Hillary Clinton offers to help solve Falklands dispute

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

Hillary Clinton offers to help solve Falklands dispute
Hillary Clinton has offered to help Argentina and Britain resolve the dispute over the Falkland Islands.

By Tom Leonard in Port Stanley
Published: 7:14PM GMT 01 Mar 2010

The US Secretary of State said America would not get involved in the dispute itself but was ready to mediate.

Mrs Clinton said the United States was willing to be a go-between if it would help resolve differences which have resurface due to British plans to drill for oil in the region.

"It is our position that this is a matter to be resolved between the United Kingdom and Argentina," she said. "If we can be of any help in facilitating such an effort, we stand ready to do that."

President Cristina Kirchner of Argentina is expected to ask Mrs Clinton to put pressure on Britain to discuss the Falklands Islands when the pair meet in Buenos Aires on Monday night.






Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7346757/Hillary-Clinton-offers-to-help-solve-Falklands-dispute.html

[HeresyLives]

1. Hasn't she got enough to do?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hillary is repeating the same lies that then Sec of State Alexander Haig

told on the lead up to the Falkland War.

Argentina has legitimate claims over the islands, and the oil in the seabed. The UK should abandon the last vestiges of colonialism, not just in the Falklands, but in Diego Garcia as well.

[HeresyLives]

3. Yes, and they've had plenty of time to do it.

Plus the UK can no longer afford this kind of thing.

[IndianaGreen]

4. And Thatcher didn't have her army stuck in Afghanistan

as Brown does now.

[HeresyLives]

8. They're still quibbling about Iraq,

plus they're facing a hung parliament as everybody has lost confidence in the lot of them.

Not the time for another war. On the other hand, maybe they figure a distraction that will 'unite the people' is exactly what's called for. War has always been handy that way.

[naaman fletcher]

6. What do you have against self-determination?

There is not a single person on that island who wants to be Argentinian. Also, Argentina has zero legit claim to the island.

[AlphaCentauri]

12. Thats fine let them become a state then

Why they have to be a colony not a state if they love self determination?


Apr 30, 1982
President Ronald Reagan declares US support for Britain and economic sanctions against Argentina. The British war exclusion zone comes into effect.

[naaman fletcher]

27. The want to be a part of the UK...

That's called self-determination, which you obviously have a problem with.

[AlphaCentauri]

31. So British citizens want to be part of the UK

well they are not in the UK they are in Las Malvinas

[naaman fletcher]

34. EVERYONE THERE WANTS TO BE PART OF THE UK

There are no Argentinians there. There are no indigenous natives. The island was empty, and Britain claimed it. Later, Argentina moved in, then later Britain moved back.

Again, what do you have against self-determination? What other people do you want to force to live under the rule another nation?

[AlphaCentauri]

38. In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine

In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement,

Who is against self determination when previous settlers were repatriated?

[mitchtv]

118. violating the Monroe doctrine

in doing so

[HeresyLives]

39. So?

Lots of people are living in countries they don't want to be part of.

However, it's insane to start a war over 3000 Falklanders, that far from home, when the UK is broke already.

[naaman fletcher]

41. It's insane to start a war over 3000 Falklanders, I agree.

Argentina should STFU.

[HeresyLives]

45. Well they're not going to, so try again,

[naaman fletcher]

49. neither is britain,, so try again

And expect Argentina to get their asses kicked again.

[HeresyLives]

53. Yes, Britain will.

So kindly spare us the chest-thumping and the drum-pounding.

[naaman fletcher]

59. What makes you think so?

[HeresyLives]

64. Britain. Is. Broke.

[naaman fletcher]

67. And Argentina isn't? nt

[hack89]

70. And Argentina has managed to escape the recession? nt

[HeresyLives]

74. UK is supporting 14 other territories. Argentina isn't.

[hack89]

77. So?

I am sure that the 50 poorest nations have no overseas territories either so I don't see your point.

[HeresyLives]

81. Fast way for the Brits to unload massive debt and keep

themselves afloat at home.

[hack89]

85. I suspect that the domestic political issues out weigh any economic ones

no government will commit political suicide. History is full of examples of governments that were willing to bankrupt their countries rather than make a sensible economic choice.

[No Elephants]

141. Maybe the Brits think drilling for oil in waters around the Falklands is the better way to go, at

least short term?

[naaman fletcher]

78. LOL. Argentina better able to afford a war than the UK. Nice one. nt.

[AlphaCentauri]

84. Unthinkable, the US would give a hand to the UK

Reagan did it

[No Elephants]

156. Yep. And that was before we owed them big time for becoming one of our most credible

"coalition partners" in a war we both knew was illegal before we commenced it.

[hack89]

93. Self delete.

[hack89]

94. Irrelevant.

Britain can simply add the cost of the war to their deficit - like we do. Argentina cannot match the British militarily - can you imagine four or five British nuclear subs with Tomahawk cruise missiles off the coast? The Brits could turn off the lights in Buenos Aires if they wanted. It need not be a long or expensive war - the Brits can do serious damage to the Argentine economy.

[No Elephants]

139. Or, both countries could be reasonable and make a treaty, instead of flinging their

respective muscles around like baboons.

[No Elephants]

133. How does a vote saying "I want to be a British subject" equal a deed to offshore mineral rights?

[backtomn]

65. How about this........

The people of the Faulklands claim independence from Argentina and attack any Argentine authority on the island. With the support of the English, they fight and win independence.....sound familiar?? Now tell me how much the Argentine claims of sovereignty are worth.

