‘Get them back’. What does ‘back’ even mean in this statement? Of all the countries that have ever legitimately ruled the Falklands, Argentina was never one of them.
The penguins have a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina…
I agree it’s more British than Argentinian. But “Argentina never one of the rulers” isn’t quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.
Yeah, Spanish. That’s the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.
The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina’s claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.
There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian.
They inherited the islands from Spain (as per their claim) when they won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Those islands are allot closer to Argentina than Great Britain, and closer to Argentina than Hawaii is from the US.
Malvinas islans are legally and physically part of Argentina and this is accepted by a majority in the UN, they are also the symbol of the centrist liberals (imagine the island of the statue of liberty) so this new neonazi psycho (and elon fan redditor) wants to “eliminate” their symbols including the ministries, universal health care, education systems, social plans that support several million of poor and make their party illegal
The metric by which Argentina has a legal claim on the islands would also give the US a claim.
Argentina is making the case for being invaded by the US under the causus belli of defense from an invading force whenever they say they get to eat the Falklands because something something tordesillas
That’s not what I’m debating here, what I debating is that the new far right regime is willing to sacrifice sovereign land just to make a point, to “own the leberals”
IT IS NOT SOVEREIGN LAND THO
Oh so THIS is how ww3 starts
I wouldn’t call the Falkland Islands War 2: Electric Boogaloo “WW3”. More like a police action, to be honest. The Argentine Navy and Air Force these days is frankly laughable in comparison to their military strength before the first FI war, let alone the strength of the RN and RAF today.
There was a fight for them and they’re still British. There was a referendum and the islanders overwhelmingly want to stay British.
The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
That’s what you understood after reading the page you linked?
The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
That’s what you understood after reading the page you linked?
I should have been more precise in my language, and that say that the UN wanted them to negotiate a peaceful end to the war and ownership, but generally speaking, yes, based on follow up votes/press releases that the UN made on the subject (like this one).
The guy might be a nutjob but I don’t think he’s talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don’t know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one
I’m pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute .
Even if your bullshit wasn’t bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn’t a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by “first rights”, and not “might makes right”, is what I’m speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you’re wrong.
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
Because the people of the Falklands literally voted to stay with the UK?
[insert obama awarding obama meme here]
I mean the UK won’t return Gilbraltar to Spain who were in the EU with them they won’t obviously return the falklands.
I’d like to see the UK also defending the “vote of the people” if Ireland voted to leave the UK
return the falklands.
To who, the French?! They’re the only ones who settled there before the British (beating them by a whopping 1 year), and they left again two years after they showed up. (And I say “settled there,” by the way, because if we went by who discovered it then the only people the British could return it to would be themselves.)
To who, the French?!
They claim ownership via Spain’s ownership, when Argentina won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Ok compromise. Argentina gets them back but the British museum gets whatever they want from them first.
The thing is, Argentina has never had the Falkland Islands. The British discovered them first.
So Britain has claimed ownership of the islands longer than Argentina has existed?
longer than Argentina has existed?
Argentina used to belong to Spain, then won their sovereignty. They claim they inherited the islands from Spain when they became a nation.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn’t mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn’t mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
The US used to belong to England too, doesn’t mean that England can ask for it back. I mean, technically, the US was literally stolen by former British citizens from England by force, legally. At least Canada did their country birth and land title/ownership thing the legal way (AFAIK). That’s one hell of a rabbit hole you could go down.
No that’s another completely different rabbit hole. That’s not the same argument or logic at all. Spain isn’t asking for Argentina back. That’s the only comparable situation to what you’re suggesting.
The comparable logic to what you’re saying would be for America to say that because they won their independence from the British they should now also own Bermuda. That’s the logic you’re using in Argentina claiming the Falklands. Argentina has no claim to the Falklands at all. Neither based on past ownership nor based on citizenship. It’s simply another unrelated territory. Argentina might as well claim they should get Chile by the same logic.
I met an Argentinian, and she is still upset about the Falklands. It made an impression on me that Argentines are still not over it. Don’t get me wrong, she is a nice lady, but I’m guessing that nationalism is Argentina’s past time instead of fixing their own more critical domestic issues. Tribalism is a time tested tool used to distract and manipulate people, anyhow.
