Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it's funny how Argentina are now trying to paint themselves as the reasonable side who wants to negotiate. The fact is Argentina walked away from previous negotiations, claiming the islands were theirs unquestionably. The UK even offered to submit the matter to international court, and again Argentina refused, saying that they would not respect the decision of the court. Britain even offered to relinquish the islands, but the Islanders themselves don't want to be part of Argentina. Then Argentina invaded the island and tried to take it by force.

The UK's position on all their former colonies (including Northern Ireland), is that so long as the majority of inhabitants want to remain part of Britain, they are welcome to remain. They are also free to opt out of being British any time they like, by the same measure. The Falkland islanders are fiercely loyal, and proud of their Britishness. The chance of them choosing to be part of Argentina is pretty much zero.

I should hope that the UK will not dignify Argentina's claim by entering further negotiations. The only people who have any claim to the islands are the islanders, and the islanders are resolute that they want to remain British. I would also hope that the UK will continue to defend the Islanders right to be British (by force if necessary).

I'm quite sickened by the Obama camp coming out in possible support of Argentina. Way to choose the wrong side, forget who your friends are, and invalidate the Islander's democratic rights, all in one fell swoop.

Why talks are a trap.

Argentina is asking for talks repeatedly, and getting support because the UK is not agreeing to 'talks'. Hillary Clinton offered to mediate on 'talks'. why appear so unreasonable and not have talks?

1. The UK offered to take the sovereignty issue up with the Hague courts, Argentina refused. in a court self-determination would likely be the deciding factor.

2. The UK and Argentina had open ended talks, which came to 'nothing' on the fate of the islands. Though the lack of resolution is an Argentine perspective, as far as the islanders and the Uk were concerned the matter was resolved, the Islands are not Argentine. Some progress on other issues like fishing rights were forthcoming. the talks lasted from 1965(?) to 1981.

3. After the talks came an invasion.

4. UN Resolutions have called for talks before and after the invasion, however prior resolutions which the UK complied with included the following wording:

16 December 1965

The General Assembly,

Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,

Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

2. Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

Source: www.un.org/documents

Later wording appears like this:

UN Resolutions

Resolution 43/25

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

7 November 1988

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and having received the report of the Secretary-General,

Aware of the interest of the international community in the peaceful and definitive settlement by the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all their differences, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Taking note of the interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in normalising their relations,

Convinced that such purpose would be facilitated by a global negotiation between both Governments that will allow them to rebuild mutual confidence on a solid basis and to resolve the pending problems, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

1. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made in paragraph 1 above, and to take the necessary measures to that end:

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-fourth session a report on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution;

4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-fourth session the item entitled "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

Source: www.un.org/documents

The main difference is that both are expected to agree to binding talks, but later resolutions do not include the interests of the islanders into account. All highlighted in bold. The above were brought to the General Assembly by Argentina.


Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

They only want mineral rights, it is traditionally their land. International law says so. We settled it illegally when Argentina had just become an independent state and could not enforce their claim to the islands.

However, theirs or not, there are British citizens there and they deserve to be protected against invasion and defended in the event of one.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.

There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.

England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.

There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.

England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.

The Argentinians wouldn't agree to those preconditions.

Joey wrote:
Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.

That you're not breaking the law, and that islanders are happy.

Talks are just political theatre most of the time.

This article is extremely misleading and probably has to do with why there isn't more popular support for defending the Falklands.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/20/falklands-islands-protesters-burn-british-flags-as-tensions-rise-115875-23709592/

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.

There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.

England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.

The Argentinians wouldn't agree to those preconditions.

Then they would be the ones unwilling to have talks at that point and the problem is solved.

It's OK though, we are sending Prince William there next month. Do Argentina still have a Royal family? They could send one of their own future monarchs, both would be dropped onto the island and have to create weapons using the natural resources on the island, whoever wins keeps the island. Simple.

Maybe we should have talks with Argentina. Just to laugh at them and say no. Thats all that needs to be done. There cannot be any discussion about this issue.

What are the prerequisites for a preemptive strike?

purplefood wrote:What are the prerequisites for a preemptive strike?

Winning.

reds8n wrote:

purplefood wrote:What are the prerequisites for a preemptive strike?

Winning.

That seems fairly straightforward...

Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question. Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.

Argentina can only muster support for this among the Third World or tyrants like Assad/Ahmadinejad. Dictators whose only means of legitimizing themselves comes with tired old "anti-colonialism" speeches. I wouldn't worry much.

I'm for one am glad my country (Israel) has halted arms exports to Argentina over their stupidity over the whole issue and how it has brought them into embrace with Arab dictators.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.

Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.

There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.

This. Can't really hurt. And in pointing out that the preference of the islanders is what matters, the UK reinforces that they're the good guys.

Harriticus wrote:Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question.

