Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Pope Francis thinks Falklands belong to Argentina Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    1 - it was ours first.
    2 - nothing else matters because it was ours first and the people who live there want it remain that way.
    I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    People living in the Falklands had the chance to vote on whether they wanted to be Argentine or British, they chose the latter, so they are. End Of. And the Pope isn't exactly known to be 100% factual is he
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.
    Between 1774-1840 it was "Argentinian"? No. Argentina did not even exist until the 1830s, are you by any chance thinking of the Spanish Empire and the Spanish Province, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? There is no direct line of authority between the Spanish Empire and the claims of Argentina. In addition, the Spanish left a plaque on the islands when they departed, stating their ownership.

    There was the 1820 claim of Captain Jewett and the United Provinces of the River Plate, another predecessor statelet to Argentina and then the 1828 British-authorised Vernet settlement, which again was that of a predecessor statelet. In 1832, the very brief attempt by Argentina to seize control was rejected by the British navy.

    What happened is very simple - the new state of Argentina tried very early on to make a land-grab of the islands and this was rejected by Britain.

    Since then, Argentina has tried over and over again to re-run the land-grab. The ONLY claim that has any merit on their part is a colonialist one - that the property of the Spanish Empire in the entire region of the Atlantic adjacent to Argentina passed to Argentina.

    However, there is also, it is true, a colonialist element to the historical British claim - the islands were originally obtained by the British during the colonialist struggles between Britain, France, Spain and (later) the USA.

    So the argument from Argentina that they are engaged in a virtuous struggle against a colonialist power (echoed by Cardinal Bagoglione) is complete nonsense and a cynical distortion of the facts. The original struggles over the islands were colonial landgrabs and realpolitik on all sides.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Between 1774-1840 it was "Argentinian"? No. Argentina did not even exist until the 1830s, are you by any chance thinking of the Spanish Empire and the Spanish Province, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? There is no direct line of authority between the Spanish Empire and the claims of Argentina. In addition, the Spanish left a plaque on the islands when they departed, stating their ownership.

    There was the 1820 claim of Captain Jewett and the United Provinces of the River Plate, another predecessor statelet to Argentina and then the 1828 British-authorised Vernet settlement, which again was that of a predecessor statelet. In 1832, the very brief attempt by Argentina to seize control was rejected by the British navy.

    What happened is very simple - the new state of Argentina tried very early on to make a land-grab of the islands and this was rejected by Britain.

    Since then, Argentina has tried over and over again to re-run the land-grab. The ONLY claim that has any merit on their part is a colonialist one - that the property of the Spanish Empire in the entire region of the Atlantic adjacent to Argentina passed to Argentina.

    However, there is also, it is true, a colonialist element to the historical British claim - the islands were originally obtained by the British during the colonialist struggles between Britain, France, Spain and (later) the USA.

    So the argument from Argentina that they are engaged in a virtuous struggle against a colonialist power (echoed by Cardinal Bagoglione) is complete nonsense and a cynical distortion of the facts. The original struggles over the islands were colonial landgrabs and realpolitik on all sides.
    I see your point that argentina did not exist, however when it did 1810 (not 1830) under the Primera Junta after many independence struggles, it would have is quite obvious that this independence struggle was also for the Falkland Islands. Though I can also see the point of England wanting a port and oil, just because you but settlers on an island and make them inhabit it does not mean it is english! (BTW please stop giving me negative points, i am arguing my point and personal opinion, its not going to change!!)
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    I see your point that argentina did not exist, however when it did 1810 (not 1830) under the Primera Junta after many independence struggles, it would have is quite obvious that this independence struggle was also for the Falkland Islands. Though I can also see the point of England wanting a port and oil, just because you but settlers on an island and make them inhabit it does not mean it is english! (BTW please stop giving me negative points, i am arguing my point and personal opinion, its not going to change!!)
    I think it's a real stretch and very ahistorical to argue that the liberation struggle in Argentina was anything to do with the Falklands - that's a post-hoc justification and derives from modern propaganda on the subject.

