Yet Another Falklands Flare Up

imperialman

Admiral
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,028
Location
Glasgow
Another year, another diplomatic flare up.

Argentina's president has called on the UK government to hand over the Falkland Islands, in an open letter printed in British newspapers. While a well known British newspaper has taken out an advert in an English-language paper in Argentina defending Britain's sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Argentine Presidents letter:
Spoiler :
Mr Prime Minister David Cameron,

One hundred and eighty years ago on the same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercise of 19th-century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000km (8700 miles) away from London.

The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.

Since then, Britain, the colonial power, has refused to return the territories to the Argentine Republic, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity.

The Question of the Malvinas Islands is also a cause embraced by Latin America and by a vast majority of peoples and governments around the world that reject colonialism.

In 1960, the United Nations proclaimed the necessity of "bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations". In 1965, the General Assembly adopted, with no votes against (not even by the United Kingdom), a resolution considering the Malvinas Islands a colonial case and inviting the two countries to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute between them.

This was followed by many other resolutions to that effect.

In the name of the Argentine people, I reiterate our invitation for us to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
President of the Argentine Republic

Cc: Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations


UN position on the issue:
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future

British newspapers letter:
Spoiler :
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/19018_406681499415938_1411261318_n.jpg


A response making its rounds on the 'Keep the Falklands British' facebook page:
Spoiler :

Dear Argentina...

NOW look. You've been whining about this since 1767 and it's starting to get on my wick.

I've ignored you until now, because you're very silly and your greatest cheerleader is Sean Penn, a man who pretends to be things he is not and once hit his then-wife Madonna with a baseball bat, tied her up for nine hours and abused her.

If he is on your side, it's not a good side to be on.

But today you've written to Prime Minister Dishface demanding he enter negotiations to 'return' the islands we call the Falklands and you call Malvinas, 180 years after we cruelly stole them from you with our jackbooted naval officers of totalitarianism.

You were 'forcibly stripped' of these jewels in the South Atlantic and your people were 'expelled'.

Only, that's not quite what happened, is it Argentina? Someone obviously needs to remind you, and probably Mr Penn too, of the facts.

Allow me to start by saying there are probably things we can all agree on. War is bad, for example, and colonialism - aside from the roads, aqueducts, education, health reforms, economic development, culture, food, integration and innovation - tends to be a bad thing too.

We could probably avoid an argument over the fact that the Falkland Islands, in and of themselves, aren't exactly pretty. There are no hanging gardens, no waterfalls, no exotic wildlife. They're a windy bunch of rocks a long way from anywhere, although I grant they're nearer to you than they are to us.

Which begs the question about why, exactly, you never bothered to settle them.

When they were first discovered by a Dutchman in 1600 there was nothing there but seabirds. No people, no cultural heritage for anyone to trample over. Just a windy bunch of rocks.

Ninety years later a British sailor was blown off course and sailed through a bit of water he named Falkland Sound, and 74 years after that the French turned up to form a colony.

WAIT! I hear you cry. The French colonised the Falklands?

Why yes, and 18th century email being what it was the British turned up two years later and built a settlement on another one of the islands and claimed the whole lot for the Crown, unaware the Frenchies were already in residence.

The French sold out to the Spaniards a year after that, who put the colony - containing French people - under control of a governor in Buenos Aires.

Three years later the Spanish picked a fight with the Brits, kicked them out and after a peace treaty let us back in. In 1774 the Brits, overstretched by the Americans kicking off, withdrew and left a plaque behind asserting their claim. Thirty two years later the Spaniards departed too, leaving another plaque, and in 1811 the last settlers threw in the towel.

We were back to empty, windy rocks known only to whalers and sealing ships, and two memorial plaques.

In 1820 an American pirate called David Jewett took shelter there, and finding the place deserted promptly claimed the islands for a union of South American provinces which later became Argentina.

You lot didn't realise this for a year, but still didn't settle the islands. Instead a German who pretended to be French called Luis Vernet came along, asked the Argentines and the Brits politely if they minded, and founded a little colony of his own.

It took him a few goes, but eventually he established a settlement, you named him governor and gave him the right to kill all the seals. This quite hacked off the Brits, who wanted some seals for themselves, but Vernet placated us by asking for our military protection.

