Argentine Malvinas/Falklands cartoon special

[Vnomad]

So what is the basis for Argentina claiming it?

Because it is close by? That's a pretty weak claim, to put mildly.

I'll repeat the answer I gave j_jza80 - "Closer than the UK, but yes. Granted. So neither country has any real justifiable claim to the islands (at least no more than the US has to the moon). Which is why I propose using it as a bargaining chip, which the UK can grant to Argentina in return for concessions during negotiations - as long as well... negotiations take place."

[Vnomad]

The argument I've been trying to make so far, which has either been misinterpreted or misunderstood is this -

The UK has been satisfied with opting for convenient choices over idealistic ones for decades if not centuries, including but far from limited to the depopulation of the Chagos Islands. It is a part of a club of countries that enjoy sole rights a few things today, like nuclear weapons and a veto in the UNSC. And its indicated a willingness to use force to ensure that those rights remain an exclusive preserve of this select group of countries. Rights that were granted for no other reason than the fact that it was a powerful country.

This isn't a criticism of Britain, its just an illustration of the fact that it is no stranger to realpolitik. And it would not be uncharacteristic of the country to opt for a pragmatic solution to the dispute rather than chase after moral high ground.

This is also why Mr Cameron's dispatch of diplomatic delegations to South American capitals to 'explain its position' is probably a wasted effort, because there is no misunderstanding involved, on their part.

[Corrosion]

Maybe he was looking for you there

Why was he looking for me, when He can find you much quickly.

[SpudmanWP]

"Closer than the UK"

Hey, does that mean that Argentina should give up the piece of Tierra del Fuego? I mean it's closer to Chile after all.

But that would also mean that the Falklands would then be closer to Chile.

[Vnomad]

Hey, does that mean that Argentina should give up the piece of Tierra del Fuego? I mean it's closer to Chile after all.

But that would also mean that the Falklands would then be closer to Chile.

Now you're nitpicking.

[SpudmanWP]

[Lindermyer]

The argument I've been trying to make so far, which has either been misinterpreted or misunderstood is this -

The UK has been satisfied with opting for convenient choices over idealistic ones for decades if not centuries, including but far from limited to the depopulation of the Chagos Islands. It is a part of a club of countries that enjoy sole rights a few things today, like nuclear weapons and a veto in the UNSC. And its indicated a willingness to use force to ensure that those rights remain an exclusive preserve of this select group of countries. Rights that were granted for no other reason than the fact that it was a powerful country.

This isn't a criticism of Britain, its just an illustration of the fact that it is no stranger to realpolitik.

Britain as many if not all countries has skeletons in its closets. Morality cannot be applied retrospectivly but if the government has decided now is the time to act thus and defend individual rights to the death (no pun) then so be it, and surely this must be a good thing.

Past decisions such as the Chagos may also have im sad to say an element of Racism, the population was not white and therefore in some quarters its rights and opinions did not count, an attitude that (unfortunatly) pervaded in goverment probably into the 60s.

An attitude largely confined now fortunatly to a small portion of idiots of all race creed and colour.

A fear that the the Falklands could be the next Chagos probably only toughens the islanders stance.

Please note (to our Argentine Posters) I am in now way implying that argentina would do such a thing now. I refer to the crimes of the Junta and point out that for both Argentina and neighbouring countries the memory is still fresh, it will take a generation or 2 to remove this scar ( as germany is well aware)
And it would not be uncharacteristic of the country to opt for a pragmatic solution to the dispute rather than chase after moral high ground.


A more pragmatic solution was pursued (ie ceeding to Arg etc) but the islanders objected a lobby group in parliment objected so plans came to nought.
Any hopes of a pragmatic solution were dashed (at least in the short medium term) by the events of 1982 any negotiation of sovereignty at this time would be seen as selling out the Islanders and a gross betrayal of those that lost there lives. On both sides I hasten to add, if we werent serious why go to war.

This is also why Mr Cameron's dispatch of diplomatic delegations to South American capitals to 'explain its position' is probably a wasted effort, because there is no misunderstanding involved, on their part.

I disagree I think many people see the Falklands as a colony occupied by the UK, whereas its a self governing entity which looks to britain for protection an "independant" falklands would not make one iota of difference. Explaining that we can only act on behalf and not for the islands may well dispell other countries concern.

See bulk text

[Vnomad]

Britain as many if not all countries has skeletons in its closets. Morality cannot be applied retrospectivly but if the government has decided now is the time to act thus and defend individual rights to the death (no pun) then so be it, and surely this must be a good thing.

But is that resolve to fight the death really warranted here. After all Argentina isn't looking to expel the islanders or take away their individual rights or right to self governance.