    The settlers have been there for an awfully long time. Regardless of the ancient history of colonialism on both sides, it's a widely accepted international norm nowadays that the paramount concern is the right to self-determination of peoples who have lived and live with good longevity in a location. This is the whole basis of dispute resolution in numerous conflicts, ranging from Northern Ireland to Palestine. It's deeply imperialistic of Argentina to ignore the wishes of the islanders who have lived there for well over 100 years.

    I haven't negged you BTW, must be someone else.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    George Galloway is staying true to his usual form on the issue of the Falklands... (his views, not mine)

    George Galloway's 'love' for Falkland Islands (11Mar13)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beOVtOsepXg

    George Galloway lets rip on Falkland Islands referendum result (12Mar13)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgw_h...e_gdata_player
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    George Galloway is staying true to his usual form on the issue of the Falklands... (his views, not mine)

    George Galloway's 'love' for Falkland Islands (11Mar13)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beOVtOsepXg

    George Galloway lets rip on Falkland Islands referendum result (12Mar13)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgw_h...e_gdata_player
    He seems quite confused in that second one - he's complaining that as the FI are a British Overseas Territory, that the locals have no say, which is kind of an imperialistic argument, not a socialist one. It's fairly typical of him though tbh, I think 'shifty' is the best description of his politics, which slide all over the map to suit whichever bit of nonsense he happens to be engaging in.

    Bit depressing the way some parts of the Left ignore self-determination rights, but then it happens on the Right to - after all, what was Galtieri's landgrab but a classic piece of far-Right fascistic politics?

    Then we could (voice inside head - "on no, please don't!") go to the Israel/Palestine situation and look at why the US Right persistently ignore and devalue Palestinian claims to longevity of residence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1. (Original post by fastswift)
      Pope Francis appointment gives Argentina hope in Falklands dispute
    (Original post by fastswift)

    http://gu.com/p/3eede

    Falklands belong to the UK!

    Do you think his appointment really gives up to Argentina on the Falklands dispute?

    Personally, as a Catholic, I think he is wrong. Falklands belong to the UK!
    How does it belong to the UK? Colonialism was hidden behind "spreading christianity' and that's why today several islands apparently belong to the U.K. Catholics are meant to be just people, not nationalists. I don't see why you being a Catholic should influence the matter. The same riches you see the pope walking around in (gold crosses etc.) are stolen goodies from days of blatant colonialism, especially in Africa and India. I don't know if people haven't realised Europe had not much gold to speak of, yet the Catholic Churches are packed with it? Where do you think they got (stole) it from?

    Research it yourself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    He seems quite confused in that second one - he's complaining that as the FI are a British Overseas Territory, that the locals have no say, which is kind of an imperialistic argument, not a socialist one. It's fairly typical of him though tbh, I think 'shifty' is the best description of his politics, which slide all over the map to suit whichever bit of nonsense he happens to be engaging in.

    Bit depressing the way some parts of the Left ignore self-determination rights, but then it happens on the Right to - after all, what was Galtieri's landgrab but a classic piece of far-Right fascistic politics?

    Then we could (voice inside head - "on no, please don't!") go to the Israel/Palestine situation and look at why the US Right persistently ignore and devalue Palestinian claims to longevity of residence.
    LOL. Apparently he's a unionist though on the issue of Scottish independence which is something I was slightly surprised by.

    I'm not sure why the rest of the international community tends to side with Argentina though if the self-determination principle of people having lived somewhere for a "long" period of time is widely accepted (as no doubt it generally is). Do they think 200 years is not long enough or that circa 2,800 people is too few (which seems to be partly George's argument)? Possibly anti-British, anti-colonialist sentiment in some quarters or economic interests in Latin America (as with the US).

    I did read there is a group of Argentinians who are challenging their government's rhetoric over the claims to the islands. It's hardly as if there is a group of Argies queueing up to go and live there.

    The cynic in me does sometimes wonder if the British government would spend so much money defending the islands if there were not natural resources in the area.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    I see your point that argentina did not exist, however when it did 1810 (not 1830) under the Primera Junta after many independence struggles, it would have is quite obvious that this independence struggle was also for the Falkland Islands. Though I can also see the point of England wanting a port and oil, just because you but settlers on an island and make them inhabit it does not mean it is english! (BTW please stop giving me negative points, i am arguing my point and personal opinion, its not going to change!!)
    Actually on empty un-settled lands without real claim, it entirely makes it 'English'.

