Here’s a question for you: If Britain were to sit down and negotiate, what could they honestly hope to gain? Looks to me like they have everything they want and will only ewnd up losing things like a percentage of revenue if they negotiate and Argentina has very little to give in return for negotiation. There’s very little else they can do without breaking international law and what they have done so far is little more than a mild annoyance.

You mentioned earlier that if the dispute was “settled” Britain could remove it’s garrison. We all know that realistically we simply wouldn’t do that. As has been said, it’s a lot easier to defend the islnads than to retake them should anything go awry.

You have to see that the consequences of the problem between both countries are not only limited to the islands and the surroundings, but to the whole relationship between bith countries and also between England and most Latin American countries. Also, as the Brazilian president stated yesterday, the actual situation led to other discussions, as the role of the UN Security Council, the permanent members and the vetoe.
Unfortunately, the discussion now is beyond the oil problem and is still raising. The possibility of war doesn’t exist by now, but the main problem is that this discussion could led to bigger ones and an increase of tension between too many countries, with the conomic and social consequences of it (which are more important than the islands and this was not considered by you).
Despite the British Foreign Office said the Latin American support to Argentina always took place, this time the support was stronger than ever and included countries that never had supported the Argentine position, as were the Caribbean former British colonies. Leaving behind Chavez’s statements, which are ridiculous, the statements of the Chilean and Brazilian presidents are very important, as they meant a too much bigger support than ever. This could lead to a deterioration of the relation between Europe and Latin America and this is not good for both sides.

In a dispute, it is not a requirement that both parties must make concessions, and it is absurd to suggest this, where one party is found to be in the right, then the party in the wrong very often loses their case. If you sue someone, but lose the case, then you receive no compensation, and will, as a matter of course, be required to pay the other side’s expenses. If Argentina feels it has a case, then it could take legal action, and allow the international courts decide. If Argentina won the legal argument, then a settlement to transfer sovereignty would be agreed to. If Argentina lost the argument, it would be required to drop its claims. Since it does not appear to be willing to actually take the legal route, this does suggest that their legal advisors do not believe that they have a probability of winning. Put simply, if Argentina felt it had a reasonable chance of winning, it would not resort to political point scoring, it would put its faith in the international legal framework.

In international law, it is not as simple as claiming that someone else’s land automatically belongs to you, simply because it was once under your control. There are literally hundreds of examples, such as the French island off Canada mentioned previously, or Moroccan claims on the Spanish enclaves in Northern Morocco. The land belongs to those who maintain ownership, over time – prior ownership does lapse by a mechanism known as prescription. Prescription basically says that if a previous owner does not contest ownership within a reasonable time, then ownership passes to the new occupier. Since Argentina had well over a century in which to challenge this ownership – not by recourse to arms, but to the law – and did not do so, the lands become sovereign property of the UK. This is not mere supposition, or British propaganda, it is the cold hard truth of how international law works.

And who manages the “international law”? the “Democratic” security council or the Haye international court? They never ghave a sollution to any territory dispute. Since Argentina always claimed, it never loose it’s rights. Also, Argentina always claimed on the UN, which must be the place to do it (but the UN only worked for the interests of the developed countries) and nothing happened, but Argentina never resigned to keep claiming there. Since 1962 the UN is calling both countries to negotiate as they recognize no one has convincing arguments, this is the true. Also the true is that only in the sixties and early seventies were serious negotiations between both countries, and also by then England accepted to discuss sovereignty on a long term (also the lease back was discussed), then the British government rejected any kind of agreement and this led to the decision by Argentina to occupy the islands.
We can spend years discussing this, as it’s evident that you only believe your arguments and never think that this is not shared by all the world. You have to look beyond your nationalism and see that both countries have their arguments and those are accepted by the UN, and because none of them is overwhelming, the UN never decided in favour of any country.

So in one sentence Argentina claims that they are aboriginal and that human rights mean nothing to them. :confused::confused:

I will bet that to many western countries in the UN this would be an immediate turn off.

No, Argentina never said they are aboriginal, only said that the islanders are not aboriginal.

If I occupy one territory, send people to it, and manage to keep the territory for some time, I cannot say that the wishes of the people I send or their descendants must be respected. Another very different thing is that their interests and rights must be respected. They can wish to remain British citizens, and that must be respected, but this says nothing on the sovereignty of the land they are living in. There are thousands of British citizens already living in Argentina (in fact, a lot more than in the islands and also too many Argentine citizens also have the European citizenship), but this doesn’t mean that Argentina is a British territory.

Er – no. We didn’t take control in 1833, but 1834. In 1833, we ordered out an Argentinean governor (who had arrived after the US piracy), under the guns of a British warship. We then left the islands ungoverned. They rapidly became disastrously chaotic than before, culminating in the murder or flight of the people who provided what little order there had been, Louis Vernets deputy & his workers. We restored order ourselves rather than permit Argentina to do it – but they were willing, if we’d let them.

