Sealordlawrence rumbled:

but a certain mr Jester who has avoided answering the question you qouted

A certain Mr. “King” Jester who has just about recovered from his friday evening after office pub-hopping 😎 will anser all your questions, when the time comes. I told you already, young chap, that a little introspection and selfconstraint would benefit your posts.

I ask you again jester do you believe that the people of the falklands should have the right to decide democratically who governs them? yes or no please.

Believing that a single silver-bullet question which is to be answered with a simple yes or no, can be so conclusive and inequivocal as to sort out the good from the evil forever is pretty naive, to say the least. :rolleyes: As already mentioned, there is much more grey to the concepts of self-determination, democracy, liberty or equality than there is of black and white to it. Unchecked democracy rapidly degrades into the tyranny of the majority, while overchecked democracy develops into oligarchy. I recomend to start with Rousseaus “Social Contract” as a nightstand reading, before you get to heavilly involved in debattes like this one.

But I will nevertheless follow your lead and give you a simple answer to your single question. What should I answer, though? If I say NO, then you will label me a totalitarian and possibly ask MODERATOR for my removal from the forum because my “hate speech” is uncompatible with the free spirited collective mind of the fora. If on the other hand I say YES, then you are going to fan your tail like a peacock and tell everybody how you managed to corner that thirdworld-wannabe-tirant into giving in.

If I believe that the kelpies should have the right to democratically elect their government? Kelpers are british citizens (that is what they claim and what the UK acknowledges and tells the RoW), and as britrish citizens I DO believe they should have the right to democratically elect the british Prime Minister, the members of the british Parliament , the british representatives to the EU and their local executive authority, the Governor. Last time I checked, they do NOT have the right to do ANY of those choices on their own, under current british law (source: Wikipedia). They do not participate in british national elections, and their governor has been imposed by the Crown (sorry, I meant appointed…) ever since 1833. Nothing on this regard changed after kelpers finally got a “constitution” in 1985.
I ALSO DO believe, that ALL british citizens loyal subjects to the UK and the Queen, including all 55 million britons on the Motherland who provide the manpower and the budget to mantain Fortress Falkland,, should have the right to democratically decide if the UK is to hold on to the islands or start souvereignty talks with Argentina over the matter.

I do not wish to bore you with all the other fine and nice things I do believe in, but I have to add that I ALSO DO believe that as there should be a democracy at the local level and at the national level, there should be a democracy at the international level. Thus I DO believe that the UK should show more respect for Resolutions 2065 and 1913 of the UN, which were passed in plenary session by a majority of the member states.

Under you view everybody in the US should leave and the continent be handed back to the indians, your perspective is absurd.

Native americans, pal. If you’re gonna be PC, at least do it right :p . Indians live on the other side of the globe.
As to correct your lack of comprehension about the subtle differences between vacating the Falklands and vacating the USA, and to put in perspective how absurd your example is, let me say following:
a) Sad but true, most native americans were extermined during the last 500 years, and in many regions of America (mainly South America) continue to be outcasts of modern society.
b) Settlers of all origins (admittedly mostly british) in what has become USA, revolted against the Empire in 1776, about half a century before the UK even started its colonial bussines on the Falklands.
c) Said revolting settlers, whose concern was not to be ruled any longer by the Motherland, formed an inclusive democracy, were ultimatly all native americans and all white, black, yellow and mixed race immigrants participate by vote and voice, some odd 209 years before kelpers even got the right to vote their own council.
d) Said multiracial, multicultural democracy became independendant and started bussines with neighbours form near and far on an equal basis, while on the Falklands an isolationist and unrepresented society of Crown peasents developed.

My Hitler comment was a reference to your seeming believe that Argentina should have the falklands simply becouse it believes it should have them and for no other reason.

My reasons have been clearly posted before, but read my lips again: Argentina has a valid claim and historic rights to back up said claim. Its NOT a matter of “wishing”, “believing” or “feeling”. But of course, for you historic rights are worthless, as is jurisprudence all together, according to one of your previous posts.

Mushashi wrote:

because the people who live in Falklands now aren’t responsible for the colonisation of the islands. It’s their home.