    Britain performed an act of colonialism, the Argentine invasion was imperialism.

    No independence struggle was ever for the Falklands, it didn't even occur until later when Argentina decided it had an expansionist and imperialistic bent.

    I can see why the people of the Falklands are disinclined to consider any possible compromise with Argentina, a country that constantly refuses their right to decide their own fate, or even deny their existence and shrug of generations of successful inhabitation and building of lives there and call them mere plants by the British state, as if their fresh off the boat.

    'England' (read: The United Kingdom) had no interest in oil at the time it settled the region, at best it was a useful stopping-off point and whaling service station, but mostly the UK had very little use for the Falklands.
    However since resources have very little basis on the legality and 'righteousness' of a territorial claim the point is mute. There was little hope of oil or resource exploitation in 1982 when Argentina invaded, and Britain still felt the need to not only rescue people it was responsible for, it couldn't just let some half-rate have-a-go power infringe upon British territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    So for a small bunch of mostly barren islands that were so unremarkable that the Argentinian people never once thought to colonise it en masse, or even care for it outside of nationalistic masturbationary rhetoric, the British sent a task-force. At the time we were at the edge of our power-projection capabilities and we still schooled the Argentine forces. The Argentine cried and moaned because their hand-me-down warship from WW2 got sunk by a modern British hunter-killer sub.

    When it comes to international relations, nationalism and national psyche I've never seen such a neurotic entity.

    Within the mind of the nationalistic Argentine you have the most whiny complainer with a victim complex, who twists, distorts and outright invents fact, history and grievances to assuage some victim complex and inferiority complex. I wonder if many Argentines would believe their country beat Americas to the moon if it meant some sad revisionist historical claim to the place.

    This all leads to a worrying expansionist and imperialistic bent which disturbs me. The world has moved on yet Argentina, despite it's actual problems, social and economic at the top, can't help but feel it should dominate the entire southern half of South America and Antarctica. It'd probably invade Chile if it thought it could win.

    Fortunately the Argentines are so busy complaining about their lot and inventing excuses and blaming everyone else that they forget to actually do anything about it so we have a country with a military so under-funded and maintained it's ships sink in harbour, and an economy so ****ed up that it's actually on the verge of being expelled from the IMF because it can't get it's books straight.


    The reason I find the issues over the Falklands so interesting, is because I've never seen such a clear-cut case of reason, reality and morality trump the other side's totally irrational and insane stance.

    Argentina's claims to the Falklands shuns all common sense, all logic, all intelligence, all reality or interest in anything but their psychotic and detached world view claim over some islands they just don't have a claim to.

    If I could hate a country it would be Argentina, because in regards to the Falklands it represents everything I find wrong with the human psyche, the sense of undeserved and unsupported entitlement to something that brings it nothing but detriments it in so many other aspects. It's the most distorted irrational illogical and retarded world view I loathe.

    If I could slap Argentina so hard it came to it's sense I would, it's literally the most mentally unhinged country on Earth when it comes to how seriously it believes it's own bull**** and how desperately it thinks and acts around such a non-issue ultimately.


    Argentines, fix your own god-damn country and worry less about the sovereign status of other people's land. There are no Argentines on the Falklands, there are no native Argentinians who were forced off the islands ever. You couldn't even pay Argentines to live there.

    You've never owned the Falklands and the Falklanders are never going to want to be owned by the likes of you.

    Get. Over. It.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.

    Yet discovered by Britain in 1690.

    ignoring the fact that its been settled by britains for nearly two hundred years now and Argentina is infact a country of immigrants itself.


    AN interesting read.
    http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/20/...-falklands-war
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    How dare you insult our beloved Dear Leader, The Pope, whom we worship and adore? :shock:
    i don't know what kind of christianity you are practicing but we don't worship the pope, he is the leader of the Catholic church not God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaypc)
    i don't know what kind of christianity you are practicing but we don't worship the pope, he is the leader of the Catholic church not God.
    God/Jesus should be supreme. You don't need some self-proclaimed demi-god to dictate to you or act as a middle-man to a supreme being.