I don't believe that this current situation qualifies, but sometimes you don't get what you want because you are not strong enough to make it happen. This is not a fight that Argentina can win and is not a fight that they should start. The Kirschers know this, but are using it for publicity value......using the deaths in the 80's to improve poll numbers.

[AlphaCentauri]

83. Submission has to be the appropriate word

it is so XIX-XX centuries that the third world countries have to do as the developed world say.

[No Elephants]

134. There is a difference between people, ownership of the land on which the people live and

ownership of the mineral rights in the ocean arouond the land on which the people live.

Those are three separate issues, only one of which has anything to do with the vote of the islanders to be governed by the UK.

[PatGund]

120. No....

They are UK citizens living in a British Overseas Territory, which is legally part of the UK.

And they have made it clear they wish to remain part of the UK

[No Elephants]

149. Nothing like assuming the conclusion of a debate.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Au contraire! Argentina's claims are very strong!

Israelis settlers living on the West Bank and East Jerusalem have more of a claim to that land than the good folks living in the Falklands.

Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one

Regardless of the islanders' wishes, the issue of sovereignty will at some point have to get back on the agenda

Richard Gott The Guardian, Monday 2 April 2007

Nearly 40 years ago, in November 1968, I travelled to the Falklands with a group of diplomats in what was Britain's first and last attempt to get shot of the islands. Lord Chalfont, then a minister at the Foreign Office, was the leader of this expedition. He had the unenviable task of trying to persuade the 2,000 islanders that the British empire might not last for ever - and that they should start to entertain the notion they might be better off being friendly to their near-neighbour, Argentina, which had long claimed the islands. This was the moment when Britain was abandoning its "east of Suez" policy for financial reasons, and thinking of ways of winding up its residual empire. We had already forcibly deported the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1967 without much hostile publicity, and settled them in Mauritius and the Seychelles, handing over their islands to the Americans to build a gigantic air base. The Falklands were next on the list. Maybe the islanders could be paid to set up sheep farms in New Zealand.

Over 10 days, we visited just about every farm and homestead in the two principal islands. We were greeted everywhere - and we could see the slogans and the union flag from the air before we landed - with the same messages: "Chalfont Go Home" and sometimes "We Want To Stay British". The islanders were adamant. They wanted nothing to do with Argentina, and Chalfont left them with a promise that nothing would happen without their agreement. Fourteen years later, in 1982, Britain and Argentina were at war over the islands, and nearly a thousand people lost their lives. Today we are invited to recall the 25th anniversary of that event, and the Argentinian government has reminded us of its claim, pulling out of the 1995 agreement about joint oil exploration that had been fondly embraced by the Foreign Office as an alternative to discussing anything as conflictive as sovereignty.

People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.

The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of dramatic colonial expansion. Captain John Onslow of HMS Clio had instructions "to exercise the rights of sovereignty" over the islands, and he ordered the Argentinian commander to haul down his flag and withdraw his forces. Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar. Britain and Argentina have disagreed ever since about the rights and wrongs of British occupation, and for much of the time the British authorities have been aware of the relative weakness of their case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands

[AlphaCentauri]

25. Didn't know that

"Occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warships in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny. In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens."

[naaman fletcher]

30. What crap...

and prior to that, various French, Spanish, and others were there... so they have just as much of a claim.

[AlphaCentauri]

yep, and all of them ceded the islands to Argentina n/t

[naaman fletcher]

62. Backup for that? I don't see that anywhere. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

87. #67

[Beacool]

18. They have much more than zero claim to these islands.

They were under Argentine control:

The Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) are a group of islands in the south Atlantic. The two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, lie 300 miles <480 km> east of the Argentina coast. About 200 smaller islands form a total land area of approximately 4,700 square miles (12,200 square km). The capital and only town is (Port) Stanley.

The government of the Falkland Islands administers the British dependent territories of South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and the Shag and Clerke rocks, lying from 700 to 2,000 miles (1,100 to 3,200 km) to the east and southeast of the Falklands. The total population of the islands was estimated at 2100 (in 1991) and 2967 in July 2003.

Argentina has claimed the islands since 1820. Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims.

---------
1820
The Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, first proclaims its sovereignty over the Falklands.

1828
Argentine warlord (Caudillo), and later governor of Buenos Aires Juan Manuel de Rosas sent a governor, Mr. Vernet, together with a garrison and settlers for menial work to the islands. The first recorded Argentine settlement in the islands.

1831
The American warship USS Lexington destroys the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area.

1833
Afraid that the Americans seized the islands, the British remember the expedition of the 17th century, re-invade the islands, forcefully depose Vernet and send the Argentines back to the mainland albeit without having to fire a shot.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

The British took over many lands that did not belong to them, nothing new with them. Ask the Irish, Indians, etc.

:eyes:

[naaman fletcher]

32. yeah, and prior to that under control of other nations.

You conveniently left out that the history prior to that. It was British.

Most importantly.. NO ARGENTINIANS LIVED THERE. That is why it is different than the Irish or the Inidans, where Britain was occupying countries with indigenous people. There are no indigenous Falkland Islanders.

[No Elephants]

132. Who's making the inhabitants be Argentinian?

[naaman fletcher]

5. What are you talking about?

What legitimate claim? No Argentinians ever lived there.

Also, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PERSON LIVING THERE WHO WANTS ARGENTINIAN RULE. No, I am not using hyperbole NOT A SINGLE ONE. Why do you have a problem with self determination? Why do you want people who do not want to be Argentinian to be forced to be Argentinian?

