Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Kirchner's kicking off over the Falkland Islands again.... Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    That isn't hypocritical at all. As I keep trying to say, they (rightly or wrongly) view the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands as invaders on their land - not as the "legitimate citizens" we view them as. Almost like squatters - if squatters in your house held a referendum that said they want to stay, you wouldn't accept them as the new legitimate owners would you? As I said before, this issue is so old (and blurry) that it should just be left as it is and the Falkland Islanders should decide. But that doesn't make the Argentinians crackpot schemers for not going along with it.

    The world would be far better off if people could occasionally see issues like this from the "enemies" point of view instead of blindly believing that your own is 100% right.
    However Argentina have only controlled the Falklands for a very short period of time. They have only controlled the islands for a matter of 3 months in the early 19th century. That is not a valid reason for a land claim imo.

    See this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fa...permanence.png
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Wonder if the US will weigh in again and stab Britain in the back, again
    They might but it would all be for nowt. Just gotta wait for the referendum.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I can see where people are getting at about the economic situation, and if it does have oil like one of you said, it makes perfect sense as to why they want it back. However, the referendum should be handed to the people. It would be like Norway or Iceland claiming the Shetland islands, which, in the case of Iceland, has not happened since the last Cod War in the late 70s/early 80s. Is there an option for the Falklands to self-rule and not be under the rule of either Argentina or the UK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But in nearly all of those cases, that's because that's what the inhabitants wanted. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong, and that's because we had an agreement with China that British rule was only temporary (at least for certain parts of it).

    This case is different because the people that live there are happy with the status quo.
    (Original post by Fenrirs_space)
    But who would we 'give it back' to? The Dutch were the first to find the Island, the British second. The French were the first to settle on there, the British second (without knowing the French colony existed). The Spanish then acquired the French colony. This all happened between 1600 and 1766. The Argentinians don't even come in to the picture until the 1820's

    So, considering the French had first claim, the British second and 'then' the French abandoned theirs to the Spanish (putting them third), surely the Islands belong to the British? Until we abandon our claim at least, then Argentina can squabble with their former colonial masters on who takes ownership.
    That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ahh old women yells at penguins as her country experiences significant increases in inflation....whatever takes the heat off I suppose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.
    Who cares, what matters is that all the people on the island now will get to vote. Argentina can stop whinging about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hooj)
    Who cares, what matters is that all the people on the island now will get to vote. Argentina can stop whinging about it.
    Can you read?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    Can you read?
    Who cares, they all get to vote now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.
    What will settle Argentina's grievances? Nothing will, except forcing a few thousand people from their homes, some of whom have been living there for generations.

    And of course Argentina itself was formed through colonialism. Back when they got independence, obviously those Argentinians who pushed for independence thought they had the right to decide that for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.
    Pretty much answered in the same sentence. That was what the whole point of colonialism was. Acquiring newly discovered territories away from home countries to further power & influence. If the accomplishments from back then are no longer valid in the modern stage, then shall we also abolish the USA, Argentina, Brazil and many other countries that were all born out of the period of colonialism ?

    Pray tell me, how is the Argentinian claim in any way stronger than ours? Especially considering that a) Their very country was founded on colonialism principles and b) The Islands had been discovered (and with multiple countries laying claim to them, Britain among them, as pointed out in my previous post) long before Argentina even existed as a country.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    She needs to shut up and await the result of the Referendum and respect it if the Falklanders vote to remain part of the UK
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its not as if Argentina dont have anything else to worry about.

    Pretty sure I heard the IMF were considering kicking them from our lovely group because they made up quite a bit of their economic results.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Here is the response from the Falkland Islands government: http://www.falklands.gov.fk/reaction...z-de-kirchner/

    The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors – the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego – an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

    There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

    We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

    The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anti-duck)
    Wonder if the US will weigh in again and stab Britain in the back, again
    Obama is not that stupid. Most likely he will just sit on the fence. Don't expect an Iraq/ Afghanistan style 'special relationship' though.

    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    I can see where people are getting at about the economic situation, and if it does have oil like one of you said, it makes perfect sense as to why they want it back. However, the referendum should be handed to the people. It would be like Norway or Iceland claiming the Shetland islands, which, in the case of Iceland, has not happened since the last Cod War in the late 70s/early 80s. Is there an option for the Falklands to self-rule and not be under the rule of either Argentina or the UK?
    If it has substantial amounts of oil, self-rule is completely out of the question. Imagine the situation. We'll have every global power surrounding the islands with a syphon and a tank!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't we just send the SAS in and shoot the b**h and be done with it?! In fact I volunteer! Kit me up!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Like I said, NEVER. If the Falkland Islanders changed their mind and wanted to drop their British status, would you then argue that they have no right to do so and should remain British by force? If not, then there clearly is never a specific time when our rule of the Falkland Islands would become some kind of "divine right".

    And that isn't some crazy hypothesis. Britain exiled the native inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and then turned it into a marine reserve. And, purely coincidently of course, "the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve". Our claim that the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination is only being used because they are choosing to remain British.
    If the islanders wished to change their mind then they can. It would be fairly easy to do and has been mooted as an option for them by the Government. At the end of the day, even in the event of independence, they would still probably keep defence ties with the UK. Also, I don't really see how Britain would be able to stop them without an invasion.

    Also I don't see how it is analogous to the Chagos Islands. Britain kicked them out to make a military base a long time ago and no one cared. I don't really see how they could do that with the Falklands
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    No. Argentina (newly formed) and Chile invaded Patagonia in 1843 and massacred most of the population there against the treaty signed upon independence from Spain. My point being that Argentina has no right to be talking about colonialism when they are still, in effect, colonisers.
    Good point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.
    Well, who else is going to decide? The islanders have been there for 200 years have built on and cultivated the area.

    Because self determination is the deciding factor. Colonialism is irrelevant when it happened 200 years ago and Argentinians have not bothered to move to islands since that point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Because self determination is the deciding factor. Colonialism is irrelevant when it happened 200 years ago and Argentinians have not bothered to move to islands since that point.
    Self-determination isn't really the issue. The Argentinians, by their view, believe Falklanders should self-determine as an integral part of Argentina in the same way Shetlanders do within the UK. The UK believes that the Falklands should be an overseas territory, essentially self-determining of itself and with a semi-voluntary political relationship with the UK.

    Both are legitimate enough ways of running a set of islands, in theory. In neither case does self-determination settle the issue. Perhaps one can say the right to self-determination prevents us from cattle-trading a colony with another country with no regard to the wishes of its residents, which is fine, but it doesn't give a territorial claim any legitimacy of itself.

    I fully support the Falkland Islands staying British, but there are a lot of rather facile arguments about grand concepts like self-determination or democracy which really add very little to the debate.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    'Tis like two bald men fighting over a comb... The islanders will want independence soon anyway.

    EDIT: Why the neg? They call themselves not Brits or Argentines but 'Falkland Islanders' or 'Falklanders'. So obviously they have independent thoughts.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 6, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.