The Devil's Advocate is back!
Since Argentina is hell-bent on diplomacy, sending warships and a royal heir will only incense them and their allies.
Many people in the UK have been swept up by post-1982 propaganda and have somehow forgotten that the UK wanted to lease the Islands back to Argentina prior to giving them back for good
without ever consulting the inhabitants, now it appears they've always been part of the British Archipelago since before William the Conqueror. Crazy, eh? Now people on both sides are over-hyped over a piece of rock stuffed with penguins and landmines and sheep.
People also forget that, after the Islands were definitively in Spanish possession from 1774 onwards, in the first half of the 19th century the UK attacked the Argentine mainland four times (the 1806 and 1807 occupations of Buenos Aires; the 1838 Anglo-French blockade of Buenos Aires and the 1845 Anglo-French blockade of Buenos Aires and invasion up the Paraná river, this latter attack intended to turn Uruguay and a few Argentine provinces into a separate weak entity to be dominated by both invading countries) and eventually settled for merely the Falklands, as well as intervening in the war between Brazil and the United Provinces to force Uruguay into becoming an independent country, to weaken the defenses of the Buenos Aires harbour.
But no, the colonialists are the Argentines indeed. If, as Mr. Cameron says, the archipelago is not a colony, then why does it have a separate pound? Make some sense Cameron!
No, they do it for political points at home.
And the difference between this and Cameron calling Argentina 'colonialists' instead of doing anything about the issue is
?
I wonder what stance the US and EU would take this time.
Now not even the U.S. will recognise the 'legality' of British control, they've been calling it 'de facto control' for some time now.
U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands
Taken Question
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
Question Taken at the January 19, 2012 Daily Press Briefing
January 20, 2012
QUESTION: Does the U.S. take a position on the recent posturing between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands?
ANSWER: This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.
We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.
Unless you meant the war which is *not* going to happen?
The
EU' ambassador inArgentina, Alfonos Díez Torres:
¿Qué papel jugará Europa en la resolución del conflicto entre Londres y Buenos Aires por las Malvinas?
-El tema de Malvinas no entra en el ámbito de la política exterior de la Unión Europea. Tenemos una política exterior que no lo abarca todo.
*translation*
[newspaper]-What part will Europe play in the resolution of the conflict between London and Buenos Aires over the Falklands?
[A.D.T]-The Falklands issue isn't within the scope of the EU foreign policy. We have a foreign policy that doesn't encompass everything.
Basically he shrugged it off.
Now, as for this being based solely on the self-determination of the kelpers.
I watched an interesting (read: opposition) political show that dismissed most of the political duckspeak and started tackling some geopolitical facts.
Fisheries: Argentina earns hundreds of millions from fisheries every year. But a lot of ships sneak in through Falklands waters into Argentine territorial waters and fish there.
Oil: some companies have been saying there's oil down there. Completely unimportant of course.
Antarctica: the UK has a claim on Antarctic territory. Several countries are dividing up the Arctic Ocean for themselves, looking for oil, gas, etc. etc. The show posited that the UK might be wanting to exloit natural resources down South and keeps the islands in case it becomes viable.
Not just about the kelpers I think.