands are apprantely in the Spanish half. This however is irrelevant, the treaty claim was a blanket claim based on serctions of ann unexplored globe. The British and French and Dutch simply ignored it. Had it any validity then for example the USA and Canada dont exist (they rightfully belong to Spain) and Japan should be ceded to its rightful owners, the Portuguese.
This claim is as invalid on the Falklands as it is almost everywhere else.
Again, the English didn't claim the islands. The French were the first to settle them. The issue of discovery itself is highly contested, but with no competing claims it's irrelevant.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it
The Spanish never had any valid claim to the Falklands.
They did. Again, Puerto Soledad.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
But, imo, we have a very weak legal claim. Our moral force to any argument is that the descendants of many of the Argentine settlers are still present on the islands and wish to remain British. Governments have an obligation to defend all those who wish to be under its sovereignty; it's the basis of the social contract.
Your argeument is very thin.
There were NO Argentine settlers on the islands. when Vernet opened up his colony, with British approval, Argentina did not exist.
Secondly the colonists that Vernet did import were mostly European settlers, later some Native South Americans. The colonists included some from the UK.
Sure, I only make special reference to the Argentine colonists returning because the Argentines like to tell a sad tale of us driving the colonists away permanently. I perceive that view as being rendered false by their descendants still living there. I'm of the opinion that the ultimate determining factor is the will of the Falkland Islands' inhabitants, hence why I arrive at a pro-British conclusion. I am merely making the point that our legal claim is weaker; whereas our moral position I find to be the overriding cause.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
I think the best outcome would be if the islands would be assimilated into Argentina peaceably and culturally, and there was a real chance of this happening in the 1970s; Argentina provided healthcare, education (and Spanish classes), transport infrastructure and all kinds of investments... as well as rights for Falklanders to travel in Argentina and, if they chose to live there, be exempted from conscription. But that damned Junta got impatient with the islanders reluctance to acquiesce in sovereignty negotiations and had to launch that invasion. Now it's a point of pride for all parties involved and I can't see a peaceable solution for a long time. The islanders are a thorn in Britain's side, but morals dictate that we defend them... just like those bloomin' Northern Irelanders.
The population of the islands see it differently and it is transparent that any attempt of peaceful assimilation as suggested by bleeding heart liberals and other idiots is pie in the sky fancy.
Argentina cannot be trusted, not by the UK and nor by the islanders:
Evidence for this assumption.
1. Islanders repeatedly receive hate mail and malicious phone calls from Argentina.
2. Argentinians repeatedly refer to the islanders by racist epithets, for example 'kelper'. This is not discouraged by the government
3. Argentina speaks a different language and has a different demographic and cultural base.
add these three together and you can see what the islanders would be as part of Argentina, an unwanted ethnic minority that is likely to be short changed on equality and opportunity.
4. The Islanders gain most of their income from fishing. Argentina has tried to remove those fishing rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
5 The Islanders are set to inherit great wealth from oil. Argentina has tried to remove those mining rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
If Argentina manages to obtain the islands the oil and fishing wealth of the islanders would revert to the mainland. As the islanders are an unwanted minority and a tiny proportion of what would be the Argentina population they would be very hard done by.
6. Argentina recently removed oil mining rights from Spanish company YPF in a nationalisation move without compensation.
If Argentina is willing to nationalise the oil mining rights of a Spanish company without compensation, with Spain being seen as and island and the cultural origin of the Argentine state, how much worse will it be for Falkland islanders (who are entirely unwanted according to the Argentine government). It is clear that any transfer will result in the complete disenfranchisement of the Falkland islanders.
7. Argentina has repeatedly referred to the islanders as a non-people. They have flatly denied their right to claim self determination as described in the UN charter..
This should be seen as proof that Argentina will not honour the rights of the islanders after a transfer and thast they would become second class citizens.
8. Argentina is not a stable country, while it is currently a democracy it all too frequently arranges issues of race politics, of which the Falklands is one.
What guarantee do we have that the islanders will not become 'disappeared' at some point in the future. I find it a rather hard call frankly, if we cannot remove terrorists from our shores in case they get mistreated, why should we remove loyal citizens?
I would not fancy my chances long term as an Argentine citizen who was once a pro-British Falklander, the discrimination may well pass through to future generations. Its not worth the risk, except paradoxically to the liberal set.
