Giving Islands to Foreigners - Hong Kong and the Falklands

[Arakhor]

It probably is not in British interests to continue maintaining our stake in the Falkland Islands, but its inhabitants want to remain British, so that's likely more important.

Moderator Action: Split out from UK election thread. FP

 

[SMcM]

Put it this way: in 1997, the United Kingdom surrendered total sovereignty over Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China, a territory containing not three thousand but over six million British nationals, on the really rather flimsy basis that a treaty with a long-defunct dynasty had ceded part (but not all) of that territory to Britain on a temporary basis, a treaty which the PRC government itself insisted was invalid, and all of this as a result of negotiations overseen by the very premier who was willing to go to war over those sad little rocks in the South Atlantic that you prize so highly. So is "patriotism", as a quality of politicians, really so straightforward as you'd like it to be?

The people of Hong Kong were clearly never British other than legally though. It retained Chinese culture, even with more western influence also, throughout its time as a British possession. And Britain was giving Hong Kong back as had been agreed. Falklands is completely different; we never recognized any Argentinian claim in the first place, and it was only very briefly inhabited by Argentinians.

Also, 'sad little rocks' are not what I prize highly, but self determination. If you can't agree with me that the people of the Falklands should have say over who governs them, then I'd argue that shows contempt of democracy. The same way I believe that Scots, Welsh, Irish, English etc. should all have say over who they are governed by, and whether they wish to remain part of the union.

Anyway, so you propose that we should have just left the Falklands to Argentina? I'd definitely classify that as unpatriotic, as allowing your country's territory to be taken from its people non consensually without resistance is the sort of nonresistance that is a clear example of NOT being interested in the rights of your country's people. Unless of course you are arguing we should have tried harder at diplomacy.

 

[Takhisis]

nationalism believes in the superiority of nations over others, not just the interests of the people of a nation.

people in England will generally support keeping the Falklands.

I'm sorry, I thought ‘we’ were ‘all’ in this together?

 

[Ajidica]

Also Thatcher and others had considered it. But that was before Argentina had invaded. That sort of changed the whole dynamic. Now giving Argentina joint sovereignty over the islands would seem to be an injustice to their people. It would be ignoring the interests of British nationals.

It was less than a decade from Germans massacring French civilians to the two countries signing the Elysee Treaty which laid the groundwork for the groundwork for the European Union (and less than a decade for the European Coal and Steel Community). Surely Britain and Argentina could work something out 30 years on with no massacre between the two countries..

Anyway, I don't even attach much importance to the patriotism thing, was just pointing out that claims Corbyn is patriotic are false. My main concern about Corbyn is his awful economic plans.

What particularly do you object to with his economic plan? The way the BBC is reporting it, it is a bog standard social democrat platform with some tilting at Thatcherite windmills a la re-nationalizing British Rail and water/gas state options. Corbyn comes from the same intellectual/policy heritage as Attlee and those who created the post-war Welfare State, not some sordid little El Presidente.

 

[Traitorfish]

The people of Hong Kong were clearly never British other than legally though. It retained Chinese culture, even with more western influence also, throughout its time as a British possession.

That seems pretty racist but okay.

And Britain was giving Hong Kong back as had been agreed. Falklands is completely different; we never recognized any Argentinian claim in the first place, and it was only very briefly inhabited by Argentinians.

Also, 'sad little rocks' are not what I prize highly, but self determination. If you can't agree with me that the people of the Falklands should have say over who governs them, then I'd argue that shows contempt of democracy. The same way I believe that Scots, Welsh, Irish, English etc. should all have say over who they are governed by, and whether they wish to remain part of the union.

We didn't feel the need to consult the Hong Kongese on their constitutional status; the Hong Kong Legislative Council complained repeatedly that it was shut up of the negotiations, and there was not even a mention of a referendum. The demands of a stroppy regional power were enough to convince us of the correctness of the handover. The handover was carried out over the heads of a population who mostly would have preferred to remain a British dependency or become an independent city-state like Singapore. (The Treaties were a fig-leaf; the PRC had repeatedly denounced all three as invalid, and insisted that the entire territory of the Hong Kong was rightfully Chinese, not simply the New Territories; Hong Kong proper and Kowloon had both been ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Their significance is that they represent the expiry of Britain's legal rationale for continued excercise of authority.) Shared sovereignty over a population of three thousand would be, by comparison, so ordinary as to barely provoke comment.

Anyway, so you propose that we should have just left the Falklands to Argentina? I'd definitely classify that as unpatriotic, as allowing your country's territory to be taken from its people non consensually without resistance is the sort of nonresistance that is a clear example of NOT being interested in the rights of your country's people. Unless of course you are arguing we should have tried harder at diplomacy.

I don't believe that it was worth a war, if that's what you're asking.

 

[Commodore]

That seems pretty racist but okay.

What's racist about stating the fact that the people of Hong Kong never adopted British culture?

