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

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

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    If that's what you're attempted to do, you've failed miserably. Your arguments aren't backed up by facts or even logic. And again, being from a third, uninvolved, country means diddly squat.

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    Except it is, as I have proved. It fits the definition of one and the UN itself states that the Falklands is a colony.

    (Original post by Futility)
    On the grounds that islands do not have any aboriginal inhabitants living on them,
    Irrelevant. A colony is a territory subservient to another. Aboriginal populations have bugger all to do with it. For someone who claims to be well read, you're rather ignorant.

    (Original post by Futility)
    and that the current population were brought to the island to replace the displaced Argentine settlers
    First of all, the Argentine population wasn't fully displaced, secondly, the Argentine colony was considered illegal by the UK, which claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The Argentine colonial administration were nothing more than squatters in the eyes of the UK, exactly the same as how the Argentines see the British on the islands now. Secondly, how exaclty would that stop the Falklands being a nation or a colony?

    (Original post by Futility)
    (which was illegal under international law),
    Which law?

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    No kidding you agree with the Argentine dispute. And exactly which laws are you basing this reasoning on? Where does it say that self-determination does not apply to territory disputes?

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    They weren't 'later' added, they were always there, along with every single other British colony and overseas territory. The idea that they were added as a ploy of some sort is fictitious nonsense on your part.

    (Original post by Futility)
    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
    How does that contradict anything I said?

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    Except we were willing to discuss sharing oil revenues as a platform for co-operation.
    To compare the UK to Argentina, who have been constantly sabre-rattling, blockading the islands and imposing illegal trade sanctions on the Falklands, who refuse to open dialogue with the Islanders themselves, is beyond ridiculous.

    (Original post by Futility)
    Argentina (for the reasons outlined above) do not recognise the Falklands 'government', so it can't very well open a dialogue with them.
    It doesn't matter why they say they refuse to recognise them, the fact of the matter is the Falklands government exists, they control the land Argentina wants, so refusing to open dialogue with them is unhelpful and uncooperative.

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    Impartial you said you were? The trade sanctions are illegal, full stop. Where exactly in this holy UN resolution you love so much does it say that Argentina can act like a **** to acheive its goal?
    It's all well for Argentina to ***** and cry and play the diplomacy card right now, when it has been completely uncooperative in the past.
    For someone who claims to be impartial you're hating an awful lot on the UK while excusing the very same if not worse behaviour from Argentina.

    (Original post by Futility)
    Whatever. :rolleyes:

    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 clearly have different understandings of what 'reasonable' and 'balanced' mean, since you're no where near those standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose the Argentinian view is something I'll never understand.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    this is about as welcome/necessary as paul gascoigne getting involved in the raoul moat incident
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    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.
    Any links to that info?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Any links to that info?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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. Highly suspect at best...


    I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that Argentina will claim the islanders want to be part of Argentina, and that Britain will claim the islanders want to be part of Britain. And both governments would happily falsify data to back up their claim. What I would like to see is an independent poll.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The Argentinians gave up the right to believe that the UN resolution (2065) would be fulfilled when they invaded the islands in '82.

    Why should we abide by the rules when they don't?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    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.
    They are claimed independent by the Government that runs them.

    This one was claimed independent by third parties who observed it.

    Different.

    Source: http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/12/...emocratic-will

    You'll note, too, that of the likeliest people to complain about the fairness and independence of the result, the Argentinians would be up there. However, they have not once claimed that the vote was unfair. Yes, they've ignored it, but they have not claimed it wasn't fairly done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    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.

    The recent referendum had international observers. Austria and Syria didn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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?

    I'd ignore him/her/it/mong.


    i can think of another 255 reasons why its not being handed back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Psyk)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    So do you agree that really we're talking opinions rather than facts here? The extent to which people share a common culture (and history to some extent) is a matter of opinion. So that means nationhood is also to some extent a matter of opinion. For example, how long does a population have to be geographically isolated before it qualifies as a nation? According to what you're saying there isn't a strict criteria for that.

    (Original post by Futility)
    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.
    So really you shouldn't have made the broad sweeping generalisation that an "overseas territory" cannot be a nation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Oh no. I'm so scared. The Pope is involved.
    Least the last one could do force lightning and stuff, this one is just seems boring.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day. He is head of state of the vatican, and the vatican is not involved in this conflict so has absolutely no reason to say a thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Since when has this country cared about what the Pope has to say? I thought reason the Church of England was founded was because our opinions were different to those of the Pope

    President Kirchner is really scraping out the barrel here. Being vocal about the islands isn't going to cover up the fact that she's a failure of a leader and having any Papal approval won't make her claims legitimate. She needs to take a long walk of a high cliff and take her "The islands are mine, I want my islands! Give them to me!" attitude with her. She can wan't all she wants, she needs to learn like the rest of us do that wanting doesn't get.
 
 
 
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: March 25, 2013
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
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.