The Argentineans are banging the drums over the Falkland islands or Malvinas as they call them. This is both because potentially large quantities of oil have been found within the waters near the islands so providing an economic motivation and because the government in Argentina is increasingly unpopular so is trying to divert attention from the bad state of the economy. While a repeat of the 1982 invasion is extremely unlikely do the Argentineans have a case in demanding the island?
All the Yes points:
- Geographically closer to Argentina than the UK
- Think back; Why 1982? Could it be the same reason as now?
- Of course all the current UK squatters on the Islas Maldivas speak English, since the original inhabitants who did not speak English were outright murdered by the UK.
All the No points:
- There are many international oddities.
- Argentina only wants it back now that it has valuable resources
- The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK
- UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- The Islands are British
- The British occupied the islands before Argentina existed as a country
- Simply put, the Islanders strongly wish to remain British.
- The right of self determination
Geographically closer to Argentina than the UK
Yes because…
The Falkland Islands lie 184 miles away from the Argentinian mainland as opposed to being thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom. Also they are not on the same continental shelf as the UK despite having other islands arond them. [[ “Wikipedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#cite_note-53%5D%5D Further more they are also part of the same area that has flora and fauna from Argentina. Given these geographical factors isn’t it right that the Falklands should come under Argentine rule than the British.
I did not realize tha statements were allowed.Some 3140 inhabitants cannot all agree . Also wat language is spoken in the Islas Malvines (Falklands) ?
First off, the biggest argument the UK continues to push on the Malvinas question is the fact that less than 5000 people live on the islands, all of which speak English. Of course they all speak English, for the UK put up a flag on the islands and claimed them, which in turn led to the population of the islands by UK citizens. If you ask me, and if you look back in History, the UK has and always will be a colonialist type nation. The UK don’t care about who was there first or who rightly owns the land, if they feel they can out muscle whoever is in their way of gaining new land, they will do it with no shame or guilt.
The Malvinas belong to Argentina, anyone who doesn’t agree with this fact has their own ‘racially’ motivated reasons why to back the UK on this issue. This really shouldn’t even be an issue, the UK is squatting on lands that have never belonged to them, and no matter how many English speaking squatters there are on the land, it will never make it UK property.
This is why I do not believe in the UN. If the UN was truly for the people of the world they would force the UK out of the Malvinas.
No because…
That argument would work if the Falkland islands were unihabited… but they’re not. There is a small but significant population of 3140 people including might I add civilians who’s wish to remain with the UK must be respected. Also they do not speak Spanish and this would prove problematic [[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html]]
As to the UK being colonialist, how is what Argentina wants to do any different? The population wants to remain with the UK, how is forcing them to join Argentina against their will anti-colonialist? If you force someone to join a country against their will it stifles their right of self determination and forcing the Falklands to join Argentina against their will would be exactly the opposite of what the UN stands for (self determination).
Also, any point you make about racism is simply irrelevant as you cannot just say someone is racist because they don’t agree with your ideas.
Think back; Why 1982? Could it be the same reason as now?
Yes because…
Maggie Thatcher took the UK into the war for one reason only. To defend the UK inhabitants of the Falklands. Why were Argentina determined to give a stubborn fight? Because the Falklands are Argentinian!! Having UK anybody on an island right next to South America tells you that the Brits had been up to their old colony tricks again!
I support Argentina because it’s the principle of finally having Britain cough up something that isn’t their own. 1982 was no accident, Argentina have wanted those islands back for a very long time. Now the Brits want oil, of course Argentina is unhappy.
There were UK inhabitants in Africa for centuries, that didn’t mean it wasn’t right for Africa to get independence! It’s the same with Gibraltar, a perfect example. An island touching tails with Africa, with white, english speakers there. An accident? No! COLONIALISM!!!
UK have been playing their conquer and colonise card for too long! It’s about time somebody ran them out of town! KEEP THE ARGENTINA ISLES ARGENTINIAN.
>>>In response to>>>>>
My point is that the British Isles are in the north sea, and that the falklands are not. They belong to Argentina. The people their must realise that they are not living in the British isles, but on a tiny island off the coast of South America. There is nothing British about that. THEY might choose to come under British rule, but Argentina’s argument is that if those people want to live there, they come under Argentine rule because the land is ARGENTINIAN.
I can’t say I wanted to pay my taxes to Haringey council when I live in Brent, it’s absurd. If you’re living in the Argentinian Isles, you must accept Argentinian rule.
It is the principle of the UK obtaining land that is not theirs and putting their countrymen on it to claim that it is! That is wrong! What makes an island a nation and therefore the ruler is the person it is owned by! That is where colonisation comes in, Britain forgot this. When Jamaica was a colony of Britains’ those people were British! So if these Islanders want to pay their taxes to Britain, they might as well go back to Britain!
As for drilling for oil and make money off someone else’s land, that is an insult!
No because…
While the actions of the British in initially taking over the islands and indeed Gibraltar in the past may have been an act of colonialism. The fact is that in the present currently the Falklands are a self governing territory who freely choose to remain associated with the United Kingdom and it should be up to the people through their democratically elected legislature to decide their own future.
