Argentine Malvinas/Falklands cartoon special

[Vnomad]

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

May as well have said, lets escalate things.

So no benefits for Britain then. Making South American countries happy is not a benefit for Britain.

Would you rather have poor relations?

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.

Why would the negative feeling between Britain and Argentina remain? When France and Germany got past their history (which makes the Falkland's dispute look like a minor footnote) to build close relations, what makes Britain and Argentina unique?

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.

The NATO isn't interested in maintaining a presence in the South Atlantic. It was different when the Soviets/communists had to contained - in every region, on every continent, in every sea, in every ocean.

On the broader issue of a British influence in the region, its setting up to be at direct loggerheads with the South Americans particularly Brazil.

Can you tell me for certain that 10 years down the line, a conflict involving a South American front and the UK is impossible? And that Britain will prevail in such a conflict? Also that if the British military suffers reverses, NATO will come to its aid - just so Britain can continue to have 'influence and reach in the South Atlantic'?

If the answer to them is no, then the question becomes would you rather diplomatically solve this now or later? At which time is the UK likely to be negotiating from a position of strength?

Also, any oil and gas to Britain, more pluses.

If oil and gases exist, Britain can negotiate an agreement that gives it oil and gases and a satisfactory outcome to Argentina and the Falklanders as well.

[obligatory]

Can you tell me for certain that 10 years down the line, a conflict involving a South American front and the UK is impossible? And that Britain will prevail in such a conflict?

If Argentina manage to form an axis with the purpose of conquering Falklands,
it stands to reason you'd have to share that oil with your comrades-in-arms,
and it's a good bet Britain will execute a blockade with their SSN's against all members, i think the net result will be negative balance in your account,
and they may well demand Tierra del Fuego in compensation to lift the blockade.

The question then becomes would you rather give Britain exclusive oil rights in Tierra del Fuego right away to prevent such sad affairs,
while simultaneously making great friends with the Brits ?
It's a win-win i'd say

[ppp]

@Vnomad

We don't have to escalate things, in fact we don't have to do anything. If anyone needs to escalate, its Argentina. Doing nothing works just great for Britain, we've got everything we want. Argentina continues to stamp it feels like an angry child, but it makes no difference as it won't get them the islands back. They can resort to violence, but it will harm their country far more than it will harm ours

There is no need for Britain to negotiate anything satisfactory for Argentina, they have nothing to negotiate us with. You don't seem to understand the concept of negotiation. Both parties must have an incentive. Britain's incentive is to NOT negotiate. Argentina is offering Britain nothing worthwhile, and Britain has what it wants, meanwhile Britain has what Argentina wants. If we are going to open negotiations on the Falklands, then why not open negotiations on Bueno Aires, whereby Britain gets 50% of the tax revenue from that city? We claim that now, it's ours

@obligatory

Indeed Britain has many, many options open to use against Argentina if the need is there, but the Argentines really are all talk.

[Vnomad]

If Argentina manage to form an axis with the purpose of conquering Falklands,
it stands to reason you'd have to share that oil with your comrades-in-arms,
and it's a good bet Britain will execute a blockade with their SSN's against all members, i think the net result will be negative balance in your account,
and they may well demand Tierra del Fuego in compensation to lift the blockade.

The assumption being the only reason the South Americans would stand with the Argentinians is oil. That's actually an attitude I've found many British commentators take - they don't really know what to make of the uniform support Argentina has garnered across Latin America including Mexico and far off countries like China & Russia, and prefer to ignore it altogether and focus on Argentina. The US has taken a neutral position while the EU is gradually moving towards a neutral position as well. Even stalwart allies of the UK like Canada have refrained from publicly backing its position. And if the Royal Navy's SSNs were to start sinking civilian shipping in regional or international waters, the internal pressure in the UK itself would force the British govt to the negotiating table.

As for purposes, perhaps the South Americans are in for the same reason the UK insists on an obdurate course of action today - to deny Britain a strategic footprint in the South Atlantic.

[Vnomad]

We don't have to escalate things, in fact we don't have to do anything. If anyone needs to escalate, its Argentina. Doing nothing works just great for Britain, we've got everything we want.

Actually the British govt is not doing nothing. Mr Cameron's govt has delegations shuttling the South Americans capitals issuing explanations and trying to drum up diplomatic support. How much success he's had it is... lets say unclear.

Argentina continues to stamp it feels like an angry child, but it makes no difference as it won't get them the islands back. They can resort to violence, but it will harm their country far more than it will harm ours

For now yes. 10 years down the line, the military position would most likely have been well reversed.