I don't believe that it was worth a war, if that's what you're asking.

And what would you have done instead? I mean, the Argentinian army pretty much just up and invaded the Falklands. Not much room for a peaceful solution when the opposing side has already commenced military operations against you.

 

[SMcM]

You said ‘England’.

That was a mistake.

Also, nothing I said was racist. I was told I'd be okay to come here and disagree with others as long as I didn't resort to name calling, but now @Traitorfish calls me a racist for saying that Hong Kong had remained culturally Chinese. Today's Falklands territory (though yes French had been there before us) was settled by British people in the first place, whereas Hong Kong was Chinese inhabited territory we annexed, so its a completely different situation.

Also, nice double standards; you completely ignored the attack on white people by @Flying Pig.

 

[Traitorfish]

What's racist about stating the fact that the people of Hong Kong never adopted British culture?

It's racist to introduce an arbitrary, after-the-fact ethnic qualification for nationality. The population of Hong Kong were British nationals, and most of them remain so today. There is no valid distinction here between authentic nationality and "merely legal" nationality, not enough to support the utter disregard shown for the opinion of the Hong Kongese population exhibited by the British colonial government, or by SMcM.

And what would you have done instead? I mean, the Argentinian army pretty much just up and invaded the Falklands. Not much room for a peaceful solution when the opposing side has already commenced military operations against you.

Why? Argentina was not menacing any other British territories, did not signify its intention to conduct any broader military campaign. Its occupation was limited specifically to the Falklands Isles, based on a legalistic claim to sovereignty, however dubious. Some form of mediated diplomatic settlement could at least have been attempted. The United States kept trying to achieve exactly this, as the belligerent parties were both its allies, but Thatcher refused to hear it until she'd made a sufficient bloody show of force.

A total of 907 people died in the Falklands conflict, for the sake of an island populated by, even today, less than than three thousand. That's a ratio of corpses to civilians of almost one-to-three. An additional 2,450 people were wounded, putting total causalities at 3,357, putting causalities at a ratio of greater than 1:1 to civilians, an absurd ratio by any measure. That's a heavy toll for national pride and a penguin colony.

Also, nothing I said was racist. I was told I'd be okay to come here and disagree with others as long as I didn't resort to name calling, but now @Traitorfish calls me a racist for saying that Hong Kong had remained culturally Chinese. Today's Falklands territory (though yes French had been there before us) was settled by British people in the first place, whereas Hong Kong was Chinese inhabited territory we annexed, so its a completely different situation.

I didn't call you racist, I said that what you said was racist. (My honest opinion is that you simply haven't thought any of this through.) If you identity so deeply with your weird racist arguments that you can't separate any criticism of those arguments from criticisms as you as a person, that is your own cross to bear.

Also, a majority of people in the Falklands Islands give their nationality as "Falklands Islander", with less than a third identifying themselves as "British". If subjective identification with the Metropole determines a population's claim to the legal protections of nationality, then Britain has no greater claim to the islands than Argentina does.

Also, nice double standards; you completely ignored the attack on white people by @Flying Pig.

I ignored it because it wasn't an "attack on white people", it was an observation that the Conservative Party have not historically been an effective vehicle for the representation of ethnic minorities, white or non-white.

 

[Commodore]

Why? Argentina was not menacing any other British territories, did not signify its intention to conduct any broader military campaign. Its occupation was limited specifically to the Falklands Isles, based on a legalistic claim to sovereignty, however dubious. Some form of mediated diplomatic settlement could at least have been attempted. The United States kept trying to achieve exactly this, as the belligerent parties were both its allies, but Thatcher refused to hear it until she'd made a sufficient bloody show of force.

This is a pretty slanted view of what happened. The Argentinians were being just as obstinate and unwilling to seek a diplomatic solution that involved anything less than the UK completely giving up any claim it had to the Falklands. Now you could say the UK was being equally as obstinate in refusing to accept a solution that involved anything less than a complete Argentinian retreat from the Falklands, but legally the Falklands was considered sovereign territory of the UK. As such, it is entirely reasonable to demand a foreign army that has invaded to remove itself or face military reprisals.

A total of 907 people died in the Falklands conflict, for the sake of an island populated by, even today, less than than three thousand. That's a ratio of corpses to civilians of almost one-to-three. An additional 2,450 people were wounded, putting total causalities at 3,357, putting causalities at a ratio of greater than 1:1 to civilians, an absurd ratio by any measure. That's a heavy toll for national pride and a penguin colony.

That's a pretty callous and cold way to look at it. One of the chief responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens, all of its citizens. However small the colony may have been, those people were still British citizens being attacked by a foreign aggressor. Had the British government not taken military action to defend its people, they would have failed in their responsibility and would, morally, have a hard time claiming they should still be allowed to govern the nation.