Mushashi, Argentinas claim did not come out of the blue. We have been protesting the illegal occupation of the Malvinas for a century and a half. I understand perfectly well that current inhabitants regard their homes precisely “as their homes”. That doesn’t change the fact that the british presence tresspasses legitimate and rightfull argie souvereignty claims. In the real world, after you get an eviction ruling, police comes and kicks you out if you are illegally tresspassing, no matter how long you have been there or how deeply you feel its “your home” you are geting evicted from. Of course in “surreal world” , the world of international politics, anything, no matter how surreal, can happen. I’m NOT proprosing to kick kelpers out, nor to take their british citizensship or their personal property away. I have consistently posted so on this topic. But the souvereignty of the territory is open to discussion, regardless of the final destination of the kelpers. If they choose to stay, they are welcome. If they prefer to leave, so be it. They have had over 40 years time, since Res 2065, to start packing, after all…

and they did appoint a governor to start a proper colonisation process in 1829. But we had taken the islands by 1833. I doubt very much that Argentina had done much by then, or that many Argentinians had moved there to set up a community. Indeed, had they done anything by that point?

In 1982, when Argentina “re-took” 149 years later, a few dozens Crown-owned farms, a single income economy (wool, as exporting mouton wasn’t redituable), a minute town with a couple hundred houses, less than 50 miles of pawed roads, the only airliner connection subsidezed by the argie gov., the only pawed airstrip build by Argentina IRCC, heating oil shipped in by the argie gov. at mainland price, count among some other examples of the “shabbiness” of what the UK had done by then. Sorry, I do not want to sound all to nit-picky. 😉

Ink, I respect your position and how you expose it. I always respect somebody who has done its share of reading. Thanks.

King Jester

PS: Just for the record, I do NOT consider the UK to be my or our natural born enemy. Our countries have been close friends for to long to throw all that overboard for some differences we may keep fighting over.

Now I’m back home and can elaborate a little more.

Phill wrote:

This IS about self determination and you are just going to have to live with it.

OK, as you say. Its also about de-colonization, and YOU will just going to have to live with it.

Birmingham is part of the UK (so too, according to the Falkland islanders is the Flaklands)

You may find it interesting that there is a precise and distinct status diference IN BRITISH LAW regarding the degree to what Birmingham and the Falklands are considered “part” of the UK. The Falklands are a “dependent territory”, nothing more than a modern expression for “colony”.

and until a minority becomes a majority in the country as a whole (and although it is a large minority the Pakistani community in Birmingham is indeed just that, a minority) becoming a majority in a single city simply does not cut the ceasation argument on a national scale

Its funny how you put the territorial integrity concept above the self-determination concept when it suits your side of the argument….you will have to make a bigger effort than this, pal.

Sealordlawrence wrote:

Ink, you presented some good points, and I will say that my belief is that democracy and equality is the way to look at this subject.

Equality, nice concept. Why is it that I feel that Argentina has been treated assymmetrically by the UK for the last century and a half?

It is very simple, the correct way of looking at this could be understood by anyone.

If you start with the assumption that YOUR view is the ONLY correct view, may be.

The people who currently inhabit the Falkland Islands have been there for generations, thus we can safely regard them as the native population, thus who they wish to be ruled by should be their choice.

The people of the islands got there in the first place to serve and guard the outer limits of the british Imperium, thus being colonials loyal to the Crown. This is exactly what they did for (all) their history, never attempting to emancipate, as opposed to revolutionary british colonials in Northamerica and other emancipated (all white-european ethnic) territories. Kelpers have all along only done the “look-out” in behalf of the UK; in fact for most of their history they have worked for the Crown through the FIC and been imposed a governor, with no political independence whatsoever. They constitute, in any light you may analyze it, a colony. They do not consitute a “nation”, nor are they “natives” nor do they meet any other criteria which may grant them a distinct classment eligible for “collective self-determination rights”. They do have of course individual rights, granted by the universal declaration of human rights, granted by the constitution of the UK (as far as they can produce a british passport, that is, a right they were denied between 1979 and 1983, IRCC) and by international treaties on civil and persons rights. Should the islands souverignty be transfered, if on an individual basis they choose to remain british citizens under british rule, then they should be granted relocation to the mother land, on full expenses paid for by the UK, as an obligation to provide for thier OWN citizens rights and well being. In blue edition I made for clarity of concept.

