The Falkland Islands

This is an extract from a 2006 interview with a former (pre-war) Argentine Ambassador in London, Carlos Ortiz de Rosas:

Spoiler Spanish :
-¿Por qué fue extraordinaria esa "política de comunicaciones"?

-El acuerdo se firmó el 1º de julio de 1971. Antes, en 1966, yo era encargado de negocios en Londres y estaba a cargo de la embajada cuando Henry Hohler, subsecretario del Foreign Office para Asuntos de América del Sur, y Robin Edmonds, jefe de la división del Foreign Office a cargo del tema Malvinas, me invitaron a almorzar. Hohler me dijo que las islas habían dejado de tener el valor estratégico que habían tenido para la marina británica en las dos guerras mundiales. Creía que había que resolver la disputa de soberanía ya que, tarde o temprano, la Argentina recuperaría las islas, pero que no se podía hacer de una manera repentina. "Es necesario que ustedes conquisten las mentes y los corazones de los isleños, para que no haya resistencia de parte de ellos", dijo Hohler. Esta conversación la transmití a Buenos Aires y a partir de entonces empezó un largo camino que fue la negociación para el acuerdo de comunicaciones de julio de 1971.

-¿Cómo se concretó el acuerdo?

-Con becas para que los hijos de los isleños pudieran estudiar en los mejores colegios ingleses de la Argentina, con la construcción de una pista de aterrizaje que operaba Líneas Aéreas del Estado (LADE), con el establecimiento de YPF en las islas... Con todo esto se fue creando un clima de confianza. El 11 de junio de 1974, la embajada británica en Buenos Aires le propuso al gobierno argentino un condominio en las Malvinas. La propuesta era extraordinaria: los idiomas oficiales serían el español y el inglés, los isleños iban a tener doble nacionalidad, se suprimían los pasaportes. Los gobernadores de las islas serían nombrados alternativamente por la reina y por el presidente argentino, las dos banderas iban a flamear en las islas...

-¿Los malvinenses apoyaban eso?

-Esa propuesta tenía la aprobación del Consejo Legislativo y del Consejo Ejecutivo de las islas. Perón, inteligentísimo, le dio instrucciones a Vignes, su canciller, quien me dio una fotocopia de ese acuerdo. Le dijo: "Vignes, esto hay que aceptarlo de inmediato. Una vez que pongamos pie en las Malvinas no nos saca nadie y poco después vamos a tener la soberanía plena". Pero el diablo metió la cola y dos semanas después, antes de que Vignes pudiera hacer nada, murió Perón. Cuando el canciller insistió con la viuda, Isabel Martínez de Perón, ella le dijo: "No tengo la fuerza política del general para venderle esto a la opinión pública". Evidentemente, muchos argentinos se iban a resistir a la soberanía compartida, con esa errónea visión del todo o nada. Bueno: fue nada. Y puedo asegurar que estábamos muy cerca de una solución diplomática negociada. Muy cerca...

Spoiler English :
-Why was this 'communications policy' extraordinary?

-The accord was signed on 1.07.1991. Before, in 1966, I was charge d'affaires in London and was in charge of the Embassy when henry Hohler, the Foreign Office's subsecretary for South American Affairs, and Robin Edmonds, head of the Foreign Office's department in charge of the Falklands issue, invited me to lunch. Hohler told me that the islands had ceased to have the strategic value that they'd had for the British Navy in the two world wars. He believed the sovereignty dispute had to be solved as, sooner or later, Argentina would recover the islands, but that it couldn't be done all of a sudden. "It's necessary that you conquer the islanders' hearts and minds, so that there's no resistance on their part", Hohler said. I relayed this conversation to Buenos Aires and since then started the long road that was the negotiation for the communications agreement of July 1971.

-How was the accord finalised?

-With scholarships so that islanders' children could study in the best English schools in Argentina, with the construction of an airstrip operated by Líneas Aéreas del Estado (LADE-State Airways), with the establishment of YPF (the then state-owned and -operated oil and gas company) …all this created an atmosphere of trust. On 11.6.1974, the British Embassy in Buenos Aires proposed a condominium on the Falklands to the Argentine government. the proposal was extraordinary: Spanish and English would be the official languages, the islanders would have double citizenship, passports were abolished. The governors of the Islands would be named alternatively by the Queen and the Argentine President, both flags would fly on the Islands…

-Did the Falklanders support that?