And refusing the talks plays into the hands of the Argentinian claim.

If the UK can't benefit from talks, then they deserve to lose their claim by way of incompetence.

Harriticus wrote:
Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.

The only people who care about self-determination are people that don't decide issues relevant to self-determination.

Harriticus wrote:
Argentina can only muster support for this among the Third World or tyrants like Assad/Ahmadinejad.

...and the better part of South America, which isn't a place noted for its dictatorial states.

Well, except by ignorant "observers" from Western nations.

Harriticus wrote:
I'm for one am glad my country (Israel) has halted arms exports to Argentina over their stupidity over the whole issue and how it has brought them into embrace with Arab dictators.

Israel halted arms exports after Argentina recognized Palestine as an independent state.

If the issue is truly the Falkland Islanders right to be citizens of the crown, then the solution seems obvious: agree to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina under the conditions that the Islanders be allowed to retain their British citizenship and their full rights thus concerned, but also be given full rights as citizens of Argentina. There, problem solved. The Argentinians get the land they so desperately want, the Islanders get to be British nationals/expats but will still be treated fairly by the Argentinian government. Caso cerrado.

That isn't the issue. It's the naval and air bases and the possible mineral rights which go along with soverignty.

Exactly, the rights of the islanders are just a bargaining chip.

They are a legal and ethical point of high importance, rather.

Mostly ethical, the UK could easily ignore their claim to rights and no one would stop them by direct force.

I have to say there has been an incredible amount of weird and wonderful claims in 7 pages.

1. The Europeans wont help us due to Cameron giving them a Big F*** off recently. = Completely wrong, he just prevented the Incredibly lazy and corrupt Italians, Greeks and Spanish from getting £52 billion of Uk cash every year from the proposed EU tax on City Trading. (80% of all transactions are done in London).

2. We would be the same if we had an island or such next to us in the same position. = We have and we did protect it. (Northern Ireland anyone?). However lets not start a debate on the Murky world of Pan Anglo / Irish Politics.

3. Brazil is sticking its nose in due to the fact it is loving its status as a Top 10 Player in world econmics and the Oil around the Falklands would most certainly help sustain and reinforce that position. This is a Mirror image of the Russian threat a few years back when they thought they could do anything as they controlled the Oil flow from Russia to Europe and if Europe intervened in any of their affairs they would switch it off. What happened next was Ukraine turned it off instead and basically said to Russia, "oh look, we can turn it off too, so stop bullying our neighbours".

4. People are surprised Obama and the US are apparently coming out in support of the Argentines, why? - The Yanks are not stupid, they know that a relationship with South American countries will be far more prosperous in a few years than a relationship with Englistan. Our tolerance of the Hate Mongers and Flag Burners and potential threats has sealed our fate on future "special" relations with the US.

The bottom line is this.
Argentina walked away years ago and decided naked aggression was the way forward. They were wrong. They thought the UK would not be able to sustain a fight so far away. They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is quite simply trying to follow the Maggie Thatcher persona as she is the first elected female premier of Argentina, however i doubt very much she has the balls that the Iron Lady had and her actions are so transparent that hopefully David Cameron will just fly to Argentina, grab her, bend her over and give her one to ease the ladies apparent frustrations.

dogma wrote:Mostly ethical, the UK could easily ignore their claim to rights and no one would stop them by direct force.

However since the UK wants to retain the Falklands the right of self-determination makes an excellent reason for doing so because it is true.

GBDarkAngel wrote:I have to say there has been an incredible amount of weird and wonderful claims in 7 pages.

1. The Europeans wont help us due to Cameron giving them a Big F*** off recently. = Completely wrong, he just prevented the Incredibly lazy and corrupt Italians, Greeks and Spanish from getting £52 billion of Uk cash every year from the proposed EU tax on City Trading. (80% of all transactions are done in London).

No, the proposed transaction tax revenues would have gone to the national government.

GBDarkAngel wrote:They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.

This made me ROFL so hard, thanks for the pick me up

chaos0xomega wrote:

GBDarkAngel wrote:They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.

This made me ROFL so hard, thanks for the pick me up

I have to say, I think you're being quite rude there. Though our armed forces may be a lot smaller than the USA's, man for man they are certainly the equal of any in the world, and in fact much better than the vast majority, without question.

Is it rude to say you laughed at an arrogant statement? While Matty might be a superman, to claim that your army, navy, and air force are the best in the world brings in a great deal more factors than just the quality of your best personnel. I mean, when comparing technology, total equipment and manpower, your forces would more or less have to be ENTIRELY comprised of clones of Matty to be the best in the world, wouldn't they?

Mannahnin wrote:Is it rude to say you laughed at an arrogant statement?

I think Albatross was a little oversensitive, but chaos was little over the top in his ridicule.

I say we grab the pair of them, go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over.