The people of Argentina are not the inhabitants of the Falklands and thus their thoughts on the matter are largely irrelevant-just becouse they want the Falklands it does not mean they should have them.

Firstly, people from Argentina do not live in said islands because they were EXPELLED by a british armed invasion force in 1833 and never allocated residence rights again. Second, its not about “wishes”, but about “rights”. Third, people of Argentina are directly affected on their basic human rights and their right to “self-determination” and are being treated “inequaly” by the nearby presence of a foreign military power and occupying population, which have set up unilateral exclusion zones and exploit (common) natural resources unilaterally. In fact, 2000 kelpers who are stricking it wicked rich by selling fishing rights have managed to deplete South Atlantic squid and cod stocks so badly, that the central government of the UK has threatened to intervein if the kelpers do not review their licensing system. 50.000 fisher families in Patagonia are directly affected by this inequality, set about by the presence of a foreign colonial power. This is the textbook example for the principles outlined by the UN de-colonization charter.

I personally feel that the history of the Islands is only relevant in the sense that it provides the candidates not the rights. Other examples from recent history of other similar cases should also be considered irrelevant.

Wonderfull, so historic rights are unimportant to you and the Falklands are so damn special no other example in the World is fitting? Pretty arrogant thoughts, if you ask me.

You jester on the other hand, seem to believe that it is the right of Argentina, despite the fact that it has not owned the Islands for 200 years,

172 years so far. And yes, we “owned” the islands before that, so we do have a right on them.

that the inhabitants do not wish to be Argentine and have lived there for generations, should be returned to the Agentinians immediately, this is wrong and immoral

If the UK would have returned the islands swiftly, say in 1834, after Argentina presented its first protest, then we would not be debating the duration of the illegimate british occupation. If the UK would have decided to return the islands in 1904, when Argentina achieved its first diplomatic succes, temporary blocking the issue of Falkland postal stamps, only 71 years of occupation would have elapsed. If in 1949, after the UK formally listed the Falkland Islands and Dependencies as a colony during the formation of the UN, which Argentina protested energically, the islands, by then inhabited only by a shrinking 1200 people, would have been returned, then only 116 years would have passed. If in 1965, after Res. 2065, compelling the UK to discuss souvereignty, the UK would have adopted the talks, only 132 years would have passed. Speacking of “two centuries of peacefull ownership” as a basis to claim souvereignty is delutional to say the least. The forcefull british occupation of the Falklands has ALWAYS been contested by Argentina, to the point that we resourced to military options (and for the record, I personally think that the military option was the most stupid desition EVER to be taken by a goverment).

The idea that the Kelpers do not have the right to self-determination is equally repugnant, every human being should as far as possible have the right to choose democratically who governs them,

Being simply representatives of a foreign colonial power and not constituting a distinct “nation” they do not have the collective right to determine souvereignty over the territory at stacke. Souvereignty talks should be carried out ONLY by the governments of the UK and Argentina. Kelpers do not constitute the third leg (party) on these talks. This is the way the UN has framed Res. 2065, kelpers being entitled only to have their “best interests” represented by the negotiating parties. There is no voting right, nor speacking right, nor anything of the kind foreseen for the kelpies in the frame of this talks. Period.

I trust that you are now going to enter the modern world

Are you being ironic again, Sealord? BTW, you still owe an explanation to MODERATOR about what you meant exactly by comparing me to Hitler (and yes PHILL, it was HIM who said it, so before you go about accusing me a liar, get yourself a new pair of eyeglasses, or something).

King Jester

sealordlawrence wrote:

if you wish to rule the falklands against the wishes of the Islanders you are as bad as every other tyrant in history, you fall into the same category as hitler.

You have mentioned the austrian corporal with the funny moustache twice in this tread already, is that your particular way of being ironic? People sometimes get banned from forums for that kind of particular sense of humour….