The argument about Africa misses something badly too. With colonialism there was white minority “oppressing” at times a black majority and decolonisation effectively allowed majority rule by those countries which is right and good. The falklands (and slightly off the topic) Gibraltar
The argument generated by the opposition falls into the same trap of a form of colonialism or to be precise irredentism by viewing the falklands as merely as pieces of land rather than an islands of people who choose to come under British rule rather than Argentina
>>>>in response to>>>>
The response of a point in capital letters for emphasis does not offer any substance to an argument. It just appears as shouting.
The location of the islands is actually a long way outside any country’s territorial water and, in any case, the proximaty issue has long been shown to be a redundant argument.
The wrongs of colonialsim are precsiely what should not be repeated. The current islanders have been there generations and are part of those islands, not the British Isles.
If they chose to be British, independent or part of another country it is up to them. They are the only people truly affected by any decision now. Ignoring this is as bad as the British imperialism that is criticised. The Argentine claim is largely one about national pride and nothing else, and the land is insignificant in relation to the size of Arrgentina. The issue had frequently been used simply as a distraction to domestic problems.
Of course all the current UK squatters on the Islas Maldivas speak English, since the original inhabitants who did not speak English were outright murdered by the UK.
Yes because…
UK colonialist history tells us this is a high possibility, not to be overlooked.
No because…
This is a complete propaganda. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs, the British take over was relatively benign.
In truth, the French were the first settler followed less than a year by the British who left their settlement after the American War of Independence but not their claim.
Luis Vernet then set up a venture there to claim it for Argentina
When the British arrived at Vernet’s commerical settlement to establish their claim over the islands , the small garrison surrrendered without fighting. This was most likely due to the number of British mecenaries working for them who would not have fired on their own countrymen and the numerical superiority of the British force. The initial intention was to allow Vernet’s venture to remain, but under British rather than Argentine authority.
When internal conflict with a group of outlaws led by Rivero living in the interior of the Islands caused Vernet and the other leaders to flee the settlement to Turf island he, Vernet was recued by the British and not allowed to return. Reviero was captured but realeased due to legal arguments andf returned to Argentina. Bizarrrely he is now revered as an Argentine folk hero when it was his actions that sealed the fate of the Argentine settlement!
The confusion about fighting the British possibly comes from the earlier raid by the the American ship the USS Lexington over seal hunting interests and the incidences during the Napoleonic Wars when present day Argentina was a Spanish colony and the subject of a British Campiagn.
There are many international oddities.
No because…
Just because the Falkland islands are close to Argentina should make no difference. Are Iceland and Canada demanding that Denmark give up Greenland? The UK does not claim the Faroe’s, France does not claim the Channel Islands, Canada and Russia dont claim Alaska etc. Equally their are odd small states who we do not deny statehood; Luxembourg, Vatican city, various pacific islands etc. Just because the jigsaw is a bit complicated does not mean that it is worth keeping. Furthermore, Spain never actually occupied the islands. As to statehood, the Falklands WANT to remain part of the UK, forcing them to do something else would deny them their right of self-determination.
Yes because…
The difference is that Argentina has foundation in its claim on the Falklands – during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st a treaty designated that the islands would be Spanish territory. She defied this. On independence, Argentina retained its claim on the land and has maintained this ever since.
We (UK) do not claim the Faroe islands because we RECOGNISE it as Danish territory. As you have said proximity is no reason to lay foundation for a claim and Argentina has other reasons as I have said.
Also I am not sure why you would deny a state statehood just because it is small. That is illogical. In my opinion: smaller is better!
Argentina only wants it back now that it has valuable resources
No because…
The only reason Argentina wants the island back in the first place is because numerous oil deposits have been found in and around the Falkland Islands.
<<<<
You do realise that Queen Elizabeth the 1st ruled in the 1500s, 300 years before Argentina was even a country, in a time when the first Spanish explorers were brutally massacring the native inhabitants of the area in a horrific act of ethnic cleansing. At the very end of Elizabeth’s reign, in 1600, the islands were first sighted by a Dutch explorer, and 90 years later a British man became the first human to ever go there when his ship was swept off course to the islands, again, centuries before Argentina was a country, and the area was still largely under native rule. I think that this pretty much refutes your astoundingly ill-thought out comment.
Yes because…
No this is untrue – Argentina has claimed the islands since the reign of Queen Elizabeth the first. The recent discovery of natural resources has simply brought their claim to the forefront of their attention…
The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK
No because…
Quite simply, they do not speak Spanish. Don’t you agree that this would be problematic? The people of the Falklands also want to be part of the UK and not Argentina. Even if we didn’t want the Falklands and if the Argentinan claim was historically acceptable, it is our duty to do what the people wish.
The Falklands were only Argentinian for a year; The British had originally colonized them in 1765 and the Argentinians had colonized it in 1832 despite protests by Britain. Britain then reasserted its sovereignty over the Falklands in 1833. There is nothing to RETURN, the Falklands are not, and were not Argentinian.
Yes because…
These islands belong to Argentina. No question about it. UK has and always will be a colonialist nation looking to take lands from anyone and anywhere they feel they can get away with it. Hence, why they’ve staked a claim to the Malvinas, albeit a false claim.
