Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Argentina's president has called on the UK government to hand over the Falkland Islands, in an open letter printed in British newspapers.
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner urges Prime Minister David Cameron to abide by a 1965 UN resolution to "negotiate a solution" over the islands.
The letter says they were forcibly stripped from Argentina in "a blatant exercise of 19th Century colonialism".
I support most examples of post-colonial dismantling of empires, but this is really farcical.
The islands were uninhabited when British settlers moved there in the 1830s – one of the last landmasses on Earth to be settled by humanity. The current inhabitants are directly descended from these original settlers and should be considered to be the islands' original, indigenous population. Modern Falkland Islanders are an independent, British-descended people like Australians or Anglo-Canadians and have the right to self determination. They are not a colony. They are a tiny autonomous nation in their own right existing under the protection and sponsorship of the UK out of their own free will.
In contrast, Argentina itself was inhabited by indigenous peoples when the Spanish conquered it in the colonial period. Nearly its entire population is descended from European settlers who kicked the original inhabitants of their land. By Kirchner's logic, if the Falkland islanders are to be kicked off their home, and forced to repatriate back to Britain, she should also hand Argentina back to the Techuelche and the Quechuas – and organise a mass return of the Argentinean people to Spain and Italy.
Oil is different. If oil is discovered in significant amounts in the waters around the Falklands, it should go to Argentina. If the UK starts pocketing the revenue from any oil discovered in the South Atlantic we lose any credibility to our argument that we are purely following the wishes of the Falkland islanders.
Keep poking us with a stick and see what happens. What is she trying to achieve? If this works on the Argentine people, this smokescreen to hid her failings, then that's their prerogative.
I support most examples of post-colonial dismantling of empires, but this is really farcical.
The islands were uninhabited when British settlers moved there in the 1830s – one of the last landmasses on Earth to be settled by humanity. The current inhabitants are directly descended from these original settlers and should be considered to be the islands' original, indigenous population. Modern Falkland Islanders are an independent, British-descended people like Australians or Anglo-Canadians and have the right to self determination. They are not a colony. They are a tiny autonomous nation in their own right existing under the protection and sponsorship of the UK out of their own free will.
In contrast, Argentina itself was inhabited by indigenous peoples when the Spanish conquered it in the colonial period. Nearly its entire population is descended from European settlers who kicked the original inhabitants of their land. By Kirchner's logic, if the Falkland islanders are to be kicked off their home, and forced to repatriate back to Britain, she should also hand Argentina back to the Techuelche and the Quechuas – and organise a mass return of the Argentinean people to Spain and Italy.
Oil is different. If oil is discovered in significant amounts in the waters around the Falklands, it should go to Argentina. If the UK starts pocketing the revenue from any oil discovered in the South Atlantic we lose any credibility to our argument that we are purely following the wishes of the Falkland islanders.
I disagree. Ownership of land isn't determined by who showed up and claimed it. International law suggest otherwise: international waters etc. The Falklands should actually belong to Argentina given where it is. The people living there are European - where do you think their loyalties lie??
It won't happen that way though. No other country could care less.
I disagree. Ownership of land isn't determined by who showed up and claimed it. International law suggest otherwise: international waters etc. The Falklands should actually belong to Argentina given where it is. The people living there are European - where do you think their loyalties lie??
It won't happen that way though. No other country could care less.
Doesnt the UN (and im no fan of the UN) also put emphasis on self determination. If the people of the Falklands want to become The monarchistic marxist republic of North Antartica, thats their right to do so. As it stands, they choose to be British. However, why should they choose to 'belong' to anyone, other than the residents that inhabit it?
Doesnt the UN (and im no fan of the UN) also put emphasis on self determination. If the people of the Falklands want to become The monarchistic marxist republic of North Antartica, thats their right to do so. As it stands, they choose to be British. However, why should they choose to 'belong' to anyone, other than the residents that inhabit it?
Because, in fact, they are British . This argument, actually, is veeryy naive.
I support most examples of post-colonial dismantling of empires, but this is really farcical.
The islands were uninhabited when British settlers moved there in the 1830s – one of the last landmasses on Earth to be settled by humanity. The current inhabitants are directly descended from these original settlers and should be considered to be the islands' original, indigenous population. Modern Falkland Islanders are an independent, British-descended people like Australians or Anglo-Canadians and have the right to self determination. They are not a colony. They are a tiny autonomous nation in their own right existing under the protection and sponsorship of the UK out of their own free will.
In contrast, Argentina itself was inhabited by indigenous peoples when the Spanish conquered it in the colonial period. Nearly its entire population is descended from European settlers who kicked the original inhabitants of their land. By Kirchner's logic, if the Falkland islanders are to be kicked off their home, and forced to repatriate back to Britain, she should also hand Argentina back to the Techuelche and the Quechuas – and organise a mass return of the Argentinean people to Spain and Italy.
Oil is different. If oil is discovered in significant amounts in the waters around the Falklands, it should go to Argentina. If the UK starts pocketing the revenue from any oil discovered in the South Atlantic we lose any credibility to our argument that we are purely following the wishes of the Falkland islanders.
I advise you to read more books of history on the topic to inquire better
On November 6, 1820, Daniel Jewett, from Port Loneliness formalized the possession of the Malvinas in name of the government of the River Plate. The official acting in name of the government of Buenos Aires it occupied the islands invoking the beginning of uti possidetis. This beginning, the Latin-American conditions understood as it at the beginning of last century, it was defining the territorial sovereignty on the basis of the former administrative colonial limits. The European and North American jurists do not accept, in general, this beginning. For them the criterion of sovereignty is given by the effective occupation of the territory.
It is important to indicate that the news of the capture of possession by the Argentina was published both in Spain and in the United States in August, 1821. This fact did not generate the protest of Great Britain. In 1825 this country signed an Agreement of Friendship, Trade and Navigation with the Close Provinces and simultaneously it recognized his independence, and neither in both acts was done any reference to the occupation of the islands on the part of the South American condition.
Because, in fact, they are British . This argument, actually, is veeryy naive.
But there's never been any significant population there other than British.
Its hardly without precedent. Northern Ireland voted to stay British whilst the rest broke away as a Scots/protestant majority prevailed.
The catholics might not like it, but hey, thats democracy.
(dont get any IRA ideas about guerilla warfare!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This argument, actually, is veeryy naive.
