|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 4, 2004 9:10:09 GMT -3
Dear all, How would Argentina view a politically independent, fully autonomous, Falkland Islands.
Your views please...
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 5, 2004 22:32:21 GMT -3
Dear John
I dont quite understand your question... I see it very difficult for a territory like the Falklands to be politically, economically and militarily independant....mostly because of the size and the location....
Regards Sakura
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 6, 2004 9:07:58 GMT -3
Dear John I dont quite understand your question... I see it very difficult for a territory like the Falklands to be politically, economically and militarily independant....mostly because of the size and the location.... Noelia, The question of islander Independence, though hypothetical at this time in history, is a very real one and an option that that islanders could embark upon at any time of their choosing. Politically, the islands have all the necessary mechanics of government in place, regardless of the ‘one party’ system that would naturally have to change when electing a First Minister. Presumably, the islands would opt to stay within the British Commonwealth of Nations and still have the Queen as Head of State – the same as Australia, New Zealand etc. Economically, the islands, though largely dependant on a fragile fishery based income, are strident enough to further develop and diversify more into embryonic fields such as organic food stuffs, and tourism. Offshore oil exploration would no doubt be the next generation. Additionally, being independent the islands would need to be very competitive with neighbouring economies and be visionary enough not to be reliant on one or two major UK companies that have no international links. Militarily, The Falklands could be a prime UN candidate as a ‘De-militarised Zone’ The islands would still need a Self Defence Force’ as well as armed Fishery Protection ships and aircraft. The location and size of the islands is immaterial. Economic growth and independent status would no doubt herald a larger population as work force requirement would increase. The thrust of the original question is really how Argentina would respond to the islands declaring independence from the UK. Best wishes, John. Regards Sakura
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 6, 2004 15:09:19 GMT -3
Hello John
Well, Britain has, at the moment, all the rights over the islands and can do, whatever they want with them, even declare them as independant territory.
But dont you think that doing this over a territory on dispute is like a mockery on Argentina? We are trying to avoid war, but good will and cooperation is needed to do so.
Let's first finish the issue of the sovereignty and then, when the dispute is over, the FIG can work on its independence - or not - depending on how the conflict ends.
I dont support wars and I dont want another one. But if Britain tries to step on us by declaring independence on a territory that is part of a conflict, I will have to support the military desicions my goverment no doubt will take.
Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 6, 2004 15:43:44 GMT -3
Noelia,
It is the Islanders only who have the right to declare independence. The UK do not have that right under its own Law or the UN Charter but the islanders do.
This could be done as some Pacific slands have done in association with another Independent country. Perfectly approved by the UN.
I made this post elswhere in reply to John:-
John,
You pose a reasonable question, but the answer is quite complicated particularly if this is a sincere question of which I have no doubt, and given Argentina’s present stance.
I have set out below the options that are acceptable internationally (The UN options) for the Falklands, whatever Argentina may say or do. The question is how to make them a viable proposition in Falklands and UK terms.
Having said that the Falklands will select its own options in consultation with the United Kingdom regardless of what the UN or Argentina says, nevertheless it would be preferable that whatever option is chosen eventually should be one that ‘fits’ international criteria to gain wider acceptance even if this is not physically absolutely necessary.
What is happening at the moment is that consciously or otherwise the FIG is pursuing a version of option (b) set out below, whereby it is becoming increasingly Independent in the management of its internal affairs and the exploitation of its resources, but moving somewhat slowly towards a more acceptable ministerial type of Government that would take it more firmly down this path and consolidate its declared position. It is also robust in insisting that its independent view of international relationships is followed by the administering power. The United Kingdom’s own legislation regarding its Overseas Territories allows those Territories to indicate very strongly, even instruct within nationally acceptable limits, how they want their foreign affairs managed by the UK (the administering power). In matters of defence the Falklands is obviously reliant virtually totally upon the UK except perhaps in some matters of fishery protection.
Integration with the UK is also a possibility, but in my opinion not a very strong possibility as it has never been an HMG preferred option.
