The Argentinians' claim to the Falklands
My understanding is that the Argentinians have had hardly any sovereignty through history over the Falklands.
I was just wondering - without anyone using this to argue the case for Great Britain, because that isn't what I'm asking about - can anyone explain to me what the Argentinians' claim to the Falklands is, from their point of view anyway? Is it literally just geographical or is there something more than that?
Also is the ENTIRE population of the Falklands British, or do Argentinians live there too?
Thanks
I was just wondering - without anyone using this to argue the case for Great Britain, because that isn't what I'm asking about - can anyone explain to me what the Argentinians' claim to the Falklands is, from their point of view anyway? Is it literally just geographical or is there something more than that?
Also is the ENTIRE population of the Falklands British, or do Argentinians live there too?
Thanks
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Krov
"Rosbifs are colonial imperialistic scum" is basically Bueno Aires' view on the subject.
Many or most Argentinians are descended from those who colonised Argentina as well though
Edit - although I suppose the imperialistic bit makes more sense
Original post by abc:)
Many or most Argentinians are descended from those who colonised Argentina as well though
Edit - although I suppose the imperialistic bit makes more sense
Edit - although I suppose the imperialistic bit makes more sense
I don't know how else to put it but...
Latin America was basically raped in the arse by the United States for more than a hundred years.
As such, it is very suspicious of any "Western" power meddling in their affairs.
Plus, Argentinians have a superiority complex because they were a world power a century ago, and are now basically irrelevant and poorer than Brazil.
Original post by Krov
I don't know how else to put it but...
Latin America was basically raped in the arse by the United States for more than a hundred years.
As such, it is very suspicious of any "Western" power meddling in their affairs.
Plus, Argentinians have a superiority complex because they were a world power a century ago, and are now basically irrelevant and poorer than Brazil.
Latin America was basically raped in the arse by the United States for more than a hundred years.
As such, it is very suspicious of any "Western" power meddling in their affairs.
Plus, Argentinians have a superiority complex because they were a world power a century ago, and are now basically irrelevant and poorer than Brazil.
Thanks, this actually helps and sort of makes sense haha
Officially they argue:
Realistically their claim is because:
No Argentineans live on the Islands, the main ethnic group are the native islanders who although are British have their own cultural identity however ethnically they are British (mix of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh) probably with a tiny bit of Spanish lineage as well. There are also a number of British people (who work or live there and moved recently [mainly military personnel]) and a few other people of mixed ethnicities, mainly European.
•
That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence via uti possidetis juris.
•
That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands even when we settled there.
•
That we abandoned our settlement on the island in 1776 and formally renounced sovereignty while Argentina says has always claimed the Falklands, and never officially renounced its claim.
•
That the re-establishment of British rule on the Falklands was illegal under international law.
•
That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population
•
That the Argentine population was expelled by an "act of force" in 1833.
•
That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.
Realistically their claim is because:
•
They can't handle the fact that they are no longer a significant force in the world
•
They are poor and want oil
•
They still feel bad that we wtfpwnd them in the Falklands war.
No Argentineans live on the Islands, the main ethnic group are the native islanders who although are British have their own cultural identity however ethnically they are British (mix of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh) probably with a tiny bit of Spanish lineage as well. There are also a number of British people (who work or live there and moved recently [mainly military personnel]) and a few other people of mixed ethnicities, mainly European.
(edited 11 years ago)
The Argentinian argument is based on the argument of Proximity, which makes it atrociously disastrous in actually achieving the claim, considering the thousands of years Europe had tried using such logic, only to fight countless pointless wars.
The WW2 Italian claim of Mare Nostrum is a textbook example of such a claim: This territory is not ours because they are Italians, but because they are in our backyard. And for the UK to do something as equally moronic as the Argentinian claim on the Falklands, then we would have to claim the Republic of Ireland as our sovereign territory.
The WW2 Italian claim of Mare Nostrum is a textbook example of such a claim: This territory is not ours because they are Italians, but because they are in our backyard. And for the UK to do something as equally moronic as the Argentinian claim on the Falklands, then we would have to claim the Republic of Ireland as our sovereign territory.
Their argument is having complete control of the place for 16 years over 250 years ago, none of them were native to the islands. Not only that, but it was a military base and not a settler town.
They need to accept they lost control. They barely started any kind of civilisation there and even if they did, why should we give them to anyone when Argentina occupies a large portion of South America from native South Americans.
