Who should own the Falklands?

[Evie]

The Falklands should belong to whichever country the Falklanders want to be part of. And if the Argentinians aren't happy about it, that's though cookies for them.

 

[Cutlass]

So is there actually oil in the Falklands waters, or just the possibility of it?

 

[GinandTonic]

Def oil. Prob a lot of it. Substantial chance of 3-9 billion economically recoverable barrels in the first field. Two good looking fields, another economically marginal ATM, but should come good in the medium term.

They pumped a couple of litres from the sea bed a decade ago, but at $10 a barrel, it wasnt cost effective so they put it on the back burner. $80 a barrel was the number being bandied about to get the field operational, but it seems $75 in a recession is good enough to get the decade long lead time kicking off.

 

[Cutlass]

So the Brits should just put a squadron of subs and another of jets there, and there'll be no way for Argentina to invade again. Let them give up on the idea.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well after Argentina started rattling it's sabre it seems the normal militarised icebreaker has been augmented by a destroyer, an RFA and, it is rumoured, an HK SSN.

Pressed as to what he was doing to counter Argentinian aggression, Brown said the the islands had made "all the preparations that are necessary". Argentina characterised this astonishingly diplomatic understatement as "raising the spectre of war". I cant see Argentina invading the Falklands, but anyone so completely divorced from reality they could make the leap between the two quotes may perhaps be capable of anything.

 

[Cutlass]

Seems like there can only possibly be a war if Argentina starts it. Since there's no reason for the UK to start it. Odd that so many other nations seem to be taking an interest.

 

[Virote_Considon]

2) Further as in "hearing more BS from Chavez addressing the Queen of England lol" or further as in full-blown out war?

Further in any way. Anything from expelling diplomats to war itself.

 

[GinandTonic]

Too late in the year to start a war at that latitude. By the time the weather breaks the Argentinian elections will be done. And, FWIW, it's not like Afghanistan is occupying the navy much if the new regime still has it's blood up.

 

[sysyphus]

Walked by a small protest here in Buenos Aires today. I tried to goad my father-in-law to join me in a rousing chorus of Rule Britannia, but for some reason he wasn't up for it.

 

[Takhisis]

Sysyphus... you're here in Bananaland too? Have a laugh at the Kirchner couple and the pathetic football played around the place.

 

[say1988]

although the current arrangement hardly seems to be working out all that well.

Beyond a bit of whining from the Argentinians and Chavez, it is working out fine.

I don't really see all that much of a problem in giving them independence, even if they don't want it, and then allowing them to make their own decisions as to who they coddle up to.

Why force them to make that decision when independent? They already have chose who to coddle up to. All it would do is add a major PITA to make a decision already made. And if they ever voted for independence (or to join Argentina) it would happen.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, France has every right to be in that sliver of ocean south of P&Q.

Yes, as long as they don't exceed whatever quota they've been allotted. That's the problem with little foreign islands next to larger countries - the parent country tends to use that as an excuse to trespass and get greedy. As long as everybody sticks to what the diplomats and other officials have worked out, things should be relatively fine.

It's not obvious. The oil of Newfoundland is Newfoundland's, and the idea that Côte d'Ivoire (just off the top of my head) has any right to it is silly.

Why isn't it obvious that both Canada and France can't claim 100% of the fisheries? They have to compromise, or else there would be no fish to be had - they'd be extinct.

Similarly, both the UK AND Argentina can't claim 100% of the offshore resources in the vicinity of the Falklands. No matter how many countries may want the oil, there is only a finite amount of oil to be had, and it can't ALL go to both countries...

I don't understand what Côte d'Ivoire has to do with this. It's an apples and oranges thing - Western Africa and Eastern Canada have absolutely ZERO offshore resources in common, are thousands of miles apart, so there is no conflict.

It should be a League of Nations island.

The League of Nations doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, Juan Manuel de Rosas did offer in the 1840s to let the sovereignty claims drop in return for some debt being cleared, and Britain refused.

 

[GinandTonic]

Why isn't it obvious that both Canada and France can't claim 100% of the fisheries? They have to compromise, or else there would be no fish to be had - they'd be extinct.

