Argentina fury at UK bid for Falkland seas

reply to post by Terapin


How many times must we go over the same ground?

UK will not relinquish rights to The Falkland Islands or South Georgia for the foreseeable future. It would be political suicide for any political party.

You yourself have agreed that this is the case.
As a result, your arguements are irrelevant, why continually drag it up and encourage anti-UK sentiments?

reply to post by Terapin


you have allready been proven wrong many many times , yet ignore the facts to suit your own agenda by posting your own junk which has been proven wrong.

deny ignorance and stop posting your agenda suiting lies.

and welcome back on to my ignore list.

I think in a case like this people that live in the island should be able to decide what they want.

Im from Puerto Rico which is a U.S. territory, i would love to see my island as an independent country, the fact is that almost 95% of the population want to keep some form of relationship with the U.S. either as a commonwealth or a state.

Lets people decide.

Originally posted by infinite

If they keep crying about so called "British occupation", we should annex parts of Argentina and show them what it's really like to live under British rule.

Peace, freedom, very low inflation? They'd never cope! But it would be the best thing to ever happen to Argentina

The Falklands belong to the people who live there.

The people who live their consider themselves to be British (some might argue they're more British than most of the folk living in England)

Britons do not turn their backs on their own people.

Spencerjohnstone wrote:
Why what they gonna do? tickle us to death. You would think they would have learned, from the last falklands war that the uk is not a push over. If they the argies want to escalate this, just send down a nuke sub with ballistic missiles on it. And warn them any argie ships come anywhere near the falklands then we the UK will flatten benos areis.

See if that does not get them to back down.

I'm just curious, who made you the official ATS representative for every person here in the UK. You certainly dont speak for me or anyone else for that matter.

Terapin wrote
Typical violent response. I fail to understand why aggression is the first choice for those who choose not to study the situation. There is no need for violence and I would have thought that after so many British And Argentinian deaths from the first conflict, people would not be in such a hurry to pull out the guns once again.

The UK is trying to lay claim to further areas. They will present this to the UN which has long held that Negotiations for an "eventual" return of the Falklands to Argentina should be undertaken. There are several other nations who take interest in this matter and it is not as simple as the UK saying, We now claim more territory. That is why the British Government is ASKING the UN, not telling the UN.

Well said Terapin. It's truly a sad state of affairs that people are only too willing to resort to violence over territory that isnt even officially ours. What ever happened to co-operation and sharing.

Originally posted by kindred

It's truly a sad state of affairs that people are only too willing to resort to violence over territory that isnt even officially ours.

Sadly, the Argentinian authorities don't always have the same anti-violence views of us Britons.

The Falklands are ours if the Falkland Islanders wish that to be the case. Otherwise, we might as well claim that half of France belongs to Britain and the USA belongs solely to Native Americans ....

reply to post by Harlequin


Where have I been proven wrong and by whom? I offered a considerable amount of verifiable scholarly data, in other threads on the subject, that none have shown to be inaccurate.

reply to post by Freeborn

I have agreed that a hand back is currently not about to happen. That does not mean that it will never happen. Stating the facts does not amount to stirring up anti UK feelings, unless thoes in the UK wish to obscure the facts.

reply to post by kindred


As I have repeatedly stated, violence will solve nothing and only serves to make matters worse. This is why the UN and several independent nations have continued to call for resumed negotiations.

As for sharing. Argentina and Britain have indeed negotiated with that on the table. A condominium, where both nations enter into a temporary joint rule, was proposed by the UK. There was movement in that direction.