There is no logic to this. There is nothing to give BACK to because they barely 'owned' it and if we're going down that path, can we have Normandy and virtually all of the Commonwealth countries and eastern USA back please?
There are a few Chilean people there and even they are fine with the current situation. Even if they weren't, they're minorities.
They need to accept they lost control. They barely started any kind of civilisation there and even if they did, why should we give them to anyone when Argentina occupies a large portion of South America from native South Americans.
There is no logic to this. There is nothing to give BACK to because they barely 'owned' it and if we're going down that path, can we have Normandy and virtually all of the Commonwealth countries and eastern USA back please?
There are a few Chilean people there and even they are fine with the current situation. Even if they weren't, they're minorities.
(edited 11 years ago)
Thatcher should never have bothered with the Falklands. Argentina have more right to them than we ever have. It's disgusting what she did with all the censorship so no journalists could get over there and report what was really happening.
All those deaths that happened as well and yet it was a big part of her election successes. It makes me sick what she did to this country. The people in the Falklands do have a democratic right to vote on what they want though, without Argentina or Britain poking their noses in.
All those deaths that happened as well and yet it was a big part of her election successes. It makes me sick what she did to this country. The people in the Falklands do have a democratic right to vote on what they want though, without Argentina or Britain poking their noses in.
Original post by Snagprophet
Their argument is having complete control of the place for 16 years over 250 years ago, none of them were native to the islands. Not only that, but it was a military base and not a settler town.
I'm not sure that that is their argument. Otherwise, why would they be relying so heavily on a UN commission dedicated solely to decolonisation? Why would Christina de Kirchner have made one of her most vitriolic speeches on the subject whilst in Ushuia in Tierra del Fuego, a territory effectively colonised by Argentina after taking it from Chile? I think their argument is more that Dependent Territories are an old-fashioned, colonial idea which should be done away with. We should all modernise by ensuring that Dependent Territories are handed over to the country nearest to them. Conveniently, the newly oil-rich Falklands are nearest to Argentina so the British should just hand them over and stop being all colonialistic about it.
A dumbass argument from a dumbass president.
Original post by Ben Butler
Thatcher should never have bothered with the Falklands. Argentina have more right to them than we ever have. It's disgusting what she did with all the censorship so no journalists could get over there and report what was really happening.
You don't actually know where the Falklands are, do you? I bet you don't even know who Thatcher is, you just heard her name somewhere and thought you would sound clever using it. You don't.
We have a responsibility to look after our subjects and citizens so yes, Thatcher should have bothered.
Geographical proximity is irrelevant in terms of dominion status. Ask the Danes about the Faeroes, the Spaniards about the Canaries or the Australians about Christmas Island. The Falklands have never been more than, briefly, a military base to the Argentines so no, Argentina does not have more right to them than us.
And, yes, imposing press censorship on a military campaign that required secrecy was definitely the right thing to do. Anything else would have been the height of stupidity because it would have cost lives.
If you really want to have a go at Thatcher for the way she let down the country and the colonies, read up about Hong Kong. That was scandalous, the defence of the Falklands was not.
No Argentineans live on the Islands, the main ethnic group are the native islanders who although are British have their own cultural identity however ethnically they are British (mix of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh) probably with a tiny bit of Spanish lineage as well. There are also a number of British people (who work or live there and moved recently [mainly military personnel]) and a few other people of mixed ethnicities, mainly European.
There are people of Argentine origin, in some cases nationality, on the islands alongside the predominantly Islander, British and Chilean communities. Through oil exploration others such as the Dutch are now increasing their presence though. Those Argentines that are on the island, bar the few that occasionally travel out to visit war graves and such, are as far as I am aware not supporters of the Argentine claim - I know one came out to denounce the Olympics advertisement.
You don't actually know where the Falklands are, do you? I bet you don't even know who Thatcher is, you just heard her name somewhere and thought you would sound clever using it. You don't.
We have a responsibility to look after our subjects and citizens so yes, Thatcher should have bothered.
Geographical proximity is irrelevant in terms of dominion status. Ask the Danes about the Faeroes, the Spaniards about the Canaries or the Australians about Christmas Island. The Falklands have never been more than, briefly, a military base to the Argentines so no, Argentina does not have more right to them than us.
And, yes, imposing press censorship on a military campaign that required secrecy was definitely the right thing to do. Anything else would have been the height of stupidity because it would have cost lives.