That proposal had the approval of the Islands' Legislative Council and Executive Council. Pero, very intelligently, instructed Vignes, his Chancellor (Foreign Minister) who gave me a a photocopy of that agreement. He told him: "Vignes, we must accept this immediately. Once we set foot in the Falklands no one will get us out and soon afte rwe'll have full sovereignty". But then and two weeks after, before Vignes could do anything, perón died. When the chancellor pressed his widow, Isabel Martínez de Perón, she told him: "I don't have the General's political strength to sell this to public opinion". Evidently, many Argentines would resist shared sovereignty, with that wrong all or nothing worldview. And I can assure you we were very close to a negotiatied diplomatic settlment. Very close…

The interview goes on about the war itself then
Spoiler Spanish :
-¿La guerra fue un error?

-Fue una decisión política a todas luces equivocada y dramática. Yo rindo homenaje emocionado a los que murieron en combate por una causa justa, pero, para mí, se atrasó el reloj de la historia por muchísimo tiempo.

-Si no hubiera ocurrido la guerra, ¿ya tendríamos la soberanía en Malvinas?

-Creo que sí. Al menos, estoy seguro de que habría un acuerdo en virtud del cual, pasados unos años, se reconocería la soberanía plena argentina, como fue con Hong Kong. La última ronda negociadora con los ingleses fue el 27 y 28 de febrero y el 1º de marzo de 1982. Fíjese de qué año estamos hablando. Estábamos negociando un retroarriendo, consistente en un período de administración inglesa antes de ceder la soberanía total. Estábamos hablando en término de una o dos generaciones, 40 o 50 años a lo sumo. Ya ha pasado la mitad de ese tiempo. Quiere decir que como máximo para 2030 las Malvinas hubieran sido argentinas sin necesidad de disparar un tiro y sin necesidad de que hubieran muerto más de 600 buenos argentinos, más todo lo que vino después, incluida la tristísima historia de los ex combatientes que se suicidaron.

Spoiler English :
-Was the war a mistake?

-It was a political decision, cleary wrong and dramatic. I pay homage to those who died in combat for a just cause, but, to me, the clock of history was set back by a long time.

-If the war hadn't happened, would we [Argentina] already have sovereignty over the Falklands?

-I think so. At least, I'm sure there'd be a treaty by which, after some years, full Argentine soverignty would be recognised, like in Hong Kong. The last rounds of negotiations with the British were on the 27th and 28th of February and the 1st of March of 1982. Note which year we're talking about. We were negotiating a leaseback, consisting of a period of British administration before ceding full sovereignty. Half of that that time has already passed. This means that at most by 2030 the Falklands would have been Argentine with no need to fire a single shot and with no need for over 600 good Argentines to die, plus everything that happened afterwards, including the very sad story of the ex combatants who committed suicide.

So… London themselves wanted to get rid of the Islands… :wallbash:
 
So… London themselves wanted to get rid of the Islands… :wallbash:

Good post but nothing new.
Immediately after the invasion there was some concern that negotiations had been taking place.

And because of the actions of Argentina the Falkland’s islanders are unlikely to consider any union until the end of the century.
 
Yes, I know, but it has to be posted, because quite a few people here appear to have bought into Thatcheron's discourse, that the Falklands have 'always' been British soil and London's always stood by them and have never ever ever thought of giving the islands back/away. How are we going to disprove this moronic notion otherwise?

London negotiated with successive civilian and military governments in Argentina keeping a low profile and were on the verge of signing a vital treaty -which I'm convinced would have resulted beneficial for all involved- and suddenly Perón dies, the USA back the military because of their anti-Communist paranoia and after a few internal coups half a dozen School of the Americas-taught and -indoctrinated drunks decide to invade. :wallbash: This is one of the biggest blunders in international policy in this entire continent.
 
Yes, I know, but it has to be posted, because quite a few people here appear to have bought into Thatcheron's discourse, that the Falklands have 'always' been British soil and London's always stood by them and have never ever ever thought of giving the islands back/away. How are we going to disprove this moronic notion otherwise?