[IndianaGreen]

14. You better read some history

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

107. Self determination

You are quite right. That is the name of the game. That is why Argentina could never, with a straight face, take their claims to the UN.

Can't blame the mean old British Empire (with all their power, might, and fancy red coats) this time round. There are no oppressed masses yearning to be free from the yolk of British imperialism. Queen Victoria's boot (with all that weight behind it) isn't pressed down onto the neck of a helpless native population (which, in truth, it quite often was).

Nah! This time Britain are on the side of the population's wishes, while Argentina (with their tenuous and spurious claims) are after the land, which, smacks a little of colonialism to me.

[No Elephants]

135. Does choosing to be an American affect sovereignty over the land in which an expat lives?

I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I do know the vote is not all powerful.


Would a vote by all the inhabits of an apartment building to be governed by the UK mean the UK owns the apartment building, the island on which the building sits AND the mineral rights in the ocean offshore?

I think all those issues are severable and need to be determined by international law, treaty, etc., not by a vote.

Argentina and UK have conflicting claims to the real estate. Which government the inhabitants prefer is a different issue entirely from sovereignty over the islands. The situation is a mess.

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

137. What if someone has lived in said apartment building.....

for over 250 years. That's some squatters right claim right there.

Doesn't apply in this case though. Just let the Falklanders Islanders decide their own fate. It's not as if there has ever been any genuinely long-standing (to compare to that) Argentinian settlement on the islands.

[No Elephants]

142. Not really. You don't acquire a nation by "squatting. As the Brits say, "Time does not run against

the King."

Again, residents deciding their own fate, is one thing. Let them be governed by whomever they wish to be governed. Their vote, however, does not decide matters of sovereignty over the land or the offshore mineral rights. The inhabitants never had those rights and therefore cannot alter them by vote, any more than I can vote that Spain is sovereign overthe piece of Boston on which my home sits.

So, let's not conflate a decision about citizenship, which humans have a right to make for themselves, with everything else involved in the mineral rights issue. In fact, let's not even conflate acquiring rights in real estate by squatting with acquiring sovereignty. Those are two different issues, as well.

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

151. Again, apples and oranges though.

I mentioned squatters rights (a bad analogy admittedly) in response to a previous point about someone living in an apartment.

Mineral rights AROUND the Falkland Islands are again a different point to the sovereignty of the island, as you say. Argentina aren't just after the mineral rights. They want to take over an island, and the citizens are overwhelmingly against the idea.

People bat this back and forth, quoting historical precedents, but the bottom line if always Self Determination. Always.

[No Elephants]

159. They are a little different, but not totally different. There is international

law about waters around an island and also about international waters. And I am not sure the ARgentinians want to take over the island just for the sake of taking it over. I think they want economic rights.

As far as self determination, I go back to my analogy. I can live in Boston and decide to be a citizen of, for example, Portugal. I can even buy up every bit of real estate in Boston. That's as far as self determination takes me, though. I cannot decide that Portugal is now sovereign over Boston. Or even that I am sovereign over Boston. Similarly, self determination by Falklanders does not extend to eliminating the sovereignty of Argentina.


This is not a situation such as that of India. There, the people of India, who had a nation long before the Brits fancied it, had a right against the British occupiers to self determination and therefore Britain left India to its natives. This is a situation where British occupiers are claiming the right to deprive Argentina of its sovereignty by taking a vote.

(These arguments do assume Argentinian sovereignty, for sake of showing it comes down to sovereignty in this case, not to a vote of the occupiers, except as that vote affects their citizenship).

Despite all the flat statements on this thread, I don't see anyone supporting them by international law. This situation may be unique and therefore the correct answer may be there is no correct answer, like Israel and Palestine. And maybe the Brits and the Falklanders should enter into a treaty, preferably without the help of the U.S., but with our help, if we indeed have the ability to help.

[The Croquist]

185. All countries were created by squatters if you go far back enough

The European settlers to North America were squatters.
The Native Americans were squatters.
The Aborigines of Australia were squatters.

What we are seeing in Israel / Palestine is a perfect example. Both sides claim ownership for thousands of years.

After a while it becomes a fact. I am not willing to turn my land over to Native Americans because several hundred years ago someone who may or may not have been their ancestor had the land taken from them. Sooner or later possession does become the law. 200 years is a long time.

[No Elephants]

172. Argentina has tried to take the matter to the UN in the past and is currently trying again.

I have no idea if the Argentinian ambassador had a straight face at the time or not, though.

[No Elephants]

138. No Argentinians ever lived there. In the same way that no Native Americans ever lived where the

Empire State building now stands.

There are indications that the islands were occupied by natives of South America. The islands were also under the rule of Spain when Argentina was, so I don't know how you can say for certain that none native to to Argentina ever lived there during that time, either.

And then, there's this:

"On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (a predecessor of modern-day Argentina) and claimed possession of the islands." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Besides, you're making habitation of the island by Argentinians a mark of which country, if any, has sovereignty over the mineral rights in the waters off the islands. I don't know if habitation is how sovereignty has been determined historically. Seems to me, explorers "discovered" lands that had been occupied and egotistically claimed them for whomever had paid for the expedition.

Or, as Flip Wilson, in drag as Geraldine, in drag as a Native American in 1492 remarked, "You'd better discover youself right on outta here."

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea takes inhabitation as confering economic rights

In fact, it's ability to sustain human habitation that counts - but that means any inhabited island has an exclusive economic zone:

The limits of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of islands are determined in accordance with rules applicable to land territory, but rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

What this means is that rocks like Rockall don't count for an EEZ

[No Elephants]

155. That is a different point. Saying a rock that cannot be inhabited has

no economic zone does not equal saying inhabiting a rock that can be inhabited and has historically been inhabited by many peoples of a number of nations makes you the sovereign of that rock.