The UK has declared before the C24 (in reference to Caribbean territories) that it will support whatever options its Overseas Territories choose but has seen no desire among them to move towards Independence.
The Falklands present position is also as an associated territory of the EU, through the United Kingdom, which is also advantageous to it.
Becoming a sovereign independent State is not perhaps the best available option perhaps because it may be too drastic a measure to be accepted in the Falklands given their recent past history, the present Argentine hostile attitude which continues to generate lack of trust towards that country and its long term intentions. However being fully Independent and associated with the UK as in option (b) is a distinct possibility and an increasing likelihood given the continuing path being presently followed.
I personally support demilitarization but unfortunately do not regard this as a viable option at the present simply because Argentina has recently resumed the habit of the military nudge, particularly in fishery areas just to provide a bit of harassment to spice up their presence and gain brownie points at home politically.
The International Position.
UN Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 says;
Principle VI:
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.”<br> This Resolution predates the founding of the C24 and should be the guiding principal on which it operates.
In 1960 the UN defined the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories as the following:-
Territory Administration Area (sq.km.) Population 1 AFRICA Western Sahara 2 266,000 3 ATLANTIC AND CARIBBEAN Anguilla United Kingdom 96 11,960 Bermuda United Kingdom 53 6,997 British Virgin Islands United Kingdom 153 23,000 Cayman Islands United Kingdom 260 39,410 Falkland Islands (Malvinas) United Kingdom 11,961 2,391 Montserrat United Kingdom 98 5,000 St. Helena United Kingdom 122 6,000 Turks and Caicos Islands United Kingdom 430 24,000 United States Virgin Islands United States 340 108,612 EUROPE Gibraltar United Kingdom 6 26,703 PACIFIC AND INDIAN OCEANS American Samoa United States 197 57,291 Guam United States 549 154,805 New Caledonia 4 France 35,853 215,904 Pitcairn United Kingdom 5 46 Tokelau New Zealand 10 1,518
Therefore the UN accepts the right of the Falklands to the choices outlined above, indeed designates those choices, whilst elsewhere acknowledging the territorial aspirations expressed by Argentina that complicates the achievement of those choices but does not in any way negate them as outlined above because of Argentina’s claim.
The UN C24 has called upon GB and Argentina to discuss Argentina’s aspirations and thereby settle those differences of opinion regarding sovereignty and the presumption must be so that this will facilitate the de-colonisation of the Falklands when those differences have been resolved. Neither the UN nor its subsidiary body the C24 has ever said, to the best of my knowledge, that any discussions or negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom are likely to remove the necessity for the Islands to be de-colonised in accordance with and within the UN’s guiding principles on the matter.
The fact that there are differences in opinion on sovereignty in terms as expressed by Argentina is immaterial to the ultimate outcome, which is that the Falklands has the right to choose its own destiny regardless of the outcome of any proposed discussions between Argentina and GB. Sensibly the UN position appears to be that the Argentine aspiration is a bar to the successful de-colonisation of the islands presently, however this does not mean that the Islands themselves should not protect their own ‘interests’ (as opposed to what Argentina thinks their interests should be) in the meantime by progressing at their own pace towards any destiny of their choice.
Argentina makes a complicated and convoluted legal argument for sovereignty based on discovery and succession to territory from Spain. This proposition of itself cannot be agreed to or ruled upon by the UN as it has no mechanism so to do. Indeed it seems that the UN itself under its own Charter would be hard pressed to support Argentina in its claim legitimately. It is up to Argentina to make its own case and persuade the United Kingdom and Falkland Islanders of its merits as impossible as this outcome seems to be.
Of necessity Argentina must submit its claim to the present administering authority (UK) which it has done and been rebuffed or be prepared to settle for something less. The International Court also has no authority, whatever it rules, to impose a solution that is in contravention of the interests (as decided by themselves) of the Islanders. This would be against Human Rights, natural justice and the declared intentions of UN de-colonisation towards the Falklands.