If you really want to have a go at Thatcher for the way she let down the country and the colonies, read up about Hong Kong. That was scandalous, the defence of the Falklands was not. Thanks for the compliment. Of course I know who Margaret Thatcher is being a journalism student and very politically minded person. There is an excellent film called This is England which underlines the impact her decision to go to the Falklands had on the families who had lost loved ones in the war, and also how their communities were effected and the way they turned to the far right and racism to express their anger in the form of a skinhead culture. It's a brilliant film in my view.
You are wrong about press censorship.
I did an essay on Thatcher's censorship.
Digital War Reporting looks at the Falklands War, and how the British Armed forces struggled to formulate any information policy and medical strategy. A limited number of British journalists were allowed on the fleet to the South Atlantic. The government and military line was that reporting restrictions were necessary, and vital to safeguard operational security and the lives of the troops. However, critics argued far beyond such terms of reference, and said that they were designed to ensure coverage that would convey a favourable impression of the war at home (Guma, 1988; Harris, 1983).
Censorship operated on three main levels. There was direct censorship and control by the media in the South Atlantic. Restraints were imposed by the lobbying briefing system, and journalists even self-censored themselves in the name of military secrets, or in respect of public opinion. Censorship meant that there were hardly any complaints about Britain going to the Falklands, and once Britain gained control of the Falklands, public opinion had increased dramatically for Margaret Thatcher, thus being a huge part of her success in the general elections.
There were no citizen journalists waiting to post information on blogs or any such technology, so it became relatively easy to suppress any information that Margaret Thatcher did not want the British public to hear. This scenario could not possibly happen in the technological, globalised world in which we live today; and as such, shows a huge shift in the change between the producer and consumer of news.
So that is what I found our from reading!
We have a responsibility to look after our subjects and citizens so yes, Thatcher should have bothered.
Geographical proximity is irrelevant in terms of dominion status. Ask the Danes about the Faeroes, the Spaniards about the Canaries or the Australians about Christmas Island. The Falklands have never been more than, briefly, a military base to the Argentines so no, Argentina does not have more right to them than us.
And, yes, imposing press censorship on a military campaign that required secrecy was definitely the right thing to do. Anything else would have been the height of stupidity because it would have cost lives.
If you really want to have a go at Thatcher for the way she let down the country and the colonies, read up about Hong Kong. That was scandalous, the defence of the Falklands was not. Thanks for the compliment. Of course I know who Margaret Thatcher is being a journalism student and very politically minded person. There is an excellent film called This is England which underlines the impact her decision to go to the Falklands had on the families who had lost loved ones in the war, and also how their communities were effected and the way they turned to the far right and racism to express their anger in the form of a skinhead culture. It's a brilliant film in my view.
You are wrong about press censorship.
I did an essay on Thatcher's censorship.
Digital War Reporting looks at the Falklands War, and how the British Armed forces struggled to formulate any information policy and medical strategy. A limited number of British journalists were allowed on the fleet to the South Atlantic. The government and military line was that reporting restrictions were necessary, and vital to safeguard operational security and the lives of the troops. However, critics argued far beyond such terms of reference, and said that they were designed to ensure coverage that would convey a favourable impression of the war at home (Guma, 1988; Harris, 1983).
Censorship operated on three main levels. There was direct censorship and control by the media in the South Atlantic. Restraints were imposed by the lobbying briefing system, and journalists even self-censored themselves in the name of military secrets, or in respect of public opinion. Censorship meant that there were hardly any complaints about Britain going to the Falklands, and once Britain gained control of the Falklands, public opinion had increased dramatically for Margaret Thatcher, thus being a huge part of her success in the general elections.
There were no citizen journalists waiting to post information on blogs or any such technology, so it became relatively easy to suppress any information that Margaret Thatcher did not want the British public to hear. This scenario could not possibly happen in the technological, globalised world in which we live today; and as such, shows a huge shift in the change between the producer and consumer of news.
So that is what I found our from reading!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Ben Butler
So that is what I found our from reading!
So that is what I found our from reading!
Not sure how watching a film qualifies as "reading" but, more importantly, what you didn't "found our" [sic] was why the censorship was the right thing to do. Without that censorship, the Argentinians would have had a much better idea of our strength and tactics before we arrived and as we were fighting them. They would have been able to provide much stiffer resistance which would have involved the deaths of a lot more British troops.
You don't really think the Argentine press was at liberty to broadcast every last detail of their army's movements to us, do you? Why should we give them that luxury?