London negotiated with successive civilian and military governments in Argentina keeping a low profile and were on the verge of signing a vital treaty -which I'm convinced would have resulted beneficial for all involved- and suddenly Perón dies, the USA back the military because of their anti-Communist paranoia and after a few internal coups half a dozen School of the Americas-taught and -indoctrinated drunks decide to invade. :wallbash: This is one of the biggest blunders in international policy in this entire continent.

It is because it's irrelevent, everything changed with the invasion 30 years ago. All those British governments were wrong and it was the Falkland Islanders themselves who stopped any Argentine take over of the islands. Happy now? You have played "devil's advocate" for Argentina in this thread for some reason (why?), but the bigger question is, what do you REALLY think? No cheap shots at the UK government or Cameron or any other target, just a propaganda free comment!
 
It is because it's irrelevent, everything changed with the invasion 30 years ago.
You don't appear to even read my posts, Mr. Quackers. All you do is a lot of Duckspeak (appropriate and according to your username) and repeat 'Irrelevent! Irrelevent!'. Your answers to any arguments from Argentina is 'Irrelevent'. If the U.S. say the UK should step off their high horse, sit down and talk, the U.S. administration is wrong and the U.S. should get another President.
The dozens of U.N. resolutions stating the same are also 'irrelevent', right?
Quackers said:
All those British governments were wrong
Hmmm, they were wrong, the Argentine government was wrong, and the Falklands government that had agreed to dual sovereignty and the leaseback prior to full Argentine sovereignty were wrong. Wow, they all agreed to be wrong. What exactly are they supposed to be wrong about? Why is it that anybody disagreeing with you is wrong and irrelevent? Oh… by the 1980s the place was becoming economically inviable and London only started propping them up after the war.
Quackers said:
and it was the Falkland Islanders themselves who stopped any Argentine take over of the islands.
The takeover was stopped by force of arms ;).
Quackers said:
Happy now?
Yes, I've just had some yoghurt and it was delicious.
Quackers said:
You have played "devil's advocate" for Argentina in this thread for some reason (why?),
Because otherwise this thread would simply become a wankfest for people saying 'ugh ugh, Argentina cavemen want bananas islands, bad cavemen.

Really, is it so bad to hear opinions different from your own?
Quackers said:
but the bigger question is, what do you REALLY think? No cheap shots at the UK government or Cameron or any other target,
Have you even bothered to read my posts? Oh, sorry, they're irrelevent.

Let's see. I don't believe in the British Empire or even the United Kingdom, for one. I don't see what use you could have for the Islands. I do think that the Islands' population could get a lot of benefits, those same benefits that have only been awarded to them after the war.

They could get supplies of all kinds (food, medical supplies) far more easily, they could benefit from tourism and increased fishing. Argentina is a farming country by its own nature, again, cooperation would help them. Falklanders could go to any state university in Argentina like every resident of the country, and so forth and so forth as I've posted in all my irrelevent posts.

I also think this is caused by British imperial ambitions in the XIX century which led to four attacks against the Argentine mainland, both before and after its independence, the diplomatic maneouvering that caused Uruguay to become an independent country, as well as the 1833 incidents. After the two World Wars, when Britain was no longer an imperial power and the Islands were more or less useless, London wanted to give them back. Surely they didn't think they were sacred British soil if they wanted to? The Falklanders' opinion and self-determination didn't matter much at that time.

As for Mr. Cameron himself, he's an incapable ruler on so many counts that I won't even list them yet again.
Quackers said:
just a propaganda free comment!
Like… yours, I presume? All you say is Historyis irrelevent, the governments were wrong, the U.S. is wrong, the UN are wrong, the Argentines are irelevent…
 
Heh, great job playing devil's advocate Takhisis ;)

You don't appear to even read my posts, Mr. Quackers. All you do is a lot of Duckspeak (appropriate and according to your username) and repeat 'Irrelevent! Irrelevent!'. Your answers to any arguments from Argentina is 'Irrelevent'. If the U.S. say the UK should step off their high horse, sit down and talk, the U.S. administration is wrong and the U.S. should get another President.
The dozens of U.N. resolutions stating the same are also 'irrelevent', right?

They have to state why they are right. All this shows is that influence and corruption are doing their usual dodgy rounds.