When I use the world morality - I'm referring to whether it is applicable rather than absent. Take Iran for example. Why do British sanctions apply to it today? Even if they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, there still aiming for a right that Britain today enjoys.

I'll be blunt. Why does Britain have nuclear capability today when others don't. Why does it have a veto power in the UN today? Why can it afford to flout or exceed a UN mandate, be it with regard to Iraq or Libya?

It does so, because it CAN. Because even though its a shadow of former self, its still a fairly powerful country. Because (like most countries) national interests come first. Right upto the point where the South Americans unite, at which point a rapid retreat to moral high ground is sounded.

Past decisions such as the Chagos may also have im sad to say an element of Racism, the population was not white and therefore in some quarters its rights and opinions did not count, an attitude that (unfortunatly) pervaded in goverment probably into the 60s.

An attitude largely confined now fortunatly to a small portion of idiots of all race creed and colour.

Sure lets forget about 1960s then -

2000 - A British High Court ruled that the eviction was illegal and the natives had a right to return. The British govt responded by overruling it with the use of the 'royal prerogative'. After being overturned twice again in high courts, it was finally upheld by the House of Lords.

2010 - The Chagos Islanders decide to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the British government declares the islands a marine reserve and closed to human habitation. Except of course for the 5000 people on the base at Diego Garcia. A base responsible for four major jet fuel spills, introducing extremely invasive alien species to the local environment, low grade nuclear radiation leaks and disruption to marine life by sonar operations.



From Wikileaks -




Friday, 15 May 2009, 07:00
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 001156
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 05/13/2029
TAGS MARR, MOPS, SENV, UK, IO">IO">IO, MP, EFIS, EWWT, PGOV, PREL
SUBJECT: HMG FLOATS PROPOSAL FOR MARINE RESERVE COVERING
THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY)
REF: 08 LONDON 2667 (NOTAL)
Classified By: Political Counselor Richard Mills for reasons 1.4 b and d

7. (C/NF) Roberts acknowledged that "we need to find a way to get through the various Chagossian lobbies." He admitted that HMG is "under pressure" from the Chagossians and their advocates to permit resettlement of the "outer islands" of the BIOT. He noted, without providing details, that "there are proposals (for a marine park) that could provide the Chagossians warden jobs" within the BIOT. However, Roberts stated that, according to the HGM,s current thinking on a reserve, there would be "no human footprints" or "Man Fridays" on the BIOT's uninhabited islands. He asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents. Responding to Polcouns' observation that the advocates of Chagossian resettlement continue to vigorously press their case, Roberts opined that the UK's "environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians' advocates." (Note: One group of Chagossian litigants is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) the decision of Britain's highest court to deny "resettlement rights" to the islands' former inhabitants. See below at paragraph 13 and reftel. End Note.)

Je Ne Regrette Rien

-------------------

8. (C/NF) Roberts observed that BIOT has "served its role very well," advancing shared U.S.-UK strategic security objectives for the past several decades. The BIOT "has had a great role in assuring the security of the UK and U.S. -- much more than anyone foresaw" in the 1960s, Roberts emphasized. "We do not regret the removal of the population," since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose, he said. Removal of the population is the reason that the BIOT's uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters are in "pristine" condition. Roberts added that Diego Garcia's excellent condition reflects the responsible stewardship of the U.S. and UK forces using it.



^^^ This cable is dated May 2009.

A fear that the the Falklands could be the next Chagos probably only toughens the islanders stance.

If Buitreaux's post on page 2 is accurate, there is simply no comparing the Falklanders' lives in a hypothetical dual citizenship with the blow Britain dealt to the native of the Chagos Islands.

I disagree I think many people see the Falklands as a colony occupied by the UK, whereas its a self governing entity which looks to britain for protection an "independant" falklands would not make one iota of difference. Explaining that we can only act on behalf and not for the islands may well dispell other countries concern.

That assumes that the countries in the region are misinformed or ignorant. They are neither. They've merely to decided to follow the beaten path of pragmatism (a path beaten out by the UK and others) and back their neighbor in a dispute with an outsider, a former colonial power.

If anything, Britain should have made as much of an effort towards bringing the residents of the Falklands to the negotiating table.

[Lindermyer]

But is that resolve to fight the death really warranted here. After all Argentina isn't looking to expel the islanders or take away their individual rights or right to self governance.

When I use the world morality - I'm referring to whether it is applicable rather than absent. Take Iran for example. Why do British sanctions apply to it today? Even if they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, there still aiming for a right that Britain today enjoys.