Phill wrote:

‘They’, the ‘Kelpies’ as you call them have however been there for generations. Before them was penguins, seagulls, walrusses and sealions.

Kelpers, as they call themselves, have lived there for about 6 generations, thats about right. Thats about the only thing right on your statement.

You are talking about taking away the homes that they and their ancestors have lived in for 150+ years

Read my post above, I do grant them to pursue their individual wealth and happines, in any form they wish. We will not round up the kelpers to expell them as Commander Onslow from HMS Clio did with the argie settlers in 1833, if that is your fear.

and your assumption that they have no rights smacks of the military junta that took them by force in 1982.

Kelpers do not constitute a “nation”, and therefore do not have a right to collective self determination. They do not have any different rights than a brit living in London, Liverpool or any other place abroad to claim independence or souvereignty of the territory they live on. If you brits prize self determination so high, why don’t you give’em Guernsey, or the Orkneys and let them have their very own little free country? Coming to think of it, what happend to the self determination of the peoples of Northern Ireland? Geez, that went off topic and limits with flaming, I will take that last bit back, right?

So too does your jibe about hiding behind the UN security council, we hide behind nobody

The UK has countless times since the UN passed Res. 2065 used its position on the Sec Coun to stop, delay, divert, ignore or reformulate in its own terms the passing of resolutions concerning the de-colonnization of the Falklands/Malvinas.

and we WILL defend our own citizens right to self determination.

Get real, in 1982 you went to war to save “british citizens in distress” as you would have gone anywhere else in the World. Do not fancy about pretending to defend peoples right to self determination, or did you send a Task Force to Hong Kong to protect the right to self determination of british colonials there? There were 40 or 50 times more elligible britons who’s right to selfdetermination should have been protected in Hong Kong than on the Falklands/Malvinas, yet I did not hear any loud war rumbling.

Come to that, so long as there is a UN mandate we will defend the right of anybody to self determination. In fact we have done just that without the UNs blessing so that pretty much blows at least one of your arguments out of the water.

I’m not sure what you play up to, but I can think of some pretty disastrous examples of the UK interviening in behalf of “self determination” of the peoples, and some even more notoriuos examples of failure by the UK to intervein.

I repeat. Argentina’s claim to the islands is no more watertight than anybody elses

Thats your personal view. Historic records would seem to indicate otherwise.

and don’t forget, the UK doesn’t claim them as such, the ‘kelpies’ do.

There you are completely wrong. The UK listed the Falklands as a colonny in 1949 and as of today the Falklands are still a british dependent territory. It is the gov. of the UK which claims the islands as souvereign territory, not the kelpers.

Nor is it a forgone conclusion that Argentina will, without doubt, one day get its way.

I’m having trouble with my limited domain of english here, how do you combine “forgone” and “without doubt” in the same sentence? Do two negatives make a positive, as in math?
Geez, anyhow you seem to indicate that its your opinion that Argentina will never get its way? That is just the same kind of clearvoyancy as stating the opposite, don’t you think?

King Jester

Phil asked:

What I want to know most of all is how is Argentina going to make good on their claim, bearing in mind that they have enshrined a peaceful resolution of the issue into law?

By hacking and hacking and hacking the UN, the EU, the Vatican, the Hague Court, the WTO, the OEA, the Red Cross and the glory-mother Harlem Globe Trotters if need be, till we get back by peaceful means what we have been claiming for the last 180+ years…its that easy.

What are their intentions for the islanders? How can they be made Argentine if they don’t want to be?

No particular intentions at all. Personally I would have paid off every kelper 500.000 L and an airticket to whereever in the World they desired in 1981, and would have avoided the war and saved money too.
But that is not necesarilly the argie gov. plan nor the argie constitutional frame. Argentina is a land of immigrants, and kelpers would be welcome like “kinda” immigrants, with right to permanent residence, work, retirement, exercising their profession, buying real estate and even runing for local elections, just as any other immigrant from all four corners of the world does. Keeping a dual citizenship is no problem either. Millions of argies do keep a second passport cause of their european ancestry. Heck, if today a kelper would move over to mainland Argentina (and believe it or not, it happens every so often, simply because there aren’t enough jobs on the islands) he or she would get permanent residence in about 4 months. Try doing that the other way round and you will be bound to a unpleasent surprise!!!