[muriel_volestrangler]

157. But it does associate the economic zone with the island

Yes, sovereignty will come from a different source - the self-determination of the inhabitants.

[No Elephants]

174. Moving the goal post doesn't work.

The issue is still sovereignty over the island, which the islanders cannot determine, any more than I can determine I want Portugal to be sovereign over the piece of the U.S. where my home is. If I want to be a citizen of say, Portugal, and Portugal accepts, great. But I have no right to decide that Portugal is therefore now sovereign over the land in Boston on which my property sits.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. It's not moving the goalposts at all

You said:

"Besides, you're making habitation of the island by Argentinians a mark of which country, if any, has sovereignty over the mineral rights in the waters off the islands. I don't know if habitation is how sovereignty has been determined historically."

You were talking about mineral rights; I pointed out these go with the island being habitable. Clearly, they're also going to go with the people who inhabit the island, not an entirely different country.

"The issue is still sovereignty over the island, which the islanders cannot determine" - yes, they can. That is what self-determination is. You don't apply it to indviduals, but to groups of people with a common link and area. Such as "the long-term inhabitants of the islands".

[PatGund]

161. From the same entry

"In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands. In 1766, France agreed to leave, and Spain agreed to reimburse Louis de Bougainville, who had established a settlement at his own expense. The Spaniards assumed control in 1767 and re-named Port St. Louis as Puerto Soledad.
Meanwhile, the British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain during the Falkland Crisis from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. As a result of economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, Britain unilaterally chose to withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774.<1> On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.<2>"

The British had a claim and presence on the Islands before Argentina even existed.

[No Elephants]

175. So? Native Americans had a claim to the United States and "Native America" has never existed.

[PatGund]

184. Apples and Oranges

Since there was nobody living on the Falklands until were discovered.

It makes things much simpler to claim

[PatGund]

7. Except the minor little pesky fact....

That the people actually LIVING on the Falklands have stated - repeatedly - they wish to remain part of the UK.

I'd say the people living there - many for several generations - should have a say in the matter.

[HeresyLives]

9. Hong Kong wanted to stay British too.

Shit happens.

[naaman fletcher]

10. China had a legit claim..

And the people were Chinese, and the land was Chinese land that was stolen. Not so with the Falklands. The people there are not now and never have been Argentinian. There was nobody there when the island was first cited.

By what possible reason do you think the Argentinians have a claim to the island other than perhaps a knee-jerk reaction that the UK must be wrong?

[HeresyLives]

11. So does Argentina.

Falklands are 300 miles offshore from Argentina.

Falklands are 3000 miles offshore from the UK

[PatGund]

122. Here's a historical fun fact:

The UK claim on the Falklands dates back to January 1765, before Argentina even existed.

The UK has been in control of those islands from:

January 1765 – July 1770 (5.5 years)
September 1771 – May 1776 (4.5 years)
January 1833 – August 1833 (8 months
January 1834 – April 1982 (148 years, 4 months)
June 1982 – present (27.5 years)

That's a total of 186.5 years of British control.

And Argentina ?

August 1829 – December 1831 (United Provinces of South America) (2.3 years)
December 1832 – January 1833 (1 year)
April 1982 – June 1982 (3 months)

So a total of 3.55 years As long as France was in control of the Islands. Spain was in control for 44 years, and the United States for 1 year.

Furthermore, the UK has had people resident there since 1833, (a previous English colony had been there from 1766 to 1776 , and a Spanish colony from 1767 to 1811) United Provinces of South America only had residents there from 1823 to 1833,

Bottom line, the UK has a more established and longer-documented claim on the Falkland Islands than does Argentina. And that's not counting the residents making it clear they are part of the UK and wish to remain such.

[AlphaCentauri]

15. So you agree that Mexicans have a legit claim over California

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

17. and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona.

Mexico has a claim, but not as good a claim as Argentina does against a European colonial power. Remember that just as Britain expelled the Argentinian settlers back in 1833, Britain also expelled the indigenous inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back". Though its title survives, the document itself has been embargoed until 2015, although it may well exist in another archive. It was presumably an offer thrown out to the pro-German government of Argentina at the time, to keep them onside at a difficult moment in the war, though perhaps it was a draft or a jeu d'esprit dreamt up in the office.

The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan, when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands

[naaman fletcher]

36. If California was 99% mexican they would. nt.

[AlphaCentauri]

48. At some point in history it was

and the Californios were denied the right to self determination

[naaman fletcher]

58. That's right..

So what?

Are you going to look at every piece of land in the world and trace back who was there first? How far back will you go?

[AlphaCentauri]

89. Lets burn the history books

they are useless unless they are used to justify an invasion

[No Elephants]

145. In 1945, Jews might have said at least 3,000 years, give or take a millenium or two.

And a lot of the world seems to have validated that view

North Americans might say 500 years at the very outside. And a lot of the world validates that view.

I guess the number of years we think folks should go back depends upon whose side we want to win the argument. Or who is ready, able and willing to slaughter the most people over the issue.

[backtomn]

115. Excuse Me??

Like the Faulklands being 100% English??? Oh...I guess not.

[No Elephants]

143. On what authority in he law of nations do you base your assumption that

residence by individuals equals national sovereignty?

Tte colonizers of the U.S. and their descendants certainly never recognized that principle with respect to the lands that are now the U.S. Neither did England, France or Spain.