The nuclear Genie is sadly out of the bottle, however it is better for the world to limit the number of countries with them, to which i add i believe the UK should use this oppurtunity and not replace trident.
As to sanctions some countries owing to their political attitudes or internal instabillity or corruption cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons they could all to easily end up in the wrong hands Iran is such a country.

I'll be blunt. Why does Britain have nuclear capability today when others don't. see above

Why does it have a veto power in the UN today?
historical anachronism russia and the US demanded it so all the big 5 got it.
Why can it afford to flout or exceed a UN mandate, be it with regard to Iraq or Libya?

With regard to the UN flouting or exceeding their mandate (and here i make no comment viz a viz Iraq, the UN is all to often ineffective as to many countries pursue their own narrow interests. So all to often the UN is far to slow to react or can achieve nothing (eg sudan we do nothing about .accustaions of Genicide not as many would believe because there is no oil but because china controls the oil and holds a veto).
That said at other times the Veto could stop silly political resolutions being made

It does so, because it CAN. Because even though its a shadow of former self, its still a fairly powerful country. Because (like most countries) national interests come first. Right upto the point where the South Americans unite, at which point a rapid retreat to moral high ground is sounded.




Sure lets forget about 1960s then -

2000 - A British High Court ruled that the eviction was illegal and the natives had a right to return. The British govt responded by overruling it with the use of the 'royal prerogative'. After being overturned twice again in high courts, it was finally upheld by the House of Lords.

2010 - The Chagos Islanders decide to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the British government declares the islands a marine reserve and closed to human habitation. Except of course for the 5000 people on the base at Diego Garcia. A base responsible for four major jet fuel spills, introducing extremely invasive alien species to the local environment, low grade nuclear radiation leaks and disruption to marine life by sonar operations.

I did state that I suspected that whilst the airbase is their it is probably not practical to relocate them so obviously the law must be flouted or twisted to suit, I claim no morality to this. i also stated that I felt they should be relocated and compensated.

We have granted Diego garcia to the US for 100 yrs (ish) in part payment of war debt. the Uk Govt potentially faces the choice between renaging on that agreement or ignoring the rights of the Chagos islanders. Rock hard Place


If Buitreaux's post on page 2 is accurate, there is simply no comparing the Falklanders' lives in a hypothetical dual citizenship with the blow Britain dealt to the native of the Chagos Islands.

I made it perfectly clear that I made no accusation that argentina would do this today, I do not think it unlikely to have happenned under the Junta. My point was that for many that piece of history is to recent a memory and so will cloud judgement.
Germany is still treated with suspicion by many for the events of 1939 - 1945 it will take 2 Generations for people to accept Argentina does not equal Junta.
As far as the Islands are concerned a more consilidatory approach is more likely to bear fruit. Argentina after all must convince the Islanders not HM govt.

That assumes that the countries in the region are misinformed or ignorant. They are neither.

Countries can be both and laws / positions are open to interpritation so clarifying the Uks position is useful. thats not to say i disagree with youre premise

They've merely to decided to follow the beaten path of pragmatism (a path beaten out by the UK and others) and back their neighbor in a dispute with an outsider, a former colonial power.


If anything, Britain should have made as much of an effort towards bringing the residents of the Falklands to the negotiating table.

Im not sure what efforts if any UK Govt has made in this regard, but if the answer is a clear no what can you do, and whilst the current Arg administration keeps adopting policies that restrict trade and travel to the islands they are shooting themselves in the foot.

You raise valid points regarding the contradiction between the chagos Islands and falklands and as to why 1 groups rights are more important than the others. I suspect it comes to rights ignored in the past vs rights not yet ignored. The continued ignoring of the chagos Islands is perhaps a consequence of the airbase human rights allways coming second to miltary necessaty.

Do not missunderstand me I make no excuses I seek only to provide possible answers.

As for Argentina I make no comparison of argentina in the 70s to argentina in the 90s. But what concerns me is that MS Kirchiner (and cabinet) is not helping the countries image.

Regards

[frankvw]

The last time I checked, the Falklands aren't located in Asia. Whoever drifts the thread into that direction again might end up with a vacation from posting.

[Vnomad]

Regarding recent history up until the back end of March 1982, Britian have a compelling case to claim the the Falklands as their own. As has already been mentioned so many times.

So, the Agries invaded the Falklands in April 1982, a full on invasion, APCs, aircraft, a large number of troops, the lot. Compared to a rather small British Garrison of Royal Marines, which given their numbers, weren't much of a threat, least of all to Argentina.

Argentina, very 'aggressively', invaded another country's property which triggered the war in the first place, they started it then Britian ended it and took back what was rightfully theirs and the Argies were sent back home with their tails inbetween their legs, in short words.