What will happen to them if/when Argentina gets what she wants? Will they be shipped off the Old Blighty lock stock and barrel or will they be assimilated?

Well, if Argentina gets back full souverignty over the islands, kelpers will have to realise that the oil under the ground, the fish in the sea and the wide open sky doesn’t “belong” to their 2000 souls no more, but to 40 million argies.
It would be surreal to fancy about a pristine and untouched “british way of living” on the islands. Patagonia houses nearly half a million people who make their living drilling oil, fishing squid and hearding sheep. If the islands were to become argentinian again, a wave of capital investment in fishing and (maybe) oil drilling would flood the islands, bringing along workers, trade, housing, spanish speaking traffic police and left-steer vehicles. You can call it assimilation, progress, cultural invasion, or whatever you want to call it, but its what’s gonna happen. On the other hand, welsh immigrants in Patagonia have kept their cultural heritage uprigth for over a century, and believe me if I tell you they are the most succesfull and clever business people in Patagonia all along. Their tea and welsh pastry houses make millions on the tourist business every year.

Their wishes must be upheld, they cannot/must not be overridden by political ambition and most of all there must not be another war.

Wishes, wishes…I wish so may things. I even wish my neighbors wife every now and then…but, do I have a right on my neighbors wife?
The whole “islanders wishes” is IMO complete bogus. Self determination of the peoples principle applies to natives, which kelpers are clearly not. Negotiations are to be held only between the UK (representing the interest of all british citizens, including the kelpies) and Argentina (representing the interests of all argie citizens). Whatever the outcome, we have made the pledge that the kelpers way of living, language, culture and individual citizen rights will be respected.

King Jester

BTW, Galtieri was indeed indited. Not for the desition of retaking the islands (as you may know we still have a pending claim…), but for his catastrophic military incompetence. IRCC (would have to check to make sure) he was discharged and served some time in a military prison. He died about two years ago.

Checked to make sure, Galtieri (1926-2002) was:
a) Found not guilty by the Federal Tribunal which judged human rights abuses during the last military regime (1985)
b) Found guilty of incompetence by the Military Tribunal which judged the performance of the Armed Forces during the war, sentenced to 12 years and dishonorable discharge (1986)
c) Exhonerated by grace of former president Menem after having served 6 years, and restituted his military pension due to a technicallity (Galtiere had appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court, which had not reached veredict when Menem pardoned his lot in 1992, hence he was restituted his rank based on “open verdict principle”)
d) Again indited for human rights abuses, this time by Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon. No extradition was granted, so Galtieri stayed in Argentina (1996-1998)
e) Indited again for alledged baby smuggling ? (stealing and selling babies from political detainees) during the military regime. House arrest due to health concerns for some time. Charges lifted due to lack of evidence.
f) Died of pancreas cancer in 2002.

As for what the status of the Falklands/Malvinas would be today if Galtieri (and Maggy too 😉 ) wouldn’t have pushed it in 1982, I agree with you that economic and socio-cultural ties with the islands would be much closer. After all Argentina was one of the biggest trade partners for the kelpers before the war, and there is hardly a kelper which doesn’t have relatives on mainland Argentina (I even remember having read once that in the 1940s and 50s there were more argies of kelper descent on the mainland than kelpers on the islands, wouldn’t know though where I read that). Political questions (as negotiating souvereignty) would still be a complex task, but much easier than it is today.

King Jester

One could say these two happy bizzjet owners do run some sort of “kingdom”…also the choice of color for these two ones is similar, though there is sensibly more cash behind the second one.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/071630/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/343304/L/

King Jester

Edit: Scr*** ed up the links, no hotlinking, I know…

The website is a golden find King Jester…

The site is indeed freaking awesome, I simply do not get tired exploring it. I hope we are not taking to much bandwith from those guys…their gallery is outstanding.

King Jester

An almost unreal Mirage IIIEBR (or F-103 in “brazilian”).

Source: an awesome website I found, http://www.amv83.net/asm

King Jester