Mostly the claim from the Argentinian point of view is:
1. When the Spanish Empire collapsed and Argentina came to be, Argentina should inherit Spain's claim to the Islands (Which were British Controlled by then).
2. Proximity to Argentina/Distance from the UK, and a view that the UK is simply continuing a tradition of colonialism over territories thousands of miles from itself.
Why exactly does Argentina have more right to them than the UK?
I can't help feeling that at least part of this was probably due to the fact that the Islands are 8000 miles away, and in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Let's face it, if you're heading off for a major naval operation, ensuring easy journalistic access (especially when such access could result in the loss of hundreds of lives, if the wrong information is publicised at the wrong time) is probably not the highest on your list of priorities.
So it's fortunate that this is what the UK government has been saying for the past 30 years, right?
This is hardly unreasonable given the potential fallout of leaked information on deployments, planned operations etc.
It would be rather difficult to claim for the most part that the media was (forcedly or otherwise) staunchly pro-war. Out of interest, do you have any examples of information that she attempted to suppress?
This bears no relevance to anything, or if it does, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
1. When the Spanish Empire collapsed and Argentina came to be, Argentina should inherit Spain's claim to the Islands (Which were British Controlled by then).
2. Proximity to Argentina/Distance from the UK, and a view that the UK is simply continuing a tradition of colonialism over territories thousands of miles from itself.
Original post by Ben Butler
Thatcher should never have bothered with the Falklands. Argentina have more right to them than we ever have.
Why exactly does Argentina have more right to them than the UK?
It's disgusting what she did with all the censorship so no journalists could get over there and report what was really happening.
I can't help feeling that at least part of this was probably due to the fact that the Islands are 8000 miles away, and in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Let's face it, if you're heading off for a major naval operation, ensuring easy journalistic access (especially when such access could result in the loss of hundreds of lives, if the wrong information is publicised at the wrong time) is probably not the highest on your list of priorities.
The people in the Falklands do have a democratic right to vote on what they want though, without Argentina or Britain poking their noses in.
So it's fortunate that this is what the UK government has been saying for the past 30 years, right?
Restraints were imposed by the lobbying briefing system, and journalists even self-censored themselves in the name of military secrets
There were no citizen journalists waiting to post information on blogs or any such technology, so it became relatively easy to suppress any information that Margaret Thatcher did not want the British public to hear.
It would be rather difficult to claim for the most part that the media was (forcedly or otherwise) staunchly pro-war. Out of interest, do you have any examples of information that she attempted to suppress?
This scenario could not possibly happen in the technological, globalised world in which we live today; and as such, shows a huge shift in the change between the producer and consumer of news.
This bears no relevance to anything, or if it does, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Original post by @Sam
I'm sure Kirchner will have booked her GA Speech to denounce the results already.
Oh, don't worry, Argentina's already announced that they won't recognise the results. (Unless, I'm sure, they happened to vote to join Argentina)
Original post by Carolus
Oh, don't worry, Argentina's already announced that they won't recognise the results. (Unless, I'm sure, they happened to vote to join Argentina)
So what are they planning on telling the UN then?
Original post by Snagprophet
So what are they planning on telling the UN then?
Do you mean what will Argentina tell the UN about the referendum? I think they plan to claim that since they see the current population as having been planted there by Britain, the Falklanders have no right to self-determination, and hence their vote can mean nothing.
Original post by Carolus
Do you mean what will Argentina tell the UN about the referendum? I think they plan to claim that since they see the current population as having been planted there by Britain, the Falklanders have no right to self-determination, and hence their vote can mean nothing.
That's ridiculous and hypocritical of them. They were planted in Argentina by Spain, by their logic should have no right to democracy.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can I continue to drive with my Indian license after provisional license?
- University Disputes Solicitor
- Appeal Claim for Exceptional Circumstances
- Small claims issue - help
- Do i need to declare motor claims on a new full licence?
- AS Level further statistics, topic 2
- AS level further statistics, chapter 2
- employer refused to pay
- Sister wants to claim universal credit but mum won't allow her
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- How do I claim PIP (Personal Independence Payment) by post (and other advice)?
- First time car accident
- Driving accident
- Epq
- Degree certificate being held
- Hi guys
- Bursaries and scholarships
- Seeking Guidance on Potential Employment Misclassification Case
- How long does it take to get notified someone’s made a claim against you?
- Periodical Payments in Financial Orders (Divorce settlement)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
