And so it begins - Falklands: Pope Asked To Intervene In Row

Being from a third (uninvolved) country means that I do not have a vested interest in either claim and thus have no reason to be prejudice one way or the other. I'm reasonably well read on both sides of the argument and I've heard both parties dismiss the others' argument(s) as "silly rhetoric", "lies", "delusions", "publicity stunts" etc etc on numerous occasions; when and whether to apply such terms seems to reflect little more than perspective in my experiance. In any case, I'm not "peddling" anything, I'm merely attempting to provide a semblance of balance to a thread which has predictably (in a British-based forum) become utterly one-sided.

I've already outlined the reasons that I do not think that self-determination argument is a strong one, chiefly amongst which is the fact that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations and colonies, of which the Falklands is neither.

On the grounds that islands do not have any aboriginal inhabitants living on them,

and that the current population were brought to the island to replace the displaced Argentine settlers

(which was illegal under international law),

I agree with the Argentine claim that the Falklands are an overseas territory and that conflicting claims over the island therefore constitute a territory dispute. The principle of self-determination does not apply to territory disputes.

The list was created by the Special Committee on Decolonisation but the Falkland Islands were later voluntarily added to that list by the British government.

Well that depends on what historical records you read; accounts of events are contradictory. One things is for certain, Argentina made a "diplomatic protest for the occupation of the Malvinas" in 1833, and have maintained it ever since

From a neutral perspective Britain looks equally as stubborn and uncompromising as Argentina on the matter. Just as Argentina seem unwilling to "except" [sic] any less than gaining complete control over the Falklands, the British are ostensibly equally intransigent with regards to maintaining their complete control over the Falklands. And just as Argentina will seemingly not concede anything on their side, neither will Britain on theirs.

Argentina (for the reasons outlined above) do not recognise the Falklands 'government', so it can't very well open a dialogue with them.

And the trade sanctions are a direct response to the UK's refusal to reopen negotiations, which is plainly in dissension of UN resolution concerning negotiation.

Whatever.

I'm done wasting my time trying to have a reasonable balanced debate on this subject in this forum (and getting negged by ignorant children in the process).

We already have all the dialogue we need.

Argentina want us to hand them the Falklands for no real reason, they have taken agressive actions like denying port space to those flying the flag etc.

We asked the people of the Falklands, they want to remain British. There's no compromise here.

B
I've already outlined the reasons that I do not think that self-determination argument is a strong one, chiefly amongst which is the fact that the international law regarding self-determination applies only to nations and colonies, of which the Falklands is neither. On the grounds that islands do not have any aboriginal inhabitants living on them, and that the current population were brought to the island to replace the displaced Argentine settlers (which was illegal under international law), I agree with the Argentine claim that the Falklands are an overseas territory and that conflicting claims over the island therefore constitute a territory dispute. The principle of self-determination does not apply to territory disputes.

Any links to that info?

Are you saying it can't be a nation because the people living there are not natives? Wouldn't that mean Argentina is not a nation either?

What is your definition of a nation? I think this is the third time I've asked you this. You keep saying self-determination doesn't apply because it's not a nation, but you have not explained what a nation is. I'm sure most of the people living there consider it a nation.

Are people actually taking this referendum seriously? It looks highly suspect to me.

I remember when the German Government pointed out that 98% or 99% of Austrians "voted" to be annexed by Germany. Immediately suspicions were raised as to the legitimacy of the poll. A poll organized by the government shows that 99% of people agree with the governments position on something.

Because, unlike other votes giving 98-99% results, this one had independent election officials from all over the world - including some South American countries - to validate the results. None of whom have reported any irregularities.

Every poll claims to be independent. Even the Austrian one in the 30's.

As an example, a recent vote in Syria found that a majority wanted Assad to remain in power. People instantly dismissed that, yet happily accept the results of the falklands vote just because it claimed to be an independent vote.

I'm sure you're capable of looking up definitions of the term 'nation' for yourself. I've fallen into the trap of quoting definitions before; it invariably leads to a long boring debate about semantics, and if you don't like the definition I provide you'll simply question its validity and go and find an alternative definition that fits your argument. I have neither the time nor the inclination to enter into another one of these tedious exchanges.

Essentially, the Falklands is not a nation in and of itself because it is merely a part of a nation, the question, and what the whole dispute is about, is what nation is it a part of.

Every poll claims to be independent. Even the Austrian one in the 30's.

As an example, a recent vote in Syria found that a majority wanted Assad to remain in power. People instantly dismissed that, yet happily accept the results of the falklands vote just because it claimed to be an independent vote.

Then don't use a term you are not willing to define. As it stands now, it is purely your opinion that the Falklands does not count as a nation. I don't see any facts that make your opinion more valid or relevant than anyone else's. You're also assuming that nations cannot exist as part of another nation. You're either saying the British nation doesn't exist, or the English, Scottish and Welsh ones don't.

You're talking as if there is a precise and strict definition of "nation", but they you refuse to say what that definition is. I don't think such a definition exists, so I don't see how you can make absolute statements about what is and what isn't a nation.

Also, what about ex-British territories that are now independent? Did they count as nations in your opinion? Or were they merely part of the British nation?

Then don't use a term you are not willing to define. As it stands now, it is purely your opinion that the Falklands does not count as a nation. I don't see any facts that make your opinion more valid or relevant than anyone else's. You're also assuming that nations cannot exist as part of another nation. You're either saying the British nation doesn't exist, or the English, Scottish and Welsh ones don't.

Also, what about ex-British territories that are now independent? Did they count as nations in your opinion? Or were they merely part of the British nation?

The status of Britain, or The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and its constituent countries is more complex because the state was formed by the union of previously independent nation states.

I can't believe I'm bothering to get into this again, but the most liberal definition of a 'nation' is usually something along the lines of "a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". The member states of the United Kingdom: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, continue to possess these attributes, despite the act of union, by virtue of their extensive histories as sovereign countries. Scotland, for example, was an independent kingdom for almost 1000 years (from 843-1707). The peoples of Scotland are plainly a culturally and ethnically distinct group from the peoples of England; Scotland has its own language (scots gaelic), sports (highland games), music (bagpipes), foods (haggis) etc. By contrast, Falkland Islanders are a handful of non-distinct British people who have been living on an geographically isolated landmass for, at most, three generations -one 3rd of the current population was actually born in Britain and moved to the Falklands later.

Based on the definition given above, the county of Cornwall has more right to call itself a nation than does the Falkland Islands.

One cannot make broad sweeping generalisations about such a diverse range of territories; it is clearly necessary to consider each territory individually. Whether or not a particular territory should be considered to have been a nation depends whether that territory was inhabited by a population with a shared history, language, culture and descent. Somewhere like India was obviously a nation in it's own right, whereas somewhere like South Georgia was clearly not.

Oh no. I'm so scared. The Pope is involved.