[No Elephants]

140. No. There was no one living there when the islands were first sighted

by Europeans. According to the Europeans who sighted them, anyway--and no one put them under oath or otherwise tested the truth of their claims.

BTW, which Spainards were living in the U.S. and Mexico when explorers claimed them in the name of Spain? Ditto the American colonies and England?

[LanternWaste]

111. I was under the impression that Hong Kong was under administrative rule

I was under the impression that Hong Kong was under British administrative rule under a treaty in which it was stipulated they would relinquish that rule at a certain set date. I don't think the same can be said for The Falkland Islands.

[PatGund]

121. One point -

Hong Kong was under a lease arrangement. It wasn't territory that the UK owned outright.

There is no such lease where the Falklands are concerned. It is legally part of the UK

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

20. Hey Genius

nobody on the Falkland Island wants to be ruled by Argentina, they overwhelmingly want to remain British citizens

[HeresyLives]

21. And as I've already said, so did Hong Kong.

Shit happens.

[cowman]

22. Shit does

happen but Britain is sticking to its guns this time and the citizens of Falkland are as one voice in wanting to remain British citizens

[HeresyLives]

24. Too bad, so sad.

[cowman]

40. Is that

the best you got?:rofl:

[HeresyLives]

44. It's all I need.

[cowman]

47. If thats the

best you got then you fail

[HeresyLives]

54. Life's a bitch, ;hon. Get over it.

[Rapier09]

52. Britain is broke and the US just ditched it

I am pretty much on the UK's side on this one.

But no the Brits can no longer afford to keep the Falkland through strength of arms.

[AlphaCentauri]

60. The soviets did learn their lesson

wonder why other countries don't

[No Elephants]

146. The U.S. won't ditch Britain. The two have been partners for a very long time.

Partners in crime, too.

[No Elephants]

152. As a general rule, individuals get to decide their own citizenship,

no matter what country they live in. Individuals don't get to decide which nation has sovereignty over the place where they live, though.

[truebrit71]

167. Um..there was a document stating the Hong Kong situation would end..

...no such document exists regarding the Falklands.

Game. Set. Match.

[No Elephants]

144. Is the UK threatening to deprive the islanders of their citizenship? Please see also Reply # 134.

[backtomn]

43. Lies???........

you mean like Argentine "legitimate claims" over Faulklands/Malvinas?? Come on.....Europeans visited the island 200 years before Argentina was an independent country. There might have been some Spanish from Tierra del Fuego that visited or lived there, but there is no real record of them. The English re-asserted their claims in the 1830's after the new country of Argentina made claims of their own. If you see the country and the people, you will see that they are a lot like Scotland or northern England.

There was a nice story in an Argentine newpaper last year (La Nacion) which spoke of a visit by Alexander Haig just prior to the Argentine invasion, telling them that the U.S. would not support their efforts and that they should work out some other arrangement. According to the story, the triumvirate military government in Argentina had already whipped up the country for a fight (to address poor public opinion) and could back down for fear of losing all public support.......even though they knew it would fail. The Kirschners are looking at a similar problem......with low poll numbers.

You may wish to study both sides of these issues.

[Odin2005]

100. The islanders consider themselves British.

I gues self determination doesn't apply to evil white people? :eyes:

[No Elephants]

148. Please see Reply # 134.

[truebrit71]

166. Bullshit. But thanks for playing.

:eyes:

[Socal31]

19. What an enourmous waste of time.

[DavidDvorkin]

23. The solution would be to tell Argentina to shut the fuck up

The military dictatorship revved up the Falklands dispute in hopes of using jingoism to suppress opposition to its rule. I don't know what the real motivations of the current government are, but the claim is bullshit in any case.

[HeresyLives]

26. The solution would be for Britain to leave.

Ze Empire, she is kaput.

[naaman fletcher]

28. and make people part of a country they don't want to be a part of?

What do you have against self-determination?

[HeresyLives]

29. Let em go live in the UK if they're so keen on it.

[naaman fletcher]

37. Who has more right to live there than they do?

nobody. there are no indigenous falkland islanders.

[HeresyLives]

42. Argentinians

[naaman fletcher]

57. what a joke

20 Argentinians lived there 180 years ago, after ignoring Britain's rightful claim. You are unreal.

[DavidDvorkin]

61. What is the basis for Argentina's claim

other than geographical location?

[AlphaCentauri]

66. All previous settlers ceded the islands to Argentina

"The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland."

"Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765, English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of Great Britain. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, but in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770 <1>. From then on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims." "When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor at the service of Buenos Aires, and captain of the frigate Heroina, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina) at Port Louis. He warned the British and American seal hunting ships present that they did not have authorization to hunt seals in the area, and then returned to Buenos Aires; the sealers ignored his warning."

"Occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warships in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny. In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens."

[naaman fletcher]

68. That's not what you article says. nt.

[AlphaCentauri]

88. Explain

:eyes:

[naaman fletcher]

91. I read it as Spain and England asserting their rights..

Settlers chose not to live there anymore at one point, but that does not mean that their country was cool with just whoever moving in.

[naaman fletcher]

73. But even if it did, who cares?

How far back in history are you willing to go on a land claim? 200 years, 5000?

[AlphaCentauri]

86. OK, lets use your logic

Iraq and Afghanistan are ours, So?

[naaman fletcher]

90. Clearly there is no set rule..

It has to be a judgement call at some point.