I find is depressing that papers like the Guardian constantly spout 'ethical transfer of sovereignty'. There is no such thing. It may be politically correct but it would be the most ethically unsound move the UK could make over the issue. The Guardian however is more concerned with a misplaced colonial guilt than any form of rationality. there is not colonial guilt on the Falklands, the current population were the original settlers. were the Malvinas in Africa they might have more of a point. They are not though, but bleeding heart liberals cannot see the difference.
You're removing my point from its historical setting; how much of this stuff you've mentioned has come about since 1982?
With regards to oil wealth, do you really think the Falklands are going to benefit from it in its entirety? I highly doubt it will be privatised in the hands of the islanders themselves; they'll just benefit from the economic activity.
Orlanth wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
...Nothing like writing an undergraduate essay to give one a smug sense of knowledge and authority on any subject
Smug, if you say so, but hardly an educated opinion. Look again.
I would attribute the same to your highly partisan and rose-tinted view of things... ultimately resting on wilful ignorance of Spanish settlement. Nevertheless, in theory, we are on the same side... it just seems to me that my decision to approach the issue with an open mind and actually analyse the Argentine argument makes me a monster in the eyes of my fellow countrymen, eh? I'd suggest reading, but I have just checked and Wikipedia does have all the info on Puerto Soledad that is required so what is (at least my) the internet's primary source of debating material isn't deficient in this area ;P
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Henners, I cant see them having legality surely?
It was uninhabited when it was settled, it has been settled for 200+ years, and now its full of British citizens?!
I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.
Was it uninhabited in the way that the empire considered most tropical islands to be "uninhabited" (lack of white people)? Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British. It's practically touching them and it's on the other side of the world from you and was claimed during a period of imperial expansion that resulted in virtually every other inhabited place turning into a sovereign nation or being absorbed into the most local states when the empire dissolved. Would you even care if it didn't have oil?
The Falklands were uninhabited. Literally.
This is why we got a bit ticked off that the UN added it to the list of countries that should be decolonised in the '60s...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I think it's better off being spun off to form it's own state. At that point it becomes a scenario of pure territorial aggression from the Argentinians, rather than some sort of pity play at having "rightful ownership" to a landmass whose current owner isn't visible on the same satellite map. At that point Argentinas belligerence becomes a world problem, and the world has much better force projection than just you guys.
I might be getting this wrong as I am strictly straining my recollections, but I also believe that the UN later decided it was infeasible for the Falklands to gain independence; that's when they directed the UK and Argentina to enter negotiations on sovereignty as the 'next best thing' so to speak.
If the Falklands became their own state, they would have to be 'protected' by another state anyway, or the Argentines would promptly invade.
Isn't it a bit cheeky for the Argentines to complain that the UK are being 'colonial', then lay claim to the islands through dubious colonial succession?
Joey wrote:Ban the Argentinian team from attending.
Do they win much, at the Olympics ?
In Beijing they won 2 gold and 1 bronze (35th in table) and in Athens they won 2 gold and 4 bronze (38th in table) so in relative terms, no not really. The Falklands grudge match will be the Women's Hockey where Britain and Argentina are quite evenly matched.
Joey wrote:Ban the Argentinian team from attending.
Do they win much, at the Olympics ?
In Beijing they won 2 gold and 1 bronze (35th in table) and in Athens they won 2 gold and 4 bronze (38th in table) so in relative terms, no not really. The Falklands grudge match will be the Women's Hockey where Britain and Argentina are quite evenly matched.
Henners91 wrote:
I'm not aware of the *English* explorers making any formal claim.
You are now. The first English/UK claim dates from 1690. The expedition of Captain John Strong was the first recorded landing on the islands, there were previous sighting, but not landings. The islands were claimed at the time. The second recorded landing occured in 1701.
Henners91 wrote:
The Spanish possessed the old French settlement (it had Louis in the name...), which they renamed Puerto Soledad. It was administered from Buenos Aires.
That settlement was also abandoned in 1811,
Henners91 wrote:
Well, my point above once again shows that the Argentines had a basis for claiming they were a successor state. The complicating issue is that Spain contested this and continued to claim the islands.
Argentina cannot inherit what isn't belonging to those they claim inheritance from. The UK has the earliest claim, the only possible counter claimants are the French who abandoned their claim.
Henners91 wrote:
Vernet sought permission of the United Provinces of the River Plate (ta for the name, forgot it) when he set up this colony, as he was doing it under their sovereignty. I've read that he would have preferred British protection, mind, but I didn't explore that issue.
He also sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. This was granted for the purposes that Vernet originally described, seal hunting.
This can be easily identified as petitioning the United Provinces to establish a colony under their administration while concurrently obtaining permission from the lands owners.