So why is the UN not doing anything about this? Why? Because the UN is a puppet entity of the rich and powerful white man, a tool used to make it easier and LEGAL to STEAL that of which is owned by others with no chance of repercussion. That’s just wrong on all levels. Don’t believe me? Look at how the UN is quick to fire shots into the Middle East whilst not even blowing a whistle when European corruption is the talk of the day. The UN is useless, and until they force the UK to return the Maldives to Argentina I just can’t see what the UN is good for other than being a guard dog for the highest bidder.
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
No because…
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2 All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
[[http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html]]
So it should be up to the islanders themselves. Looking at various news articles I am assured many times that the islanders want to remain British, but cant find the actual poll results so who knows!
In response to your point about “stealing land” well, Britain had occupied the land in 1765, before Argentina existed, and Argentina colonized it for a brief period of time (One Year) in 1832-33, after which the British reasserted their control over the Falklands. So you see, the British did not steal the land; the Argentinian’s were the ones to occupy another countries territory.
Yes because…
1. All people do have the right of self-determination. No question about it. But when you steal land from other people and bring in your English speaking citizens from the UK to squat on the land and call it their own, therein lies a serious problem. Sure we can fuss about how the people living in the Maldivas want to be ruled by the UK, but hell, they are originally from the UK to begin with. The issue is not the people in the Maldivas but the land itself. If people from the UK want to live in the Maldivas then so be it, but you will be under the rule Argentine laws and regulations. Just because you lay claim to a land and bring your English speaking squatters to build on that stolen land doesn’t make it rightfully yours.
UK has and always will be a country of thieves and scoundrels. But please, don’t let me be the one to tell you about this, read your history. And trust, the UK has history of stealing, pillaging, raping, murdering and finally laying claim on lands that were never theirs to begin with.
The UN should take action, otherwise we can all see the UN for what it really is. A puppet of the white man.
And for you who think I am Argentinian or live in South America. Think again, I am from the United States. And I am ashamed our country didn’t back up the Argentinians on this conflict. It’s actually quite infuriating.
The Islands are British
No because…
<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536869121 1107305727 33554432 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-469750017 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:8.0pt; line-height:107%;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} –>
The islands are British. Anyone who has ever actually been there (including Argentine nationals) agrees with this. The Argentines were not ‘the original inhabitants’ that they like to style themselves as. The Falklands were first settled by France on West Falkland and Britain on East Falkland centuries before Argentina even existed. Britain’s claim has never been renounced. The Argentines themselves are squatters on land to which they have no right – they stole it from the local American tribes upon whom they subsequently enacted widespread ethnic cleansing. The Kelpers, as the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are called, are the first people to have lived on the islands for longer than a generation. The islands are their home; they and they alone have the right to decide who rules their home. They have repeatedly stated their wish to remain British, and the islands themselves have little in common with Argentina. Many Argentine nationals, having been indoctrinated from birth that the people on the Falklands are Argentine, and that they are a part of Argentina, have come back with a totally changed opinion, having seen that the Falklands are nothing like Argentina and therefore cannot belong to them. The Argentine claim is nothing more than a folly based on lies and deceit in order to distract the voters from the country’s free falling economy. It is time everyone here realised that.
Yes because…
The Islands look and feel British so must be British is a rather circular argument – if they were Argentine presumably they would look and feel Argentine! There is no reason why a country cannot fairly rule over a people that is not like the majority in a country – if the Falklands were handed over to Argentina presumably they would remain autonomous, would still be able to use English and would still be ‘Kelpers’. Argentina does not want the Falklands to throw the islanders off.
The British occupied the islands before Argentina existed as a country
No because…
The British initially occupied the Falklands in 1765, Argentina did not stake a claim until 1832. Therefore, the Falklands cannot be returned to the Argentinians as the were not theirs to begin with.
Yes because…
The Argentine claim comes from the Spanish claim which was prior to Argentine independence.
Simply put, the Islanders strongly wish to remain British.
No because…
The Islanders have never been, nor be Argentine.
1765 Captain John Byron claimed the islands for Britain.
The British government has always tried to use diplomacy regarding the Falklands. Diplomacy went out the window when Argentina illegally invaded. The people on the islands do not want to be part of Argentina. The Falklands government has always been respectful and diplomatic when dealing with Argentina. Argentina however, doesn’t seem to know how to be diplomatic and respectful.
The Falkland Isles are inhabited by British citizens who hold British passports, they wish to remain British.
Argentina has no claim to the Falklands.
The Falklands government is holding a referendum to show the international community its wishes. This resulted in a 99.8% vote to stay British.
Yes because…
The right of self determination
No because…
Lets be honest, any significant group of people living in a place have the right to decide what country the place they live in should be in. If the UK was colonialist it would not be allowing a vote on Scottish indepencance. Besides, the UK were there first anyway so the yes argument is stupid and even if the British had taken it off the natives, we cannot blame modern Germany for the atrocities of the Nazis, neither can we blame the British for that. The past is gone the fact is that the people who live there now and have been born and lived there for hundreds of years want to be British, if they had only been there for 20 years it would be different but now time has passed it is and hopefully forever will be a bastion of freedom and away from the hellhole of injustice and intolerance that is Argentina. A country that was founded by immigrants from Spain who killed MILLIONS of the local people. If we were to follow your theory then give Argentica back to the Natives. The right of self determination rules.
