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.

Suffice to say, my opinion is no, the island has been populated by British people since the early 19th century and the right of self-determination means they have every right to stay within the nation of Great-Britain. Even if you could argue the islanders had been driven off during the 19th century, there are no surviving families who owned land to make a claim and the groups Argentina insists to have been 'imported' are several generations advacned. It also needs to be kept in context, the Falklands were only a sparsely settled set of islands on the edge of the Spanish Empire; in fact intiatially claimed by a Frenchman. There is no great ideological/religious imperative, like for example in Kosovo where it is seen as the birthplace of the Serbian nation. What claim they have is based on a god given right that they have to own a set of territory that they as a nation have a right to. Again, unlike Israel, they don't have the advantage of having a holy book several millennia old promising them a land of milk and honey along the river Jordan. Aside from the fact that all national boundaries are plastic and have never conformed to natural limits; there is no precedent for such a claim. In fact there are several cases world wide of FAR greater historical claims to territory being inalienable but such concerns are not ansawred. I will give two brief case studies.

Germany-
Folliwing World War 2, there was an understandable desire, especially by the Soviet Union and Britain that Germany should never be able to threaten the peace of Europe. To achieve this Stalin began a forced deportation of Germans who hadn't been displaced during the war in what had until then been East Prussia and most of the German territory past the Elbe river. This land was incorporated into Poland and what is now the Russian oblast and naval base at Kalingrad/formerly Koinsberg. Obviously these lands have several generations of Russians and Poles living on them and nobody could concieve any reversal of an action taken 60 years ago. However, within living memory, thousands of people were removed from their country. These regions had been German, arguably since the 12th century and the arrival of the Teutonic order. They had then formed through union with the state of Brandenburg into the early modern political unit called Prussia. This state became the unifier of Germany and its sober protestant military culture was one of the crucial aspects of a new German identity before WW2. By the Argentinains logic these lands have every right to be in Germany. Such a suggestion is of course ludicrous for a whole multitude of reasons even though it is from a historical point of view far more valid than for the Falklands IMO.

Constantinople/Istanbul
A Hellenistic city called Byzantium was founded on the Bosphorus during the classical period at a time when most of Western Asia Minor was heavily oriented towards Greek culture. It could be argued that no Greek state existed at this point in history, but, you could say the same about Athens and Sparta. All had a similar civic culture and worshipped similar gods with a vague sense of cultural if not political unity. Under the Roman Empire, it, like much of the Empire in the East remained Hellenic in outlook and its poeple continued to speak Greek. Eventually, the Emperor Constantine made it his new capital, which he gave its name Constantinople. This would become the center of the Greek speaking Eastern half of the Roman Empire that survived the fall of Rome in the 5th century and would be called the Byzantine Empire by the West. Not only was it the heart of Greek culture and politcs for most of the medieval period, Athens and Thessalonika but provincial centers but was also home to the Greek Orthadox Church itself its heart symbolized in the great Cathedral of St Sophia. However, the world moves on. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks conquered the city. Upon doing so, the Sultan, desiring to make it his capital and a great admirer of Hellenic culture repopulated the city with Muslims and Armenians to give the city its multi-ethnic character. In the twentieth century, the Armenians suffered dreadfully during the Genicide and the Greeks were largely driven out after the newly independent Kingdom of Greece failed in the 1920s to reconquer the city. Today, Constantinople is one of the major cities of the country of Turkey. Again, no rational individual would suggest handing it back to Greece, nor to my knowledge are they asking; even though there is a great historical claim that runs for several millennia and has immense cultural significance.

What I'am trying to point out, is that Argentina cannot reasonably make the claims it makes when there is no global consensus or even a dialogue on the issue. There is not, nor can there ever be, because especially in the above cases they are hugely complicated by the fact that generations of ordinary Poles and Turks have lived on this land regardless of whether that land was once called home by Germans or Greeks. Its the present we should look to, not the dusty pages of the past.