You obviously have a degree of contempt for diplomacy, but I don't believe the British government shares that opinion.

[Sintra]

The assumption being the only reason the South Americans would stand with the Argentinians is oil. That's actually an attitude I've found many British commentators take - they don't really know what to make of the uniform support Argentina has garnered across Latin America including Mexico and far off countries like China & Russia, and prefer to ignore it altogether and focus on Argentina. The US has taken a neutral position while the EU is gradually moving towards a neutral position as well. Even stalwart allies of the UK like Canada have refrained from publicly backing its position. And if the Royal Navy's SSNs were to start sinking civilian shipping in regional or international waters, the internal pressure in the UK itself would force the British govt to the negotiating table.

As for purposes, perhaps the South Americans are in for the same reason the UK insists on an obdurate course of action today - to deny Britain a strategic footprint in the South Atlantic.

Vnomad

You are confusing diplomatic stances with the possibility of a military coalition.
If by some unbelivable fate (actualy nothing short of a miracle), Argentina in a decade would find himself in a position to military defy the UK, the rest of South America would not involve themselves in any "Falklands round II" (nevermind what Chavez says).
There´s not any chance of something like a South American military expedition for the "Reconquista das Malvinas", nada, zero.

[Vnomad]

Vnomad

You are confusing diplomatic stances with the possibility of a military coalition.
If by some unbelivable fate (actualy nothing short of a miracle), Argentina in a decade would find himself in a position to military defy the UK, the rest of South America would not involve themselves in any "Falklands round II" (nevermind what Chavez says).
There´s not any chance of something like a South American military expedition for the "Reconquista das Malvinas", nada, zero.

Its because we're on a military (sub) forum and folks here prefer to think in those terms instead, that I'm laying a military scenario. An improbably one but not an impossible one. Can't happen today, but leave it to fester and you can't always predict the future a decade on. As far as many folks here are concerned diplomats are a bunch of overpaid over-educated individuals interminably yakking away at each other.

Of course, truth is very different. The mandarins will never let it come to a situation where all peaceful avenues are exhausted. Its because diplomatic solutions/negotiations are generally welcomed in most disputes, that countries aren't as eager to form overt military alliances as they were 65 years ago.

If Britain were to simply abandon the way a globalised world operates (it wouldn't, but assuming its so for the sake of the gung-ho military muscle flexers), plenty of other assumptions would have to be rethought.

[ppp]

Fact: For now yes.
Your Opinion:10 years down the line, the military position would most likely have been well reversed.
You obviously have a degree of contempt for diplomacy, but I don't believe the British government shares that opinion.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with it. There is nothing to negotiate. Unless we are negotiating Argentina giving Britain compensation for that unprovoked war?

[Vnomad]

Diplomacy has nothing to do with it.

Would you rather wait for war clouds to gather?

There is nothing to negotiate.

That sounds remarkably like what the Chagos Islanders were told. We dragged you out of your homes. We gassed your pets. We left half of you marooned of the shores of Mauritius. We will not let you return come what may. You've got your £650 each as compensation. What's there to talk about?

Unless we are negotiating Argentina giving Britain compensation for that unprovoked war?

You mean by the British backed military regime that was committing human rights excesses against the Argentinian people?

[ppp]

Would you rather wait for war clouds to gather

Yes, because Argentina has no claim, and Argentina would have to be the one declare a colonialist war against Britain. Argentina will have to be the "bad guy" and will get all the international condemnation etc. Meanwhile Britain will be the "good guy" defending the islands against the evil colonialist invaders from Argentina

[SpudmanWP]

In other words... a repeat of '82

[quadbike]

They may not join hands with Argentina now but I can see Brazil flexing its muscles and supporting Argentina militarily (at-least with arms and money) in a future conflict.

[ppp]

They may not join hands with Argentina now but I can see Brazil flexing its muscles and supporting Argentina militarily (at-least with arms and money) in a future conflict.

Aliens could side with Britain and wipe South America clear off the map... in the future

[wilhelm]

Diplomacy has nothing to do with it. There is nothing to negotiate. Unless we are negotiating Argentina giving Britain compensation for that unprovoked war?

Britain does not want to set that precedent.

You'd be an economic wasteland within a year, as a quarter of the globe will queue up for reparations.

[jbritchford]

I think most nations would though.

[Mildave]

Yes, because Argentina has no claim, and Argentina would have to be the one declare a colonialist war against Britain. Argentina will have to be the "bad guy" and will get all the international condemnation etc. Meanwhile Britain will be the "good guy" defending the islands against the evil colonialist invaders from Argentina

Except the UK had Harriers and two aircraft carriers IIRC back then. It would be a lot more complicated to play the "good guy" right now. Which is why UK's policy must be centred around dissuasion in the service of diplomacy. TLAM depend entirely on the US, and given their policy to close ties with south America and particularly Brazil (which is to become a major economy ahead of the UK) I don't think they can rely on them 100%. That leaves 4 EFTs, and some frigates (which currently are the best dissuasion in my opinion).
I believe the UK has to give enough to Argentina to keep them happy while applying enough dissuasion so that they don't get any further ideas. But it would be unwise to play muscle and confrontation only.

[SpudmanWP]

How is it still not the "good guy"? The UK is not the one with the aggressive overtones.

They still have EFs and a very good surface force in the area.

[Vnomad]

Yes, because Argentina has no claim, and Argentina would have to be the one declare a colonialist war against Britain. Argentina will have to be the "bad guy" and will get all the international condemnation etc. Meanwhile Britain will be the "good guy" defending the islands against the evil colonialist invaders from Argentina

Colonialism? Dual nationality. Rights over resources. Autonomy in governance. Oversized influence in the national legislature. Respect of way of life. And whatever steps are taken to address other issues of concern brought up during negotiations.

If that is colonialism, what the heck was the stuff the UK dished out to Asia and Africa?

I thought here on the seventh page of the thread we'd finally moved past the 'good guy-bad guy' narrative. That said, I wouldn't be so sure about all that international condemnation. The current world view is that both countries ought to sit down and engage in a dialogue to resolve the dispute. But if Britain's position is - no talks, they'll be very few who see it as the 'good guy' in the event of a violent confrontation with South America.

[Mildave]

How is it still not the "good guy"? The UK is not the one with the aggressive overtones.

They still have EFs and a very good surface force in the area.

In the context PPP put it, been the "good guy" would be the hero who can rescue the Falklands. That would be pretty hard to do right now. The UK would have to be able to fund a war logistically very far away from home that would last months, with very little friendly bases or support.
The recent scrapping by the actual government were done by assuming that the UK would not in the future have to go to war alone, but only as part of a coalition that could fill the gap they're currently experiencing.

Defending the Falkland would require the deployment of a naval task force with very little air support (close to none if the Falkland airfield is closed), with assets that would need to be replaced regularly (which would be hard given the current situation).

[SpudmanWP]

Colonialism? Dual nationality.

They (hereto will refer to the Flaklanders) do not want dual citizenship. They are UK citizens and want to stay that way.

Rights over resources.

They already have rights over their own resources. Oh, do you must mean Argentina gaining access to their resources?

Autonomy in governance.

They already have that too.

Oversized influence in the national legislature.

So you are trying to bribe them?

Respect of way of life.

They have it. Argentina should practice what they preach.

And whatever steps are taken to address other issues of concern brought up during negotiations.

How about their main concern and need for Argentina to LEAVE THEM ALONE?

[Sintra]

In the context PPP put it, been the "good guy" would be the hero who can rescue the Falklands. That would be pretty hard to do right now. The UK would have to be able to fund a war logistically very far away from home that would last months, with very little friendly bases or support.
The recent scrapping by the actual government were done by assuming that the UK would not in the future have to go to war alone, but only as part of a coalition that could fill the gap they're currently experiencing.

Defending the Falkland would require the deployment of a naval task force with very little air support (close to none if the Falkland airfield is closed), with assets that would need to be replaced regularly (which would be hard given the current situation).

Mildave

With the current situation of the Argentina´s Armed Forces, the British Military presence in the Falklands is an absolute overkill.

[Vnomad]

They (hereto will refer to the Flaklanders) do not want dual citizenship. They are UK citizens and want to stay that way.

They already have rights over their own resources. Oh, do you must mean Argentina gaining access to their resources?

They already have that too.

So you are trying to bribe them?

Negotiating does not make any irreversible changes to status quo. By all means make the Falklanders a party to a dialogue. Give them the opportunity to directly interface with the Argentinian government. Let them communicate their concerns about the closer of ports directly, and let the Argentinians make their pitch about dual nationality directly. After all a mutually agreeable solution is not impossible as long as the first step is taken i.e. starting a dialogue process.

My point on the other hand, was about colonialism and how this dispute is very far from it. At least colonialism as the Asians and Africans remember it.