The falklands should be British cause the Un said that the Falkland seems will remain as British the islanders voted to remain British even though the falklands are closer to argentine than Britain it does not matter. Argentina just wants the oil on the islands they don’t care for the people.
If you ask me just let the Falkland Islands be independent from both argentinian and british rule. Arguments can be made that the islands are not british but there are few to no arguments that the islands are rightfully argentinian.
So nobody has a clear right to own them just let them be independent.
(Which as a side note the UK is doing anyway. the Falklands are mostly self-governed. Argentina would like to colonise and fully assert their control over it.)
There are many countries around the world the have their allegiance to a far away country. Hawaii, etc. The Falklands are nearly 200 miles from Argentina where has England is only 22 miles from France, a lot of France was once English. Do England make silly demands NO. If Falklands want independence fine let them decide. Argentine are only making political trouble to take the their people’s eye off their own problems. If they try to invade again this time maybe we should bomb main land Argentina and their parliament. I someone punches you on the nose you retaliate by punching them back and kicking them where it hurts most.
I’m from Argentina, and the islands were, in the past, a Spanish property. When Argentina got its independence the islands were inherited and actually, in the ceremony a British man attended as a testimony. But then, years later they started saying that we were the one invading, which was never the case. We do not want the islands because of any resources it might have, they have much more deep importance than that. They were ours and they took them from us and many lives were lost because of that. We don’t want to make the people living there to be Argentinian if they do not want to, we only want the government to say that the islands are ours and to give us back what it was ours in the first place.
There were never any Argentines living in the islands at time of indeoendence. Argentina’s actual land was nowhere near the islands at the time either, that came later after they stole the land off natives. No credible source states there was ever any permanent Argentine settledment in the island at the time, they only came afterwards, and they expressly asked the British for premission, indicating the accepted British ownership of the islands.
Yeah, come and take the islands! Don’t forget to hold both hands out in front of you, so we can put your arses in them after we hand them back to you. I was there in 82, and I’m more than willing to come back and remind you that it was a really bad idea.
I think you need a tranquilizer sir.
So- the British colonies are the problem???…Are the Moroccan’s demanding the Spanish overseas territories? Are South Pacific Islanders bothered about Guam? Are Canadians fighting Denmark for Greenland? No. This list is non exhaustive. Get over it. As for the comment on taxes- they do NOT pay tax to Britain, do a little more research and get a better understanding.
The Spanish Navy carried out the Spanish policy on the islands, supplying all food and materials (it was a military settlement from 1770 to 1811 and their farms failed), all governors were naval officers, the administration was by the navy, after 1806 when the viceroy abandoned Buenos Aires the navy ruled politically too. That navy was based at Montevideo in present day Uruguay. URUGUAY also grew from the ashes of the same Spanish colony as Argentina and ARGUABLY HAS A STRONGER CLAIM TO THE FALKLANDS.
In 1833, the British expelled a mutinous military garrison which was going to be taken off by the Argentines anyway. The British had specific orders to persuade civilian settlers to stay. THERE WAS NO EXPULSION OF A CIVILIAN SETTLEMENT.
The Falklands were UNINHABITED until the French and British colonised them. We are NOT talking of overcoming a indigenous population but of simply starting human life on the islands.
The territorial integrity argument depends on the proximity of Patagonia to the islands, but ARGENTINA only INVADED AND COLONISED Patagonia in the 1880s, 2 generations after the British had re-established control in 1833. Argentina ETHNICALLY CLEANSED the Patagonians and replaced them with European Argentine colonists. Today, Argentinians are over 90% non-indigenous.
Giving the Falklands to Argentina would be replacing one colonial power by another. Don’t be fooled, Argentina’s claim is no less colonial than Britain’s.
Argentina has absolutely NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM AT ALL TO SOUTH GEORGIA, THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS OR THE SOUTH ORKNEYS. None. Pure colonialism.
However with all these islands her claims to Antarctica would be all the stronger in her eyes. Argentina’s claim on the Falklands is COLONIALISM to support her CLAIMS IN ANTARCTICA.
Finally, Islas Malvinas is a Spanish term, in English the islands are referred to as the Falklands and should never be referred to as Islas Malvinas, this is precious and wrong.
The Malvinas islands are our feeling (also the islanders), UK only looking for oil and a strategic point, Lieutenant David Hugh Russell Tinker of the Royal Navy told him in his letters, the Argentinian love those islands. Unfortunately, Mr. Tinker died because of an Argentine missile :(
So because the Germans love Poland they should own it? Or America own Canada? Come on, I’ve seen better arguments from children.The islanders voted, and 99.9% of them voted to remain British. It dosen’t matter in any way how the Argentines feel.
Errrrrrrmmmmm……..I think you need to go and have a lie down, read a history book on the Islands and you’ll find that the territory and the Islanders are British to the core. Argentina only comes along and stamps its feet when there’s either political unrest in the Country or more recently……..the discovery of a wealth of natural resources…which is also recently.