Hmmm, they were wrong, the Argentine government was wrong, and the Falklands government that had agreed to dual sovereignty and the leaseback prior to full Argentine sovereignty were wrong. Wow, they all agreed to be wrong. What exactly are they supposed to be wrong about? Why is it that anybody disagreeing with you is wrong and irrelevent? Oh… by the 1980s the place was becoming economically inviable and London only started propping them up after the war.

So you admit that the last time we negotiated, Argentina invaded. What kind of precedent does that set for negotiating again?

Takhisis said:
I don't see what use you could have for the Islands. I do think that the Islands' population could get a lot of benefits, those same benefits that have only been awarded to them after the war.

So everything that Argentina can't find a use for, we can take off them?

Takhisis said:
They could get supplies of all kinds (food, medical supplies) far more easily, they could benefit from tourism and increased fishing. Argentina is a farming country by its own nature, again, cooperation would help them. Falklanders could go to any state university in Argentina like every resident of the country, and so forth and so forth as I've posted in all my irrelevent posts.

They could get those things by moving to Argentina and becoming Argentine citizens if they wanted, as could any of us. But hey, we are not exactly queuing up to become citizens of your Latin American paradiso.
 
The opinion of Falklanders not being taken into consideration in the past is no reason for it to be ignored now.
 
You don't appear to even read my posts, Mr. Quackers. All you do is a lot of Duckspeak (appropriate and according to your username) and repeat 'Irrelevent! Irrelevent!'. Your answers to any arguments from Argentina is 'Irrelevent'. If the U.S. say the UK should step off their high horse, sit down and talk, the U.S. administration is wrong and the U.S. should get another President.
The dozens of U.N. resolutions stating the same are also 'irrelevent', right?

Ok..I don't really know where your going with this....

Hmmm, they were wrong, the Argentine government was wrong, and the Falklands government that had agreed to dual sovereignty and the leaseback prior to full Argentine sovereignty were wrong. Wow, they all agreed to be wrong. What exactly are they supposed to be wrong about? Why is it that anybody disagreeing with you is wrong and irrelevent? Oh… by the 1980s the place was becoming economically inviable and London only started propping them up after the war.

Please show me where the Falkland islanders wanted to join with Argentina or self-govern under nominal Argentine control because if what your saying is true and there was NO resistence to this and London, Buenos Aires and Stanley all agreed during the negotiations in the 1960s and 70s - why aren't the Falkland Island's a part of Argentina now? Why did Argentina invade them in '82 when their was NO resistance to a diplomatic hand-over? What your saying makes no sense whatsoever. Oh and btw according to the Shackleton report '77 the Falkland island's made a net contribution to our economy and it could be improved further. Also do we always just hand away territory if it becomes "economically unviable" that makes no sense!


The takeover was stopped by force of arms ;).

The '82 invasion was, but before that the Falkland islanders wanted to remain with Britain in sppite of Argentina and the UK. Unless you provide me with some irrefutable evidence of the Islanders intent to join with Argentina!


Because otherwise this thread would simply become a wankfest for people saying 'ugh ugh, Argentina cavemen want bananas islands, bad cavemen.

Really, is it so bad to hear opinions different from your own?

Nobody has been doing that. I like to hear other opinions but ya know when they are accurate and not just propaganda.

Have you even bothered to read my posts? Oh, sorry, they're irrelevent.

Let's see. I don't believe in the British Empire or even the United Kingdom, for one. I don't see what use you could have for the Islands. I do think that the Islands' population could get a lot of benefits, those same benefits that have only been awarded to them after the war.

They could get supplies of all kinds (food, medical supplies) far more easily, they could benefit from tourism and increased fishing. Argentina is a farming country by its own nature, again, cooperation would help them. Falklanders could go to any state university in Argentina like every resident of the country, and so forth and so forth as I've posted in all my irrelevent posts.

I also think this is caused by British imperial ambitions in the XIX century which led to four attacks against the Argentine mainland, both before and after its independence, the diplomatic maneouvering that caused Uruguay to become an independent country, as well as the 1833 incidents. After the two World Wars, when Britain was no longer an imperial power and the Islands were more or less useless, London wanted to give them back. Surely they didn't think they were sacred British soil if they wanted to? The Falklanders' opinion and self-determination didn't matter much at that time.

As for Mr. Cameron himself, he's an incapable ruler on so many counts that I won't even list them yet again.

