M66 - Falkland Islands Motion
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 720
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionFalkland Islands Motion
On the thirtieth anniversary year of the Falklands conflict, the Argentinian government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is restating its claim to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Could Britain defend them, if needed?
Britain maintains four Typhoon attack aircraft in the Falklands along with a naval patrol vessel and an enhanced infantry company, backed up by early warning radar and combat support assets. A destroyer or frigate and a nuclear submarine provide more cover, but not all the time. It was announced that in March, HMS Dauntless was to be deployed to the islands. If Argentinian forces landed on the Falklands, they would suffer attrition at the hands of these in-place forces.
Discuss.
EDIT: ..So therefore I agree with the motion, etc.Last edited by Mrkingpenguin; 06-03-2012 at 21:14. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 720
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionMy opinion continued:
...But Argentina could retake the Falklands. A successful assault would rely on the achievement of temporary, local military superiority before Britain could reinforce the islands. Most British ground forces are deployed to defend Mount Pleasant Airfield, the umbilical cord that connects the Falklands, via Ascension Island, to Britain. The Argentinians would probably land special forces from submarines. These would destroy early warning air radar sites on West Falkland and the Typhoons on the ground at Mount Pleasant, then isolate the islands by missile-armed frigates and combat aircraft, to prevent rapid British reinforcement by air. Without an airfield, British air power would be unable to intervene (where are those aircraft carriers when you need them?). Argentina could then reinforce and fortify the Falklands at its leisure.
Is Argentina likely to do this? A sign of trouble would be if Argentina sent warships and aircraft into the islands’ economic zone. British assets would be drawn to these infractions of sovereignty; in this way, Argentina would increase what Gerry Adams used to call “the costs of occupation.”
The retention of the Falkland Islands depends on two factors: the resolve of the islanders to decide their own future, coupled with a desire to remain British; and the continued political willingness of Britain to provide an adequate military deterrent.
If Argentina did manage to capture the islands again, it is extremely doubtful whether Britain could recover them by military means, given its recession-hit and incoherent defence policy, with its hollowed-out capabilities, weak lines of supply and lack of aircraft carriers. Also, the Obama administration has stated that it wants no part in any dispute. According to the State Department: “We recognise de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands, but take no position regarding sovereignty; it is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom.”
The Falklands are a valuable territory. Bloomberg has estimated the oil reserves at 8.3bn barrels, which could earn Britain an estimated tax windfall of £111bn. The Falklands also attract tourists, mostly on the way to and from Antarctica. The fishing industry is also worth tens of millions of pounds.
Perhaps the greatest threat to British sovereignty is the indifference of the British public or a decline in the political establishment’s determination to retain control. A particularly corrosive argument seems to be that because the Islands are closer to Argentina than Britain, they should, by rights, belong to Argentina. But proximity does not confer ownership. The current government position is that, as long as the islanders wish to remain British, the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable.
So as I said i would strongly agree with motion. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,744
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionThere seems an easy solution to this whole question: get the UN to run a plebiscite. Islanders decide what they wish to be, Argentina / Britain accept the decision as the desire of those who live there. End the needless posturing from both sides.
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,580
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionAye!(Original post by Metrobeans)
-
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Location: The Gardens of Aranjuez
- Posts: 886
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionI guess this would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, however, the Argentine Government does not recognise the Islanders as having a say in the matter. As far as the Argentines see it, the Islanders are foreign invaders, so are not in a position negotiate on their future.(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
There seems an easy solution to this whole question: get the UN to run a plebiscite. Islanders decide what they wish to be, Argentina / Britain accept the decision as the desire of those who live there. End the needless posturing from both sides.
Which is of course entirely different to people of Spanish descent running a country that they've invaded... One rule for some, eh?!
Oh, and a resounding Aye! to the motion!Last edited by FrogInABog; 06-03-2012 at 22:37. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,744
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionThey may not recognise the islanders but they do certainly recognise the United Nations. It's the best solution and one that would legitimise the choice of the current residents in the eyes of the international community. Throwing charges back and forth whilst the residents voices are muted seems folly really. As such I'm not sure this motion is, on the whole, meaningful or useful.(Original post by FrogInABog)
I guess this would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, however, the Argentine Government does not recognise the Islanders as having a say in the matter. As far as the Argentines see it, the Islanders are foreign invaders, so are not in a position negotiate on their future. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: Londres
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionAye to this one from Libers... No to the Government one, I mean seriously guys.(Original post by jesusandtequila)
-
- Reputation:
- And all the roads we have to walk are winding
- Location: Eternia
Re: M66 - Falkland Islands MotionIt doesn't have to mention it, even without mentioning that conflict the argument is pretty much stacked in Britains favour. And I think suggesting this to our MHoC first is the first step, the next step could be putting something to the MUN if the house is in general agreement.(Original post by Morgsie)
Both proposed Motions on this topic FAILS to reference the Falklands Conflict.
This should be referred to the MUN