As informed by Hastings and Jenkins, the negotiations reached Foreign Ministry level and a meeting took place in New York. The British intended to win the islanders round by demonstrating the benefits which a link to the mainland would bring. The Argentines were happy to provide guarantees of continuity of customs and lifestyle. It was sovereignty, not a colony, which they craved. Meetings would continue to produce various heads of agreement. It was now two years into the negotiations and not a word had been said about them either to the British Parliament or in Port Stanley (the islands’ capital and most important city). The Foreign Office policy had been to prepare a satisfactory package of safeguards as well as economic benefits, to be presented to the islanders in such a way that the good news outweighed the bad (18). This was probably the closest occasion in which Argentina and Britain almost solved the conflict through diplomatic means. Recently declassified Foreign Office documents reveal that, a memorandum of understanding was in the final stages of drafting in which England would agree to handle back the islands to Argentina (Gerschenson). The basis of the talks were ‘a transfer and lease-back’ based on the Hong Kong model or even a joint Angle-Argentine sovereignty known as condominium (Hastings and Jenkins 34). So, what happened then? Why couldn’t both countries reach and agreement amicably? In Argentina, it was because of the turbulent and dark times that would come during the 1970’s with the advent of the “Dirty War” and the bellicose attitude of the military dictators. On the British side, as explained in The Battle for the Falklands, “A compromise settlement was never achieved because the British Foreign Office proved far more competent in negotiating with another government than with its own.

This current move by the UK is much like the recent claim where Russia plans to annex 460,000 square miles of the Arctic in the hopes of increased mineral resources. People were outraged. Here, the UK has stated that they are after resource exploitation.

From the original news item...

The bid on the Falklands has been prompted by British interest in the possibility of huge oil, gas and mineral deposits thought to lie deep beneath the South Atlantic.

Last night the Foreign Office insisted there was no certainty that the bid, being prepared by the UK Hydrographic Office, would go ahead..........the UN commission would not issue any final binding decision on the matter as long as the ownership of the Falklands was in dispute

What is needed is a resumption of negotiations, not violence.

The only reason Argentina wants the Falklands is because of possible mineral resources.

At least Britain has the argument of protecting a population who have lived there for generations and want to be British .....

(Even if our real reason is really mineral resources as well )

Hmm. I hadn't heard much about this until earlier today.

I'm not sure what to make of it, to be honest. On the one hand, I really don't think it's a clever idea to provoke Argentina (with their friends elsewhere in South America... I'm referring to you, Mr. Chavez), although it's true they pulled out of a deal for joint exploitation rights of oil/gas reserves earlier this year. I also think the UK shouldn't put itself on the same level as a newly imperialistic Russia... but then if we don't start being assertive, will we be left behind?

On the other hand, if the Falkland Islanders are happy to do this and ask us to help them, then I don't see how we can legitimately refuse their request. I'd like to see the Islanders get at least some of the profits, though - and definitely some of the jobs.

reply to post by Terapin


You appear to want to stir up anti-UK feelings by singleing out the UK when discussing moves to gain mineral rights in both Arctic and Antatctic areas.
The USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Brazil, France etc are all involved in this race.
Why single out the UK?

The Falklands will remain British as long as the occupants, who have been there for generations now, wish to.
The only "Argentinian" occupants were a group of about 40 farmers, German citizens who resided in Buenos Aires, who were greatly releived to get off the islands due to the inclement climate.
en.wikipedia.org...

That is the sole basis of Argentinian claims based on previous occupation.
It happened 180 years ago, we are where we are.
Why is it so hard to accept that the primary concerns should be of the occupants, they wish to remain British, so they will remain British.
Surely that isn't too hard to follow and understand.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Freeborn]

The Islanders should most definitely get both employment and profits from any resource exploitation. It is also worth noting that Argentina is not interested in forcing anyone on the island to give up being British subjects. Sovereignty is the issue for them and not colonization.

reply to post by Terapin


Why would Argentina want Sovereignty without colonization?
If there is anywhere else that is governed this way please tell me because I can't think of anywhere.
What are the benefits of such an agreement?
Mineral wealth for Argentina! That is their sole concern.

To make a note of a point made by masqua - "its all about the oil" - It could´nt be more true.

Why lay claim to thousands of square miles of sea bed if theres nothing there?

