Falklands

Geographically they are of course closer to Argentina, Chile and then the (British) Antarctic. But they haven't ever really been Argentinian. Briefly French and intermittently Spanish and British but not really Argentinian other than politically. There are quite a few similar Islands governed to various degrees by Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, Chile and France so the Falklands aren't unique. Of course with the exception of the various British and French Islands the countries mentioned are at least in the same hemisphere.

The problem is though that mere geography seems insufficient to trump the will of the people who have occupied the land for so long especially given the lack of a displaced, dispossessed or disenfranchised indigenous or original population. Gibraltar is far more Spanish than the Falklands are Argentinian but the will of the people counted there.

If Argentina hadn't screwed up and invaded and to a lesser degree if the Brits han't screwed up diplomatically prior to the invasion I suspect the Islands would be Argentinian in some way or other by now. Once it cost the UK troops and ships and millions or even billions to fight off the aggressor it became a virtually impossible sell. That might eventually change but I wouldn't hold your breath. The potential oil revenues make a deal even less likely.
 
holyland red said:
That is some argument. *trying to avoid inevitable analogies*

So basically the UK will never give away the islands because you are militarily stronger than the Argies. Surely, potential casulties of another war are a stronger argument than victims of the previous round, held 30 years ago.

Every sensible person would argue, having a quick look at the map, that the UK have no business holding that shithole. You're basically there because you can, plus the political incentive of avoiding nationalistic shit-stirring.
Click to expand...

What a load of nonsense.

The geographical location of the islands is irrelevant. They're not a 'shithole' either.
 
If we want to go down the map argument, why isn't Alaska Canadian rather than American?Just another stupid analogy but it's a really pointless argument on it's own. The will of the people should have a stronger say than geographical alignments. Much rather that than force a nationhood on a group of people.
 
holyland red said:
The Druze in the Golan Heights are divided on the issue. Don't know the stats if I'm honest, but there are thousands of Jewish residents in the area too.

Many East Jerusalem Arabs accepted Israeli citizenships. Can't beat the associated social benefits.
Click to expand...

Really? I know Syrian Druze and they tell me that until the recent civil war, the Druze were pretty much unified in their opposition to accepting citizenship. Were those Jewish residents there before 67?

I also thought that 'residents' of East Jerusalem have been able to claim social and health benefits for decades now.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
If we want to go down the map argument, why isn't Alaska Canadian rather than American?Just another stupid analogy but it's a really pointless argument on it's own. The will of the people should have a stronger say than geographical alignments. Much rather that than force a nationhood on a group of people.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah! Give us Alaska, Yanks!!! :mad:
 
holyland red said:
That is some argument. *trying to avoid inevitable analogies*

So basically the UK will never give away the islands because you are militarily stronger than the Argies. Surely, potential casulties of another war are a stronger argument than victims of the previous round, held 30 years ago.

Every sensible person would argue, having a quick look at the map, that the UK have no business holding that shithole. You're basically there because you can, plus the political incentive of avoiding nationalistic shit-stirring.
Click to expand...

Actually, some of the stuff I've read indicates that the UK were far more open to doing some kind of deal with the Argentinians regarding the Island before the pointless invasion.

In 1980, I assume had the Islands been given to Argentina, most people here wouldn't have given a feck and the Falklanders would have either lived under Argentinian sovereignty instead or 'come back home'. In the grand scheme of things, no-one really cared too much for the few hundred Islanders.

However, the invasion has unfortunately brought out the jingoistic aspect, which isn't likely to disappear any time soon. Therefore, the UK isn't going to give up the Islands any time soon, whether militarily or diplomatically. Especially as the people recently voted to stay British.

While I don't think we should hold the Islands (it would be more accurate to say I don't care actually) the facts are that Argentina has never owned the Islands and Argentinians have never inhabited the islands.

Frankly, I'm far more disgusted with our conduct in the Chagos Islands than with the Falklands.
 
africanspur said:
Really? I know Syrian Druze and they tell me that until the recent civil war, the Druze were pretty much unified in their opposition to accepting citizenship. Were those Jewish residents there before 67?

I also thought that 'residents' of East Jerusalem have been able to claim social and health benefits for decades now.
Click to expand...

A fair few Golan Druze accepted Israeli citizenships. With most Golan Druze having relatives in Syria you also wonder whether who has and who hasn't actually reflects their free will. There were no Jewish residents in the Golan Heights prior to 1967, but going back to the (lacking) analogy with the Falklands that reduces the question to how long the residency have to be in order to have a say in a territory's political fate.

As for East Jerusalem Arabs- they have, because they accepted Israeli citizenship.
 
holyland red said:
A fair few Golan Druze accepted Israeli citizenships. With most Golan Druze having relatives in Syria you also wonder whether who has and who hasn't actually reflects their free will. There were no Jewish residents in the Golan Heights prior to 1967, but going back to the (lacking) analogy with the Falklands that reduces the question to how long the residency have to be in order to have a say in a territory's political fate.

As for East Jerusalem Arabs- they have, because they accepted Israeli citizenship.
Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't think most populations under occupation will agree to assuming the citizenship of the occupying power. There will always be people who do but they won't be in the majority. There are 20,000 Golan Druze, 500 of whom have so far accepted citizenship (as I said, I assume this number will begin increasing with the civil war raging in Syria). Again though, and I appreciate you're trying to only do an analogy, before the British colonised, there was no-one on those Islands. Obviously not the case in the Golan. This doesn't make it right but, imo, it doesn't make it analogous either.