We got them back in 1982 and have had them quite happily ever since, even before this discovery of natural resources, so that shoots your ridiculous comments down straight away.
I don’t think the Argies would ever try it on again, not with the military forces we have now.
Argentina doesn’t want the islands because of its oil, they want them because they feel them as part of its territory. They would refuse any economical benefit to have them. New islanders dislike Argentina because of the war, but they don’t realize it was iniciated by a military dictatorship which is rejected by most of the country. Great Britain should recognize the islands are not from their property as it happened with India, North America and many other places around the world.
The islands are Argentine and we inherited them from Spain, the British went to invade, please do not invent stories that are not real. Vernet is in the history books since I learned to read, all the Argentine people have a great feeling for the Falklands. Equally towards the islanders despite the difference of the language and its history, they are not to blame for anything.
THis is untrue. This video gives a pretty simplified explanation of how this went down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDvLshi9CY
The islands are English.
Also, it dosen’t matter how the Argentines feel for the islanders, but how the islanders feel. And they voted. 99.9% voted to remain English. The very basis for the Spanish claim was a papal bull. The pope the English ceased to respect or follow the orders of years before they took the islands.
Deluded……There’s no way that Argentina will ever try it on again, it would be over sooner than it was last time and it would also heap even more aggro on the Junta in Buenos Aires. Give it up Argies, there’s no point and it would probably cost even more Argentine lives than before.
Argentina has never owned the Falklands, so nothing can be given “back”. The Falklands were uninhabited and undiscovered when Britain claimed them in 1594 a full 222 years before Argentina existed. Argentina bases its claim upon a supposed “inheritance” from Spain, yet there is no international law of territorial acquisition and sovereignty by succession or inheritance and never has been. Indeed, Spain recognised British sovereignty in 1863. Argentina also gave up its claim by treaty in 1849 and didn’t claim or protest for 97 years (legal acquiescence) and has given, thus far, a further 72 years of legal acquiescence by its failure since 1946 to take the “claim” to arbitration via the ICJ, by which mere protests and assertions without seeking legal resolution are rendered worthless. The UN Charter, which Argentina has signed, states in Article 1 that all people have the right to self determination. In short, the matter was settled long before and Argentina’s only claim is, “But they are closer.”
Look, let’s get real, Blind Freddy can see that The Malvinas belong to the Argentinians, take a look at the geographical position of the islands. It’s just British colonialism at its best, look at Hong Kong, the British finally had to get out of there and why because eventually they had to accept that they were on Chinese territory. If they did not get out the Chinese would have kicked their arses out anyway and the British knew it. If the people living on The Malvinas want to be British – that’s not a problem – they can be British back in England.
🤦🏼♂️ They’re even closer now, since Argentina invaded and ethnically cleansed Patagonia! Next stop on the invasion tour: The Falkland Islands.
You mentioned colonialism..!
Argentinians are indoctrinated to believe this crap over ownership of the islands. I pity their ignorance. It’s just sad really.
I must say, this comment aged well now that Hong Kongers in droves are trying to escape Mainland China’s oppresive practices and run away to live in parts of the world that are still British. Sometimes the colonial, yet democratic and free alternative is better than your local opressive superpower with a deep hatred for freedom and democracy, it turns out. Who would have guessed?
Wow. I mean just brilliant. Argentina is geographically positioned closest to Antarctica so I guess they own that too? It would help if a few of the Yes men positioned themselves geographically in a library and read a history book rather than spouting brain washed propaganda from their nationalist failing government.
“if they did not get out the Chinese would have kicked their arses out anyway and the British knew it.”
The British got out of Hong Kong because the 99 year lease, that was agreed with the Chinese government in 1898, expired.
The Argentinian claim is nonsense. If there was any remote chance that the Falklands could be claimed on the precept that the Argentinians were the “first peoples” of this territory…then based on this logic…the the 90% of all Argentinians who are white(i.e. European settler origin) must immediately to hand-over Argentina to the original first people of Argentina the Amerindians(who have been swamped and only now represent 3% of their population). Then again looking at Spain with their problems in Catalan better they wise-up and accept they got lucky and a whole country themselves from a poor bunch of defenseless people.
The Argentine government only initiated war because they wanted to avoid and divert their populations attention away from the fact they had economic crisis and violent repression caused by the Argentine government, in an attempt to decrease political unrest and promote nationalism to the government by exploiting an unworthy cause seemingly important to Argentine residents. If it was that important and they felt so strongly why wouldn’t they have initiated war long before 1982 and shortly after 1833? why wait 149 years?
at that time there was no democratic government. there was a dictatorship
If Imperialism is going to be only argument to give the islands back, then Argentina should cease to exist as a country by those standards, as Argentina itself is the offspring of imperialism. But that won’t happen, because double standards. Most of Argentinians are “squatters” who took the land away from the rightful owner, indigenous American tribes. And I saw Gibraltar up there as an example of colonialism for no apparent reason. Gibraltar isn’t an “island touching tails with Africa”, it’s the south tip of Spain, which Britain took off them during the Spanish War of Succession. It is a part of Europe and has always been, and it is not an example of colonialism, it’s an example of losing land because of a war.
