Give the Falklands back to Argentina?
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?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Geographically closer to Argentina than the UK
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK
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.
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
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.
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
The British occupied the islands before Argentina existed as a country
Simply put, the Islanders strongly wish to remain British.
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.
The right of self determination
What do you think?