Henners91 wrote:
Again, the English didn't claim the islands. The French were the first to settle them. The issue of discovery itself is highly contested, but with no competing claims it's irrelevant.
Actually the English did, in 1690. It doesnt support your opinion that but those happens to be the facts.
Henners91 wrote:
I am merely making the point that our legal claim is weaker; whereas our moral position I find to be the overriding cause.
The moral position of self-determination is inalienable and overwhelming.
The legal claim is also strong.
1. English sailors may have been the first to sight the islands in 1592, though this was not documented. The first recorded sighting was in 1600 by a Portuguese ship which did not stop and make a claim.
2. The UK via England were the first to set foot on the islands and named and claimed them in the process.
3. The UK founded an early settlement concurrently with a French/Spanish settlement. Neither was initially aware of the other and the settlements were on different islands enabling two valid claims. For early settlement. The Brtish settlement was destroyed by the Spanish but restored under treaty. Thus at a very minimum legitimising the Uk's joint claim with Spain (purchased from France).
4. The Spanish did however abandon their colony in 1811 and did not formally transfer their claim to any other party, thus voiding any half-claim remaining. Spain abandoned its settlement prior to the existence of Argentina. You dojnt inherit what someone relinquishes before they pass on.
5. The current and ongoing settlement was founded with British permission, and thus allowed to proceed, but without any form of permission from the UK for the colony to become United Provinces territory.
When the current and ongoing settlement was militarised by the Untied Provinces (Argentina) the claim was formally nullified by the territories lawful owners, yet the legitimate settlement was allowed to continue.
6. The United Provinces did not pay for the inhabitants of the settlement, The British government honoured their wages (thus shouldering financial liability for them) and the settlers (with exception of two persons) accepted those conditions.
7. Sovereignty issues were not raised in any form between 1849 and 1941 by which time several generations of islanders lived on the islands,
Henners91 wrote:
You're removing my point from its historical setting; how much of this stuff you've mentioned has come about since 1982?
None. But this is because they cannot occur because the islands were liberated.
Henners91 wrote:
With regards to oil wealth, do you really think the Falklands are going to benefit from it in its entirety? I highly doubt it will be privatised in the hands of the islanders themselves; they'll just benefit from the economic activity.
Not in its entirity, like with the fishing rights they will sell rights for others to exploit the resources. Those monies raised belong to the Falklands.
Henners91 wrote:
I would attribute the same to your highly partisan and rose-tinted view of things... ultimately resting on wilful ignorance of Spanish settlement.
The Spanish settlement was purchased from a third party the French, and thus gave the UK the longest concurrent claim. The UK settlement was restored under treaty after it was destroyed by the Spanish, the Spanish settlement was never restored by Spain. Vernet's settlement was not a restoration of the French/Spanish settlement.
Thus the Spanish settlment is irrelevant to current claims as it refers to a dead claim. Spain has no current claim, let alone one that can be 'inherited by Argentina.
'Highly partisan'. 1690 came from 1764 last time I checked. The UK has first claim in international law, now and of the time, QED.
Henners91 wrote:
Nevertheless, in theory, we are on the same side... it just seems to me that my decision to approach the issue with an open mind and actually analyse the Argentine argument makes me a monster in the eyes of my fellow countrymen, eh? I'd suggest reading, but I have just checked and Wikipedia does have all the info on Puerto Soledad that is required so what is (at least my) the internet's primary source of debating material isn't deficient in this area
1690, let your 'open mind' absorb the relavant facts.
Henners91 wrote:
I might be getting this wrong as I am strictly straining my recollections, but I also believe that the UN later decided it was infeasible for the Falklands to gain independence; that's when they directed the UK and Argentina to enter negotiations on sovereignty as the 'next best thing' so to speak.
The islands are on the de-colonisation list as they are run by a governor rather than an integral leader. This can be solved by offering the islanders full membership of the UK and allowing them to elect a an island council as local government and MP's for parliament. Its essentially the same as Argentina absorbing them, but with greater public approval from the inhabitants. Argentina will of course howl if the Falklands becomes part of the UK, but it would solve the problem.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:If the Falklands became their own state, they would have to be 'protected' by another state anyway, or the Argentines would promptly invade.
Isn't it a bit cheeky for the Argentines to complain that the UK are being 'colonial', then lay claim to the islands through dubious colonial succession?
It's possible that they'd invade, though at that point it would be a territorial invasion of a freshly created small state by a beligerant and unpopular neighbor in the united states coastal back yard. They wouldn't have the island for very long and it's unlikely that they'd maintain the same military capability they did after their last war.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:If the Falklands became their own state, they would have to be 'protected' by another state anyway, or the Argentines would promptly invade.