[No Elephants]

180. WHOSE judgment call?

[Posteritatis]

104. The general rule is "as far back as necessary to support my opinions" for most people

If Argentina had a claim on the place in 1250 BC that would be dredged up as proof that the British need to leave British territory where a wholly-British population has lived all their lives. Of course they can't go back that far, but most people stupid enough to throw the name Malvinas around are still willing to play all sorts of games to make the claim fit.

[backtomn]

114. Then we agree!!!!!.........(except for the complete history)........

....that the British have control and retain control....like it or not. Hell....even the name Malvinas is a Spanish take on a French word.

The English first landed on the island in 1690 AD and fought with the Spanish over control, briefly. There is a lot of history of Spanish and Argentines claiming sovereignty, but never controlling anything. This would be a lot like my claims of sovereignty over the Mall of America, because I had seen that land first (at a Minnesota Twins game). The British controlled it since the 1830's and the Argentines tried to control it in the war and lost. I'm sorry, they lost, they control nothing......no matter how much they want to get it now without a fight.

There may be some people that might claim the U.S. for Britain, but they lost and we won. If they want it, they can come and get it....if they dare. The same is true of Argentina. Regardless of any "moral" argument, the issue has been decided.

[cowman]

55. Why the hell

should they? The Falkland Island is THEIR home. I have an idea, why don't you go down there and tell them to leave because you think that the Argentinians own the island. Good luck with that

[No Elephants]

150. Who is making them leave again?

[proteus_lives]

96. Wow, you're heartless.

You want to grab a rifle and start dragging people out of their homes?

[IndianaGreen]

33. Self-determination, as the one the British denied the indigenous people of Diego Garcia?

Or, how about the original Formosans who are not Chinese?

[naaman fletcher]

35. Oh I get it, two wrongs make a right. nice logic there. nt.

[Igel]

97. There *are* no indigenous people of Diego Garcia.

There were French there, then British. The French imported slaves and the British imported workers.

The Chagossians are the descendants of the slaves and workers. They're "indigenous" like the Haitians or Cubans are indigenous--with the difference that Haiti and Cuba actually had inhabitants before the colinialists, slaves, and workers showed up. Oh, and the Haitians and Cubans were there earlier. (My European ancestors arrived in the US as late as some of the "indigenous" Chagossians' ancestors arrived in Diego Garcia. I'm fairly sure nobody's going to think of me as "indigenous".)

Taiwan's Chinese and Formosan populations are each other's problem.

[cowman]

46. What about

the people who were born and raised there? So you advocate forcing them to become Argentina citizens against their will or would you forcibly remove them from their homes. Yeah thats real progressive of you

[HeresyLives]

63. Well i said abandon, not force.

Hey, are you pro-Basque too? Pro-Sinn Fean? Pro-Quebec?

Lots of people are parts of countries they're not fond of

Didn't you have a southern problem awhile ago in the US?

[cowman]

69. Nope

I,m pro American and I dont know what southern problem you are talking about. I,m born and raised in So. NV.

[HeresyLives]

76. Then the Falklands is not your concern.

And I'm sure you remember the US Civil war.

[cowman]

79. Don't think

I am quite that old

[naaman fletcher]

80. Why is it your concern? nt.

[HeresyLives]

82. We have the same head of state.

And I'm sure you have history books.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. Do you advocate Canada annexing Saint Pierre and Miquelon?

For a self-described 'citizen of the world', you have a strangely nationalistic outlook. You don't care what individuals want for their lives, but you think that countries have the right to overrule them on the basis of proximity.

[No Elephants]

153. What does the citizenship residents of the Falklands prefer have to do

with mineral rights or sovereignty? No one is threatening to take away their British citizeship or force them to live differently or to move off the islands.

This seems to be about mineral rights, not self-determination when it comes to being a British citizen or being ruled by the British.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. Giving sovereignty to Argentina would force them to live differently

They'd be subject to different laws.

[No Elephants]

165. That is your assumption. Argentina could decide otherwise.

But, I think the real issue here for Argentina (and the Brits) is economic, not making these folks abide by Argentinian laws (or British laws).

I could be wrong about that, but I think an equitable agreement about the economic situation would end this a lot sooner than having everyone retreating to extreme positions about what a vote accomplishes vs. what geography accomplishes vs. what history accomplishes. I think all that is a smokescreen for economic issues, with a dash of "might makes right."

[warm regards]

50. I think the Brits can handle this one themselves.

[HeresyLives]

51. The UK has 14 'overseas territories'.

Taken altogether it's only 260,000 people.

The UK is broke and can't afford this kind of nonsense anymore.


Put all 14 on notice...one year, and we cut the rope.

[HeresyLives]

56. And now back to Hillary looking for a job,

[cowman]

75. Well

we can agree to disagree on this subject. I'm not going to change your mind nor are you going to change my mind so lets part as friendly antagonists, ok?

[AlphaCentauri]

71. Clinton offers to help resolve Falklands spat

Source: AP

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday offered to help Argentina and Britain resolve a festering dispute over a vast swath of the southern Atlantic Ocean where Britain has begun drilling for oil.

Clinton told reporters, "We want them talking, and we want them trying to resolve the outstanding issues."

She said the two countries should agree themselves over the sovereignty of the British-administered Falkland Islands, where the two nations fought a brief war in 1982.

"We are not interested in, and have no real role in, determining what they decide between the two of them," Clinton said. But she told reporters en route to the Argentine capital, "What we want to do is facilitate them talking to each other."



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijYJF0NJeJWkf1XeIjfWIdk3aZugD9E63A580

---

Apr 30, 1982
President Ronald Reagan declares US support for Britain and economic sanctions against Argentina. The British war exclusion zone comes into effect.