Completely agree. Although I’d like to correct your point on: “…give the islands back,”
There’s nothing to give back. Other than all the money the British spent on the war. The Argentinians can give that back.
Good point, a more accurate way to start my sentence would be “If Imperialism is going to be the only argument to hand over islands they have never owned, …”
It should belong to Argentina but the best solution is to let it be a part of U. K, because of the will of the people. And they are all brittish . What will happen to them if the islands become a part of Argentina?
• Alaska should belong to Canada.
• Monaco should belong to France.
• Lesotho should belong to South Africa.
• San Marino should belong to Italy.
Clearly nonsense.
How about something a bit more relevant:
• Apipé Islands should belong to Paraguay, NOT ARGENTINA.
• Isla Entre Ríos should belong to Paraguay, NOT ARGENTINA.
Both literally in Paraguay’s waters, NOT international waters like Falklands.
• Isla Martín García should belong to Uruguay, NOT ARGENTINA.
In Uruguay’s waters… Etc. Etc. Etc.
Delusional.
Do you actually know where is Paraguay Flintoff? Both of those islands are located in a river they share
You do realize rivera, you know, water. And that rivers can be owned. The islands are in fact, withing uruguayan waters, so your point is entirely invalid.
Here are many ignorant comments….
First: at the time that Argentina becomes independent, no one exercised power in the islands, not France, not Spain, not Great Britain
Logically, they were from Argentina. Inherited from Spain. But in 1820 Argentina went to the islands to legally claim them. Had some governors over the years.
But in the year 1833 Great Britain invaded them, expelling to the governors and the small population. Implanting another completely British population.
Second, the “right of self-determination” does not apply in this case. The population is British, OK. That 3000 Argentines go to the islands and that the referendum is repeated, what will happen? come on
Third: This is not a question of territory, that Argentina wants to expand … is absolutely ridiculous. It is a sentimental, patriot issue. I am sure that all Argentines know the history of the islands …. but in Britain, no one cares, they should not even know that
Nope, that’s not what happened. France and Britain discovered the islands first within a year of each other and claimed them. France gave up their claim to Spain, who relied on papal bulls for their ownership of the land. Britain refused to accept this and held onto their claim. Many years later, Argentinian colonizers went to the island, got their ass kick by bandits and the British rescued them. The same lot tired again, this time with British permission, and the colony did well. Then the USS Lexington arrived and destroyed the colony,shipping most of the people back to Argentina, leaving the island with no government. Then Argentina sent a garrison who revolted, so the British kicked the garrison out. Later the British began to colonize with Scottish settlers. There is no reason that Argentina should have the islands. If you for the fact the British implanted population, by the time the began to colonize again nearly everyone for the old colony had left. Besides, Argentina should not have most of it’s southern territory, it’s indigenous territory it stole after it’s independence. Yes, Argentina wants to expand, but has no reason or right to do so. It was not a patriotic issue until the military junta (military dictatorship) made it so just before the war to pull off a Mussolini and distract their people form the fact the country was collapsing economically and the junta had killed thousands of their own people in forced disappearances just for protesting against them. Argentinians know a distorted version of the fact, like North Koreans are taught a distorted version of the Korean War, but even several prominent Argentinians have admitted the islands don’t belong to them. It’s time to put the matter to rest, the islands were never Argentinian and will never be.
Whatever the “whys and wherefores” of the early history, the fact remains that the islands have been governed peacefully since 1833 and are far more prosperous than mainland Argentina (Except of course for a brutal interlude in 1982 when the Argentines invaded, waged war and irresponsibly littered the islands with minefields). Geographical proximity has never been a prerequisite for such a claim (look at Bornholm, Faeroes, Greenland etc.) however, it should be mentioned that the Falkland islands are actually 300 miles from the nearest point of mainland Patagonia. The irony to this fact is that the first Spaniards didn’t appear in Patagonia until fifty years after the British settled the Falklands (when the Spanish ethnically cleansed the indigenous population of Patagonia – historical fact).. The legality of the Argentine claim has been examined many times and has always been found wanting. This is why they wouldnever go to the iNternational Court to have the case heard. Why can’t the Argentines just live and let live. There are culturally British lands off the coast South America as well as Spanish and Portuguese lands on the mainland. So what!!! If the islands were given (not returned as they have never been Argentine) to Argentina, then a lot of countries would start claiming lands that don’t belong to them. (Hawaii, Alaska, Greenland, and a whole host of others).
No definitely not.
It was first found by the British
First colonised by the French
Then by the British
To call all the British Islanders swotters is asking for war.
Personal I’ve lost mate’s who went to reclaim and protect the islands.
So I’m baises .
No island belongs to anyone we belong to it.
I’m confused, how can you give something back to someone who never possessed it?
The yes points.