The answer is, as always these days OIL..

reply to post by Freeborn


I did not single out the UK. I simply responded to the specifics of this thread topic, which is about the British desire to expand their resource claims. Mineral resource exploitation and the political challenges behind it is problematic world wide which is why I gave the example of Russia's recent claim to arctic territory. This thread happens to be about the Falklands. There is a long standing dispute of ownership. This is why the UK has stated that there is no guarantee that any claim will pass. There is nothing anti UK about negotiations.

My brother is named after a British Lord who is in our family tree.. My sister was educated at a respected English University. We were all raised with a much beloved British nanny. I am not from South America. I have never been to Argentina. I do however feel that it is important not to misrepresent the facts, as some have chosen to do, perhaps based on misplaced national pride.

I understand why some take umbrage to the possibility that the UK claim to the territory is in dispute, and that the UN has repeatedly called for negotiations. I understand why the islanders desire to remain British is quite important. I also understand that it is important to look at all the angles and not just the emotional, nationalistic ones. This is the basis of most international dealings. Negotiations and discussion. The UK understands that any such claims must meet international standards for them to be valid. That is why they intend to present them to the UN for consideration.

Originally posted by Freeborn

The only "Argentinian" occupants were a group of about 40 farmers, German citizens who resided in Buenos Aires, who were greatly releived to get off the islands due to the inclement climate.
  

Wikipedia has a good deal of information, but as we all know, it is far from complete. It furthers one to look deeper for more accurate data. People have stated that there were only prisoners on the island when the British invaded in 1833. Others have stated that there were only a few settlers who were glad to leave, and didn't like the climate anyway. Both of these statements misrepresent the facts.

There was a settlement on the Falklands at the time of British invasion, where agriculture, fishing, international trade, and common commerce were being conducted. This settlement was removed by force and at gunpoint.  As an example of how this resettlement was not a simple happy relocation as some suggest, one can look to the band of gauchos (Argentine cowboys) headed by Antonio Rivero. They resisted British occupation for some months, but they were eventually hunted down. Rivero was taken prisoner and sent to Montevideo.

I can understand why Argentina is not happy about the current British attempt to expand their claims in the area.

reply to post by Terapin


As always your arguements are considered and respectful, , it's just that I disagree with a few of them.

My use of Wiki is just as reliable as the sources that you provide and we form our opinions on whichever source we deem most reliable / believable. And remember, we are talking about events that occured nearly 200 years ago and of which there are no reliable accounts at all, thus we are left with opinions, not facts.
You are posting an opinion, exactly the same as I am, the difference is you are presenting them as facts, which is far from the truth.

Hence, we are where we are, and that is the only point we can move from.
It is absolutely irrellevant if there was or wasn't a very, very small community of Argentinian citizens on the islands in 18whatever, the FACT is they haven't been since then and the current occupants have been there for generations.
Argentinian claims based on past occupancy accounts for nothing.

I still do not understand why it has been proposed that Argentina get's sovereignty whilst the islanders keep their British citizinship. Is there any precedent for this? What would the benefit be for the islanders? Would future islanders keep their citizenship?
It is complete nonsense and again is smoke in mirrors.

The only possible benefit is that Argentina would strengthen her territorial claims in the whole South Atlantic area thus gaining access to con siderable mineral wealth.
Despite all the glossing over and all the spin, that is the main concern for governments. Whilst I believe the British government remains committed, at least for next generation or two, to maintainig the current situation, their primary concern is oil and other mineral wealth.

I also think that this was the only reason that Britain seperated South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands from The Falklands, (Argentinian claims on South Georgia are even more tenuous).

Forgive me for the use of Wiki again but this should explain things a bit more;

upload.wikimedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Vast amounts of wealth, and the power that go's with it awaits the victors.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It is very funn y how the member who talks so poorly of naked American agression talks so postivly about naked british/uk aggression.

That would give US chance to flatten his new toys in support of England/UK.

British/UK?? England/UK

It's the same thing, not too different things

Our Country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Not England.