It all got a bit hairy in 1831, when Vernet found some American seal ships, arrested their crews and sparked an international incident. The Americans sent a warship, blew up the settlement, and hot-headedly sent the most senior settlers to the mainland for trial for piracy.

The Argentines sent a new governor to establish a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny the day he arrived. The Brits, quite reasonably, decided the whole thing was a dog's breakfast.

And now we get to the bit you're unhappy about Argentina, the invasion and forced expulsion.

The Brits arrived two months after this mutiny, and wrote to the chap in charge of the small Argentine garrison. The letter said:
"I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Chief of His Britannic Majesty's ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands.

It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government."

Now, there are many ways people can be oppressed, forced, compelled and abused - just ask Sean Penn - but a polite note is not one of them. The Argentine in charge thought briefly about resisting, but he didn't have many soldiers and besides, most of them were British mercenaries who refused to fight. So on January 3, 1833 you left, Argentina, with wounded pride and your nose in the air.

You had never settled the islands. Never established a colony of your own. Never guarded it with a garrison of your own soldiers. They had never, ever, been yours.

And now to the matter of that expulsion. The log of an Argentine ship present at the time records the settlers were encouraged to stay, and those that left did so of their own free will and generally because they were fed up with living on some boring, windy rocks.

Eleven people left - four Argentines, three 'foreigners', one prisoner, a Brit and two Americans.

Twenty-two people remained - 12 Argentinians, four Uruguay Indians, two Brits, two Germans, a Frenchman and a Jamaican.

As the imposition of colonial power on an indigenous population goes, that takes some beating. And for the sake of clarity I should point out that a human melting pot like that makes the place about as British as you can be.

A few months later HMS Beagle, taking Charles Darwin to the Galapagos for a long think, popped in and found the settlement half-ruined and the residents lawless. There were several murders, some looting, and in 1834 the exasperated British sent Lieutenant Henry Smith to run the place.

The islands have been ours ever since, and is now home to almost 3,000 people descended from settlers who came from Britain, France, Scandinavia, Gibraltar, St Helena and Chile.

At the same time, you went on to fight wars with most of South America and colonise provinces with indigenous populations by killing or pushing them out.

When your government was broke and facing strong opposition in the 1980s, you invaded them to divert attention of the voters with the cost of 907 lives, and it cannot be unrelated to your letter that in a few weeks you face being ejected by the International Monetary Fund for lying over your economic figures.

At around the same time, the people who now live on these boring, windy rocks in the middle of nowhere are having a referendum about who they would like to govern them. You will ignore this, because you believe they do not have a right to make up their own minds and have repeatedly refused to talk to the islanders about your claims.

So allow me to make a couple of things clear. Firstly, the history of these windy rocks is an utter mess but someone had to take charge, and you weren't up to the job. We did it pretty nicely, considering our record in other places.

Secondly, only jackbooted colonial scumbags refuse to listen to the democratic voice of the people who live somewhere, so you really ought to wind your hypocritical warmongering necks in.

And thirdly - well done with the wine, and the beef's pretty good, but if you want to negotiate let's start with you taking back your Total Wipeout, because as cultural imperialism goes it's pretty offensive, and you might want to think about handing Patagonia back to its people as well.

After that we are quite prepared to let you come and holiday on these windy rocks, where you will be invited to pitch a tent anywhere you like within the 13 square kilometres where you left 19,000 landmines last time you visited.

We know they're a long way away. We know there's not much to the rocks, and there might be oil and it might give someone a claim to Antarctica.

But we also know something you don't - which is that a well-run, law-abiding and happy bunch of rocks is the best bunch of rocks you can hope to have. You're no more up to that job now than you have ever been.

In case our position is still not clear, the above could be summed up as: No.

Yours sincerely,

Blighty


So, what's the opinion around here about this? Why are the islands suddenly an issue in Argentina again? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?

I await your responses! :p
 
As hilarious as it is absurd and insulting. This is an old tool used by Argentine governments to distract the people from domestic issues. Besides, for almost two centuries the Falklands have been peopled by Brits who wish to remain British. Generations of them have been born and raised Falkland Islanders. The Argentines would have them stripped of their right to self-determination. They tried, and failed, to do this through violence thirty years ago. Dare I say it's the Argentines who are the imperialists.