[sasquatch]

72. Las Malvinas son Argentinas.

Nunca Mas.

[Beacool]

98. I was about to post the same thing.

:thumbsup:

[PatGund]

163. No....

The Falklands were never Argentine. The settlement and claims by the UK upon the Falkland Islands predates Argentina's very existence.

"Las Malvinas son Argentinas" is a nice jingoistic slogan, but it has no historical backing to it.

[truebrit71]

168. Not so much.

But gracias for playing~!

[UTUSN]

92. I smell ----------------- a --------------- NOBEL!!!!!!!!!! 1 n/t

[scottsoperson]

95. the falklands was another stupid macho war

scott

[No Elephants]

154. That would describe most wars.

[Beacool]

99. Some pics of Hillary with president Cristina Kirchner

I wonder what Cristina was doing in the last pic.

:D

[HeresyLives]

101. Another interesting story on it and pix.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254773/Falklands-defence-spending-plunges-50-cent-years.html

[Beacool]

102. Thank you, nice story.

:-)

[AlphaCentauri]

103. The shape and size of Hillary's water bottle, thats it n/t

[Beacool]

108. Could be.............

:D

[AngryAmish]

125. Doesn't Kirchner look like Lanan from Three's Company?

I wonder what the jack Tripper is doing nowadays.

[Beacool]

127. Lanan?

Do you mean Lana? She was played by Ann Wedgeworth.



Yeah, there's a certain resemblance. I think it might be the hair.

:D

[No Elephants]

164. Do you mean John Ritter, the actor who played Jack Tripper? He died.

Duh. I just realized for the first time how similar the actor's name is to the character's name.

[dipsydoodle]

136. Yup - real women wear dresses.

All woman that one.

[No Elephants]

162. Some "real" women do. And some "real" women don't. And some "real" women mix it up.

What is a "real" woman anyway? And who gets to make that decision?

[dipsydoodle]

173. Its in the eye

of the beholder.

[No Elephants]

160. Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi aside, those pictures would have been nearly

unimaginable 40 or 50 years ago.

Maybe there is hope for the women of world, after all. FINALLY.

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

105. Good Lord!

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread. I just knew it. Yet, with the grim inevitability of Greek tragedy, I found my finger hovering over the mouse button, and by then, it was all too late.....

A brandy. I definitely need a brandy now.

Whenever the Falklands issue comes up people on both sides of the argument stumble around like drunkards, occasionally bumping into the truth, but more often stumbling into fact, fantasy, and self-righteous hypocritical indignation. The arguments get wonderful, wild and woolly.

It's all rather simple really. The Argentinians will use the issue to boost a flagging regime (as they always do). Quite what an Argentinian government would do in future if they actually took control of the islands is anyone's guess. The whole thing would probably be a huge disappointment to them. Like the Christmas present that a kid had yearned for all December, only to find that the anticipation was better than the reality. Indeed, if the oil exploration comes to naught, the citizens of the then 'Malvinas' might well find themselves put on eBay to help pay off government debt.

The British goverment cannot get rid of the islands even if they wished to do so. Blood was spilt in 1982 over them, and the British public would not stand for them being given up. Argentina invaded in 1982. You don't give the playground bully your lunch money AFTER you have knocked him out.

The United States will rightly do whatever is in their national self-interest at the time. This can change depending on events, administrations, and even whether it is an overly warm, or slightly breezy day in Washington. No moral certainties. Geo-politics doesn't allow for moral certainties.

Plus, for all the 'historic' quibbling in this thread, two words really should end the matter for most logical, sensible people.

Self. Determination.

Argentina could not win at the UN because of this inconvenient, yet salient, little fact. They have long known this.

Now pass me a brandy and, in sympathy with the fine people of the Falkland Isles and their wishes, a cucumber sandwich and afternoon tea.

[Beacool]

109. The playground bully?

That epithet is far more apt when applied to Great Britain which has a very long history of taking over lands that do not belong to them.

Argentina may have its problems, but Britain is having plenty of their own.

Bully indeed..........

:eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Yeah - Argentina invaded in 1982

Do try to keep up.

[Beacool]

126. It was theirs to begin with.

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. No

As the various excerpts already in this thread show, the Falklands were both discovered and inhabited before Argentina even existed. By Frenchmen, Britons and Spaniards (the Spanish name for them even refers to the French - St. Malo).

Why is there an assumption among a few DUers that European colonists who succeeded in taking over an inhabited area on the mainland of South America then get the rights to anywhere they want, such as islands hundreds of miles away, and that this 'right' overrules more than 150 years of inhabitation by the families of the present inhabitants, none of whom want any part in the Argentinian state?

Isn't there a bigger colonial problem in Argentina itself, where the Europeans who invaded and took over from the indigenous inhabitants are still in charge?

[Beacool]

129. When the British invaded the islands in the 1830s they were under Argentine control.

There was a small garrison and a governor (if I recall correctly, his name was Vernet). The British gave them 24hrs. to leave the islands. Unlike probably anyone here, I have read the governor's report. It's in the National Archives in Buenos Aires. The governor described the events and how he was the last man to leave, lowering for the last time the Argentine flag and taking it with him. So no, the islands were not free for the picking.

;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. And the British had had a colony there before

Before Argentina even existed as a country.

If this argument was in 1834, then each side might have a case. But living in, and improving, a place for multiple generations does produce a claim to occupancy and self-determination. Such as, for instance, the ancestors of President Kirchner, who have given her a right not to be chucked out of Argentina because the Spanish invaded a few centuries ago. Or Secretary of State Clinton in the United States, for that matter.