1. Geography has no influence over decisions of sovereignty.
2. I’m not sure what point 2 is about??? Doesn’t appear to be a reason there.
3. No one was murdered by the British in 1833. The British told the the United Province garrison who had arrived 2 months earlier to leave. The settlers who were there had British permission and were encourages to stay, only 3 settlers decided to leave. The British had warned the United Provinces on two prior occasions (1829 and 1832) not to presume sovereignty over the Falklands as Britain already had prior claim after leaving the customary plaque and flag in place in 1774.
Argentina for nearly a century recognised the UK sovereignty and reflected this it its official cartography from 1850 to 1940. Argentina signed the 1850 treaty that put an end to all disputes between the UK and Argentina.
Argentina is a nation of Europeans who colonised what is now what they call Argentina. To live there the colonists travelled 8000 and murdered and ethnically cleansed the populations that owned South America, they imposed their culture on the area and now call it “Latin America”. The problem for Argentina is that it needs to resurrect Spanish Sovereignty in the area which Argentina herself cancelled and killed off to appear to have any flimsy claim at all, so it is a contradiction, a big long winded contradiction trying to modify the consequences of history which saw Argentina annexing by war and murder huge territories which they took from their neighbours or from the South Americans, the real owners, long after the Falklands were British. Even today the UN tells Argentina to stop stealing from the natives. Argentina should burry her ambitions to steal and colonize more land and do a better job with the fantastic and rich territory it has already stolen and which it so badly and corruptly administers. As in 1982 Argentina uses the Falklands to cover its failures and corruption (peso and payments crisis of today), it is bad to mix internal corrupt policies with its imperial external policies specially if this involves mayor powers. It is very important to point out that just because the Argentinians are renegades and broke their allegiance to their King, that doesn’t give them more rights than those of the people in the Falklands who are not Latin and want to keep their allegiance to their Queen, they both have exactly the same rights to live in their territories in South America.
There’s no giving back. That implies ownership taken from a wronged party in the first place. Argentina didn’t even exist as a country when the UK settled. This is the same Argentina that is the 10th largest country in the world. It’s nearly as big as Europe! Is there not enough land in Argentina that they want to act the modern day colonial aggressor and steal land from people who fairly settled there and want to remain British? They have already waged war once.
Perhaps the best solution would be for the Falklands to be independent from everyone as its own country. The trouble is, Argentina would re-invade…
Well… hearing a cry from a Brit about Argentina’s extention is a bit tragicomic… (as Britain, you know… was kind of an Empire that covered 2/3 of the world though mass-murder… you can read it pn Richard Gott’s “The British Empire”, if you wish)… but regardless of that… the thing is that Argentina (and South America) will never be sovereign and really independent while the UK own the Malvinas. Geostrategically, it’s like a bishop. Economically, it’s like a tower. Politically, it’s like a Queen.
I am Colombian, and I find that statement very condescending. Argentina just wants the islands because of a childish desire to have them for no reason, against the will of those who live there.
And that line of reasoning is just downright dumb. I guess North America isn’t really independent from Europe because France still owns a tiny island off it’s coast and Britain holds onto the Bahamas, and anything anyone says or does won’t change that fact, because the Europeans hold onto ONE TINY ISLAND. Yup, and entire continent is still under colonialism because of one tiny island with no natural resources beyond potential oil. I guess because the Netherlands hold onto Curacao you’ll claim Venezuela isn’t free from colonialism either?
Metaphors are not real, we deal in realism and relevancy and so far your running out of arguments and now your using metaphors.
Argentina’s persistence of their claim is pure selfishness, the referendum which was held only had 3 votes for joining Argentina, trying to force them to become part of a country which the overwhelming majority have absolutely no intention of joining is pure egoism.
What about Diego Garcia, my double-standard-friend? Shouldn’t you be screaming at the foreign office “give the island back to their rightfull owners”? Egoism… selfishness? What about, let’s say, legitimazing violence? If Argentina would invade the Isle of Man, destroy the towns, then put 2000 settlers… after a few years… would it become argentinian territory?
Firstky two wrongs don’t make a right and secondly Diego Garcia was completely different. The people who lived there were the employees of a plantation, if you did not work for the company you were not allowed to live there. The British bought the islands and the plantation was no longer viable. The island itself cannot sustain life as there is no natural drinking water. was it right, no it was not and the people have been compensated (twice) but it is not the same thing as the Falklands.
But I take it you are in full support of the people of Diego Garcia and would not like to see such a thing happen again. I agree with you and I also support the people of the Falklands.
Whilst I believe it is total wrong, for us Brits, to make claim to an islands; that has not been ours accept through politics, and warfare. Is it not, about time we shared the resources of the islands with Argentina, a reasonable compromise; instead of always being right, when there are many reasons for us being wrong
There was one, an agreement the husband of the existing leader of Argentina ripped up. It apears they go by the old cut off your nose to spoil your own face politics.
What I dont understand is how Argentinan’s call the British colonial when most of them are of spanish decent! Are they not colonial too? And when I hear Argentinians saying that the land belongs to them and should be given back I start to wonder about the whole of north and south america and the plight of its native inhabitants! Is the very Land de Kerchner stands on and arrogantly screams and shouts about the evil imperialistic British truly Argentine? I wonder what it was called before it was COLONISED by the Spanish! It kind of make the claim that the islands were given by Spain a bit of a weak one too! How many thousands of miles away from the islands is Spain?