Argentinian leaders use nationalism as a distraction for their economic woes – it’s why the Falkland war started in the first place, the president wanted something to make citizens focus on other than the declining state of the country, and grabbing some land from a greater power to get a bunch of glory seemed like a great option, especially considering they didn’t think the UK would actually retaliate or even care. The reason they went for it is they thought the British didn’t give a damn about the Falklands, seeing as how they constantly denied giving the island economic support. Oh boy, were they wrong.
Because of the war, Argentinians now see not having the Falkland islands as a detriment to their national pride, they think it’s soveirgn Argentinian territory… even though everyone living on the island has always been and still is almost entirely Anglo-Franco-descendent, and not once did Argentina actually have claim to the islands until recently in history…
even though everyone living on the island has always been and still is almost entirely Anglo-Franco-descendent, and not once did Argentina actually have claim to the islands until recently in history
That’s not true. They feel that they inherited the islands fair and square from Spain when they won their independence from Spain, who were on the islands before anyone else. The UN agrees, and officially asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Another reply here covers this well…
"The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.
The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.
Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.
Instead they choose to START a war over it.
Just stop already. For some reason this topic is a brain worm for Argentinians. You all go batshit over it and lose all reason and perspective."
"The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.
The Spanards lay a claim before that, and Argentina claims them based on inheriting them when they won their independence from Spain.
The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.
Has nothing to do with the rights of the countries. Russia took over land from Ukraine, put people in there, and then held an election where the people stated they want to be with Russia. Doesn’t make that vote right or legal.
Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.
[Citation Required]
Also, the UN has made a declaration that Great Britain should negotiate return the islands to Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
Instead they choose to START a war over it.
I ain’t defending this one, it was done for Argentinian political b.s. reasons. But it doesn’t mean that the clain is b.s., just the stupid war they started.
But having said that, how long would any nation on this Earth wait to get land back that they believed are theirs? If China took Hawaii or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, would the US just wait indefinately to resolve the issue diplomatically?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.
The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]
Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom’s favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.
Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it
Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said?
I do, and as I’ve already stated, I was against the fighting.
Having said that, stopping a fight vote is not the same thing as voting on who owns a piece of land.
That same article talks about negotiations that should be had instead…
The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.
As an American from Argentinian parents, let me put it to you this way.
Would the US get over China taking Hawaii away from them? Especially if it’s just so they can control the oil rights in that area.
If the people of Hawaii repeatedly voted to be Chinese, I’d say maybe we should at least pay attention to what they want.
If the people of Hawaii repeatedly voted to be Chinese, I’d say maybe we should at least pay attention to what they want.
Considering Hawaii’s history, that’s one hell of a statement you just made. You might want to revisit it, after knowing more of the history.
What does their history have to do with what they want today?
Are you saying Hawaiians should be denied democracy?
What does their history have to do with what they want today?
I’m not going to give you an education here about it, there’s plenty you can read about the history of the Hawaiian nation and the US.
Lets just say that the wishes of the Hawaiian people in the past were not honored very well.
Are you saying Hawaiians should be denied democracy?
No, not at all. You really should read up on the history before continuing to assume that I’m saying things that I’m not saying.
Unless you can explain what the history of Hawaii would have to do with a democratic vote on whether to be American or Chinese, you can weave and bob all you want, but you have no point.
If Hawaii was given the democratic choice of “be American” or “be Chinese,” the only people their history should matter to is the voters themselves.
And I’m guessing you’re not Hawaiian, so it seems a bit paternalistic to speak on their behalf.
Unless you can explain what the history of Hawaii would have to do with a democratic vote on whether to be American or Chinese, you can weave and bob all you want, but you have no point.
If Hawaii was given the democratic choice of “be American” or “be Chinese,” the only people their history should matter to is the voters themselves.
And I’m guessing you’re not Hawaiian, so it seems a bit paternalistic to speak on their behalf.
You REALLY should read up on it at least a little, before you continue to berate me about the subject.
Its not my job to educate you, but here’s one link to get you started.
As I mentioned before…
Lets just say that the wishes of the Hawaiian people in the past were not honored very well.
When exactly did Argentina ever control the Falklands though?
When exactly did Argentina ever control the Falklands though?
The wiki page goes into detail. However, besides having their own people on the island at some points, they claim ownership via inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain, and the Spanards had been on the island before anyone else.
The U.N. actually agreed with Argentina, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to them.
As an American, yes we would. US would completely eviscerate any country that took over Hawaii.
US would completely eviscerate any country that took over Hawaii.
Yep, true that. And the Falklands/Malvinas Islands are allot closer to Argentina than Hawaii is to the U.S.