Even for the UN, by its own rules Argentina cannot win its argument because under Principles IV and V of the Annex to 1541, Argentina would be obliged to acknowledge the geographical, cultural and ethnic separate nature of the Islands inhabitants and inform the UN under Article 73 of the Charter of this state of affairs simply because otherwise the Islanders would be being forced to accept a status they did not want and therefore would be in a state of subordination to Argentina against their will and consequently be entitled to be de-colonised just the same as they are now.
The way for Argentina to deal with this situation is surely for the present administration to continue with the discussions that are on offer regarding the management of South West Atlantic resources and the sharing of resources in a peaceful and commercially profitable manner.
Kirchner for his own ends racks up the dispute by emphasising the Argentine ‘belief’ in inheritance of territory from Spain, demonstrably untrue, and the ‘territorial integrity’ of his nation as inherited from Spain, again demonstrably untrue, if simply because modern Argentina itself only represent a small ‘rump’ of the original claimed territory.
There are negotiations on offer to Argentina but no negotiations regarding a transfer of sovereignty which is the only thing that Argentina wishes to discuss.
Argentina’s approach to the situation is a demonstrably dishonest one in which she pretends to be reasonable to the world at large in wishing to negotiate and settle a sovereignty dispute but fails to clarify openly that her pre-conceived idea of the outcome of such negotiations, a hand over of territory regardless of the inhabitants wishes, is the very thing that prevents the United Kingdom and the Falklands agreeing to take part in any such sham.
Argentina’s rough agenda for the proposed talks is simply ‘When will you capitulate Sovereignty to Argentina will it be now, next week or at the latest next year?’<br> This is not the basis for negotiation but an ultimatum to the United Kingdom and the Falklands. An ultimatum that is simply unacceptable.
Best wishes
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 6, 2004 17:29:01 GMT -3
Noelia, No Britain does not have all rights over the islands. Those rights are the responsibility of the islanders. Britain cannot declare the islands independent. All Britain could do, theoretically, is to relinquish the status of the Falklands as being a British Overseas Territory. This we could do unilaterally - the same as the islands declaring their own Unilateral Declaration of Independence. We would never be able to stop them doing so - if they so wished.
Noelia, Argentina, will at some stage, have to accept the islanders drive for self-determination. How your country does this will be a matter for yourselves. The emotive issue of Freedom can never be a ‘mockery’ to any nation state that truly believes in freedom and complete democracy.
Remember, it is only the islands that can declare independence - not the UK.
So please re-visit your posting with this important fact in mind. It may well be an issue that Argentina might have to face in the future.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 6, 2004 17:57:27 GMT -3
Dear John
I dont know if I'm going to be able to express what I want to say in english, because it's complicated to translate...
There are many ways to hide the truth, calling things with other names, not facing the facts etc.... But after all, the truth is already there and no matter how many names you give to a lie, it will be still a lie.
You can say that the Falklands will ask for its independecne peacefully and the honourable Britain will accept it.
It will be totally against the historical pattern of behaviour of Britain. When did Britain lose a territory without fighting for it?
Argentina will translate this desicion as a very unfriendly behaviour of Britain towards Argentina. And we know what unfriendly behaviours end up like..
If the Falklands get their independence, then the goverment of Argentina will have to talk to the FIG and keep the claiming over there, instead of talking to the british govt.
I know what you mean, John, and in a dream world, you are right.....but this is more complicated, and you know that doing that with a territory disputed by 2 countries would be an unfriendly choice and a call to war, that is exactly what we're trying to avoid.
Nobody is goint to believe Britain happily decided to give its independence to the Falkland Islands. It's very obvious this is a trick to weaken our claim.
Could be a good strategy but a dangerous one too.
Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 7, 2004 7:25:41 GMT -3
Noelia, I agree that the truth is always there but it is also true that to find it we sometimes have to discard what others say and state to be a fact by looking for that truth ourselves. Sometimes when we find out the reality of the truth of a certain situation we do not like what we have found out at all. I have been happy to put my name to this Forum, in reality your Forum, because I hope it will lead to a better understanding between us by educating us in each others beliefs and hopefully correcting some misleading beliefs that may be held by one side or another. Just, for instance, take your impression that the UK never gave up territory without fighting for it. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Please look at the following site www.thecommonwealth.org where you will see much of the old British Empire (not all) lined up in an Organisation called the Commonwealth (Not the British Commonwealth as John says, that name was droppped some time ago) each of those countries on this site have a history section from which you will clearly see that the majority of them did not have to fight for their Independence but in fact it came about through negotiation and agreements freely made. Of course there are over fifty countries in the Commonwealth, representing, republics, kingdoms, dominions and those countries that have retained the British Monarch as titular Head of State. There was conflict in some of those states but I cannot think of one that actually fought a war of independence as such against the UK. Possibly Kenya and Aden may qualify in this category. Cyprus had EOKA which did not want Independence but Union with Greece and fought against it and the British fought against Communist insurgents in Malaya to keep Malaysia free to gain independence and confronted Indonesia which wanted to absorb some of Malaysias territory. Perhaps if you have different verifiable information you could share it with me. Other things we may have a different perspective of truth might be:- Gaucho Rivero, we see him as an out and out murderer, he was certainly not a patriot and apparently never claimed to be. Louis Vernet, was also a double dealer, pretending to support Argentina's position but all the time behind your backs he was dealing with the British to try and protect his position when they came to re-possess the Islands as he knew they would. Argentina inherited the territory from Spain - no country that fights for its independence inherits anything, a true fact in international law, they get to keep only what they can hang on to by force. Argentina has not held on to very much of the old Vice Royalty it says it inherited has it? The British expelled the Argentine inhabitants of the Falklands- just a plain lie to us. These are just a few of our differences, they are fairly striking ones, and the way I have stated them may seem a bit harsh, but an honest position nevertheless. Given the importance of factual history to your aspirations to sovereignty over the Falklands perhaps you have some ideas how we can reconcile them? Best wishes, Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Jul 8, 2004 8:11:38 GMT -3
Noelia, The following link may help to explain the relationship between the UK and the Overseas Territories. www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1018028164839It is worth noting that the relationship and rules apply to all the Territories and are not specifically designed to weaken Argentina's claim at all. (Just for the avoidance of paranoia!!) The bulk of the old Empire has long gone and the remaining Territories mostly do not particularly wish to change a status that is so advantageous to them. They have de facto Independence over their own affairs and the military protection of the United Kingdom. On the whole it does not appear to seem advantageous to them to be cast adrift to the mercies of the big bad world. Now that Independence has come by agreement to the countries of the Empire and Commonwealth that wished for it, the UK has defined in agreement with the remaining Territories what the relationship should be with them. It is not much different to what has applied over the last 50 plus years. Independence if and when you want it otherwise you may remain a British Overseas Territory on condition that in return, Britain has the right to expect the highest standards of probity, law and order, good government and observance of Britain’s international commitments. In return for this committment Britain looks after the international interests of the Territories pretty much as defined by themselves as long as this is coincides with the observance of Britain's International committments and provides defence. (e.g. as was the case when the Junta invaded the Falklands) Best wishes, Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 8, 2004 15:35:03 GMT -3
Dear Ernie
The relationship between the UK and its territories is not the problem. I just said that, giving its independence to the Falklands, (which like it or not, is a territory that is part of an unsolved conflict) would be an unfriendly behaviour we dont expect from the UK and that would be a tactic to weaken our claim and make us give up. [ This is never going to happen by the way, independent Falklands or not ]
The imperialism and colonialism has not gone, in fact, it seems to be stronger these times than 10 years ago. The only difference is the terrible economical contrast between Argentina and the UK. If we were Finland (just to name a country without problems) instead of Argentina, I bet the Falkland Islanders wouldnt be so worried about what flag flies there. We are not stupid, if I were Norwegian, and suddenly someone wanted to make my land part of the southafrican territory, OF COURSE I would be mad at everybody and would like to remain as I am.... It's perfectly understandable and we would never dare to oblige anybody to do that. But the territory is part of a dispute and although the people is free to choose what they want, the territory issue is still to be solved.
