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.

 whembly wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.

Well... if they invade again...

Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?

No they would just take Messi.


Now On topic.

1. The British have legal rights to the Falklands. Argentina just happens to be nearby. Ohh and the people who live there want to be british.
2. Argentina can't do anything about it. Seriously the Brit navy while small is in a much better state.
3. I know a Falklands War Vet. Most of my opinions about that conflict doubtless are affected by my friendship.
4. Who cares. No one is going to do anything.

This article tells us who the real indigenous inhabitants are.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/25973/how-island-full-landmines-led-thriving-penguin-population

I don't know much about the conflict, and have no one connected to it. However what little I know says that if the Falklands types wants to keep their crumpets and Union Jack let them, and woe betide Argentina if they decide to mix it up again.

 Ketara wrote:

Rough timeline:

snip

Very good thankyou.

You can expand on that.

1. The first recorded sighting of the islands is disputed but the oldest log entry belong to a Portugese vessel, however it did not stop. Boots on the ground state a claim.

2. The first recorded landing was by Captain John Strong in 1690, who claimed the islands for the British crown. Formally the Uk claim dates from then. While Cpt Strong did not start a settlement this is at the very least a tiebreaker with ther French.

3. The treaty that restored Port Egmont ensured the Spanish acceptance of a British co-claim. So any attempt to piggyback on a Spanish claim must also respect the British claim.

4. There was no indigenous human population prior to coolonisation, so the current inhabitants can claim to be indigenous.

5. The Spanish 'inheritance' was also gifted to Uruguay prior to Argentina.


Add all these together to your entyry and you get a more comprehensive history enough to convince anyone but an Argie or a closed minded Guardian reader.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?

The current population are the indigenous islanders. There was no human settlement before them over most of the land. Those settlements that predate were restricted to small corners of the islands and will be dealt with below:

I think you should check the definition of indigenous. There is NO indigenous population to the Falklands.

Indigenous peoples are loosely and often politically defined, a safe definition is to equate indigenous populations to native populations, as it those with the earliest known historical rights over it. As the Falkanders were settlijng virgin territory without a native population they become the native population. By your definition there can be no indigenous people outside of East Africa, as ultimately everyone came from there. So if the Falklanders are 'immigrants' so are the Native Americans 'immigrants' to the Americas, they just came over a few tens of thousands of years earlier.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Umm... Argentina definitely existed in 1975... and the British definitely had settled the islands before then... not sure what you're trying to claim here.

Typo. Long post read as: 1765.

chaos0xomega wrote:

In any case, despite the British claim, the French were the first to actually establish a presence on the island, and given that the British abandoned the island voluntarily (more than once I might add) they would have also thus surrendered their claim (particularly when the abandonment occurs while someone else has a presence)...

The British left behind their claim, but restored it. The French and Spanish left behind their claims and didnt restore them.
You would have a point if the British did not return to reinforce their claim, however they did.

chaos0xomega wrote:

The French surrendered their territorial claim to Spain, making Spain the successor, this is further reinforced by the fact that the Spanish expelled the British presence on the island in the mid/late 1700s (so, given that, the Argentines actually have just as legitimate a claim over the islands as the British do considering the British expelled the Argies the same way that they themselves were expelled by the Spaniards). Eventually the Spaniards allowed the Brits to return, and it was agreed that both sides could maintain sovereignty claims. Britain later abandoned the colony voluntarily, though they left a flag behind asserting their control (so does the US own the moon??).

The treaty with the Spanish agreed to a co claim, the Spanish claim doesn't invalidate the British one, however the Spanish claim was allowed to lapse for over 50 years.
Existing space exploration treaties ratified by the US and others forbid making land claims on the moon, besides the landing and flag planting was not accompanied by a claim at the time. So its just a flag planting, not as flag planting and claim.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Following the withdrawal, the Spanish colonial gov't (the Viceroyalty of the River Plate) in that area governed the islands, and at some point brought down the British flag and removed the plaque, which can be seen as a hostile takeover and assertion of complete control over the islands by Spain (move your feet lose your seat). When the United Provinces declared their independence from Spain they claimed sovereignty over the Falklands (which was then under complete de facto and arguably de jure control of Spain), and they actually raised their flag over the island and administered it for a good 10+ years until the British showed up and expelled them with the threat of military force.