Distance means fuck all. By your logic Canada should own Alaska, or Britain shoulf own The Faroe islands. Distance is irrelevent to culture, and guess fucken what the Falklands is largely populated by people of British, French, and Nordic descent not Argentine. Also theyve voted numerous times to stay under Britain so Argentina can fuck itself.
Seriously this reaks of the same bullshit that the South does with the Confederacy but somehow even more pathetic.
Distance means fuck all.
Do you believe China would be happy with Great Britain owning Hong Kong indefinitely, being right next to China?
Do you believe that if China owned the Catalina Islands off the coast of California that the US would be okay with that, indefinitely?
Do you believe that what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now has nothing to do with the land around Russia?
If there’s one constant in world politics, it’s that a nation’s always considers the ground around their nation as theirs as well, or at the very least in their ‘Spear of influence’, and hence their’s to control.
Hong Kong was leased from China on a 99 year lease. The UK was required by law to return it to China, which they did.
Unlike the Falklands!
I’m aware of the lease versus not situation. That is not what’s being discussed.
Whats similar in both though are the citizens situation and which nationality they wish to be, which country they wish to belong to. That’s what’s being discussed.
Your comment is days later, and I’m just repeating myself at this point, as I’ve already stated what I just stated above before. I think we’ve all said everything we can’t say to each other.
Your statement assumes that they don’t actually have a real right to the islands, and that they are doing what they are doing just for other ‘human failings’ reasons.
Argentina lost and people living in the Falklands voted to remain with UK numerous times. Making comparisons with voting in occupied Ukraine is not the same because those living in occupied territories of Ukraine were coerced. Local Falklanders voted numerous times under a free and fair election. Get over it. That’s like Spain still trying to claim Puerto Rico, Cuba and Philippines after they lost them to the Americans in 1890s.
Argentines should focus on fixing their country first instead of crying sour grapes over a territory they have no viable claim to begin with, and lost a war over it. Philippines have a similar case with North Sabah, which is administered by Malaysia; yet Filipinos did not and would not think of going to war with Malaysia because they have their plates full instead of wasting time with blind nationalism. Argentines are being manipulated by their leaders to ignore economic woes.
Argentina lost and people living in the Falklands voted to remain with UK numerous times. Making comparisons with voting in occupied Ukraine is not the same because those living in occupied territories of Ukraine were coerced
The point is, is it one of coercion or not though. Your attempt at using the coersion angle is just not to look at the truth of the situation and have to make a decision about it. It’s an easy hand waving away of the problem.
My point is that if a population that’s different in citizenship than the population that owns the land is controlling the land. And that point remains and is a valid one, in multiple situations on this planet currently/sadly.
Those in occupied territories in Ukraine casted their ballots under duress, the Falklanders were not.
My point is that if a population that’s different in citizenship than the population that owns the land is controlling the land. And that point remains and is a valid one, in multiple situations on this planet currently/sadly.
But Argentina nor Spain never had any settlers there before. The French came first then finally settled by the British.
And like I said, the Argentines should get over Falklands. They lost. They should focus on fixing their domestic issues first than starting another war whose population will never recognise the Argentinian government.
But Argentina nor Spain never had any settlers there before. The French came first then finally settled by the British.
Literal Spanish boots on the ground, sure, but they did own them. And the French had given them back to the Spain, who owned them by treaty.
From the wiki …
Spanish settlement
*In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal bull, Inter caetera, dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. The following year, the Treaty of Tordesillas between those countries agreed that the dividing line between the two should be 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands.[6] The Falklands lie on the western (Spanish) side of this line. *
Spain made claims that the Falkland Islands were held under provisions in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which settled the limits of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. However, the treaty only promised to restore the territories in the Americas held prior to the War of the Spanish Succession. The Falkland Islands was not held at the time, and were not mentioned in the treaty. When Spain discovered the British and French colonies on the Islands, a diplomatic row broke out among the claimants. In 1766, Spain and France, who were allies at the time, agreed that France would hand over Port Saint Louis, and Spain would repay the cost of the settlement. France insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent Britain from claiming the title to the Islands and Spain agreed.[5] Spain and Great Britain enjoyed uneasy relations at the time, and no corresponding agreement was reached.[4]
The Spanish took control of Port Saint Louis and renamed it Puerto Soledad in 1767. On 10 June 1770, a Spanish expedition expelled the British colony at Port Egmont, and Spain took de facto control of the Islands. Spain and Great Britain came close to war over the issue, but instead, concluded a treaty on 22 January 1771, allowing the British to return to Port Egmont with neither side relinquishing sovereignty claims.[7] The British returned in 1771 but withdrew from the islands in 1774, leaving behind a flag and a plaque representing their claim to ownership, and leaving Spain in de facto control.[8]: 25
From 1774 to 1811, the islands were ruled as part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. In that period, 18 governors were appointed to rule the islands. In 1777, Governor Ramon de Carassa was ordered to destroy the remains at Port Egmont. The British plaque was removed and sent to Buenos Aires.[5]: 51
Spanish troops remained at Port Louis, known then as Port Soledad, until 1811[9] when Governor Pablo Guillen Martinez was called back to Montevideo as the revolutionary forces spread through the continent. He left behind a plaque claiming sovereignty for Spain.[4][10]
Basically Spain owned the islands, found out later that the French and English were land squatting and had moved in on their islands, and had something to say about the matter. The French gave their land back to Spain, the English did not.