From a legal perspective I suppose De Kerchner could go to the UN and try and argue her case! Say that the land is owned by Argentina and try to make an international land law case! But what if she wins?
Will a win set a presedent across the world? Could the native population of Argentina then use the same law to take back the whole of Argentina and remove THEIR colonial oppressors?
A win here could also mean curtains for the rest of South America too and then Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada! I can keep going!!
In summary, Argentinians are a proud nation and after hundreds of years since they first arrived from Spain they can now call Argentina THEIR country! The land they stand on is THEIR land, it is THEIR home, it is THEIR part of the world which they want to see succeed and flourish! I just wish they could see that the people who live on the islands since first arriving there a few hundred years ago from Britain, feel EXACTLY the same way about about THEIR islands!!
Well said, hopefully that will silence the haters coming on here to bash the Brits.
Interesting! So… acording to you, as Argentina was found as a colony, then… a colony must remain… Argentina has no right what so ever to complain if a governance is destroyed by military force and the inhabitants of the territory “deported” (as it happened in 1833). Really interesting thought! Quite imperial for my taste! But who cares? Rule Britannia! no, wait! Better… Hail Britannia! I repeat again… what about Diego García?
The settlement was destroyed by the Americans (USA) not the British.
The ‘right to self-determination’ of the current Falkland Islanders is something of a false right. If the Isle of Wight’s population decided en mass to LEAVE the UK, would they be permitted to do so? The Self-Determination argument only works if it works two ways, which it doesn’t.
You’re argument of “current” Falkland Islanders is based on a false premise…there are no “past” Falkland Islanders who were expelled from the islands or killed off. It was an uninhabited island before it was settled in the 18th century and the British have been there from the beginning and thus the self determination argument is very much valid
Oh! but there was an argentinian settlement… and a very prosperous one (1822-1833). Puerto Soledad… Do you know why the french don’t claim the Malvinas although they had Bougainville for quite a while? Because they renounced the souverainity to Spain. The British never said a thing about their sovereinity. UK has quite a double standard, as Scytheria recalls… for the “sake of the argument” let’s say that you are right and the self-determination argument is valid (i would recommend reading the UN resolution 1514)… what about Diego García? The nativa inhabitants where moved by force in the ‘1970s and you don’t seem to grasp it as a problem.
Actually the first attempt in 1822 was a disaster and the small group of people Vernet sent had to be resued. by the time of the second attempt in 1826, Vernet had found about the British claim and he asked permission from the British, this was granted, the paperwork for all this exists.
Because UK practices double standards and colonisation is long dead and buried!! I am British and I can’t understand how we can defended Kuwaiti against the invasion of Iraq and then claim that because we invaded an Island in a different Continent, hundreds of years ago, that makes it right. Its MORALLY wrong and reeks of hypocriscy and double standards. Invading other Countries years ago was wrong and wrong today makes it wrong tomorrow. Of course the current Islanders want to remain British cause we populated the Island with British people when we took over!! Do the right thing and set an International moral standard and hand over land which we STOLE!!
the British claimed the Falklands in 1765 before the Spanish ever set foot on the island and long before Argentina even existed. There were no native inhabitants on the Falklands when the British arrived and no Spanish speaking Argentinian can say a word about colonization, last time I checked Spanish wasn’t a native language of South America.
The land wasn’t stolen…it was unpopulated. The Spanish, however, did steal Argentina along with most of South America, I’m fairly certain the region isn’t still ruled by the Inca Empire.
The British have been on the island for over 200 years and the population is and wants to remain British. Even if the land had been taken over from a rival power, which it wasn’t! At what point do people who have lived their for generations have a right to self determination? No one asserts that the descendants of the Normans should be expelled from England or the Spanish descendants should be expelled from South America.
The president of Argentina is simply pulling a Mussolini, trying to distract from her failed policies by manufacturing a foreign crisis.
The Islands weren’t unpopulated when UK destroyed Puerto Soledad and deported the argentinian inhabitants in 1833… that’s for sure… and I can assure you, it wasn’t as nice as the 1982 war.
I think you should review who is playing the Mussolini… playing drums of war for political pourposes (tip: it’s not Argentina)
The British did not destroy Puerto Soledad, the Americans did a few years earlier. the settlers there in 1833 were with the acknowledgement and permission of the British. Only an illegal garrison sent by the United Provinces (after they were warned to stay away) was sent packing and it was bloodless. In the two months that they were there the garrison had revolted against the senior officer and murdered him.
We never stole it, it was first claimed during the reign of Elizabeth 1, although never settled at that time. It was an uninhabited Island. When we did land and claim in the correct manner in 1766 the French had already made a claim a year earlier, they gave up their claim in 1767 and handed over their settlement to Spain under Spanish pressure. Until then Spain had never claimed it, just relied on the papal bulls which Britain had never accepted. So the British had the oldest claim after the French gave up their claim. So get your facts right, it was not stolen.
I wish they would understand like you do, I appreciate your comment. The malvinas are part of the Argentine’s territory.
Invaded who did we invade, and when ?? The islands are British.