[karynnj]

186. That was 180 years ago

Since then, there have been at least 6 generations of British families there for any that settled near that time. What percent of the current American population can show that all of their ancestors (or even one of their ancestors) were here in 1830.

Mexico legally included Texas, NM, CA and AZ until the US-Mexican war in 1846, 16 years later than this. Do you want to argue that Mexico still has a claim to that region, which we took by force? Would you give the people in those states a vote?

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

116. Let me take you back to 1982

You are living on the Falkland Islands. Your home gets INVADED by a hostile force.

Sorry you didn't get, or like, the analogy, but yes, Argentina and their foul junta in 1982 DID try to impose their will on an innocent population.

Again, we are talking about the will of the people living on the Falkland Isles. Self determination. Pointing fingers at Britain's imperial past doesn't quite solve the problems of today.

[No Elephants]

169. You mean like Native Americans or Palestinians at other times?

"Pointing fingers at Britain's imperial past doesn't quite solve the problems of today."

Quite convenient, wot? The Brits got to have their way during the heyday of the Empire and also now, in the Falklands. Somehow, it always works out for the occupier, even morally?

Let me take you back a few years to before 1 million Iraqis were displaced and others killed, maimed, etc. thanks to an illegal war by the "Coalition" from hell, which knew the war was illegal. With apologies to Shania Twain, yells from the U.K. about self determination and invasions don't impress me much.


God forbid, they negotiate the Falklands on the economics instead of trying to take the high road (but only when it suits them or they have no other economically feasible choice).

[AlphaCentauri]

110. I can't understand this Reaganish support for imperial powers

if self determination was the real deal the same people who want Las Malvinas be part of the UK would be protesting other invasions and military bases around the world

[Lord Tredegars Macaw]

117. All that matters is the people of the Falklands surely?

and I'm not entirely sure why THEY would be protesting other invasions and military bases around the world. They have enough to worry about on their own doorstep at the moment.

[ikri]

124. Which Imperial Power would that be?

The one that is trying to annex the land (whilst holding on to a huge swathe of Paraguay they annexed in the war of the Triple Alliance)?

Or the one that's defending the rights and interests of the inhabitants of the islands?

[No Elephants]

171. Defending the rights and interests of the inhabitants of the island? LOL

[Stella_Artois]

181. Correct

The people the Argentine Government is trying so very hard to pretend don't exist.

Its their land, and they are a self governing territory. Perhaps if the Argentine government had commenced a hearts and minds campaign in 1982 rather than ensuring the deaths of innocent civilians they might have made more progress by now.

Also, if they had not withdrawn from a revenue sharing deal in 2007 they would not be faced with getting zero income from the oil proceeds. That decision looks like it may cost them dear.

[truebrit71]

170. Um..the residents on THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (thought I'd help you out with the correct nomenclature)

..have been asked, and answered that the wish to remain part of the UK and NOT Argentina..as to whether they were pro or anti Iraq/Afghanistan I really don't know..

[LanternWaste]

112. Argentina claims citizens of the Falklands do not have right to self-determination...

Argentina claims citizens of the Falklands do not have right to self-determination...

Also... "The British claim to de jure sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost constantly since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

[Throd]

119. Argentina should be returned to Spain

And Spain should be returned to the Visigoths

[No Elephants]

176. And the UK should be returned to the Kalahari Bushmen.

As should the rest of the planet. All nations were first settled by Kalahari Bushmen and/or their descendants.

Or so the DNA and other evidence supposedly proves.

They seemed like lovely folk in The Gods Must Be Crazy. If contact with the West has not made them ugly, maybe they should decide who gets to be sovereign over the Falklands. But, if the West has corrupted them, they will probably say they should have it.

[AngryAmish]

123. Didn't the Ghurkas already do this a few years ago?

[No Elephants]

177. The Ghurkas drilled for oil off the Falklands a few years ago?

[pampango]

131. How about an International Sovereignty Resolution Tribunal to resolve the Falklands/Malivinas

dispute between the UK and Argentina and similar sovereignty disputes between countries?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7832908

[No Elephants]

178. If anyone would actually abide by the authority of such an organization, great.

Not sure that would ever happen, not until we evolve some more, anyway.

It's worth putting out there, though. Maybe someday, we will be enlightened.

[No Elephants]

179. Sovereignty over the islands is unclear, at best. And, while the residents

have the right to determine their own citizenship, they do not have the right to vote on whether Argentina is sovereign over the islands or not. That is not "self determination by anyone's definition.

This is not a people getting back the country they had from time immemorial, until someone occupied it, then the occupier gave the indigeneous people the opportunity to vote for self rule.

No one can claim a moral high ground in this case. Not the UK as a nation, not those who currently live on the Falklands as occupiers, and not Argentina.

I don't see any really fair solution, except for all sides to stop pretending the answers and morality of the situation are all clear cut--while coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.

The Brits and the Argentinians need to come to some kind of agreement and memorialize it in a treaty, or take it to the U.N. If we can help them come to an agreement, at IMPARTIALLY, fine. If not, we should stay the hell out of it.

[Stella_Artois]

183. Is it unclear ?

It became a lot more clear in 1982 when Argentina antagonized the natives for the next few generations.

Argentina swings from sending them Christmas cards, to invading and killing them, to pretending they don't exist.

One day they will figure out its Port Stanley they need to be negotiating with, not London. Until then, sovereignty is very, very clear.