There’s allot of history and conflict over the CENTURIES there to unpack. Its a nuanced conversation.
By that logic, Italy should have rightful claim to most of Europe since their predecessor, the Roman Empire, once owned half the continent.
As other users pointed out, you make it as though right to self-determination doesn’t matter. Majority of Falklanders identify as British. What are the Argentines going to do about that? By your same logic, Spain should still have rightfully claim Argentina despite being defeated and evicted, and Argentines do not identify with Spain? Argentina obsessing over Falklands is getting tiring and no longer cute.
you make it as though right to self-determination doesn’t matter
Did it for Hong Kong?
Why would they, they’re not indigenous to the area either. It’s all bullshit. Nobody has a great claim, but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
Why would they, they’re not indigenous to the area either. It’s all bullshit.
Kind of agree with you on this actually. I think their stronger claim has to do with the fact that Spain owned it, and Argentina inherited those islands when they won their independence from Spain. That, and the closeness of the islands to Argentina (350ish miles as the crow flies).
but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
And the people in the taken over places in Ukraine that voted that they want to be part of Russia, should that allow Russia to claim those Ukranian lands?
We should strive for the win-win and people being happy, true, but when it comes to scarce resources like oil, it never ends up being that easy. As you put it, “It’s all bullshit”.
I guess that’s a small part of a larger country so it complicates things. Maybe, I don’t particularly care, would be my personal answer.
Spain “owning” it doesn’t sound like an especially strong claim either.
Spain “owning” it
Don’t think it fair to put double quotes around owning. Spain had/has a legitimate claim.
So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?
You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine, are you feeling alright?
So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?
I never said that. Just that a vote is not the only criteria on what is legal ownership or not.
You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine
When you say that one vote makes ownership legit/right, then another vote in another place (Ukraine) should too, which it doesn’t, because obviously one country invading another can’t be legally/ethically handwaved away by a region population vote.
That bolsters my point, that voting alone does not make an ownership.
are you feeling alright?
No need to be rude, and try and kill the messenger.
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground, the people there want this to continue, and Argentina lacks the capability to force this to change.
I am not being deliberately obtuse but its hard when its clear you have no clue what you are talking about. This thread is full of people telling you this but you just keep repeating the same nonsense.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.
Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it’s weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there’s no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.
I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first
Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew (approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen).[citation needed] The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January.[3]
Recognising Vernet’s settlement had British permission, Onslow set about ensuring the continuation of that settlement for the replenishment of passing ships. The gauchos had not been paid since Vernet’s departure and were anxious to return to the mainland. Onslow persuaded them to stay by paying them in silver for provisions and promising that in the absence of Vernet’s authority they could earn their living from the feral cattle on the islands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
The modern nation of Argentina didn’t exist in 1833. They were the “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata”. If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
I mean, that’s blatantly not true.
From the wiki article …
France was the first country to establish a permanent settlement in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port-Saint-Louis on East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764.[2] The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250.
A pop of 250 is not “some gauchos and soldiers”. They were not even “(many of whom were British)”.
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I’m going to “bow out” of further replies. I’ve been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their “pound of flesh”, and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
What in tarnation
What in tarnation
Dang nabbit!
beginning of human habitation
They’re not Aboriginal though.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina’s objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
That’s not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?
Depends on when who vacated the island and who took it over after that, and if vacating even means giving up on ownership or not (IANAL).
The link I’ve been posting goes over the history, and nations have come and gone and come and gone and come and kicked out others, on that island. Its a mess.
