• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Argentina complain to UN about big bad Britain.

PeteEU said:
I agree fully, but then that should be for every people no? There are some areas in the middle east cough.. not to be mentioned in fear of bannings and moving..

Or how about Gibraltar?

Point is with the Falklands, the British refuse to negotiate about anything with Argentina... and that is a piss bad attitude to have.
Click to expand...


no a piss bad attiude to have is to invade the island, get beat fair and square and then years later accuse of not wanting to negotiate. If they had not invaded 30 years ago they might of been able to go and sit at the table and talk, but they chose to use force and they failed.
 
I'm not sure what there is to negotiate? What claim does Argentina have on the Falkland Islands? What historical connection is there between Argentina and the Falklands?
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
im lazy...read the argentina claim Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically they got the land from the Spanish but we did not recognise them as a state.
Click to expand...

I like this quote from the above link: "Whilst maintaining the British claim for sovereignty, the British Government considered transfer of sovereignty worthy of improved relations with Argentina. However, the British Government had limited room for manoeuvre owing to the strength of the Falkland Islands lobby in the Houses of Parliament. Any measure that the Foreign Office suggested on the sovereignty issue was loudly condemned by the Islanders, who re-iterated their determination to remain British. This led to the British Government maintaining a position that the right to self-determination of the Islanders was paramount. In return, Argentina did not recognise the rights of the Islanders and so negotiations on the sovereignty issue effectively remained at a stalemate."

The "Spanish Claim" section is funny to me. Some Argentinians showed up when some British were already there. The captain wrote a letter saying it belonged to Argentina. The British ignored it. Eventually, the Argentinians tried to settle the island but failed until the British showed up and provided protection to those there under the British flag.

The funny thing is, I haven't read about any massive resources or benefit to controlling the Falklands. Sounds like a pride thing to Argentina.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Sounds like a pride thing to Argentina.
Click to expand...

It is all about pride and potential oil in the area.... for both. The UK wastes hundreds of millions if not billions on those island each year (and other islands and outposts) all for an illusion of the great British Empire.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well as regards sovereignty over the islands itself there has been no negotiation since the invasion (there where plenty of offers before) but that's because there is very little room for a compromise solution here. Either they are a territory of the UK or they are a territory of Argentina. What other option is there? Argentina would not agree to anything like joint sovereignty and an independent state would be indefensible. What is there to negotiate?
Click to expand...

To be honest.. no clue, but I do know that the UK has been playing bait and switch since the war and even before the war. They claim they will negotiate but then set conditions and other barriers and blame the Argentinians for the break down in talks.

Now as regards the resources around the islands there was an agreement on fisheries several years ago which De Kirchner has chosen to disregard, similarly the Argentinians where offered a part in oil exploration by Gordon Brown which they choose to turn down. The issue persists because De Kirchner wishes it to
Click to expand...

And you can provide links for this? Not that I doubt you but I would like to see more about it.

As for the rest.. offering something is not negotiating.

Also I've seen this covered in a number of foreign papers, Hurriyet for one
Click to expand...

Covered if you mean by a mention sure.. but hardly front page news. And only after the UK news media have been running with the story for a week.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
To be honest.. no clue, but I do know that the UK has been playing bait and switch since the war and even before the war. They claim they will negotiate but then set conditions and other barriers and blame the Argentinians for the break down in talks.



And you can provide links for this? Not that I doubt you but I would like to see more about it.

As for the rest.. offering something is not negotiating.



Covered if you mean by a mention sure.. but hardly front page news. And only after the UK news media have been running with the story for a week.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well after a cursory Google I found a list of the agreements signed Falkland Islands Information Portal - Various Agreements invloving the Falkland Islands I could not find a link about the offer made by Gordon Brown RE oil resources but I note that an earlier agreement was made in 1995 according to this link.

According to this (ironically pro Argentine) article it was actually Nestor Kirchner who tore up the fisheries agreement The Malvinas and Afghanistan: unburied ghosts | openDemocracy and likewise the Argentine presidents rantings about "Nuestro petroleo" would suggest that any further agreements on oil are off. The UK has been willing to negotiate and reach agreements about absolutely everything aside from sovereignty over the islands themselves,over which you have accepted that no compromise option is available.

I would agree however that the last war was a horrific waste of life that shouldnt be repeated. Similarly I think that there is a possibility that when the Argentinians complain that the UK is militarizing the Southern Atlantic, what they are really concerned about is the dispute over the British Antarctic territory (Which the Argentinians claim is part of Tierra Del Fuego province) if so then we should think about ceding it to Argentina.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Hmmm, well after a cursory Google I found a list of the agreements signed Falkland Islands Information Portal - Various Agreements invloving the Falkland Islands I could not find a link about the offer made by Gordon Brown RE oil resources but I note that an earlier agreement was made in 1995 according to this link.