You omitted that the settlement the Provinces placed there was with British permission, for economic use only, but it engaged in piracy, made claims over the UK's claims and militarised the islands outside of the treaty. The British shut down the portions of the operation that were in violation of the agreement. the colonists however were allowed to stay. Argentina only has a claim via the colonists, and they wanted to remain under UK rule (and then pay).

chaos0xomega wrote:

Spain actually never renounced their claim (that I have found, please provide sources otherwise),

However it was left dormant for over 50 years, so it expired. It was also gifted to Uruguay before Argentina, but Uruguay didnt take up the offer.

chaos0xomega wrote:

The argument the British use is that Spains claim lapsed because Spain abandoned it... but by that same token, Britains claim would have lapsed as it had abandoned the islands (several times). The claim that Uruguay owns the islands is dubious, considering that its a document that nobody really knew about until about 2 months ago...

The British settlement claims didnt lapse because they were restored in under fifty years. The French claim and Spanish claim wasnt.

chaos0xomega wrote:

The fact of the matter is Britains claim is about as legitimate as the Argentine claim given the history,

Rubbish. Argentina has no claim.

1. If date of claim is relevant, expired or not the UK has the oldest dating to 1690.
2. The Spanish claim was bought from the French, legally, but it also expired from lack of use for over 50 years. It was also taken by Argentina as an inheritence when not offered.
3. By treaty, any relation to the Spanish claim must include the British claim, as the (expired) right for Spain to mount a colony is in conjunction with the British.
4. The earliest Argentine claim was by treaty with the British for specific usage on a specific half of the islands. Argentina broke the agreement and was expelled from the colonies for breaking the treaty.
5. At the time Argentina had no rights to the Spanish claim and didn't for another forty years.

Argentina persistently lies about this, and their spurious version of events is taught in their history curriculum:

They prefer to claim they had a colony established with the blessing of Spain, and it was destroyed by the British. The like to omit the fact that the colony was established with British permission for certain activities, dont admit to what they did to break the treaty, that Spain had nothing to do with it, and above all that the islanders they sent are still established there.

When Galtieri invaded one of his priorities was to burn records, fortunately he didnt get them all. Some of the islanders can trace thier lineage back to Vernet's expeditions. Those islanders are the only validating connection to Argentina's claim, too bad for them that not only are they overwhelmingly in favour of the British claim but Argentina persecutes them by attempting to deny them any voice.

Also the UN resolutions calling for talks from 1965ff were adhered to. There were talks between the UK and Argentina, however the talks broke down in 1981 because the Uk wouldnt hand them over. Argentina invaded. There is nothing left to discuss even with the change in government.

chaos0xomega wrote:

My thoughts, Britain evicted Argentina by force, Argentina has the right to make a claim, until the Argentines can evict Britain by force, the claim is pointless.

The Germans used to own East Prussia. Otherwise known as Poland. So they thought they should march in......
So one other thing to mention, this isn't the 19th century. What was good for then is not for now, usually. Or should we all hand Poland 'back' to the Germans? Do they have a stronger claim now they have had a change of government?

Where does this 50 year lapse thing come from? Is that a made up.international law or something? By that logic the original 1690 "claim" lapsed as the British didnt establish a presence on the island until quite some time later 1765) meaning that the original claimant would be Spain (via France).

Spain quit the Falklands in 1810 or 1811, leaving the same symbols of.sovereignty which the British did previously (and going by the British Chatge d'Affaire in 1829), these symbols should be regarded as a sign of territorial possession). Argentina gained its independence about 6 years later via conflict. Though the Falklands arent explicitly or specifically stated to have been claimed from Spain at this time (to my understanding), they did make the claim at a later date. It should also be noted that Britain formally recognized the UPRP AFTER the UPRP had acknowledged/claimed the Falklands, which would mean, in turn, that the British recognized their claim.

The argument that the settlements on the Falklands were made via British permission are a retcon of.history, as the original "permission" asked for was that the British would not threaten the settlement, etc.and would maintain the status quo of the previous coexistence with the Spanish. The payments made were "protection money".

 Manchu wrote:
To clarify, he's not the bishop of Argentine people any more. The office changes the man. Where one may be able to speak a certain way in one office, one cannot or does not desire to do the same in another office. Your original comment was that the pope had weighed in on this issue. That's sloppy usage. An Argentine bishop who is now the pope weighed in on the issue.

I think you're overemphasizing the extent to which ascension to the Papacy changes people, and that you're splitting hairs with regard to the relevant terminology. The man that is now the Pope took a clear stance in support of an Argentine claim to the Falklands, and did so not long ago. While it is true he is no longer the Argentine bishop he is still Argentinian and a bishop, and I have a very difficult time believing that wearing a different set of vestments changes the man's position on the issue; even if it will not be an issue of importance to his papacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

But, ignoring that, let's assume that such a method is a credible way of building a case for ownership. I, as the temporary imaginary Prime Minister, am now giving Canada the right to rule the US. And South Africa the right to the rest of Africa. How strong are these claims?