Until 1983, Argentina was ruled by a military junta. A junta that that committed large scale human rights violations. A junta that was responsible for the 'disappearance' of upwards of 10,000 people. An unelected military dictatorship that the paragons of virtue in the west should rightfully have had no truck with. A junta that was backed by Britain, right until it invaded the Falklands.

At that point, the fact that Britain was backing a regime that was victimizing the Argentinian people became irrelevant and an entire nation was blamed instead.

They lost. Or to put it more specifically, 'surrendered' to the Brits. So their top brass couldn't have wanted the Islands that much, could they? They were in the wrong!

The Islanders on the Falklands, self-determination, want to remain British, not Argie. And even more so after the events of 1982, Britian have every right to do as they wish regardless of the Argie's mindless rants.

Britain certainly has every right to do as it wishes. And if it comes around to the conclusion that the Falklands interests are best served by an isolated existence in the South Atlantic and that a military deployment at the end of an 8000 mile logistical train should be sustained indefinitely, so be it.

Hopefully, the South Americans will not remain united and hopefully the military balance in the region will remain unchanged with the rise of everyone including Brazil.

[Vnomad]

You raise valid points regarding the contradiction between the chagos Islands and falklands and as to why 1 groups rights are more important than the others. I suspect it comes to rights ignored in the past vs rights not yet ignored. The continued ignoring of the chagos Islands is perhaps a consequence of the airbase human rights allways coming second to miltary necessaty.

I wasn't really demanding explanations to unfair situations in the world. They were merely to illustrate my point - there are certain realities in the world. Realities that don't go down too well with idealists but are realities nonetheless. The world is not a fair place and sometimes compromises need to be made for the greater good.

Given not just Britain's legacy but its recent history, it stands quite firmly in the realist camp and not among idealists like say.. Norway, Sweden and arguably even Germany. Which is why assertions of being on receiving end of unfairness or bullying aren't likely to resonate. Its why a close ally like the US who also has a similar world view, has refrained from publicly backing Britain's position. A compromise on the Falklands will not be out of character for the UK, so it shouldn't be dismissed offhand which, unlike you, many have done.

[Pioneer]

Wow what a wonderful propaganda cartoon – especially the use of children as the main characters to spread your demented and engrained hatred!!

Fancy those bad evil British airman and soldiers....how dare they defend their countrymen and sovereign island, from the invading free spirited and humane liberating Argentinean Junta.

I’m now just hoping the wonderful and talented makers of this cartoon bring out a similar cartoon series explaining the Argentinean Military Junta, depicting the torture, executions, and oppression of the Argentinean people .....oh and don’t forget the bleeding of the country’s economy! A fun show for all the family!

Man I’ve never understood the hype the Argentinians made over the sinking of the heavy cruiser General Belgrano! The reality is that this was a war of aggression, that Argentina initiated against a country and people, who are renowned for protecting their own. Didn’t the Argentinean Junta have the intellect to read about the British peoples resolve against aggression of the likes of Nazi Germany during WWII? No they wouldn’t have, as they too busy at the time hiding and protecting Nazi criminals in Argentina! Also in truth it has to be remembered that Argentina had not fought a proper opponent since the 1880’s!

In truth, my only true regret is that the British Government never truly allowed the British military free and unrestricted operations. What would the Argentinians have thought after its Navy had been sunk in harbour by Royal Navy SSN’s? Or its Air Force attacked on their airfields by RAF Vulcan bombers and SAS/Commando teams. Then again all this might have achieved, would have been to give the Argentinians a reason to use this so-called (and just) counter strike for another 100+ years, as they have sulked over the Falklands!

But seriously Argentina, I do not mean to be derogative, but it’s been over 130 years since your aspirations for these Islands existed! Just like the people of the Balkan’s and everywhere else that procrastinates and inspires hatred for actions taken hundreds of years ago - Get over it. Grow up and move on into the 21st Century for the good of Argentina and your people!!

Regards
Pioneer

[Lindermyer]

Wow what a wonderful propaganda cartoon – especially the use of children as the main characters to spread your demented and engrained hatred!!

Of course its a propoganda video the malvinas is argentine is ingrained in the country and the current gvmnt appears intent on hyping the issue no end as a distraction.

Propoganda works both ways and you appear to have picked up your views of Argentina from the mail.

Fancy those bad evil British airman and soldiers....how dare they defend their countrymen and sovereign island, from the invading free spirited and humane liberating Argentinean Junta.



I’m now just hoping the wonderful and talented makers of this cartoon bring out a similar cartoon series explaining the Argentinean Military Junta, depicting the torture, executions, and oppression of the Argentinean people .....oh and don’t forget the bleeding of the country’s economy! A fun show for all the family!