I'm talking about residents, who I've been told also receive the social benefits. Ie, the ones who don't have citizenship but who have residency permits.
 
africanspur said:
As a rule, I don't think most populations under occupation will agree to assuming the citizenship of the occupying power. There will always be people who do but they won't be in the majority. There are 20,000 Golan Druze, 500 of whom have so far accepted citizenship (as I said, I assume this number will begin increasing with the civil war raging in Syria). Again though, and I appreciate you're trying to only do an analogy, before the British colonised, there was no-one on those Islands. Obviously not the case in the Golan. This doesn't make it right but, imo, it doesn't make it analogous either.

I'm talking about residents, who I've been told also receive the social benefits. Ie, the ones who don't have citizenship but who have residency permits.
Click to expand...

Well, all Jerusalem Arabs have permits otherwise they'd have been evicted. To the best of my knowledge Jerusalem Arabs haven't been deported. They have been offered, and many carry, Israeli ID cards.
 
holyland red said:
Well, all Jerusalem Arabs have permits otherwise they'd have been evicted. To the best of my knowledge Jerusalem Arabs haven't been deported. They have been offered, and many carry, Israeli ID cards.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that a lot of Palestinians in East Jerusaelm have a status somewhere in between that of an Israeli and that of a Palestinian in the West Bank. They have Israeli residency permits, get social benefits, can vote in Jerusalem municipal elections but cannot vote in Israeli general elections unless they accept full Israeli citizenship.
 
True. Israeli citizenship is not enforced, and those who refuse it are still eligible to basic benefits.
 
Geography obviously isn't irrelevant especially when it comes to islands which can extend a country's ocean territory and fishing/oil rights but the rights of the traditional and current population trumps any geographic considerations. The neatly 100 years post peace treaty when Argentina hardly officially mentioned the Falklands also strongly suggests that they are British.

The issue now is how much are Britain willing or politically able to concede to Argentina for cooperation with oil exploration? Shame Argentina aren't now happy with the deal they made in the 90's.
 
When it comes to geography some people talk as if the Falklands are naturally part of South America.

They are 437 miles away. The indigenous population of South America didn't even know they existed.
 
True but they are on the continental plate and Argentina does consider that they inherited them from Spain.
 
Wibble said:
True but they are on the continental plate and Argentina does consider that they inherited them from Spain.
Click to expand...

We'd be a bit fecked if everyone laid claim to everywhere on 'their' continental plate though. They could be right about Spain, but whether they'd be more right than Mexico claiming a fair portion of the USA I don't know.
 
If course it is far from the only consideration but if the roles were reversed I could see the UK not being entirely happy. Not that I think they are right but it is far from cut and dried.
 
It's not clear what leverage, if any, Argentina has. They have the pope and the Ballon D'Or winner, which is great for them, but UK politicians are not going to be influenced by anything short of a credible military threat. Or, possibly, strong pressure from the USA in the unlikely event that they take Argentina's side. The referendum would seem to have closed the matter indefinitely as far as the UK is concerned, and there's nothing Argentina can do about it except make a noise.
 
surf said:
It's not clear what leverage, if any, Argentina has. They have the pope and the Ballon D'Or winner, which is great for them, but UK politicians are not going to be influenced by anything short of a credible military threat. Or, possibly, strong pressure from the USA in the unlikely event that they take Argentina's side. The referendum would seem to have closed the matter indefinitely as far as the UK is concerned, and there's nothing Argentina can do about it except make a noise.
Click to expand...

Argentina are quite unpopular on the international stage. I believe that they are threatening to default on a multi billion dollar debt to the USA. They also cost one of France's largest oil company several billion when they re-nationalised Argentinian oil reserves.

Argentina are experiencing difficulties at the moment and Cristina Fernandez, like the regime that invaded the Falklands in the 80's, is using the Island to stir up nationalist feeling to avoid her countrymen looking in the mirror at the internal problems that they are facing.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Argentina are quite unpopular on the international stage. I believe that they are threatening to default on a multi billion dollar debt to the USA. They also cost one of France's largest oil company several billion when they re-nationalised Argentinian oil reserves.

Argentina are experiencing difficulties at the moment and Cristina Fernandez, like the regime that invaded the Falklands in the 80's, is using the Island to stir up nationalist feeling to avoid her countrymen looking in the mirror at the internal problems that they are facing.
Click to expand...

You've got to laugh at the "colonialism" whining from Kirchner. Isn't that a German name? Most of the Junta in 1982 had Spanish or Italian monikers.
 
Wibble said:
True but they are on the continental plate and Argentina does consider that they inherited them from Spain.
Click to expand...

:lol:

They're ours and they have nothing to do with you European Invaders, because we inherited them from previous European invaders!
 
711 said:
They could be right about Spain, but whether they'd be more right than Mexico claiming a fair portion of the USA I don't know.
Click to expand...

Spain gave Argentina it's claims over the Falklands, South Georgia islands and the British Antarctic as it was given to them by the pope even though they had no actual sovereignty over them. The Falklands are their own islands and the Argentinians have no claim on them whatsoever.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Argentina are quite unpopular on the international stage. I believe that they are threatening to default on a multi billion dollar debt to the USA. They also cost one of France's largest oil company several billion when they re-nationalised Argentinian oil reserves.

Argentina are experiencing difficulties at the moment and Cristina Fernandez, like the regime that invaded the Falklands in the 80's, is using the Island to stir up nationalist feeling to avoid her countrymen looking in the mirror at the internal problems that they are facing.
Click to expand...

Age-old politics. It's all very Animal Farm. :smirk:

Argentina's claim to the Falklands is so tenuous.... If it was allowed as a precedent, Australia would certainly go back to the Aboriginals, the entire American continent to the relicts of its native peoples, and England to the descendants of its original Celtic population, or their surviving relatives.. Who, of course, would be the Irish. :cool:

What are we waiting for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.