Exactly as strong the military of the claiming nation relative to any potential opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I don't know much about the conflict, and have no one connected to it. However what little I know says that if the Falklands types wants to keep their crumpets and Union Jack let them, and woe betide Argentina if they decide to mix it up again.

Its really just a matter of the relative military capabilities of the UK and Argentina, or at least the willingness of the UK to defend its claim to the Falklands, as I have a hard time believing any other nation would commit forces to a possible conflict.

As I said up-thread, what the residents of the Falklands want is very nearly irrelevant.

Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.

It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Where does this 50 year lapse thing come from? Is that a made up.international law or something? By that logic the original 1690 "claim" lapsed as the British didnt establish a presence on the island until quite some time later 1765) meaning that the original claimant would be Spain (via France).

Its more custom that law, but it works both ways.

If you don't consider claims to expire then the UK claim from the landing in 1690 predates all others. End of Argument.

If you do consider claims to expire then the Spanish claim not only expired, but was passed on to two nations one of whome made a claim preemptive of any right given to them by Spain. This makes the argument for the Spanish claim inheritence shaky at best.
Then if you do count in the Spanish claim the best it offers is joint sovereignty between two parties. Then you have to account for who that means, one part is defacto the UK, the treaty states as such. The other part is either Uruguay, Spain or the islanders as the 'manifestation' of the Spanish claim depending on how you parse out that half claim. Argentina can only make a claim via Vernets settlements which they retconned as an inherited claim. As those settlements are still on the islands you can ask them what they think. oh wait, we just did.

Argument over.

 Albatross wrote:
Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.

Agreed, is the islanders wanted union with Argentina we would have backed that.

However what really controls our military are short sighted civil servants and politicians. You cant talk sense into many of them and even those you can cant see beyond the current financial quarter. This puts us in a poor position.

 Albatross wrote:

It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.

Well said, but an increasing number of people are unpatriotic and also couldnt care less about anyone but themselves, or are bound into self hate dogma. In the long term the interest might fade.

It might well fade, yes. However, it seems that just when we're starting to forget the Falklands, the Argentines do or say something stupid about them and the public becomes aware of them all over again.

 Albatross wrote:
Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.

It is right now, but it may not always be. Further, simply because the public wants to support the wishes of the Falkland Islanders doesn't mean that doing is feasible from a policy perspective. I mean, it is true that public opinion is a huge a factor in how political decisions are made, but only in the short term and, despite what many believe, there are political decisions made according to long-term political goals.

In any case, its still fundamentally a question of the UK's ability to defend its claim to the Islands. Right now its fully capable of doing so, but if they can't what the Islanders want doesn't matter.

 Orlanth wrote:

However what really controls our military are short sighted civil servants and politicians. You cant talk sense into many of them and even those you can cant see beyond the current financial quarter. This puts us in a poor position.

Public opinion being by its very nature a short sighted concern, I would argue it is the politicians* who would be most likely to move to support the Falklands.


*Civil servants tend to see thing in the long term, at least to the extent that they have any effective authority.

 dogma wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.

It is right now, but it may not always be. Further, simply because the public wants to support the wishes of the Falkland Islanders doesn't mean that doing is feasible from a policy perspective. I mean, it is true that public opinion is a huge a factor in how political decisions are made, but only in the short term and, despite what many believe, there are political decisions made according to long-term political goals.

All fair points, but the party that loses the Falklands doesn't get back into power for a generation, easy.

In any case, its still fundamentally a question of the UK's ability to defend its claim to the Islands. Right now its fully capable of doing so, but if they can't what the Islanders want doesn't matter.

Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.

 Albatross wrote:

Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.

Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?

 dogma wrote:
I have a very difficult time believing that wearing a different set of vestments changes the man's position on the issue

We're not talking about anything so superficial as changing clothes. In my own life, in small ways, I know how much difference is made by holding or not holding certain roles. This is a much more significant transition, even discounting the difference between personal and official views.

 dogma wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.

Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?

Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...

 Eggs wrote:

Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...

Fair enough, I'll freely admit to being ignorant of British domestic politics.

 Eggs wrote:
Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...

While I believe your rationale is dead on, how is popular British opinion on it though?

In America, it seems our defense budget is the #1 target.

I think British public opinion is split at the moment about military spending and the role of the armed forces.