BTW, the British government recognised the validity of the sale by Louis Vernet of some of the land granted to him by the United Provinces. Legally rather interesting, since it implies recognition of the right of the government in Buenos Aires to grant the land. This was in 1840 . . . Oops!

We have a perfectly solid claim, based on 176 years of control, 169 years of settlement, & the wishes of the long-established inhabitants. There’s no need to embellish it with spurious claims about ungoverned (ungoverned because you threw out the government doesn’t count) territories, etc. We acted badly back then: IMO we were in the wrong. But that’s over: it’s long enough ago that it’s been overridden by the subsequent 176 years of imposing order & peace, & making the islands safe for a permanent population.

IMO, our claim to the Falklands started with violent seizure of territory to which we had very little, if any, right, but has been legitimised by the passage of time, & the wishes of the current inhabitants. In this, it is exactly the same as Hawaii – except there, the illegality was more blatant, the government overthrown was far better established, & it was a lot more recent. The US actions were indefensible – but it no longer matters.

Since Argentina claimed since 1833 till now, it’s still matters. If Argentina couldn’t do anything was because the military power of the country was too much smaller than the British one. But that Argentina did nothing because they knew they will loose, doesn’t meant they loose interest on the islands.
I studied a lot the claims of sovereignty and the true is that no one has a convincing and objective point. British and Argentine say they arguments are solid, but the fact that the UN still says is a disputed territory is because they cannot accept the claims of none of the both countries because they are not convincing. I think that the rights of the islanders are important, as they are the only ones that lived there for so many years, but also is important to recognize that their families are not original from the islands. They are not descendants from natives of the islands, they are descendants from those who occupied an invaded territory.
Your points of view are the most objective on this thread and shows knowledge on the item and no nationalism, which is the base of the problem between both countries. Unfortunately, British and Argentine nationalisms, both of which are very strong, are the causes of the lack of understanding.
The main problem is that any kind of arrangements will be against the wished of the extremists from both countries, who prefer war against any kind of diplomatic solution.
Its very interesting, as I said before, that most of the veterans from both sides want a diplomatic solution, knowing that both sides have to resign some of their claims. But meanwhile, a lot of people prefer another war and a lot of people killed only to say the islands are theirs. But most of this people will never ever live in those islands.
A diplomatic solution, sharing the sovereignty, will have a lot of benefits for both countries, as less (or none) expense on defense, better commercial relations (I think no one here thinks of this, but Argentina was the main British customer in Latin America until 1982), military relations and many more. That is more important than those islands with about 2,000 inhabitants, of which, the true, nor the British or the Argentine government and people cares.

I was under the impression that at the time we took control of the Falklands in 1833, they were free from any government. The US Navy having intervened two years prior to our re-establishment of control. So really the islands were up for grabs, so to speak. As I understand it, Argentina had two years in which it could have reclaimed the islands but failed to do so.

Back to the present day, i’m quite looking forward to hearing the argument that Argentina is planning to deliver to the UN next week. I wonder if it will differ much from all the ones they’ve put forward in the past.

Thanks to that link we also have confirmation that the EF Typhoons of No.1435 Flight are Air to Air equipped. With that and the fact that more aircraft could, theoretically be in the South Atlantic within two days; I doubt that Argentina will try anything more than complaining to the UN.

Who tells you that Argentina didn’t claimed the islands after the US attack. In fact, when the British ships arrived to the islands, there was an Argentine governor on them. The first Argentine protest against British invasion was also in 1833, as soon as Buenos Aires knew that the Argentine garrison was invaded. Please excuse me, but read more history before quoting.

Nice idea but Argentina will accept nothing less than a complete UK climb-down and handover of the islands to become entirely under Argentine rule.

The UK case is: 1) The self determination of the islanders which Argentina is studiously ignoring, 2) Long term ownership/rule/occupation call it what you want to, the islands have been under British rule since before Argentina even existed as an independant country.

The Argentinean claim is one of the islands proximity to Argentina or at least that is what all the words and bluster boil down to. They are closer to Argentine ergo they are a part of Argentina and I have already expressed my opinion that a territorial claim cannot be made in the context of territorial proximity.

No matter. Argentina think they have a handle on it this time and they might well have if the UN can be persuaded. Although the UN mandate is based on the point of self determination so Argentina and her allies need to turn that one over.

If they cannot then their only option will be blockade and harassment; to do either in international waters is piracy, to do so in UN recognised British controlled waters would be an act of war. It won’t be nice trying to fight a new Battle of the Atlantic with every South American country having a pop at you all the way down South but where there is a will there is a way. The question is one that I think Argentina is rolling the dice on. Is Gordon Brown, or any potential British leader, nails enough to do it? Is there the will?