Similarly, both the UK AND Argentina can't claim 100% of the offshore resources in the vicinity of the Falklands. No matter how many countries may want the oil, there is only a finite amount of oil to be had, and it can't ALL go to both countries...

Fisheries co-operation is necessary since the fish move and the tragedy of the commons must be avoided. That is simply not the case with oil well or mines. What is on your side of the line is yours. Whats on my side of the line is mine. Simples.

A non-regenerating resource by definition cannot create a tragedy of the commons.

Therefore whats in the Argentinian EEZ is Argentinian and whats in the Falkland's EEZ belongs to the islanders. Any other outcome would require a complete rewrite of the international convention on the laws of the sea. It would also require the UN to set aside at least one of it's founding principals of the primacy of the principal of self-determination or the equality of nations.

Eg. for the oil not to belong to the Falkland Islanders either the islanders are not governed by self determination, or they are not entitled to the same rights to an EEZ as a) every other person on the planet and b) specifically the Argentinians.

 

[emzie]

Yes and the oil is off the east coast of the Falklands -- no overlap with Argentina unless you consider the Falklands part of Argentina.

 

[The Imp]

I think the USA should send a carrier task force and a MAU down there just to sail around a few hundred miles away. The UK stood by us like the stalwart friends they are over these last years and we need to let them know we stand by them. Not saying they need us, but we should be available if they ask.

Argentina is a major non-NATO ally. Of course, we wouldn't have to defend it if it attacked, but if the British can handle it, and they can, it is best that the US sit this one out.

 

[storealex]

Argentina needs to stop whining.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Fisheries co-operation is necessary since the fish move and the tragedy of the commons must be avoided. That is simply not the case with oil well or mines. What is on your side of the line is yours. Whats on my side of the line is mine.

Of course it should be that simple, but when the countries can't agree on where the line actually is... therein lies the conflict.

Yes and the oil is off the east coast of the Falklands -- no overlap with Argentina unless you consider the Falklands part of Argentina.

Argentina obviously considers the Falklands part of Argentina.

 

[Takhisis]

Fisheries co-operation is necessary since the fish move and the tragedy of the commons must be avoided. That is simply not the case with oil well or mines. What is on your side of the line is yours. Whats on my side of the line is mine. Simples.

A non-regenerating resource by definition cannot create a tragedy of the commons.

Therefore whats in the Argentinian EEZ is Argentinian and whats in the Falkland's EEZ belongs to the islanders. Any other outcome would require a complete rewrite of the international convention on the laws of the sea. It would also require the UN to set aside at least one of it's founding principals of the primacy of the principal of self-determination or the equality of nations.

Eg. for the oil not to belong to the Falkland Islanders either the islanders are not governed by self determination, or they are not entitled to the same rights to an EEZ as a) every other person on the planet and b) specifically the Argentinians.

The UK doesn't care a fig about the islanders themselves, all they want is the oil, fishing rights, and a potential naval base.

Yes and the oil is off the east coast of the Falklands -- no overlap with Argentina unless you consider the Falklands part of Argentina.

Argentina considers the Falklands to be part of its sovereign territory. Therefore, it consides their EEZ to be rightfully theirs as well.

Argentina is a major non-NATO ally. Of course, we wouldn't have to defend it if it attacked, but if the British can handle it, and they can, it is best that the US sit this one out.

Whaaaaaaat??? I've lived here for a long time, and trust me, they couldn't raise een fifty thousand troops adequately equipped to fight and survive in the Falklands, in fact, they couldn't sustain a war against anyone except Uruguay, Paraguay or Bolivia.

Argentina needs to stop whining.

The fact is that there are many places like Gibraltar and the Falklands still held by London based on the principle of 'might makes right'. If china wasn't a budding superpower, Hong Kong would still be a Crown Colony.

 

[GinandTonic]

Of course it should be that simple, but when the countries can't agree on where the line actually is... therein lies the conflict.


Argentina obviously considers the Falklands part of Argentina.

There is no dispute as to where the line lies. The only dispute is to if the islanders have the right to self-determination.

The question is simply democracy or nationalism.