Best post i’ve seen in this thread

Maybe because it reflects your personal sentiments. 🙂

They were, in ’82 and did not like it one bit.

And why is the violent military regime that after being backed by Britain and then turned on it, a legitimate representative of Argentinian people?

I am sure that they don’t like the port situation one bit. I’m sure a mugging victim does not like to get robbed either. You don’t even need to ask them to find that out.

Unlike an individual constitutionally guaranteed right to safety, countries do not have the fundamental right to use their neighbors seaports. This is more akin to a commercial establishment denying service to a customer.

What happens when the Falklanders go to the negotiations and in the end still want the status quo (per citizenship and resource rights). What then, will Argentina FINALLY give up trying to get control of the Falklands?

Sure. I mean if you’ve decided outright that the negotiations (if they’re genuine) will be fruitless, I’ve decided that Argentina will return to the status quo.

If that were happening today I would be opposed to it also.

Meh.. its all history, what difference does it make, huh? So what if the people evicted from the islands are still around, hoping someday they’d regain the right to go back to what is now a US military base and reclaim their homeland. Sod them. Lets fight for the heroic, fair skinned, English talking, British looking people.

They (hereto will refer to the Flaklanders) do not want dual citizenship. They are UK citizens and want to stay that way.

They already have rights over their own resources. Oh, do you must mean Argentina gaining access to their resources?

They already have that too.

So you are trying to bribe them?

Negotiating does not make any irreversible changes to status quo. By all means make the Falklanders a party to a dialogue. Give them the opportunity to directly interface with the Argentinian government. Let them communicate their concerns about the closer of ports directly, and let the Argentinians make their pitch about dual nationality directly. After all a mutually agreeable solution is not impossible as long as the first step is taken i.e. starting a dialogue process.

My point on the other hand, was about colonialism and how this dispute is very far from it. At least colonialism as the Asians and Africans remember it.

They have it. Argentina should practice what they preach.

How about their main concern and need for Argentina to LEAVE THEM ALONE?

‘Practice what they preach’? ‘Leave them alone’?

At the risk of being repetitive – Chagos Islands.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with it.

Would you rather wait for war clouds to gather?

There is nothing to negotiate.

That sounds remarkably like what the Chagos Islanders were told. We dragged you out of your homes. We gassed your pets. We left half of you marooned of the shores of Mauritius. We will not let you return come what may. You’ve got your £650 each as compensation. What’s there to talk about?

Unless we are negotiating Argentina giving Britain compensation for that unprovoked war?

You mean by the British backed military regime that was committing human rights excesses against the Argentinian people?

We don’t have to escalate things, in fact we don’t have to do anything. If anyone needs to escalate, its Argentina. Doing nothing works just great for Britain, we’ve got everything we want.

Actually the British govt is not doing nothing. Mr Cameron’s govt has delegations shuttling the South Americans capitals issuing explanations and trying to drum up diplomatic support. How much success he’s had it is… lets say unclear.

Argentina continues to stamp it feels like an angry child, but it makes no difference as it won’t get them the islands back. They can resort to violence, but it will harm their country far more than it will harm ours

For now yes. 10 years down the line, the military position would most likely have been well reversed.

You obviously have a degree of contempt for diplomacy, but I don’t believe the British government shares that opinion.

A diplomatic solution already exists, the islands remain British. No need to negotiate as the PM has already said.

May as well have said, lets escalate things.

So no benefits for Britain then. Making South American countries happy is not a benefit for Britain.

Would you rather have poor relations?

Going out of our way to build excellent relations with South America at our own expense is unlikely to deliver worthwhile results, especially since other European countries would be more natural partners for SA, and the negative feeling betwee Britain and Argentina would remain.

Why would the negative feeling between Britain and Argentina remain? When France and Germany got past their history (which makes the Falkland’s dispute look like a minor footnote) to build close relations, what makes Britain and Argentina unique?

The defence cost is small, and the base is useful in any case for South Atlantic patrol frigates. As you said, it gives Britain influence and reach in the South Atlantic, and helps NATO project there in the future, all pluses for keeping the islands British.

The NATO isn’t interested in maintaining a presence in the South Atlantic. It was different when the Soviets/communists had to contained – in every region, on every continent, in every sea, in every ocean.

On the broader issue of a British influence in the region, its setting up to be at direct loggerheads with the South Americans particularly Brazil.