My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby.
Bingo!
there’s no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership
The United Nations says otherwise.
The Wiki page is really interesting reading on the ownership of that island, really jumps around over the centuries.
This one part of the article really jumps out at me…
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[93][94]
Heh, getting tired of copy/pasting this link, but so many bad takes are being stated as fact on this topic…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Maybe you should read what you’re posting instead and realize you’re on the wrong side of this?
Maybe you should read what you’re posting instead and realize you’re on the wrong side of this?
Why, because you say so? There are some good facts documented in that link. The issue is not clear cut.
Say what you will. I find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it’s quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
Something like Hawai is a more difficult case since it’s in the middle of ocean. Maybe it should just be a sovereign nation.
EDIT: Though since most people living there are native born Falkland islanders that speak English and voted to stay as a part of the UK then it’s perhaps something we should leave be as it is. Kind of similar case as with Israel to be honest.
If we’re going by proximity, there’s some Caribbean nations that are even closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina, would you argue that we should annex Cuba or the Bahamas?
And from what I understand, the people of the Falklands overwhelming want to be a British territory. I think that’s probably the more important consideration.
It is wild that it came to be the way it is. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me in the world before modern air travel, the internet, etc. that they’d be ruled by a country so far away, but in this modern era where just about anywhere in the world is only about a day’s travel time, or available on-demand 24/7 by phone or computer, it makes every bit as much sense to me that they be a UK territory as it does that Alaska is a US state.
Hawaii is actually a pretty interesting comparison to make, because most Hawaiians did not want to become a US territory at the time, but that’s really begging a whole 'nother discussion with lots of complex talking points about imperialism/colonialism, indigenous rights, etc. but I’m frankly just not going to go into that right now. Suffice it to say that it’s similar in the sense of it being a small island territory located far from the colonial power that laid claim to it, but the attitudes of the people living there were very different.
I’m no historian or anything of the sort, so take my thoughts on this for what it’s worth (and I am certainly biased being an American, don’t exactly get a whole lot of Argentinian history books to study, and most of the Spanish I know is food-related, so if someone wants to enlighten me more on the Argentinian side of things, I welcome the education.) But in general my understanding is that the British were the first people to land there, didn’t really do much with it at that time, and pretty much just said “finders keepers”
Maybe worth noting, there were no indigenous inhabitants there, so that’s probably about as ethical as colonization can get.
Then France showed up and set up shop since the British weren’t doing anything with it. Britain came back and also set up shop, and it’s not totally clear if either of them even knew the other was there. France eventually decided to fuck off, and let Spain have their bit of the Falklands.
Spain and Britain coexisted for a while, had some scuffles, but more or less worked things out. Eventually Britain pulled out to focus on other things but still considered their “finders keepors” claim to be valid.
Spain eventually pulled out as well, so for a little while no one was really doing much of anything with it officially.
Argentina (technically Buenos Aires at the time if we want to split hairs, I’m going to just use Argentina and Britain to keep the sides easy to follow) comes along, and decides it’s theirs, and this is pretty much the root of the dispute. While Britain still held their claim of “finders keepers” Argentina countered with “losers weepers”
Argentina gave some German dude permission to set up a colony for them there to fish and hunt feral cows. Eventually he gets into a fight with an American navy captain over fishing and hunting rights, Captain America kicks their ass a bit and declares the colonial government disolved, and pretty much continues on his merry way. Argentina tries to get things there started back up again but never quite gets their shit back together in the Falklands. A little while later the Brits come back around, still claiming finders keepers, and take charge of everything again, and this time the colonies stick and continue to grow. Argentina spends the next hundred years or so muttering “this is bullshit” to themselves.
Around the 1960s, Britain starts talking about decolonizing, and Argentina gets excited thinking they’re going to finally get the Falklands. Britain even quietly floats the idea of giving them the islands, figuring the Islanders would just kind of accept that decision if it was made, and running these islands from halfway around the world was getting kind of expensive. Turns out though that pretty much everyone on the Falklands is pretty damn happy to be British subjects and don’t really want to be part of Argentina, which made things a bit complicated.
Argentina gets kind of impatient with all of this, and eventually decided “fuck it, we’ll just take them ourselves,” Britain cannot abide Argentina’s inability to wait patiently in the queue and was starting to really wrap their heads around the idea that the Falklands would rather stay part of Britain and so we get the Falklands war.