Secondly, it's not agression. We are protecting an Island that belongs to us. Recongised by the European Union and United Nations.

Originally posted by Freeborn


My use of Wiki is just as reliable as the sources that you provide and we form our opinions on whichever source we deem most reliable / believable. And remember, we are talking about events that occurred nearly 200 years ago and of which there are no reliable accounts at all, thus we are left with opinions, not facts.
You are posting an opinion, exactly the same as I am, the difference is you are presenting them as facts, which is far from the truth.

While it is indeed possible that I may have misspoken and presented opinion as facts, I endeavor not to, and hope that you can point it out to me so that I may correct myself. However, I have done a great deal of research into the subject and present data that is a mater of historical record. Just because the British invasion happened two hundred years ago, does not mean that there are no records of events. It was not two thousand years ago after all. There is an abundance of data from a variety of sources and those that I use are indeed reliable as they have gone through peer review or are official government documents from the time.

If I were to say that Antonio Rivero was a fool for trying to evade the British when they invaded in 1833, that would be opinion. When I state that he and his men did resist for several months, that is a matter of historical record, which is what I present as a fact.

When I find a source that has been cross checked for reliability, that is what I call a fact. I tend to avoid sources such as what is presented by the Falkland islanders website, as they tend to be bias and leave out much. I do use released government documents, historical treaties, scholarly works that have gone through peer review, publications from the time such as historic British news items, etc. I also try and avoid sources from Argentina, not because they are necessarily inaccurate, but because some may try to claim a cultural bias whether or not one exists.

A great source is for information is the well researched scholarly, Hastings and Jenkins book on the Falkland war. (Hastings, Max and Simon Jenkins.(1984) The Battle for the Falklands. (London: W.W. & Norton Company Inc.), 1983. 2nd American ed. (New York: W.W. & Norton Company Inc.)

Another good source about the Falklands conflict is:
Middlebrook, Martin. The Fight for the ‘Malvinas’. The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War. London, 1989. 2nd. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Both books offer details on the history of the Falklands. There are plenty of other historical sources to cite and they are not too difficult to find if one chooses to be a bit more thorough. Wikipedia is a fine start for any subject, but it is only a start.

Again, If I have mistakenly posted opinion as fact, please bring it to my attention so that I can correct myself. None of us are perfect. Diverse views are valuable in any discussion and to be encouraged.

The UN position for decades on the Falklands, is clearly outlined by their Committee on Decolonization. The Special Committee on Decolonization seeks to end the “special and particular colonial situation” in the question of the Falkland Islands. You can check this fact on the UN website.

The UN lists the Falklands as one of the areas to decolonize. They have called for negotiations between Britain and Argentina for many years. As the UN put it in its resolution, they wished both nations "to proceed without delay with the negotiations". While many do, not all EU nations support the British claim, yet all wish to see a peaceful resolution. The US has urged for negotiations as have several other nations. On 6 June 2006 the Organization of American States (OAS) voted unanimously in favour of the Argentine proposal to restart the negotiations. Negotiations are a good thing for everyone.

The International position on the sovereignty of the islands is varied, with some countries supporting the British claim; with others supporting the Argentine claim. Some countries maintain a neutrality on the issue.

-wikipedia

In this situation with the new British movement to lay claim to even more territory, I suspect that the United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf will come in to play. As the UN Commission has stated that they would not issue any final binding decision on the matter as long as the ownership of the Falklands was in dispute, my guess is that they would require joint negotiations first, over the sovereignty issue. This could be a good chance for both sides to come to an agreement. Prior to this new claim by Britain, both nations were coming closer together.

I wonder if in Argentina the schoolchildren still begin their day chanting ¡Las Malvinas son argentinas! Certainly, this was engrained in Argentines for generations via the schools. This is certainly a matter that can boil over but does anyone in the northern hemisphere or the English-speaking world really care whether or not Argentina boils over? I would think the prospect of losing another war to the UK would be a horrifying thought to any pragmatic politician in the Argentine.