Right, so the Falkland Islands and Argentina cooperation in numerous fields is a good thing. Thats hard to disagree with and something we all support - then again it's not the Falklanders who won't let Argentinan ships dock in their ports is it?
Why do you keep bringing up the past? Yes the UK government in the 60s wanted to give the Falklands to Argentina - so what? What bearing does that have on today? You see after imperialist Argentina decided to invade the Falklands - policy changed!

Anyway there is actually no point discussing anything with you because your posts make no sense, they are completely random and disjointed and plain weird at the best of times..

@Benfactor: Absolutely! That sentiment seems to be Tak's main thrust in this argument. We made mistakes in the past but instead of changing policy to fix those mistakes lets just be consistently wrong! At least tak won't get us down for hypocrisy! :lol:
 
Why did Argentina invade them in '82 when their was NO resistance to a diplomatic hand-over?
Because the government of Argentina doesn't actually want the islands. It just wants to score cheap political points to keep the local population in line.
 
The opinion of Falklanders not being taken into consideration in the past is no reason for it to be ignored now.

Agreed completely, just because Britain was ready to sell them out in the past doesnt mean their thoughts should be ignored.
 
An embargo by Argentina would be funny, I'd like to see the UK suddenly changing their speech about the EU to convince the other member states to embargo Argentina back as well. :lol:
 
Uhmm why wouldn't they? We are not the great sabotaguers we are painted are by the Euro fanatics. I am quite certain the EU would do the right thing.
 
Uhmm why wouldn't they? We are not the great sabotaguers we are painted are by the Euro fanatics. I am quite certain the EU would do the right thing.

I'm not, which is a shame, especially since Mercosur has rallied behind Argentina. I like the ideal of a united Europe but it seems far to often to be no better than regular international politics.


Edit: It actually seems like it would be a good idea for the EU to back Britain on this, we all know that its not really going to go anywhere and it would go some way to endear the EU to the British public.

Edit 2: Also, I would love to read the Daily Mail try and spin it negatively.
 
Mercosur will not get into a trade war with the EU over the Falkland's but these are South American we are talking about, crazy people.
 
Uhmm why wouldn't they? We are not the great sabotaguers we are painted are by the Euro fanatics. I am quite certain the EU would do the right thing.

Euro fanatics? The only news I hear and the only opinions I have about the UK is from what you say, and they're really negative.

In your parliament the Tories crushing the trust in Europe and the Labour being just absolute crap in defending it, out in your streets people who resemble US's Tea Party movement demanding a referendum to leave the EU and on Youtube all EU related videos infested with hate against Europe (and with love for idols like the UKIP demagogues like Farage), undoubtedly the UK general opinion is for a more divided and not more integrated Europe.

I just find it absolutely hilarious how you could just replace Scotland with United Kingdom and United Kingdom with European Union and this video would make David Cameron unelectable:


Link to video.
 
Surprisingly I'm not a representive of the general public here :lol: Read the Guardian newspaper and you will see lots of pro-EU opinions from Britons.

I don't know what your referring to when you say "crushing the trust in Euope", OTT much? What exactly has the coalition done to do that?! Anti-EU attitudes have remained the same when the pro-EU labour were in power a decade ago! I would like to see some images of these "tea party" Britons demonstrating on our streets but I think they only exist in the minds of the Tax Payers Alliance and Daniel Hannan and the loony left:p

Oh yeah Cameron is being a hypocrite, Scotland can have a referendum on staying in the Union but no referendum for Britons on the EU. That is "cast-iron Dave" for you. Anyway even if we voted "no" the EU woud probably find a way to get around that, they don't care much for the opinion of the general public in any European country.
 
I knew they were empty but I didn't realise they were so big:

Falklands 12,173 km2 Population 3,140
Northern Ireland 13,843 km2 Population 1,789,000
 
Not sure this will find a terribly receptive audience here, but the BBC has a reasonable article on the competing claims to the islands - BBC.

Now whether you see the BBC as left wing or right wing, I think it's fairly safe to say that it normally sees the world from a British perspective (and perhaps rightly so), so it does make it a bit of a surprise seeing an even-handed discussion on the competing claims. The brief section on the legal claims might make unpleasant reading for those of you who think this is a straightforward black & white case.
 
Top Bottom