bigglesworth wrote:The North Sea is going to run dry; these fields would be fresh. And in any case very valuable.
And will belong to the islanders, who would be under no obligation what so ever to treat the UK preferentially. That said if Argentina forces them to not sell it in South America then probably British involvement in the chain will be inevitable.
Really? I think my "side" has mostly bullshit arguments. However, the other side gets so bored of repeating the strong claims, they start with the flakey ones:
AS for the fishing. As late as 2005 the Falklands government and the Argentine government cooperated on fishing quotas. After which Argentina unilaterally left the agreement and actively encouraged the fishing. As a result fishing stocks have plummeted. Now it is true that charities in the area blame both countries as it is now arguably the case that any fishing of some species isn't sustainable. That said last year Argentina did cut back substantially and maybe stocks will recover.
I would say again. Argentina is not committing genocide. Nor is it even close. Trade sanctions are unfortunate and provocative but not an act of war, that said they are no more provocative than the decision to hold a referendum (which is unlikely to give significant time to the Argentine case, which at any rate does not care about the wishes of the people, this is allegedly a colonised land NOT a colonised people, a point recognised by the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation, which means even if the islands become independent they may not get removed from that list). As for Argentina invading, there is no evidence that you could invade or that you want to.
Now as far the key arguments. Argentina claims a militarization of the South Atlantic, including claims that nuclear weapons have been deployed in the area, something Britain has not denied, but that is unlikely to be true. That the islanders are not an indigenous people, and therefore have no right to self determination, and that therefore the islands should belong to Argentina for historical and geographic reasons.
The British case rests solely on that of self determination. Surely international law (after all both argue UN rules settle the matter) is clear cut enough that the matter can be settled.