First of all, the islands were not under British rule since before Argentina existed. They were occupied by the British in the 18th century but then the Spanish occupy the British garrison. As the Spanish accounts by then, the Spanish sovereignty over the islands was recognized then by England. When Argentina become independent, on 15 December 1823 England recognized the Argentine independence over all the territory Argentina claimed by then, including the islands, which were occupied by Argentina since 1822. On 2 January 1825 both countries signed a frienship and commerce treaty, where, again, England recognized the Argentine independence and they never claimed sovereignty over the islands, despite they were occupied by Argentina. Later, in 1833 the British invaded the islands.
The Argentinean claim is not only the proximity to the country but that when the Virreynato del Río de la Plata gained it’s independence from Spain in 1816, the new country, by then called the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata inherited all the territories of the virreynato (including the Malvinas / Falklands, which were in Spanish hands by then). Meanwhile, some parts of it become independent countries (Bolivia and Paraguay) and after the war with Brazil, when the negotiations for a cease fire took place with the participation of the UK, the UK proposed the creation of Uruguay to avoid a new war between both countries in the future (Uruguay was an Argentine province, the Banda Oriental, until the Brazilians invaded it).
Anyway, I think this forum is not to discuss who is the owner of the islands, as the discussion could be eternal, as both countries have their arguments.
At last, the UN mandate is not about the self determination of the islanders, only states that their “interests” must be respected, but not their wishes. That’s one of the main discussions between both countries, because England always claimed the respect of the islanders wishes and Argentina only their interests. Also, the UN don’t recognize the waters around the islands, nor the islands, as British but as an area in dispute. That’s why the UN recognizes right to continue claiming and every year the UN calls both countries to negotiate a final solution.
I think that the Malvinas / Falklands issue is an example of how diplomacy could completely fail, as both countries are (at least that’s what both say) looking for a sollution since 1962 and the prejudice for both was bigger than the benefits (more than 1000 people killed during and after the war and millions of dollars of material lost during the war, the cost to maintain the defense of the islands and losses on commercial deals lost), without reaching any sollution. I think that the main problem is “pride”, nobody wants to be seen as giving up anything.
In my personal opinion, the best solution will be to share everything between both countries, as is the case of the tiny Martín García island on the Rio de la Plata, which is owned by Argentina and Uruguay and you can see both flags together. This decision was taken in the eighties after years of Uruguayan claim, despite all the people living there are Argentine, but Argentina, having the island since 1810, recognized the Uruguayan rights because the island is closer to Uruguay than to Argentina. The only “small” difference, is that Martín García island has no important natural resources.
England will loose part of the benefits for the natural resources exploitation, but could remove all the military personnel from the islands, reducing the expense on the islands by too many million dollars. This could also led to a better commercial relation between both countries, as was in the past, and also with all Latin America. The problem is that none of the two governments will accept to share sovereignty, so that will be a never ending problem, at least in the short and medium term.

Just out of interest, is there no oil to be found in the Argentinian waters (actual not claimed)? It would seem odd that there’s loads round the falklands and none elsewhere in that region.

Additionally, does anyone else feel that Argentina’s position would be strengthened if they didn’t allow Chavez anywhere near the subject?

Finally, santiagorivas, I’d be a bit weary of believing that all south american nations were unequivocally behind the idea of the Argentinian claim, the relationship between argentina and some of its neighbours has been historically frosty at best. They might all end up signing it but I’d suggest that there’s been a fair bit of diplomatic fun and games going on behind the scenes as there is with all of these things.

Things have changed, the main enemy (and the only one for the past 140 years) of Argentina was Chile, but now is one of the countries with which Argentina has the best relations, including the military (as an example, a joint peace force, called Cruz del Sur, was created in 2009 by both countries). Chile felt betrayed by England (or UK if you prefer) when Augusto Pinochet was enjailed there in the late nineties after the request of a Spanish judge. This lead to the pressure by Chile to let the Argentineans visit the islands and now Chile is the country that presents the Argentine claim to the UN decolonization committee every year. Yesterday, Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet, stated that now they ceompletely support the Argentine position. She also said that the new president, Sebastian Piñera, will continue support to Argentina on this. This is because we understand that the differences with Chile were between military governments and those are part of the past we will never repeat.
Brazil also support the Argentine position, as always, but a surprise that Argentina didn’t expect, was the total support of the former British colonies of the Caribbean, most of them are part of the Commonwealth. In 1982 only Chile, the Caribbean countries and the Guyanas didn’t support the Argentine position. Argentina doesn’t expect military support from the Caribbean countries, but it’s important that none of the Latin American and Caribbean countries were against the Argentine position and that all of them agree to sign a document to support Argentina. This was never reached in the past and it’s a good precedent for the Argentinean position.
Chavez, despite he can be a big military help, is a problem for Argentina, because he always talks more than he has to. Anyway, sometimes he says what everybody here thinks but it’s not politically correct to say it. For us, Chavez is only something funny to laugh about.