Argentina is badly scarred by the Junta and even now is seeking answers to the disapeared. They are well aware of how unpleasent it was

Man I’ve never understood the hype the Argentinians made over the sinking of the heavy cruiser General Belgrano!

They didnt it was certain individuals (Tam whats his name )in this country who made an issue of this, admittedly certain individuals in argentina have hopped on this band wagon, but to paraphrase the Belgranos captain "I had orders to sink them they got me first thats war"

The reality is that this was a war of aggression, that Argentina initiated against a country and people, who are renowned for protecting their own. Didn’t the Argentinean Junta have the intellect to read about the British peoples resolve against aggression of the likes of Nazi Germany during WWII?

They also looked at a country that was selling a carrier, scrapping its south atlantic patrol ship, was retrenching generally and had more or less stated the falklands were a drain and nuissance. The junta opinioned that if presented with a fait accomplait britain would do nothing, in hindsight a hell of a miss judgement

No they wouldn’t have, as they too busy at the time hiding and protecting Nazi criminals in Argentina! Also in truth it has to be remembered that Argentina had not fought a proper opponent since the 1880’s!

The Argentines fought on the allied side in WW2 (although the country itself was nuetral until very late)


In truth, my only true regret is that the British Government never truly allowed the British military free and unrestricted operations. What would the Argentinians have thought after its Navy had been sunk in harbour by Royal Navy SSN’s?

And World opinion?

Or its Air Force attacked on their airfields by RAF Vulcan bombers and SAS/Commando teams. Then again all this might have achieved, would have been to give the Argentinians a reason to use this so-called (and just) counter strike for another 100+ years, as they have sulked over the Falklands!

But seriously Argentina, I do not mean to be derogative, but it’s been over 130 years since your aspirations for these Islands existed! Just like the people of the Balkan’s and everywhere else that procrastinates and inspires hatred for actions taken hundreds of years ago - Get over it. Grow up and move on into the 21st Century for the good of Argentina and your people!!


You do realise that Argentina has it written in the costitution not to use armed force to take the Islands, how many countries have non aggresson enshrined in their constitution.
Regards
Pioneer

The Argentines believe the islands are rightfully theirs. the dispute will not go away.
Given that the islanders are there and have been for generations I believe the best solution is an independant falklands working closely with the uk and arg and a mineral rights agreement.

On a personal note I have seen a few threads accross mutiple forums ruined by a handful of rabid argentine posters, on this thread the argentine poster has been extremely civil (in the face of some quite aggressive provocation). Can we all please post with civility and a measure of respect.

[Grim901]

Its all very well saying the Falklands should be independent or have shared sovereignty, but that doesnt answer to how the Falklanders themselves feel. They clearly state they want to be part of Britain, nothing else, so forcing something else on them simply takes away their right to decide on their own.

It doesnt answer whether Argentina would even allow it. They seem intent on their flag flying over Stanley. Ive never seen any mention of what would happen to the Islanders, as the government always insists they dont get to choose what happens (implying they have no right to be there) but fail to say what the consequence of an Argentine takeover would be for them? They let them become Argentine, with all the rights that entails, but are deprived of their most important right and lose any power they really have. How can that be justified?

[kev 99]

On a personal note I have seen a few threads accross mutiple forums ruined by a handful of rabid argentine posters, on this thread the argentine poster has been extremely civil (in the face of some quite aggressive provocation). Can we all please post with civility and a measure of respect.

quite.

[Vnomad]

Its all very well saying the Falklands should be independent or have shared sovereignty, but that doesnt answer to how the Falklanders themselves feel. They clearly state they want to be part of Britain, nothing else, so forcing something else on them simply takes away their right to decide on their own.

True. But isn't that a lot similar to the position of republicans in the UK as well as Australia, Canada etc. According to them, even though they are in a minority, the fact that they're subservient to the Crown, to an unelected individual in a hereditary position, is a violation of their individual rights.

The answer to that would be that it is a relatively small loss, given the fact that the crown isn't despotic, they are a part of a vibrant democracy and their human rights are more or less intact.

It doesnt answer whether Argentina would even allow it. They seem intent on their flag flying over Stanley. Ive never seen any mention of what would happen to the Islanders, as the government always insists they dont get to choose what happens (implying they have no right to be there) but fail to say what the consequence of an Argentine takeover would be for them? They let them become Argentine, with all the rights that entails, but are deprived of their most important right and lose any power they really have. How can that be justified?

