The Falkland Islands

[Traitorfish]

The British should just sell the Falklands to Argentina for a very high price. They'd probably pay anything they thought they could afford. Problem solved, and only ~3000 people would be inconvenienced! Unless of course the price was so high that the Argentines have another debt crisis...

And then the Falklands declare independence, and apply to join the United Kingdom! Nice!

 

[Ayn Rand]

Let's not forget our Antarctic claim either, which hinges on keeping Argies out of the Falklands. We'll never get a nuclear-powered rocket into space without Antarctica to launch it from.

Objecitivism isn't a rationalist school of philosophy.

Same thing but different.

 

[imperialman]

Do we have any Argentines on this forum that can give a reasonable explanation of why the islands should be Argentine?

 

[Traitorfish]

Same thing but different.

Not really. The conception of external reality as something fundamentally knowable is pretty much what rationalism is not.

(Edit: Noting that I'm not trying to draw a line between empiricism and rationalism, because the two are not mutually exclusive, but rather that Objectivism's particular empiricism is incompatible with rationalism. Even though Rand places a greater emphasis on the use of reason than some other empiricists, in her model reason is a decoding of sensory experiences which constitute the source of knowledge, rather than the source of knowledge as such.)

 

[Bugfatty300]

Here are some pro-Argentinian arguments from a Spanish Wikipedia article "the Malvinas Question" (which I assume would be heavily influenced by Argentinians).

Spoiler :

(My own translations)

The Malvinas are within "walking distance" of Argentina (480km), sitting on top of the Argentinian continental shelf.

The islands were discovered by Spain before the alleged discovery by John Davis in 1592, during a time when mere discovery granted rights of domain.

Upon independence Argentina inherited the right of the islands from Spain according to the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, thus Argentina exercised "eminent domain" as early as 1810.

The UK occupied the islands by force in 1833, violating the territorial sovereignty of Argentina and evacuating it's inhabitants and never allowed them to return. This violates the UN resolution 1514 regarding the granting of independence to colonial states and people, which states in the 6th paragraph that any attempt at destroying the national unity and territorial integrity of any country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

In 1774, the UK abandoned the islands and signed a treaty that renounced all of it's claims. While Argentina has never faltered on it's claim of sovereignty over the islands (much less ceded the islands in a treaty).

I tried looking at some Argentinian sites but they all pretty much repeated the above in excruciating detail.

So I guess that's pretty much it. I don't think an Argentinian arguing these positions would last a second here.

It really is amazing that these arguments carry weight outside of Argentina.

 

[imperialman]

As I have little else to do today, I'll take these arguments on.

The Malvinas are within "walking distance" of Argentina (480km), sitting on top of the Argentinian continental shelf.

1. International law regards various offshore distances as being of significance to territorial disputes: three miles, seven miles and twenty-one miles, with two hundred miles as an absolute limit. Territorial contiguity (via an undersea continental shelf) does not seem to have much force in international law; otherwise presumably the Canaries would belong to Morocco.

The islands were discovered by Spain before the alleged discovery by John Davis in 1592, during a time when mere discovery granted rights of domain.

2. See the next point.

Upon independence Argentina inherited the right of the islands from Spain according to the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, thus Argentina exercised "eminent domain" as early as 1810.

3. In March 1848, the delegates at the Lima Congress in Peru signed a number of agreements. Article 7 stated " The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided."

Article 7 was signed by Ministers from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. Argentina did not sign. Britain was already in control of the islands. Uti Possidetis Juris does not apply therefore to the Falkland Islands.

The UK occupied the islands by force in 1833, violating the territorial sovereignty of Argentina and evacuating it's inhabitants and never allowed them to return. This violates the UN resolution 1514 regarding the granting of independence to colonial states and people, which states in the 6th paragraph that any attempt at destroying the national unity and territorial integrity of any country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

In 1833 two naval vessels were sent by the United Kingdom to re-assert British sovereignty (which had existed since 1765) over the Falkland Islands, after the United Provinces of South America ignored British diplomatic protests over the appointment of Luis Vernet as governor of the Falkland Islands and a dispute over fishing rights.

As for 1514, the principle of de-colonisation can't really apply to the Falkland Islands, because the Falklanders do have the right to self-determination and indeed, subsequent resolution 2065 noted "the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom concerning sovereignty over the Islands", and invited those governments "to proceed without delay with the negotiations... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands."

In 1774, the UK abandoned the islands and signed a treaty that renounced all of it's claims. While Argentina has never faltered on it's claim of sovereignty over the islands (much less ceded the islands in a treaty).

The Spanish expelled the British colony in 1770, but it was restored in 1771 following British threats of war over the islands. However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. By 1776, the British had left their settlement, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands. Britain did not abandon the claim and I think the treaty being referred to is the Nootka Sound Convention which cannot apply to the Falkland Islands. The British have never signed a treaty giving away the islands.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I think that Argentina's claim to (uninhabited) South Georgia is at least as good as ours and would be glad to see them have it and a fair share in whatever oil resources are in the seas in exchange for allowing the Falklanders to right to determine their own fate.

The idea that the UK should have exclusive access to the potentially huge natural resources in waters right next to Argentina on the grounds that we have 3000 people on an island near them (compared to 40 million Argentines) may be legally sound under international law but is nonetheless difficult to justify from a moral perspective.

Of course, given Argentina's bellicose attitude I doubt that such an agreement could be reached, or that the Argentines would act in good faith if it was agreed.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Spanish expelled the British colony in 1770, but it was restored in 1771 following British threats of war over the islands. However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. By 1776, the British had left their settlement, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands. Britain did not abandon the claim and I think the treaty being referred to is the Nootka Sound Convention which cannot apply to the Falkland Islands. The British have never signed a treaty giving away the islands.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_Islas_Malvinas#Argumentos_argentinos_respecto_a_sus_derechos_de_soberan.C3.ADa

The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) had negative connotations:

Illicit: A violation of existing treaties
Clandestine: Was kept hidden until it was discovered by the Spanish
Late: Happened after the French occupation
Contested: Spain resisted and asserted sovereignty
Partial: Only lasted 8 years
Ill Conceived: Abandoned in 1774.