They have it. Argentina should practice what they preach.

How about their main concern and need for Argentina to LEAVE THEM ALONE?

'Practice what they preach'? 'Leave them alone'?

At the risk of being repetitive - Chagos Islands.

[Vnomad]

Mildave

With the current situation of the Argentina´s Armed Forces, the British Military presence in the Falklands is an absolute overkill.

Which actually strengthens the argument about Britain militarizing the dispute.

Besides, I think Mildave was referring to the scenario mooted earlier i.e. Britain confronting a united South American front.

[SpudmanWP]

By all means make the Falklanders a party to a dialogue. Give them the opportunity to directly interface with the Argentinian government.

They were, in '82 and did not like it one bit.

Let them communicate their concerns about the closer of ports directly, and let the Argentinians make their pitch about dual nationality directly.

I am sure that they don't like the port situation one bit. I'm sure a mugging victim does not like to get robbed either. You don't even need to ask them to find that out.

After all a mutually agreeable solution is not impossible as long as the first step is taken i.e. starting a dialogue process.

What happens when the Falklanders go to the negotiations and in the end still want the status quo (per citizenship and resource rights). What then, will Argentina FINALLY give up trying to get control of the Falklands?

'Practice what they preach'? 'Leave them alone'?

At the risk of being repetitive - Chagos Islands.

If that were happening today I would be opposed to it also.

[Sintra]

Which actually strengthens the argument about Britain militarizing the dispute.

Nope, the British Military presence didnt increase one iota in two and a half decades.

Besides, I think Mildave was referring to the scenario mooted earlier i.e. Britain confronting a united South American front.

Ok.

[Vnomad]

They were, in '82 and did not like it one bit.

And why is the violent military regime that after being backed by Britain and then turned on it, a legitimate representative of Argentinian people?

I am sure that they don't like the port situation one bit. I'm sure a mugging victim does not like to get robbed either. You don't even need to ask them to find that out.

Unlike an individual constitutionally guaranteed right to safety, countries do not have the fundamental right to use their neighbors seaports. This is more akin to a commercial establishment denying service to a customer.

What happens when the Falklanders go to the negotiations and in the end still want the status quo (per citizenship and resource rights). What then, will Argentina FINALLY give up trying to get control of the Falklands?

Sure. I mean if you've decided outright that the negotiations (if they're genuine) will be fruitless, I've decided that Argentina will return to the status quo.

If that were happening today I would be opposed to it also.

Meh.. its all history, what difference does it make, huh? So what if the people evicted from the islands are still around, hoping someday they'd regain the right to go back to what is now a US military base and reclaim their homeland. Sod them. Lets fight for the heroic, fair skinned, English talking, British looking people.

[obligatory]

They (hereto will refer to the Flaklanders) do not want dual citizenship. They are UK citizens and want to stay that way.

They already have rights over their own resources. Oh, do you must mean Argentina gaining access to their resources?

They already have that too.

So you are trying to bribe them?

They have it. Argentina should practice what they preach.

How about their main concern and need for Argentina to LEAVE THEM ALONE?

Best post i've seen in this thread

[Vnomad]

Nope, the British Military presence didnt increase one iota in two and a half decades.

Comes down to semantics really. Yes Britain has a military force that's vastly disproportionate to the threat and is certainly more potent that the deployment two decades back (1 T45 = x T42, 1 EF = y T.F3). While British forces as a whole have shrunk with greater reliance on force multipliers, the deployment on Falklands has stayed steady. Then again, I suppose strictly speaking modernizing the existing forces cannot be termed an escalation.

[Vnomad]

Best post i've seen in this thread

Maybe because it reflects your personal sentiments.

[SpudmanWP]

And why is the violent military regime that after being backed by Britain and then turned on it, a legitimate representative of Argentinian people?

Because it's the same "we want what you have and we will threaten your way of life until we get it" attitude that the Argentinians are projecting today.

Sure. I mean if you've decided outright that the negotiations (if they're genuine) will be fruitless, I've decided that Argentina will return to the status quo.

What has Argentina officially said?

Meh.. its all history, what difference does it make, huh? So what if the people evicted from the islands are still around, hoping someday they'd regain the right to go back to what is now a US military base and reclaim their homeland. Sod them. Lets fight for the heroic, fair skinned, English talking, British looking people.

The same applies to Tierra del Fuego, or is that "a different story".

As far as the Chagos Islands goes, they should be paid handsomely for what has happened to them.