Quoting from Buitreaux's post on page 2 -

The addition of territory of the Falklands to the Republic will require, as when the province of Buenos Aires was incorporated into to the confederacy after the battle of Pavon, special constitutional arrangements for the new territory. This was assumed in 1994 the Constitution of Argentina in their first transitional provision when, on a par to claim sovereignty, specifies the commitment to respect "the lifestyle of its inhabitants". This implies, of course, a province that can have two official languages

Going into practical details, a national ad hoc arrangements could be made to enable the islanders to have dual citizenship, transmitted by ius sanguinis, to the children of british citizens resident in the islands. Nobody is calling the falklanders to change their citizenship to argentines. Continuing: there will be a dual currency system, not at all unknown in argentine territory. The falklanders could choose to keep the british pound as a currency, and offcourse continue driving on the left side of the road just to name an issue. On the other hand, within the symbolism, and like any other province of Argentina, the Falklands could have its own flag, chosen by their authorities. The provincial flag of the Falklands, which could very well be, the one currently in use.

By joining the argentine nation the Falklanders could have, with our system, nothing less than three senators and five representatives in congress, for a local population of just over three thousand. This ecuated to massive political influence. Today, the population of the islands is not represented in the distant british parliament.

Any agreement will consider to give to the new province the rights to maintain its powers in relevance to civil law. The civil code scheme of "common" set out in Article 75, paragraph 12 of the constitution is not a defining figure of the federalist system, and the american model has handled remarkably successfully coexistence of an atraumatic patchwork of legal systems.

Like all provinces of Argentina, the Falklands would have the original dominion over the natural resources within its territory and its government could make interprovincial and international treaties, with knowledge of the Congress (Article 124 of the Constitution). It would be entitled to have its own educational system and local police. Entitled to have its own free trading zone (under the system of national law 24,431) and could be ascribed a special customs area or allow a system to promote their potential industrial power, because if the Falklands will be in part our islands we are interested they can develop.


All this is still negotiable. Its certainly not terrible enough to justify all the war chatter that's been going on.

[ppp]

Negotiation has nothing beneficial for Britain, hence they are, much as I expected, refusing! Argentina wants to negotiate, but then it has everything to gain by trying. Of course if they wish to remind us reguarly of how we kicked their butt, they are more than welcome to, particularly as it may prevent them from doing such dumb things in the future

[Vnomad]

Negotiation has nothing beneficial for Britain, hence they are, much as I expected, refusing! Argentina wants to negotiate, but then it has everything to gain by trying.

Benefits:

- Access to South America for the Falklands. Whether the industry is fishing or oil, it was always be economical to export it to the nearest market. The same goes for all imports for the islanders.

- Britain can cut back on military expenditure incurred in supporting the deployment on the Islands.

- If the proposals listed above are accurate, the Falklands has the potential to become a major banking centre in the future.

- Better ties between the UK and South America. The UK can be less apprehensive about growing ties between Argentina and its neighbors. For now the UK can feel comfortable at least about its military position in the region. But were Brazil to start taking a more proactive role in the future after stonewalling from the UK, that could change very fast.





Americas Summit expected to release support-statement for Argentina’s Falklands claim


Thirty years after the Falklands/Malvinas war, Latin America seems to be closing ranks behind Argentina's sovereignty claim over the disputed islands and reviving a bid for control in the resource-rich South Atlantic.

All countries of the region back Buenos Aires in its bitter dispute with London over the remote South Atlantic archipelago and oppose any British military presence in the region, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin said in late March.

Argentina lost the war in 1982 but on this sensitive issue, London is facing a united Latin American front, led by Brazil, the region's dominant power that has become the world's sixth largest economy, displacing the UK.

Besides Brazil is en route to become a world leading producer and exporter of oil from its massive offshore reserves and is most alert to whatever happens in the South Atlantic which it considers its area of influence.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota made this position abundantly clear in a meeting with his British counterpart William Hague in Brasilia early this year.

He told Hague that Brazil and the region “back Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands and the UN resolutions calling for dialogue between the Argentine and British governments on this issue.”

Also early this year, Patriota said Brazil was working with Uruguay to convene a meeting of the proposed South Atlantic Zone of Peace and Cooperation, bringing together South American and southern African countries.
“Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have an interest in creating a South Atlantic security zone. This has been on the agenda for decades,” said Tullo Vigevani, a professor at Sao Paulo State University.

Alberto Pfeifer of the Analysis of International Relations think-tank at Sao Paulo University noted the South Atlantic was “extremely important” for countries on both sides of the ocean.

It is no secret that Brazil believes the South Atlantic is the “blue Amazon” and no country from the northern hemisphere should be occupying it. Since former president Lula da Silva took office in 2003 it has been clear Brazil’s growing support for Argentina in the Falklands issue, they don’t want the UK near their oil reserves.