Spain returned Port Egmont only as an act of reparation and never renounced its claim of sovereignty over the islands. In 1777 the Spanish destroyed the British symbols left there which Britain did not protest. This is interpreted as a physical abandonment of Britain's claim.

 

[aelf]

Objecitivism isn't a rationalist school of philosophy.

I don't even know why rationalism has to be an immutable label that people apply to themselves. Surely people can be rationalists when it comes certain things, particularly where empirical evidence is limited, without being rationalists in everything.

 

[imperialman]

I've just had these put against me on a facebook group about the islands sovereignty also, I'm getting too involved.

Illicit: A violation of existing treaties

Which treaties?

Clandestine: Was kept hidden until it was discovered by the Spanish

I don't see why that's much of a problem given the British belief their colony was rightful.

Late: Happened after the French occupation
Contested: Spain resisted and asserted sovereignty

Both recognise British sovereignty today IIRC.

Partial: Only lasted 8 years
Ill Conceived: Abandoned in 1774.

Economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. The claim was still there as were the various plaques.

Spain returned Port Egmont only as an act of reparation and never renounced its claim of sovereignty over the islands. In 1777 the Spanish destroyed the British symbols left there which Britain did not protest. This is interpreted as a physical abandonment of Britain's claim.

What was destroyed? How would London have found out in order to protest?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Responding to Traitorfish - hidden so as not to derail the thread subject

Spoiler :

Not really. The conception of external reality as something fundamentally knowable is pretty much what rationalism is not.

(Edit: Noting that I'm not trying to draw a line between empiricism and rationalism, because the two are not mutually exclusive, but rather that Objectivism's particular empiricism is incompatible with rationalism. Even though Rand places a greater emphasis on the use of reason than some other empiricists, in her model reason is a decoding of sensory experiences which constitute the source of knowledge, rather than the source of knowledge as such.)

Nope, she rejects the distinction altogether. So the whole idea that there is any kind of a line between rationalism and empiricism is taken by Objectivists to be an early developmental mistake in philosophy and one that we have resolved by eliminating it.

Thus we reject...

the dogma that a “necessarily” true proposition cannot be factual, and a factual proposition cannot be “necessarily” true.

Source
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic-synthetic_dichotomy.html

Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false—in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants. . . .

An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts. The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others?

The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and those—the great majority—which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.”

 

[kramerfan86]

Honestly arent all the residents of the Falklands pretty much english speaking englishmen at this point? I personally think the actual make up of the citizenry should factor in a bit here, we arent talking some colonized territory where all the citizens are being prevented from joining their mother country.

 

[imperialman]

Honestly arent all the residents of the Falklands pretty much english speaking englishmen at this point? I personally think the actual make up of the citizenry should factor in a bit here, we arent talking some colonized territory where all the citizens are being prevented from joining their mother country.

English speaking Britons, most are descended from Scottish and Welsh settlers. But yes, your point is basically correct, the British position is mostly that the islanders are free to decide.

 

[Traitorfish]

Spoiler :

Nope, she rejects the distinction altogether. So the whole idea that there is any kind of a line between rationalism and empiricism is taken by Objectivists to be an early developmental mistake in philosophy and one that we have resolved by eliminating it.

Eh, fair enough.

 

[Mad Man]

How would Argentina feel about the Falklands as an independent republic? It's like what parent due to bratty kids, if you can't share the toys and be nice than you get none at all

 

[Takhisis]

They should trade the Islas Malvinas for Messi.

Which of the UK's four national teams would get him? It's not as if England are ever gonna buy a World Cup again, so maybe help out the Northern Irish?

 

[imperialman]

The Navy’s most sophisticated warship is being sent to the South Atlantic in a move that will send a powerful message to Argentina.

Dauntless will set sail for the Falkland Islands in the coming weeks armed with a battery of missiles that could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's," according to one Navy source.

Although Mr Hague played down the deployment he said the ship was a "formidable vessel".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...s-considerable-punch-warns-William-Hague.html

THE Royal Navy is to send one of its most powerful warships to the Falkland Islands as tensions rise with Argentina over the disputed territory.

The News understands HMS Dauntless will deploy to the South Atlantic in late March – almost 30 years to the day that a naval task force left Portsmouth to reclaim the Falklands after Argentina invaded in 1982.

The South Atlantic patrol is one of the navy’s global commitments and a warship is sent there every year.

But Portsmouth-based Dauntless will be the first of the navy’s new £1bn Type 45 destroyers to go to the area.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/lo...ds_as_tensions_build_with_argentina_1_3469933
Perhaps this routine deployment may escalate things.

 

[Yeekim]

Perhaps this routine deployment may escalate things.

You mean "escalate the speed with which Argentinians come to accept reality"?

 

[imperialman]

Prince William embarks on Falklands deployment
3 Feb 2012

The Duke of Cambridge is beginning his six-week posting in the Falklands amid heightened tensions between Britain and Argentina over the disputed islands.

William arrived in the archipelago yesterday ahead of a tour of duty as an RAF search and rescue pilot.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ce-william-embarks-on-falklands-deployment.do

They're kicking off about this too.

 

[Quackers]

Dauntless will set sail for the Falkland Islands in the coming weeks armed with a battery of missiles that could "take out all of South America's fighter aircraft let alone Argentina's," according to one Navy source.

Is this true?