Isn't it a bit cheeky for the Argentines to complain that the UK are being 'colonial', then lay claim to the islands through dubious colonial succession?
It's possible that they'd invade, though at that point it would be a territorial invasion of a freshly created small state by a beligerant and unpopular neighbor in the united states coastal back yard. They wouldn't have the island for very long and it's unlikely that they'd maintain the same military capability they did after their last war.
Well, considering that the US and UK could, independently of eachother, probably crush their navy like an empty beer can, invasion is unlikely given an even remotely rational Argentina.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:If the Falklands became their own state, they would have to be 'protected' by another state anyway, or the Argentines would promptly invade.
Isn't it a bit cheeky for the Argentines to complain that the UK are being 'colonial', then lay claim to the islands through dubious colonial succession?
It's possible that they'd invade, though at that point it would be a territorial invasion of a freshly created small state by a beligerant and unpopular neighbor in the united states coastal back yard. They wouldn't have the island for very long and it's unlikely that they'd maintain the same military capability they did after their last war.
Well, considering that the US and UK could, independently of eachother, probably crush their navy like an empty beer can, invasion is unlikely given an even remotely rational Argentina.
Yeah I cant see them invading again, but you never know, their commandos were photographed training in the area by British intelligence.
Fernando Zylberberg starred in the government video which was first aired last week and has been widely condemned as the last attempt by Cristina Kirchner’s government to attack Britain over the disputed territory.
Set to stirring patriotic music and featuring scenes of Zylberberg running and training around famous Falklands landmarks, the video ends with the slogan: “To compete on English soil, we are training on Argentine soil.”
Zylberberg, 34, who has captained the national hockey side in the past and appeared at two Olympic Games has been left out of the 18-man squad to play in the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup in Malaysia.
It means the player will avoid a potentially fiery meeting against the Great Britain team, which is also competing in Malaysia.
The event is the team’s final warm-up event before the Olympics and means that Zylberberg will be unlikely to make the squad for London.
His absence from the squad has been attributed to “sporting reasons” by the coach, Pablo Rossi, who claimed Zylberberg “had not been able to complete all the necessary steps in pre-season”.
However, the video, lauded by Mrs Kirchner, has been met with international condemnation.
Fernando Zylberberg trains on the island's Great War Memorial, which honours British sailors who died in World War I (AFP/Getty Images)
The Argentina Olympic Committee (COA) has distanced itself from the campaign, issuing a statement on Tuesday that “using the Olympic Games to make political gestures of any kind is not acceptable”.
There is speculation that Zylberberg has been dropped to avoid adverse attention on the team and a potential media frenzy when players land in London in July.
He was not amongst the Argentine players to attend a reception at the British Embassy in Buenos Aires on Tuesday night.
He has also been the subject of online threats, with one commenter writing on a Facebook page: “I’m tempted to find out when the Argentine hockey team is due to arrive in the UK so I can throw eggs at Zylberberg.”
Zylberberg filmed the advert in secret after flying to the Falklands under the pretext he was running a marathon.
As dawn breaks over the South Atlantic, he sets off on a training run through the streets.
In scenes reminiscent of the film Rocky, Zylberberg carries out a set of dips on benches outside the Globe Tavern, then runs past a British red telephone box.
He then carries out step-ups on the islands’ Great War Memorial honouring British sailors who died battling the German fleet in 1914.
Zylberberg has said the advert was supposed to convey his country’s feeling over the islands.
“The message is that to every Argentine the islands belong to Argentina. To me to be training in any other province or to do it over the islands is the same,” he said.
The clip was shown on May 2 – the 30th anniversary of the sinking of the General Belgrano, which killed 323 troops, nearly half of Argentina’s total 649 losses during the Falklands conflict.
On Tuesday, Mrs Kirchner, who has stepped up anti-British rhetoric in recent months defended the video, claiming that “creativity should be recognised and applauded”.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said Argentina’s attempt to misuse the London Olympics for political purposes was a “rather sad stunt”.
Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of advertising giant WPP which owns Young and Rubicam, the agency behind the stunt, said he was “appalled and embarrassed by it”.
A source at the Casa Rosada, the presidential palace in Buenos Aires, told the Daily Telegraph: "Under no circumstances will we be pulling the advert. We are pleased with the impact it has had
. I'll agree that it's a different situation though. There are probably small colonies in Africa and south america that got spun off or absorbed that are far more similar to the situation in the Falklands.