In Brazil’s long term strategy Argentina does not pose a threat, UK yes because it is associated with NATO and the last Brazilian national defense plan considers that the South Atlantic must be a security priority for Brasilia.

Today, Latin American countries depend more on each other and are less dependent on Europe and the United States and have China as the main trade partner for the many metals, grains and oilseeds from the region. Countries in the region also seek to assert a common identity.

The Union of South American Nations, Unasur, set up in 2007 “has given more cohesion to the stance of solidarity with Argentina because it is much easier to secure agreements and consensus,” said Peruvian analyst Ernesto Velit Granda.

[F-111buff26]

All the more reason for other countries outside those from south america to assist Britain.... I for one would support an Australian task force being sent to support British sovereignty over the falklands

[Fedaykin]

I am going to take slight issue with this noble idea that natural resources would stay with the Islanders if Argentina gained sovereignty. That just won't happen within what the Islanders think! Argentina will allow the Islanders to keep resources ON the Islands. There is no way that they will let the Islanders gain from the offshore natural resources like oil and gas. Argentina already claims those resources as part of their continental plate, with the current state of their economy do people really think that the Argentine government will allow the Islanders to solely benefit from its tapping. For that matter they will probably make trouble with the fishing rights as well.

AS for retaining their culture and legislature well that's all well and nice but we know Argentina would allow lets say 4000 patriotic citizens to move to the Island set up in a new town. Of course these people will have a right to vote for the legislature as well...oh hang on they are now the largest voting block so can impose whatever cultural changes they like!

Now I am sure moderate Argentines would say this isn't true and life would be all pixies and light for the Islanders but for those who live on the Islands the things I have stated are probably very real in their minds along with their current and prior treatment by Argentina.

[quadbike]

All the more reason for other countries outside those from south america to assist Britain.... I for one would support an Australian task force being sent to support British sovereignty over the falklands

The way Brazil is growing, it will be able to take on Britain and Australia single handedly when it comes to a conflict, add to that the other South American nations + Geographical proximity etc. And its a losing proposition.

Then again Brazil will just sign a big deal with Australia for some mineral import and Aussies will be won over

[Vnomad]

I am going to take slight issue with this noble idea that natural resources would stay with the Islanders if Argentina gained sovereignty. That just won't happen within what the Islanders think! Argentina will allow the Islanders to keep resources ON the Islands. There is no way that they will let the Islanders gain from the offshore natural resources like oil and gas. Argentina already claims those resources as part of their continental plate, with the current state of their economy do people really think that the Argentine government will allow the Islanders to solely benefit from its tapping. For that matter they will probably make trouble with the fishing rights as well.

Its not that cut and dried. The Falklands are offering possibly the most generous revenue sharing contracts to explorations firms, ever seen. The firms bidding for them do so accounting for the fact that South America is or may soon be inaccessible to them for all logistical purposes driving up costs across the board. Point is whatever revenue share the Falklands will theoretically lose, will be reclaimed with higher total revenue. None of this is perfectly balanced, but the technicalities can be addressed in negotiations.

AS for retaining their culture and legislature well that's all well and nice but we know Argentina would allow lets say 4000 patriotic citizens to move to the Island set up in a new town. Of course these people will have a right to vote for the legislature as well...oh hang on they are now the largest voting block so can impose whatever cultural changes they like!

Again... no agreement is set in stone. Solutions to all existing and foreseeable concerns can be factored in.

Now I am sure moderate Argentines would say this isn't true and life would be all pixies and light for the Islanders but for those who live on the Islands the things I have stated are probably very real in their minds along with their current and prior treatment by Argentina.

Given the rather horrifying events on the Chagos Islands and Britain's response to them even today, perhaps mud throwing isn't in order, at least not yet.

[Sintra]

On a personal note I have seen a few threads accross mutiple forums ruined by a handful of rabid argentine posters, on this thread the argentine poster has been extremely civil (in the face of some quite aggressive provocation). Can we all please post with civility and a measure of respect.

Indeed.

[Mildave]

It's natural for Brazil to play both games. They will be vocal about Argentine's claim of the island so as to get their support, but I doubt they'll go any further than that for the moment. They're willing to modernize their navy and I understand the UK is well placed to sell them a few frigates that would bring the two nations closer...

Politics is a dirty business.

[ananda]

It's natural for Brazil to play both games. They will be vocal about Argentine's claim of the island so as to get their support, but I doubt they'll go any further than that for the moment. They're willing to modernize their navy and I understand the UK is well placed to sell them a few frigates that would bring the two nations closer...

Politics is a dirty business.