Dont call it a heritage then, just say we gained it when we fought for the independence of the whole country, the Falklands included.... You keep separating them from the mailand, and we keep counting them as part of the country, it's kind of a neverending story no matter how much time in the past we're talking about.
I dont know if this is true, but just in the case it was, traitors and cowards existed since the human race appeared in this planet. To join the powerful against the weak to make sure you're gonna win, against your ideals, it's disgusting, I feel pity for those who do that. But the kind of person Vernet was, doesnt change our point of view of the Islands.
Then it is not independence at all. It's like Puerto Rico a "free" state associated to the United States, but they speak english in schools and participate in their wars, that's not freedom. A free independant country is fully independant, militarily, economically and politically. It will be very difficult for the Falklands to have the economical status they have now, without the support of the UK. Politically it could work, if they have a good organisation. But militarily, I dont think so. But anyway, no military juntas anymore here, and none of our democratic presidents is going to invade any part of the world again. People will simply not allow that.
Best Wishes Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jul 10, 2004 7:23:43 GMT -3
Noelia, I want to add a few points for your consideration...
The government of the UK is not employing any ‘tactics’ to weaken the Argentine claim over the islands. The UK government simply does not recognise the claim. But yet the UK government remains a firm friend of Argentina with the Argentine government reciprocating in that friendship. These are facts that have been measured and known to prevail.
I agree with you that imperialism and colonialism has not gone.
I happen to believe imperialism to be rife in many areas of the world. The UK still has a hangover from the days of empire I’m sure. However, the remaining overseas territory issues are more likely to be dealt with through the Court of Justice rather than Parliament. The large East African of island of Mauritius is a good example of this. Mauritius is claiming administrative control of the 65 Chagos Islands, which Diego Garcia is but one. The claim is the right to administer Diego Garcia when the US military license runs out in a few years time. This will allow the previously evicted islanders to return home. It is highly likely that they will succeed with their case and thus prevent the US military from extending their license for another 20 years. Actually, I believe the UK government will accede to this before it reaches court in order to prevent Mauritius leaving the ‘British’ Commonwealth of Nations. (Commonwealth Nations are bound not take international legal action against fellow members)
Flags and nationality? well as far as I can see, the Falklands Flag indicates that they are not Argentine. The same with Gibraltar who wave their flag telling all that they are not Spanish. But then again, neither the Falklands islanders or the Gibraltarians are any more British than anyone else from any other former colony or existing overseas territory.
The fact is they are far less British than many millions from the former ‘empire’ that have made Britain their home - who work, pay their taxes, vote and contribute immeasurably in every area of modern British society.
You say to Ernie: “... You keep separating them from the mainland, and we keep counting them as part of the country, it's kind of a never ending story no matter how much time in the past we're talking about”<br> It’s a never ending story because you appear to believe in a timeless myth, a myth that the islands are Argentine regardless of time. Myths are by nature timeless!
But when we ask temporal questions such as, “When did this occur?” “What is the origin of the claim?” “Does the claim result from known historical events” And so on. The independent historian, bound by data of the time, is never going to convince the myth believers any differently. The myth believers have already ‘idolised’ the myth. The Junta of class 1982 did a excellent job in capitalising on this, did they not? They committed arbitrary violence without logic, feeling, or appreciation of the real facts.
The British government of 1982 was not any different. Margaret Thatcher’s paranoid certitude, in all her dealings, also made her oblivious to logic, feeling or appreciation of the real facts.
Both Argentina and Britain raped the sanctity of the islands. (NB: UK based companies and land owners were ripping the islanders off long before the first Argentine conscript set foot on the islands back in 1982)
I would ask, before any rash dismissal of what I have stated, to dwell not on the past but in the present with a look towards a reconciled future. That will require Argentina to seriously consider ‘freezing’ the sovereignty claim to allow normal relations to develop without fear or threat. If this is done then we could see the Falklands further developing their democracy without reliance on the UK. This would no doubt lead to Argentine and Falkland Island government officials in direct contact jointly solving contentious economic issues. The Falklands effectively acting independently as their own constitution permits.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Jul 10, 2004 18:45:22 GMT -3
Hello John
People are going to think I opened this forum to speak alone hahahaha, where's the rest? It's only you Ernie and me posting ......