According to this (ironically pro Argentine) article it was actually Nestor Kirchner who tore up the fisheries agreement The Malvinas and Afghanistan: unburied ghosts | openDemocracy and likewise the Argentine presidents rantings about "Nuestro petroleo" would suggest that any further agreements on oil are off. The UK has been willing to negotiate and reach agreements about absolutely everything aside from sovereignty over the islands themselves,over which you have accepted that no compromise option is available.

I would agree however that the last war was a horrific waste of life that shouldnt be repeated. Similarly I think that there is a possibility that when the Argentinians complain that the UK is militarizing the Southern Atlantic, what they are really concerned about is the dispute over the British Antarctic territory (Which the Argentinians claim is part of Tierra Del Fuego province) if so then we should think about ceding it to Argentina.
Click to expand...

if we give that up to them they are only going to want more and then what? If Argentina carry on down this road then military action is inevitable and once again the blood will be on their hands.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, I agree with most of what you say. But I don't think there was an 'inital taking', as in displacing people who were already there. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't anybody there when the Brits arrived, although I could be wrong. And actually, although Mexico's claim to California is incredibly weak and unsustainaable, it's still more valid than Argentina's claim to the Falklands. At least Mexico had a presence in California.
Click to expand...

Mexico has ZERO claim to California. They signed a treaty and the US paid for it.

Similarly, Argentina has ZERO claim to the Falklands. If they thought they did, they could go to the ICJ, but they would lose there, and they know it. Thus, they appeal to the court of international opinion. Unfortunately, President Barack Hussein Obama is one of the many who have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
 
PeteEU said:
I agree fully, but then that should be for every people no? There are some areas in the middle east cough.. not to be mentioned in fear of bannings and moving..
Click to expand...

Bring it up with my government. I don't really know what you want me to do about that. I'm sick of your straw-men.

PeteEU said:
Or how about Gibraltar?
Click to expand...

Last time a referendum was held, the population overwhelmingly supported remaining British.

PeteEU said:
Point is with the Falklands, the British refuse to negotiate about anything with Argentina... and that is a piss bad attitude to have.
Click to expand...

I agree that the UK does not need to be so belligerent. Perhaps it has to do with oil reserves in the area. In any event, I do not see either country going to war over this. Like Turkey's perennial freak-outs when another government recognizes the Armenian genocide or countries have a dispute over fishing rights. It would be a stupid issue to fight that much over, and it will probably blow over in the next few weeks.
 
I won't be shocked if Obama backs Argentina on this (assuming that's true) and I dislike him even more if he does. The Falklands does not belong to Argentina, they have no claim to it and from what I glean the people living there would rather be British.
 
I think that the current situation is a non-situation created in both Buenos Aires and London as a stratagem to distract attention away from economic doom and gloom in both countries.

The sovereignty issue is a non-issue. The Falklands as a British outpost is certainly anachronistic, but no more so than other far-flung outposts of former colonial powers such as the various French overseas departements such as French Guiana or Réunion, US overseas territories such as Guam or American Samoa or, I'm sure Pete would agree, Danish sovereignty over the Faroes. The guiding principle has to be the popular will of the people of such territories. In the case of the Falklands, that will is clear.

I can't really see how a visit by a British warship to a British dependency can be seen as an act of aggression. As has been pointed out, it is a very far cry from an act of aggression such as invasion. In doing that Argentina effectively sacrificed any legitimate claim to being serious about desiring a negotiated settlement. It certainly ensured that the very idea that Falklanders would ever consider agreeing to become a part of Argentina can be discounted for several generations. Without that consent, the sovereignty issue goes nowhere.
 
ludahai said:
He announced support for Argentina's position last year despite decades of American neutrality on the topic.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't think we were exactly neutral before (siding with Britain) but it seems Obama has adopted a neutral stance now. I looked at these two sources:
Barack Obama's shameless Falklands betrayal will overshadow David Cameron
Obama's Falklands Policy: a Break from the Founders

While the rhetoric of each article suggests Obama is abandoning Britain, what the US is "saying" is there should be negotiations between Britain and Argentina. Now we all know nothing come of negotiations between the two. And if it really came down to brass tacks, there's little doubt we'd side with Britain. It goes without saying. So for now the US looks like it's brokering peace even though everyone knows that after negotiations break down the status quo will remain.
 
I;d call that a rather tenuous claim on the part of Argentina, but I suppose it's better than nothing. Still not nearly as good as Mexico's claim on California, I would think. And that claim is loony.
 
EagleAye said:
Great. Mister Open-minded didn't even bother to ask the Falklanders what they think. What a twit!
Click to expand...

I think he just likes to be heard and to do that he often picks sides with the more controversial side, guys a good actor and he should stick to that instead of poking his nose in where its not wanted.
 
Wiggen said:
Argentina has about as much right to the Falklands as the United States does to Jamaica or Bermuda. There were no native Falklanders until the Brits arrived. They were barren lumps of rock 400 miles off the Argentinian coast. The only native Falklanders are Brits by heritage and want to remain so.

Argentina needs to get over it.
Click to expand...

Wait... what? You mean Jamaica and Bermuda aren't already ours? :shock:


:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom