Can there be a resolution to the Falklands/Malvinas issue.

[Diadem]

I agree that just ceasing trade is not an act of war. But they are doing much more than that. They are effectively trying to starve the Falklands. Genocide may be a harsh term, but I don't see how trying to starve an entire island does not fall under that term.

[sigsfried]

The Falklanders will not starve. Yes they are trying to prevent fishing in the Falklands by destroying stocks and catching fish heading in and yes that will drive up the cost of fish, but the islands can still import food (and will be able to even if Argentina succeeds in isolating the islands from the entire South America, if need be food will be flown in). It is more a way of inflicting monetary damage than trying to cause starvation. Anyway the islanders are no where near starvation (the worst food shortage is eggs, eggs are essentially rationed but that doesn't put the islanders close to starvation).

[Yakk]

Yep, it isn't an issue of starvation, but of ecological warfare. Destroying migratory fishing stocks (in your own territory) is similar in a sense to poisoning water that flows from your part of your river into their river, redirecting the flow of a river away from their nation, or the like.

[Diadem]

Ecological warfare is still an act of war.

And just because Argentine won't succeed in starving the population, doesn't mean they aren't trying. They are clearly trying to destroy the Island's ability to feed itself.

[sigsfried]

I am not defending the actions of Argentina, it is despicable. It just isn't really an act of war. How exactly would we define an acceptable amount of fishing for Argentina to engage in? Is subsidising fishing in certain areas (something that could be done for legitimate reasons after all) an act of war? They are trying to inflict economic damage certainly, but they are so far from being able to starve the population that I don't think we can be clear that is there intention. They even may be intending to make the population dependent on Argentine aid.

[sigsfried]

Just wanted to note that recent events have thourghly disproved Argentina wanting to starve the islanders. It is now considering allowing two (instead of the current single) flights a week, provided the flights switch to being from Argentina. Now it is true that the islanders might not accept this, but ultimately it is up to Argentina what flights it allows through its airspace and as Argentina claims control of the area surrounding the islands it can veto any flights it doesn't approve of.

[Derek]

Edit: Nevermind, misread your post.

[Diadem]

Just wanted to note that recent events have thourghly disproved Argentina wanting to starve the islanders. It is now considering allowing two (instead of the current single) flights a week, provided the flights switch to being from Argentina. Now it is true that the islanders might not accept this, but ultimately it is up to Argentina what flights it allows through its airspace and as Argentina claims control of the area surrounding the islands it can veto any flights it doesn't approve of.

Obviously Argentina claims the surrounding air space, since they claim the entire islands. Doh. That doesn't change anything about the fact that it currently isn't theirs, and intercepting any planes headed for the Falklands would clearly be an act of war.

Nor does it change anything about what I said: They are trying to destroy the island's ability to feed themselves: "They can get food as long as it is shipped via us" is exactly that.

[sigsfried]

Any plane flying from South America, must travel through undisputed Argentine airspace to reach the islands. It is different when planes travel from say Europe or even North America, but Stanley cannot support the large planes required. The UK is investing heavily in a better airfield for Saint Helena, precisely so the reliance on Argentine air space disappears.

Intercepting planes in undisputed Argentine airspace is not an act of war.

[ph1x3r]

Any plane flying from South America, must travel through undisputed Argentine airspace to reach the islands. It is different when planes travel from say Europe or even North America, but Stanley cannot support the large planes required. The UK is investing heavily in a better airfield for Saint Helena, precisely so the reliance on Argentine air space disappears.

Intercepting planes in undisputed Argentine airspace is not an act of war.

Port Stanley may not be able to support large planes (6100 ft) but Mount Pleasant can (8500 ft).

I seem to remember a Boeing 747 (jumbo jet) being landed at Mount Pleasant not long after the airport was opened.

Additionally, how do you think those of us down there were being fed during the war and immediately afterwards? Having personally landed at Port Stanley many times in a C130 (Hercules transport), there is more than enough landing space for military cargo planes at either airport.

As has been said previously, this sabre rattling by Argentina is for exactly the same reasons as the 80's when they had economic problems and wanted to divert the attention of their subjects.

The islanders I spoke to when I was there all wanted to remain part of the UK. As far as I am aware, that is still the majority view of the population.

[sigsfried]

I might be mistaken, if so the islanders were trumping up the concerns over flights and the British government was claiming that the reason for the infrastructure investment in Saint Helena was to enable food and other goods to be flown over if needed. I am more than happy to conceed that I must have been badly informed though.

[Rayjan]

The way I look at things is the islanders have the right to self-determination, the UK won't enter negotiations as long as the Islanders wish to remain British, which they currently do. If Britain was forced to enter negotiations and ended up surrendering sovereignty of the Islands, the islanders would simply declare themselves independent and Argentina would be unable to obtain them. Argentina could invade them but they would be breaking international law and the UN would expel them from the Islands. I have very little understanding of politics but the Islanders might be able to rejoin the UK after declaring their independence.

[sigsfried]

Much of the world would not recognise the islanders if they became independent. In fact when that option was discussed Argentina claimed Britain giving the islands independence would have been an act of colonialism. Not sure how they justify that but I suppose it boils down to the claim that the islands are a colonised land, not a colonised people.

[bigglesworth]

Does anyone have a link to the UN agreements about de-colonisation? I think the gist is 'put it back like you found it' and that's what the Argentinians are arguing for.

[sigsfried]

The UN Special Committee on Decolonization website is http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/spe ... ttee.shtml. The list of non self governing territories is at http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/non ... ries.shtml. It includes the pitcairn islands which were uninhabited prior mutineers landing there. Shortly after that it became a colony of Britain. It has never really been an independent country, so I'm not sure the leave it as you found it would make a difference. Plus with its population of 48 I'm not sure it is sensible for it to be independent (though if that is what the islanders want that should be all that matters).

[Nem]

Does anyone seriously think that if we concluded that the Islands had only ever been inhabited by British citizens the Argentine government would put aside their claim? That their ancestors lived there is an attempt at justifying their current desire for the islands, it's not an explanation for why they want them. Talking about right and wrong is all very well, but the world doesn't work according to such ideals. If territorial issues were ever truly resolved along such lines, we could establish our right to our homelands and put aside force as a means of securing ourselves forever.

What you've got is only ever yours until someone with a big enough gun comes to take it from you. If the UN were to overtly back one party, then that party would simply acquire enough brute force on their side to have things their way. The UK stands to gain nothing in submitting to arbitration. Being so vastly more powerful than Argentina, and having a veto, it can already have things all its own way, regardless of which direction the UN might go.

If Argentia wishes to challenge us for control of the Falklands, let them. I won't claim military force is the only thing that matters. However, it counts for an awful lot, and in its absence few other things count at all.

Can there be a resolution? I don't think so. No territorial issue is ever settled permanently. England become part of the Roman empire wasn't a resolution, anymore than Scotland becoming part of the UK or.... The only way to settle such an issue permanently is to frame the problem in terms of the people, 'Will the Argentine people ever control the Falklands for a significant period of time?' and then 'settle' things with the people permanently. And I don't think that's what anyone here was talking about, or something that our current government is quite cold blooded enough to do.

Any way you cut it though, you can't be sure of perpetual sovereignty over a bit of land.

[Idetuxs]

Few posts tells me people wants WAR! Yeah! The last standing will prove right.

(I don't want to fight though, damn coward)

[sigsfried]

I don't think anyone wants war. That said the UK prefers to defend them, by military means if required, than handing the islands over to Argentina. That is not an at all unreasonable position to take. Yes you could make a case that the islands don't need as strong a military as they have, but the last time there was a weak military there it didn't end well.

[JamesP]

The British Isles have little need for a large defence force, Afghanistan is landlocked, Russia's navy is falling apart. All that we really need right now is to protect the Falklands and our UN/Anti-pirate duties. If we don't have the capacity to take them back then, well, better safe than sorry.

[Idetuxs]

I don't think anyone wants war. That said the UK prefers to defend them, by military means if required, than handing the islands over to Argentina. That is not an at all unreasonable position to take. Yes you could make a case that the islands don't need as strong a military as they have, but the last time there was a weak military there it didn't end well.

I don't really think that either, but for a moment o thought so.