Ok, About what you said:
Flags and Nationalities have nothing to to with the claim. If I move to Tibet, I will still feel argentine and I'll always remember my flag. It's the flag they taught me to love and respect and that's not going to change no matter what country I am in. Argentine and Spanish Flags are not in the Falklands or Gibraltar because Argentina and Spain are weaker than the UK (militarily speaking) and could not recover their territories. Nobody denies the people living there are british, but again, the territories that the british govt. gave to its people did not belong to the UK, they were stolen. [Point of view of Spain and Argentina.... later we can discuss the historical, geographical and ethnical bases of this claim]
For us, the myth is that the UK belives the territories truly belong to them. Why is the british view more important than the Argentine? You say it's yours and we say it's ours.. Nobody is owner of the truth unless they can prove what they are saying. As far as I know, I've read thousands of times the proofs argentina offers but never read anything coming from the UK. The UK rejects all our proof only by saying Vernet was fake... so what?? who cares about the guy...
About what happened in 1982, I think the Argentine govt should apologise. NOT about the claim, only about the war. Everybody knows by now that it was a de facto govt. If everybody could forgive Bush's invasion to Irak under a democracy, I'm pretty sure the world will forgive Argentina for a de facto govt. that started a war without the people's permission.
If Argentina freezes the claim, what's next? Give up and become another little country stolen by the masters of the universe.... No sir, we're not going to drop the claim. Argentina believes the territory belongs to us, and we are going to defend our point of view. Isn't that what everybody should do?
As I said before, that was madness. Every war is, actually. But I was 4 years old in 1982 (kindergarten) and all my thoughts and what I learned about the Falklands was taught under a deomocratic govt. It's not brainwashing, like other people say. They teach us not to give up against a bigger opponent. If we drop the claim now, we're going to lose a territory we have been defending for decades. After that, nothing else we do will bring honor to Argentina, because a country that gives up once, will give up again, it's just a matter of pressure. It will be an awful invitation to the rest of the world to come and take whatever they want from here.
Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by frenchbrit on Jul 12, 2004 3:49:05 GMT -3
Dear John It will be totally against the historical pattern of behaviour of Britain. When did Britain lose a territory without fighting for it? Which history books have you been reading? Compared to European colonial powers such as Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands, Britain has had very few wars when losing its colonies. Ever heard of the Wars in: Algeria? Indonesia? Indochina, Vietnam? Angola?
|
|
|
Post by frenchbrit on Jul 12, 2004 4:11:59 GMT -3
Flags and Nationalities have nothing to to with the claim. If I move to Tibet, I will still feel argentine and I'll always remember my flag. It's the flag they taught me to love and respect and that's not going to change no matter what country I am in. Well they you are, they have a flag based on the Union Jack because they love and respect their being British. The French stole from the Brits who gave a stolen territory to the Spanish. Have you taken into account the fact that the first claim on the islands was done by Captain John Strong in 1690. The historical claims of the Argentine aren't more valid than the British and we could discuss the claims until the cows came home. It is easy to prove only the British claim is valid and it's also easy to prove only the Argentine claim is valid. I think that most of the international community agrees that its the population of the Falklands that has the final say. It's not petty historical claims that can justify who these islands belong to. The British use them to justify the status of the islands but the only fact that really counts is the fact that the islanders want to be British. Argentina hasn't been defending the Falklands. There was an Argentine settlement from 1828-1831, destroyed by USS Lexington.
|
|
|
Post by The MCO Bhoy on Jul 13, 2004 6:46:17 GMT -3
Everybody, we can all go on about this and that with the UN charter, but in the first instance it will be down to the Islanders themselves. I would be correct in saying that all of them would not want this, and as I am hopefully going to be another permanent member of their community, I wouldn't want this either.
|
|