In general there is a lot of support for the Army who are seen as doing an unpleasant job well in Afghanistan. There is also historical respect for the RN and RAF.

The nuclear deterrent is a point of controversy as it will cost a huge amount to update when the national budget is under pressure. Arguably there are more important problems to spend the money on, such as upgrading the national electricity generation system.

There is also the consideration that the nuclear bases are in Scotland, which votes on an independence referendum soon.

Overall there is a view that the armed forces need to be reconfigured for 21st century wars. It seems unlikely the country will need to defend itself against soviet Russian attack. All the near neighbours are allies. The most likely wars are the kind of post-imperial operations such as the Falklands, the Sierra Leone involvement and brushfire wars in places like Afghanistan.

That kind of operation does not require heavy tanks, air superiority fighters and anti-submarine destroyers.

I dare say Ketara, whose degree is in war studies or something similar, should be able to give a more informed opinion on the topic.

Public opinion is indeed split. While the defence budget is being hammered, it gets herder to justify trident, which is currently about 5.5% of defence spending (just to maintain). The cost of a replacement will no doubt be huge. The issue is that trident is not primarily a uk defence system, its a NATO defence system for the whole of Europe. It just happens that the uk pay for it, and reserve the right to use it for domestic circumstances if required.
It was only put together in case the us neglected to get involved in a Europe-ussr spat. The chances of that happening now are remote, but a Chinese threat is on the horizon.
It was piggybacked on the us nuclear submarine system, with the uk paying some of the missile development costs, and building our own warheads.
Majority feeling in Scotland now seems to be that the system is no longer justified, and should be scrapped. Personally, I'm not so sure. I think it should only be scrapped as part of a worldwide disarmament, and there is the matter of all those unaccounted-for Russian nukes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I digress. To come back to the topic in hand, while the uk does have the resource to bombard anywhere in the world, we are lacking in a fast-jet aircraft carrier at the moment, so couldn't really launch much of an air based strike anywhere far away. It wouldn't take much to destroy the jets on the Falklands, and then we'd be in a pickle.

It wouldnt take much to destroy those jets for any other nation but Argentina... They seriously have no real capability to do it themselves unless they send over saboteurs...

If you want to attack the UK defending squadron in the Falklands you need long range stealth bombers, or cruise missiles, or a commando force possibly landed by submarine, or an aircraft carrier task force. You might do it with fighter-bombers accompanied by tanker aircraft, or paratroops, but that is exactly the kind of force it is set up to defend against.

The British defenses around the Falklands are set up to counter pretty much everything you just listed. Honestly the only realistic Argentine option is stealthy insertion of commandos/saboteurs. Either by doing a night time landing via small fastboats in a remote location or just flying in as tourists via commercial airline or whatever (in which case we have the issue of how they are expected to get weapons and equipment). Id imagine though that fighters are probably kept under heavy guard and a small crack unit of poorly trained argentine commandos wont have much of a chance anyway.

Even if they do manage to sabotage anything, what would Argentina gain? The immediate distrust of pretty much every UN nation? The immediate distrust of its own citizens? A war it cannot afford, not only because it is lacking militarily but because it's a growing country?

The Argentine government might succeed in taking the Falklands through sabotage, but if they do, they'll be about as adrift in the developed/developing world as the Falklands themselves.

I hope don't think that even the Argentine Government would be so stupid as to imagine the benefits of such actions outweigh the detriments.

There is a garrison of 1000 Royal Marines on the Falklands, if memory serves. Plus, they have air support. This pretty much means that any small commando-type raid would last roughly half an hour before being completely annihilated. You'd need a bigger force to take the Falklands, which would of course be difficult to land without being noticed.

Argentina will talk tough, but ultimately this will not escalate to an actual shooting war. Although Britain may currently lack carriers, they now have a substantially improved garrison and I'm sure that the Royal Navy has spent considerable time and resources on addressing the problem of anti-shipping missiles.

Never underestimate the potential for.sheer stupidity on the part of a nation in the midst of deep social, political, and economic upheaval. I doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but there is always the potential for it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Never underestimate the potential for.sheer stupidity on the part of a nation in the midst of deep social, political, and economic upheaval. I doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but there is always the potential for it.

How true.

 Albatross wrote:
Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.

It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.

good point

 Palindrome wrote:
I always find this hilarious.

To me it's like the guy who flashes the donkey - the first time is funny, and after that it's just sad.

Why would you flash a donkey?

Argentina shouldn't have invaded the first time.
Now it's a point of pride that it's ours.
Otherwise it's was entirely conceivable that we might have sold it by now...