I mean, I know if some foreign power decided to invade Guam or Puerto Rico, I'd be pretty angry if the US government didn't immediately strike back at the invaders because despite those being far flung territories that have minimal importance to the US overall, those people are still American citizens and deserve to have their homes and livelihoods protected just as mine is.

 

[Lexicus]

That's a pretty callous and cold way to look at it.

I'm pretty sure that as the one justifying the deaths it's really your attitude that's cold and callous.

 

[Commodore]

I'm pretty sure that as the one justifying the deaths it's really your attitude that's cold and callous.

Yep, expecting soldiers to defend those who can't defend themselves is definitely cold and callous. It's called having a sense of duty to your people. Something I'm reasonably sure you don't know much about.

 

[Lexicus]

Defend them from what? I don't think the Argentines were exterminating them or anything.

 

[Commodore]

Defend them from what? I don't think the Argentines were exterminating them or anything.

Are you even aware of what was going on in Argentina at the time? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too comfortable abandoning my countrymen to a life under a brutal military junta.

EDIT: So to more clearly answer your question: it was their rights, liberties and livelihoods that were being protected since those most certainly would have been forfeit had the Argentinians been allowed to maintain control of the Falklands.

 

[SMcM]

Nothing I said was remotely racist. Also, I had stopped discussing this whole racism thing as @Arakhor warned that I was taking this thread off topic, but I suppose that the same rules don't apply to @Traitorfish.

Also, yes, they identify as Falkland islanders, the same way people of Scotland often identify as Scottish, and people of Welsh may identify as Welsh - doesn't mean that they are not loyal to Britain. If another country invaded and occupied Scotland we wouldn't leave it to its fate. Yes, Falklands is less important, but self determination is still something that should be upheld.

Anyway, identity aside, Argentina has no more legitimate a claim to Falklands than the French (both briefly occupied it). But China had a legal right to Hong Kong; they leased it to us. And if we hadn't given it back then we wouldn't be able to stop them taking it by force now would we? Even if the Hong Kong population wanted to stay a U.K. territory, there is really nothing we would be able to do.

 

[SMcM]

Nothing. What is racist is to then say that Hong Kong Chinese insisting on eating with chopsticks and writing in their own heathenous doodles instead of becoming civilised justified withdrawing the protection of the British state from them. So basically we have second-class citizens but it's OK because of their culture.

A slip, more likely (don't worry, it's not a personal criticism). The fact does remain that ‘British’ is equated with ‘English’ in the eyes of many.

I suppose when you put it like that what I said about Hong Kong may not be a very moral stance. But, a. Is there evidence they did want to remain British in 1997, and b. how could the U.K. stand up to China anyway? It's not like the USA would have back us- they've always been keen on us giving up colonial possessions. Anyway, if there should have been a referendum on giving back Hong Kong should we have done the same for all of our former colonies?

Also, if that was a Freudian slip, it would not be because I equate British with English, but because I no longer really think of the U.K. as being my country, as Nicola Sturgeon being in the media all the time has come to color my view of Scotland; that most Scots reject the union and the English. This may not be true, but that's all I ever really hear.

 

[Lexicus]

Are you even aware of what was going on in Argentina at the time? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too comfortable abandoning my countrymen to a life under a brutal military junta.

I certainly wouldn't be too 'comfortable' about any of this, but I think I'd feel even less comfortable sending hundreds of soldiers to die and a couple of thousand to be wounded.

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: As the machine is not letting me move this post, I'll quote it:

If you're not willing to have military personnel risk or even lose their lives to protect the lives of the civilians of their own nation, then that kind of renders the military rather pointless doesn't it?

 

[luiz]

I never understood the argument for handing the Falklands to Argentina. They're close to Argentina, but have pretty much no historical links to that country, and are inhabited by people who are not Argentinian and do not wish to be. Protecting them from foreign aggression is thus the main reason of existence of the British armed forces, just like protecting any British citizen. I don't see why they would be less entitled to protection than say the Scots.

Mixing this with Hong Kong, which obviously belonged to China, and was populated overwhelmingly by Chinese people, is beyond ridiculous. It's an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Akka]

That seems pretty racist but okay.

Culture is race now ?

Anyway, territorial integrity is more or less sacrosanct for a country. The civil/casualty ratio is a completely bogus utilitarian take on the war, which feels completely besides the point. The point was that Argentine invaded the UK, and the UK was entirely justified to fight back.

 

[Kyriakos]

Nice to see there are still people liking wars and such.

The Falklands are some insignificant islands literally half a planet away from the british isles. They can't seriously be regarded as part of the same nation in any meaningful way, and are clearly a remnant of the british empire. Furthermore, they aren't sustainable by themselves, so it would make sense to have them be tied to some actual other nation in the region. Btw, last i've heard Argentina isn't run by the junta.

That said, maybe Britain just wants to have some claim on the Antarctica (do the Falklands guarantee such?) It would be more in line with hawkish logic even than war to keep 3K people on the other side of the planet nominally as part of your country.