    As I keep saying, if Jesus were here now, he would lay waste to their dens of evil and immorality. He would smash their gold-plated cups to the floor. He would dash their decorated statues to the ground. He would rip their ostensibly decorated and fancy clothing from their persons.

    If Jesus were here, he would be unequivocally anti-Catholic. Catholicism is a direct affront to the Christian God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unless he calls a Crusade upon the UK I don't think we need to care.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joshua Imperium.)
    Unless he calls a Crusade upon the UK I don't think we need to care.
    Not sure who would take part now - Spain and Portugal have their own problems and most people who were Catholics are no longer practising in the rest of Europe. Even the Jesuits are down on their uppers, apart from having their own Pope. Amusingly, the brother of the head of the order charged with extending the Catholic faith is - no longer a Catholic!

    Even in Argentina, church attendances have plummeted. Basically it's a dying Church, heading for bankruptcy and (at last) moving out of human history. And a jolly good thing too, given the misery and exploitation it has inflicted over the millennia.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not sure who would take part now - Spain and Portugal have their own problems and most people who were Catholics are no longer practising in the rest of Europe. Even the Jesuits are down on their uppers, apart from having their own Pope. Amusingly, the brother of the head of the order charged with extending the Catholic faith is - no longer a Catholic!

    Even in Argentina, church attendances have plummeted. Basically it's a dying Church, heading for bankruptcy and (at last) moving out of human history. And a jolly good thing too, given the misery and exploitation it has inflicted over the millennia.
    It is growing in China I believe...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    It is growing in China I believe...
    I should think most things in China "grow", I mean, just through the natural growth of the population? I doubt that it's stellar, but maybe the government there oppressing it helps - people often are attracted to things that are suppressed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh94)
    I agree, I doubt he will even mention them again unless the argentina president harasses him constantly about it.
    They are UK property though.

    I think even if she harnesses him it'll by like the UN and mercosur meetings. There, there dear lady. Some vague, non committal statement and carry in as usual.

    interesting our new popes patents were both Italian.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joshua Imperium.)
    Unless he calls a Crusade upon the UK I don't think we need to care.

    The Catholic Church has tried that numerous times before....... It didnt quite work out for them
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    LOL. Apparently he's a unionist though on the issue of Scottish independence which is something I was slightly surprised by.

    I'm not sure why the rest of the international community tends to side with Argentina though if the self-determination principle of people having lived somewhere for a "long" period of time is widely accepted (as no doubt it generally is). Do they think 200 years is not long enough or that circa 2,800 people is too few (which seems to be partly George's argument)? Possibly anti-British, anti-colonialist sentiment in some quarters or economic interests in Latin America (as with the US).
    I think a lot are fairly neutral and unbothered by it all, so they kind of allow Argentina to rant on and resist the temptation to call it for what it is, purely for diplomatic reasons. Some of it is just relief that Argentina no longer has a fascist government, so they are concerned not to rock the boat too much for Kirchner. I also think some of the male politicians have been a little bit keen on her, judging from reports!

    (Original post by Thomas2)
    The cynic in me does sometimes wonder if the British government would spend so much money defending the islands if there were not natural resources in the area.
    There's cynicism on both sides - that's why Galloway's banging on about it, as he dislikes the cynicism of Tory politicians using it for nationalist vote appeal - it's just a shame that he can't come out and say that, instead of always relying on political games of absurdity himself - although being a regular player of the media, perhaps he comes out with the more extreme stuff to ensure he gets airtime.

    The oil thing appears to have been overstated (so far) but doubtless if the price of energy continues to rise inexorably, the most remote and difficult fields will become more and more possible, so the long-term plays of both governments dominate thinking.

    Also let's never forget that the sovereignty of the Falklands was under discussion before the invasion - as some kind of dubious 'leaseback' arrangement. This and the withdrawal of British naval forces were what emboldened Galtieri in his absurd and nationalistic venture. Let's also not forget that he was further encouraged by US diplomacy in the region and their relentless toadying to neo-fascist and outright fascist governments in Latin America under the supposed guise of suppressing the Communist threat. People shouldn't go all dewy eyed about the commitment of the UK government towards the right of self-determination - as HMG were previously quite happy to discuss shared sovereignty, something the islanders never wanted.
 
 
 
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: April 7, 2013
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

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.