Can you tell me for certain that 10 years down the line, a conflict involving a South American front and the UK is impossible? And that Britain will prevail in such a conflict? Also that if the British military suffers reverses, NATO will come to its aid – just so Britain can continue to have ‘influence and reach in the South Atlantic’?

If the answer to them is no, then the question becomes would you rather diplomatically solve this now or later? At which time is the UK likely to be negotiating from a position of strength?

Also, any oil and gas to Britain, more pluses.

If oil and gases exist, Britain can negotiate an agreement that gives it oil and gases and a satisfactory outcome to Argentina and the Falklanders as well.

What amuse me, is the thinking that Brazil will lend their Military muscle for Argentina cause in the Falkland/Malvinas. Brazil will support Argentina claim ‘politically’, but that’s the much that will go. Economically, or Militarily, well that’s different agenda.

Again true. But that could be said about many things. The NATO and Warsaw Pact alliance would never have gone to war – neither side would have come out of fighting on such a massive scale, feeling like a winner. But, that didn’t deter both sides from arming to the hilt.

For that matter, who could have predicted the Argentine invasion of the Islands in 1982? Heck even the Argentinian junta wasn’t very sure it wanted to go down that path. That is why military planners prefer to consider tangible military capabilities a more relevant factor rather than stated intentions.

Point is, it will be best to address the dispute as soon as possible, rather than waiting as Britain’s relative military and geopolitical advantages ebb, and the South American (and British?) attitudes harden.

Negotiation has nothing beneficial for Britain, hence they are, much as I expected, refusing! Argentina wants to negotiate, but then it has everything to gain by trying. 😎

Benefits:

– Access to South America for the Falklands. Whether the industry is fishing or oil, it was always be economical to export it to the nearest market. The same goes for all imports for the islanders.

– Britain can cut back on military expenditure incurred in supporting the deployment on the Islands.

– If the proposals listed above are accurate, the Falklands has the potential to become a major banking centre in the future.

– Better ties between the UK and South America. The UK can be less apprehensive about growing ties between Argentina and its neighbors. For now the UK can feel comfortable at least about its military position in the region. But were Brazil to start taking a more proactive role in the future after stonewalling from the UK, that could change very fast.

Americas Summit expected to release support-statement for Argentina’s Falklands claim

Thirty years after the Falklands/Malvinas war, Latin America seems to be closing ranks behind Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the disputed islands and reviving a bid for control in the resource-rich South Atlantic.

All countries of the region back Buenos Aires in its bitter dispute with London over the remote South Atlantic archipelago and oppose any British military presence in the region, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin said in late March.

Argentina lost the war in 1982 but on this sensitive issue, London is facing a united Latin American front, led by Brazil, the region’s dominant power that has become the world’s sixth largest economy, displacing the UK.

Besides Brazil is en route to become a world leading producer and exporter of oil from its massive offshore reserves and is most alert to whatever happens in the South Atlantic which it considers its area of influence.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota made this position abundantly clear in a meeting with his British counterpart William Hague in Brasilia early this year.

He told Hague that Brazil and the region “back Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands and the UN resolutions calling for dialogue between the Argentine and British governments on this issue.”

Also early this year, Patriota said Brazil was working with Uruguay to convene a meeting of the proposed South Atlantic Zone of Peace and Cooperation, bringing together South American and southern African countries.
“Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have an interest in creating a South Atlantic security zone. This has been on the agenda for decades,” said Tullo Vigevani, a professor at Sao Paulo State University.

Alberto Pfeifer of the Analysis of International Relations think-tank at Sao Paulo University noted the South Atlantic was “extremely important” for countries on both sides of the ocean.

It is no secret that Brazil believes the South Atlantic is the “blue Amazon” and no country from the northern hemisphere should be occupying it. Since former president Lula da Silva took office in 2003 it has been clear Brazil’s growing support for Argentina in the Falklands issue, they don’t want the UK near their oil reserves.

In Brazil’s long term strategy Argentina does not pose a threat, UK yes because it is associated with NATO and the last Brazilian national defense plan considers that the South Atlantic must be a security priority for Brasilia.

Today, Latin American countries depend more on each other and are less dependent on Europe and the United States and have China as the main trade partner for the many metals, grains and oilseeds from the region. Countries in the region also seek to assert a common identity.

The Union of South American Nations, Unasur, set up in 2007 “has given more cohesion to the stance of solidarity with Argentina because it is much easier to secure agreements and consensus,” said Peruvian analyst Ernesto Velit Granda.