Britain wins, Argentina goes back to muttering to themselves, and that pretty much brings us up to the present day.
Great comment! Accurate and entertaining to read. Well done! Was giving up hope, after reading so many bad factual takes on the ownership situation on this topic.
I’ve been posting the wiki link about the conflict all over this topic. If people ended up not reading that link, I would hope that they read your comment at least.
While Britain still held their claim of “finders keepers” Argentina countered with “losers weepers”
One minor quibble, and to be fair, Argentina is claiming based on the fact that Spain owned the islands, and when Argentina won their independence from Spain, they also got the islands.
find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it’s quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
The UN agrees with you, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Not quite.
The Special Committee on Decolonization concluded its 2021 substantive session today, approving 18 draft resolutions, including one requesting that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations as soon as possible to reach a peaceful resolution of their sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)*.
I was speaking more about this, but that’s an interesting read as well.
The link you shared shows UN resolution 502 which states:
- immediate cessation of hostilities
- withdrawal of argentine forces
- start diplomatic means to settle the matter.
Nowhere does it mention telling British to return the island to Argentina.
The actual verbage of the third bullet item you listed is as follows …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
- Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
I’m assuming thats meant to say negatiate the return of the islands, because there sure as shit nothing else that would be discussed to resolve the diplomatic solution, unless they went for some funky kind of co-op/timeshare solution. They can’t state the return blatently because the UK would not agree to that in an initial resolution.
https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
In the ensuing debate, delegates, many from the Latin American and Caribbean region, supported Argentina’s claim of sovereignty and urged Buenos Aires and London to begin negotiations as soon as possible on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions. Several cautioned against unilateral actions, expressing concern about the United Kingdom’s military presence in the Falklands (Malvinas), and by extension, the South Atlantic.
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
The purposes and principles of UN which is described in chapter 1, says the member nations will not use force to threaten territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
It also states that nations should respect principles of equal rights and self determination.
Argentina is guilty of both of using force to threaten political independence of island and disrespect of self determination of the islanders
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
It wouldn’t, or else it would never get passef by vote because the UK would vote against it. You need to understand how diplomats state things publicly, especially when they have to vote on them.
When the terminology of ‘negotiation’ is used, that’s what is meant, because there’s no other issue to negotiate about, than the return of the islands.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.
On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.
Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
Don’t mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.
Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.
We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.
We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence
It’s actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It’s just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.
Don’t mean to be rude (in case you’re not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what’s going on in the Middle East. It’s not the only factor, but it’s definitely a factor.
Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
As I’ve mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).
OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.
Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands?
Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.
Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
When it comes to humans, it’s been my experience that if you don’t resolve issues they come back to bite you in the ass, at some point.
Because “getting them back” worked so well for the (not for long) ruling regime of Argentina last time around. Lol.
Just for who didn’t know the story: in order to distract the population from a 120% inflation, the ruling far right dictator decided to take back the islands, (sounds similar?) thinking that the us would support them and that the UK wouldn’t fight back.
Anyway the UK is very far and it would take months to send reinforcements, right? And the US loves us, just because we’re not communists like other neighbors. We gonna just take them back with a special military operation, no war declaration needed.
While for a short time it worked as the local media was ecstatic about getting back the Malvinas islands and didn’t talk anymore about the rampant inflation, it eventually backfired spectacularly and the fascist regime was overturned.
That government was put in power after a US-backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected Isabel Perón. Henry Kissinger was instrumental in orchestrating the coup.
“Now we have to see how we are going to get them back. It is clear that the war option is not a solution.”
If more people actually read instead of knee-jerk reacting to click-bait headlines they might have a better understanding of what is going on around them.
British people lose all sense of logic anytime falklands get mentioned.
Gotta hang on to colonialism because: English.
There was nobody living there before the British arrived, but after the British arrived British people moved there. It seems to me that the only country with a good claim, is Britain
Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.
The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.
I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.
Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).
Why do you keep posting this link?
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it
Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.
Not true, it was sparcely populated and in 1831 an American warship raided the area dissolved the government and rolled back out. 1833 the English come back and claimed the island and the dispute keeps on.
The government, was literally 1 German man who the argentines said “yeah your the government now go live there”
The government, was literally 1 German man who the argentines said “yeah your the government now go live there”
There’s another rock sticking out of the ocean further south that Great Britain claims ownership over, and its just got a plaque on it to state ownership, no people live there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
There was nobody living there before the British arrived
That’s not true.
Why does this falsehood keep getting repeated over and over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