And of course, if the Argentines are so keen on restoring land to the descendants of those who lived there two centuries ago, they'll have to surrender a large part of their country to the remnants of the native tribes they massacred.
 
Yeah agree with Phrossy and Hob. There is a clear cut right and wrong in this.
 
I looked into the recent dispute over the Falklands and I found nothing whatsoever to convince me that Argentina has a leg to stand on. I want to give them benefit of the doubt, but my conclusion was that it was to cover up domestic problems, just like it was in the 80's. They have no legal or moral basis to claim the islands.
 
I heard that the other countries in South America have traditionally been quite nervous about Argentine imperialist tendencies.

But in the end, the Falklands, geographically, belong more to the Argentina than they do to the UK, and it would make sense in the long term for them to exercise sovereignty over them. If anyone must.

I think there was an offer by the UK government to lease the islands back from Argentina for two or three hundred years at some stage. I would be surprised if this offer still stands.

But the current spat is just posturing from the Argentine government, in my opinion. There is certainly, I have heard, no desire from the population to renew hostilities over the issue. This is going nowhere.

The only trouble is: life for the islanders (all 3,000 of them) gets quite difficult if Argentina refuses to allow flights to the Falklands to pass through their airspace, I heard.
 
Is anyone really surprised?

The Argies are near a technical default and their economy is in the toilet.
 
But in the end, the Falklands, geographically, belong more to the Argentina than they do to the UK, and it would make sense in the long term for them to exercise sovereignty over them. If anyone must.

I believe the Falkland Islands had been claimed by Britain long before Argentina expanded into Patagonia and came to own territory near the islands. Beside, the islands are relatively far from both the UK and Argentina but they're 0km from their owners, the Falkland Islanders. :p
 
I believe the Falkland Islands had been claimed by Britain long before Argentina expanded into Patagonia and came to own territory near the islands. Beside, the islands are relatively far from both the UK and Argentina but they're 0km from their owners, the Falkland Islanders. :p

The British have claimed the islands well before Argentina declared its independence from the Spaniards.
 
As hilarious as it is absurd and insulting. This is an old tool used by Argentine governments to distract the people from domestic issues.
This is what came here for to say. Kirchner is making a mess out of her country and uses every opportunity to make her people angry at something else.
 
Yeah, don't blame Argentina as a whole, blame their government.

While it is still considered rude to use the British name of the islands while in Argentina, Argentinians generally have more important things to worry about.
 
I'm thinking though that the long term British "interest" is in maintaining a strategic military base in the South Atlantic with links to Antartica.

This seems a very outdated way of thinking.

But who knows when they're going to start drilling for oil somewhere nearby, eh?
 
Yeah, don't blame Argentina as a whole, blame their government.

I think a huge majority, 9/10, believe that the Falkland Islands should be Argentinean. So i can happily blame both tbh :P
 
The Colonial oppressors must be stopped. For too long the people of the Falkland islands have been enslaved to the British Imperialists. Argentina is a nation founded by an anti-colonialist rebellion, and wants others to share their freedom. Not too mention that there are hundreds of thousands of Welsh-Argentines. The Welsh desire freedom too, and maybe the liberation of the Falkland islands will encourage outright rebellion in Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall. Death to Imperialism!
 
Argentina lacks the ability to take the Falklands, so it's nothing more than posturing. There is no substance behind the claim.
 
For Argentina to claim anti-colonial credentials for an argument based on a Spanish claim is a joke.

And when you consider Argentina's complicity in the total genocide of Tierra del Fuego's indigenous population (which took place barely a century ago, and so cannot be blamed on 'European' colonialism) it's a particularly tasteless one.
 
I think a huge majority, 9/10, believe that the Falkland Islands should be Argentinean. So i can happily blame both tbh :P
Yeah, but they've just fallen for some sort of systematic populism employed by politicians whenever they have to cover up their own screwups. Like ranting against the EU in Britain ;)
 
Indeed, the British claim is about as strong as it gets in these cases. Added to all that is the part where all the people that actually live there want to stay under British rule. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
 
They best be careful. The Falklands ain't big. If they all get a bunch of troops down there the whole island might tip over.
 
Back
Top Bottom