Oh and one more thing. A BBC report just said the Argentina considers the Falklands a British 'colony'. There are two problems with this. One, it is not a military colony in the same sense as say, a US air force base since it is inhabited by a nine generation old civilian population. This would imply, taking colonial America as our case study, that the 'indiginous' people were displaced by an armed foreign agressor and now reside on land their forefathers inherited. A crucial difference must be stated however, Argetina is, far more even than Mexico, a colinal nation itself. It was part of the Spanish Empire and is ethnically a majority of white Iberian Italian and other European imigrants who arrived over the course of several centuries. Mexico have, by contrast, predominant Mestiso and Indian populations. The Argetinains, after gaining independence drove most of the Indian population in the South off their lands and used that land for cattle raising. This enabled Argentina to become grow immensely in agricultural production in the 19th century. Thus, the Argentinain state is the product of European colonialism itself, far more than most Latin/South American countries. Indeed Argetina is actually one of the two administrative units which rebelled against Spain in the 19th century (the other was Caracas-Columbia). As a result, the Argetinian state cannot claim its people to be indiginous at all to the Falkland islands.

Note-I do not wish, nor do I desire to offend anybody by profounding these views. I simply percieve the invokation of a historical case as being void of any relevance to the modern world and the terminology used by the Argentine government as being misleading. This is just about them wanting oil and fishing rights to the South Atlantic and Antarctica. This is largely based of various bits and pieces that I picked up during my History degree course on A History of the Americas.

No.

Like, does anyone really have a right to claim any land? I mean, dude, it isn't like we made the Earth. We are buying, selling, trading, and fighting over stuff that, like, isn't even ours to begin with. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go see a man about a rug.

Joey wrote:
No.

We live in changing times. One destroyer is hardly going to tip the balance. Argentina has plenty of Western weaponry/training from the US and others; its not like Iraq. It doesn't help that Cameron cut the carrier force before he had the replacements arragned. Its probably just bluster on the Argentinians part, they want to internationalize the issue and get nations on their side. Then they think they can open a dialogue and gain sympathy in any negociations.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Joey wrote:
No.

We live in changing times. One destroyer is hardly going to tip the balance. Argentina has plenty of Western weaponry/training from the US and others; its not like Iraq. It doesn't help that Cameron cut the carrier force before he had the replacements arragned. Its probably just bluster on the Argentinians part, they want to internationalize the issue and get nations on their side. Then they think they can open a dialogue and gain sympathy in any negociations.

We have 3 type 45s, a single one of each would render the Argentinian airforce useless, as well as their missiles; and our subs could easily sink their surface fleet. The British fleet, dispite its current lack of carriers, has moved on more than the Argentinian navy.
The Argentinians refuse to negotiate since they do not recognise the Islanders' right to self-determination, which itself makes more or less the entire Western world on the UK's side, as well as the UN.

Argentina is saying they are going to complain about the destroyer to the UN. You're completely safe.

But if Russia backs it and we get sanctions our Vodka supply would be greatly diminished.

Get out the Emergency Port Nan!

5 guys in a inflatable boat and a toy airplane would be enough to beat the Argentinian army.

Mr Hyena wrote:5 guys in a inflatable boat and a toy airplane would be enough to beat the Argentinian army.

But I agree, that Argentia might have a claim on it, but a far weaker than the UK on this island(s).


Nobody is saying that Deportations are just, its just a cruel problem solver.

Its not a problem solver when the Right to Self-Determination is invoked.

Frazzled wrote:Argentina is saying they are going to complain about the destroyer to the UN. You're completely safe.

Better put the kettle on then, we might be waiting a while for any sort of reply.

How are these disputes recent? The falklands have always been disputed....

Melissia wrote:How are these disputes recent?

Recently ressurected. Again.

Personally I see this for what its about Oil. Recently deposits were found near the islands. The UK government has authorized some oil company to do some drilling. The worth of the islands goes up and Argentina go into we want those islands!

Cameron idolizes the former prime minister Thatcher, and thinks I know ill make people like me because ill give them a thrashing, it wont work for 1 people are tired of wars, n 2 he doesn't need to prove he is re electable because labour is worse now than in the 80s, n for 3 he isnt thatcher

n yeah if it comes to blows well, i really hope that both governments have grown out of the childish notion blood needs to be spilt, honestly let the people of the islands themselves decide

yukihyou wrote:Personally I see this for what its about Oil. Recently deposits were found near the islands. The UK government has authorized some oil company to do some drilling. The worth of the islands goes up and Argentina go into we want those islands!

Cameron idolizes the former prime minister Thatcher, and thinks I know ill make people like me because ill give them a thrashing, it wont work for 1 people are tired of wars, n 2 he doesn't need to prove he is re electable because labour is worse now than in the 80s, n for 3 he isnt thatcher

n yeah if it comes to blows well, i really hope that both governments have grown out of the childish notion blood needs to be spilt, honestly let the people of the islands themselves decide

The people of the islands have decided. They want to stay British, and have made this explicit.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Melissia wrote:How are these disputes recent?