I can say that disagreeing what Diadem wrote, Falklands/Malvina's people is not dying, not starving and said that clearly Argentina is not committing genocide, unless genocide means not massively killing people. In fact Falklands/Malvina's people have a really high quality of life and I mean all of them (near 3000 I think), a regular teacher earns $5000 and lives with 2000 you do the math.

[sigsfried]

So I know this thread is all but dead.

It is now my opinion that Argentina is doing, for reasons I can't understand, its best to make it impossible for the British government, or the Falklands Islands Government, to talk to the Argentine government. Days after accusing Britain of not respecting the Argentinean war dead and making it too hard for families and veterans to visit the islands, they covertly film an advert for the Olympics that includes a member of the Argentinean Olympics team exercising in the Falklands. Including exercising on a war memorial.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17963577

[JamesP]

As a kind of side-path to the conversation: Would it be fair to say that Argentina, if wanting to take the Falklands, has until the new British carriers come on-line to do so? After that Britain will have the strike capability to take them back (assuming that there are actually planes for them).

[bigglesworth]

Apart from the fact that the garrison is much larger than last time, kinda, yeah.

[Mishka_shaw]

This whole debate (the real one not the xkcd one) is very tit-for-tat. Both sides have some good arguments and both sides have some flakey arguments.
Being British I am biased towards the British side but I will try to remain neutral with my view.

The main thing I see is just the sheer amount of time the islands have been in British/Islanders hands. It will be 200 years in 2033.
I mean surely after a certain amount of time something becomes the agreed norm, without derailing onto the sensitive Isr-Pala argument I will mention that it is a good example of a territory argument that will soon reach the point where no-one alive remembers what they are fighting about (and by that I mean no-one will be alive to remember the creation of Israel).
The Falklands debate is a territory argument that has long since reached that terminal point. Last time I checked on average you are looking at 7-8 generations who do not remember the islands being under a non-british rule (not including two year occupation/liberation in the 80's). Surely this time lapse means that wounds have more than healed.

Can an America explain to me how this is any different to Porto Rico too, I am not too good at American History so there is probably a glaring reason why they are wildly different but skimming over the subject they look similar, possibly the fact Spain officially receeded control to America while Argentina to my knowledge never did might be reason why they are different. Still they seem similar though.

Note: I do not agree that Britain shouldn't negotiate over them as there is nothing to loose from talking, but I am 99% sure this is only becoming a major issue in order to cover up the deteriorating Argentinian economy (the Junta did the same thing in the 80's), in fact Britain might be doing the same to cover up our rising unemployment.
Oh and I think this is not an oil issue as Britain gets most of its oil from the North Sea + Norway so oil is a minor issue for them.

[bigglesworth]

The North Sea is going to run dry; these fields would be fresh. And in any case very valuable.

[eternauta3k]

Both sides have some good arguments and both sides have some flakey arguments.

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:

Argentina is committing genocide
Trade restrictions are an act of war
High chance of Argentina invading (no one can predict this, but it would make no sense with the current state of our military and our general attitude towards it)

Does anyone have a reliable source for the overfishing thing? I thought our ecoterrorism was limited to mining glaciers.

[sigsfried]

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.

[Yakk]

Last I checked, Argentina is not populated by an indigenous population. I mean, 90%+ of their population are European immigrants or decedents thereof. Doesn't that argument (that the Falklands have no right to self determination) rule out Argentina right to self determination?

[sigsfried]

True but nobody is disputing the right of Argentina to self determination.

[lutzj]

True but nobody is disputing the right of Argentina to self determination.

It'd be cool if Britain agreed to talks and then showed up with representatives of the indigenous Patagonian population.

[Yakk]

True but nobody is disputing the right of Argentina to self determination.

I think you mean "nobody with large numbers of guns"?

[sigsfried]

Shall I just go for no organisation of greater than 20 people is challenging it? The odd person on forums bringing up the point is hardly clear.

Incidentally I don't support the Argentine position, I just think that there has to be a resolution to the issue and that maybe through some UN legal body it could be settled.

The other option would be independence, or merging into the British state, of the Falklands. That way they would at least be removed from the UN decolonization list, and thereby undermine Argentina's position.