What amuse me, is the thinking that Brazil will lend their Military muscle for Argentina cause in the Falkland/Malvinas. Brazil will support Argentina claim 'politically', but that's the much that will go. Economically, or Militarily, well that's different agenda.

[Vnomad]

What amuse me, is the thinking that Brazil will lend their Military muscle for Argentina cause in the Falkland/Malvinas. Brazil will support Argentina claim 'politically', but that's the much that will go. Economically, or Militarily, well that's different agenda.

Again true. But that could be said about many things. The NATO and Warsaw Pact alliance would never have gone to war - neither side would have come out of fighting on such a massive scale, feeling like a winner. But, that didn't deter both sides from arming to the hilt.

For that matter, who could have predicted the Argentine invasion of the Islands in 1982? Heck even the Argentinian junta wasn't very sure it wanted to go down that path. That is why military planners prefer to consider tangible military capabilities a more relevant factor rather than stated intentions.

Point is, it will be best to address the dispute as soon as possible, rather than waiting as Britain's relative military and geopolitical advantages ebb, and the South American (and British?) attitudes harden.

[ananda]

Point is, it will be best to address the dispute as soon as possible, rather than waiting as Britain's relative military and geopolitical advantages ebb, and the South American (and British?) attitudes harden.

True, but back to the topic of this thread, increasing 'patriotic' agenda by the Argentinian Administrations, will only harden the situations. Take a look at South China Sea, All Parties especially China, Vietnam, and the Philippines able to burn patriotic feeling for Spartly issues within their own populations, that increasingly any compromise seems become harder to find.

If this similar path the Argentinian choose, then it will become increasingly difficult by whoever sit in the Argentinian administrations present and future to back down and make compromise with (especially) the British. Same way with British populations that will push their Government to keep defending the Islands for the sake of their 'islander' brethren.

China perceived that with their overwhelmingly military superiority, no one in the South East Asia will challenge them Militarily in the South China Sea conflict. However against the odd, the Vietnamese and Philippines, harden their stance and willing to face off militarily if possible.

Now if the Argentinian (or some of their South American neighbors) think/perceive that Militarily Britain will not have capability to sustain Falkland defense anymore, then it could turn ugly again, in addition with those patriotic rhetoric that the Argentinian keep pumping up to the populations. After all, those miscalculation perception that in the end drove the Junta to invade the Islands in the 80's. What guaranteed the 'Democratically' elected Argentinian administrations will not go the same way, if they (again) 'perceive' British weakening military ability.

Only solutions of diplomatic compromise, in my opinion, if all parties in the conflict willing to tone down the 'patriotic' rhetoric within their own population first. It's a dangerous game by the Argentinian if they think they can 'fanning' the patriotic flame within their own population, but hoping can get diplomatic compromise in the end.

[Vnomad]

Now if the Argentinian (or some of their South American neighbors) think/perceive that Militarily Britain will not have capability to sustain Falkland defense anymore, then it could turn ugly again, in addition with those patriotic rhetoric that the Argentinian keep pumping up to the populations. After all, those miscalculation perception that in the end drove the Junta to invade the Islands in the 80's. What guaranteed the 'Democratically' elected Argentinian administrations will not go the same way, if they (again) 'perceive' British weakening military ability.

There is nationalist rhetoric in Britain as well. Nothing quite as simplistic (if not crude) as the article that started this thread but its there nonetheless.

Only solutions of diplomatic compromise, in my opinion, if all parties in the conflict willing to tone down the 'patriotic' rhetoric within their own population first. It's a dangerous game by the Argentinian if they think they can 'fanning' the patriotic flame within their own population, but hoping can get diplomatic compromise in the end.

The Argentinians aren't doing so. At least not in a militaristic fashion, not yet. While their starting position is transfer of sovereignty, their actual demand is for negotiations to begin, where as is inevitable concessions will have to be made. And this is a point that Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and rest of the party has reiterated as well. Let a dialogue between the respective govts. begin; if god forbid there's an impasse, it should succeed talks not precede them.

[ppp]

A diplomatic solution already exists, the islands remain British. No need to negotiate as the PM has already said.

--stuff--
[/I]

So no benefits for Britain then. Making South American countries happy is not a benefit for Britain. Going out of our way to build excellent relations with South America at our own expense is unlikely to deliver worthwhile results, especially since other European countries would be more natural partners for SA, and the negative feeling betwee Britain and Argentina would remain. The defence cost is small, and the base is useful in any case for South Atlantic patrol frigates. As you said, it gives Britain influence and reach in the South Atlantic, and helps NATO project there in the future, all pluses for keeping the islands British. Also, any oil and gas to Britain, more pluses.