Recently ressurected. Again.

Does sharing the islands via treaty sound too outrageous?

honestly let the people of the islands themselves decide

Argentina is fighting tooth and nail against it though, they can't accept 'No' from the islanders as an answer for some reason. Is Argentina's leaders educated?

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

The people of the islands have decided. They want to stay British, and have made this explicit.

and i think that they offered each person on the islands 1000 pounds to become Argentinian about 5 years ago maybe?, n they said no

yukihyou wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

The people of the islands have decided. They want to stay British, and have made this explicit.

and i think that they offered each person on the islands 1000 pounds to become Argentinian about 5 years ago maybe?, n they said no

Exactly. Therefore there is nothing to discuss when it comes to what the Islanders themselves want.

Spain would have a legal challenge to the islands, however Spain has not tried o do so, nor has Spain ever tried to colonise.

Argentina possessed the islands for only 72 days, at gunpoint, they have no actual prior claim. They may say they have but they could claim the moon with as much authority.

This issue might not be decided on right or wrong though. Most of South America is behind the Argentine claim, and while this could possibly be solved with a little education it is giving easy distractions to bigoted leaders, of which the Argentine president is just one of many.

Now what may be interesting is that when the Royal Navy booted the Argentine garrison off the islands in 1833, it appears the settlers on the island may not have been booted off also, as the Argentines claim. If this proves to be true then the current islanders are the original settled populace and the Argentine arguments against self determination evaporate. This will cut little ice in Buenos Aires, but it might give pause for thought elsewhere in the Americas.
Another point that the Argentinians don't like raised is that those original permanent settlers were not all from the River Plate (later Argentina) some were British citizens, as Luis Vernet (the colony leader) initially sought permission from the British crown to settle and only raised the ire of the government of the time after the settlement was reinforced by a garrison from the River Plate.
Should this prove to be true then it would support claims that the settlement initiated by Vernet never ceased to exist and that the current Islanders are the original populace.


Personally I do not think the Argies have a leg to stand on, however just relying on self determination issue, which wholly valid, is politically insufficient allowing for the level of propoganda flowing from Buenos Aires and the fact that it is gaining a larger audience. Frankly the British government may have goofed by not exploring historical claims more closely. Much of the British press, let alone press elsewhere believe Britian's claim dates from 1833, now this may just be sloppy journalism, but it makes it appear that Argentina has more of a point than it actually has. Thankfully some of the foreign press is giving the issue a better look over. CNN



Anyway in the last hour the government reiterated its no negotiations policy. This I agree with, but needs to backed up with a firm why, or the political battle may be lost. No negotiations without good reason appears to be unreasonable and much of the world has forgotten the Falklands invasion because Argentina was 'different' then. That is a bit like the Germans saying, 'we arent Nazis anymore, so can we have Poland now please'. That of course is unreasonable, so is the Argentinian position here, but if the proper counter is not placed the Argentinian position is given an illusion of rationality.

Frazzled wrote:Argentina is saying they are going to complain about the destroyer to the UN. You're completely safe.

Yeah I just read this.

In her address on Tuesday, Ms Fernandez accused the UK of "militarising the South Atlantic one more time"...She asked UK Prime Minister David Cameron "to give peace a chance".

This from the country that invaded 30 years ago...sigh.

Joey wrote:

In her address on Tuesday, Ms Fernandez accused the UK of "militarising the South Atlantic one more time"...She asked UK Prime Minister David Cameron "to give peace a chance".

This from the country that invaded 30 years ago...sigh.

Why are they quoting John Lennon songs? That's not a convincing political argument...

If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

AlmightyWalrus wrote:If they can have the Faklands, does that mean us Swedes can have Finland and S:t Petersburg back

Only if America can have Canada.

Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

And the Neanderthals can have the...well...I don't think there are any of those left....

Maybe its just me, but..............

Prince William is deployed to the Falklands, swiftly followed by our most modern Type 45 Destroyer and one of our latest Nulcear Subs. Hmmmmmm.

WarOne wrote:

Joey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:Yep, and Native Americans can have the US back, Aborigines can have Australia back.

Actually, Native Americans can have Eurasia, as this is where they were originally from.

In that case, we can all have Ethiopia.

And the Neanderthals can have the...well...I don't think there are any of those left....

Sure there are