Independant Falklands

[Johnmcd]

Hi to the Main Comms Office!
You are absolutely right – it’s all up to the islanders what future they wish to carve for themselves.

But you might be a ‘tadge’ wrong in believing that all islanders wish for is the present ‘status quo’ that exists on the islands. When you talk of percentages, with such a small island population, then even 1%, 10% etc is a considerable vote against the majority view.

Who looks after those who disagree? I mean what political party exists on the islands that take onboard minority issues?

Good luck with being a permanent resident! Are you considering starting up a Celtic Fan club in Stanley?

Best wishes,
John.

By the by…There is only one UN Charter

[Sakura26]

Hello All

Everybody keeps saying it's up to the islanders to choose. Yes it is, but to choose their nationality, not the territory.

Let's imagine a crazy story: I go to the brazilian forest and, since nobody lives there, I start my own settlement. I am very powerful, and although the govt. of Brazil tries to kick me out of their forest, they cant. So time passes, and 100 years later, we ask the rest of the world what they think about, and everybody says "Well, if you have been living there for 100 years, it's up to you to decide if you want to be from Argentina or Brazil." So we choose to be from Argentina, install our flag there, and happily live in a stolen territory completely ignoring Brazil's claim. Another 20 years pass, and my grand grand grand children have no idea what happened long ago, and dont care, they just have been taught to hate Brazil, just in case....

Brazil has no rights according to you all? Again the powerful against the weaker.....law of the jungle... they ask us to respect the rest but nobody respects us!!

Argentina is not going to drop the claim, and from my point of view, we shouldnt start any talks until at least someone recognizes OUR rights as well. You cannot just go and settle your population in somebody else's land just because there is nobody there.

For this conflict to be solved, both parts have to be ready to lose something. This conflict is not going to be finished with our claim dropped.

Noelia

[Sea Eagle]

Noelia,

I am dissapointed that you either do not trouble to read and/or comment on the postings that set out the negative and unexplained logic of aspects of the Argentine 'claim' to the Falklands.

I actually hoped you had an open mind and would engage in the arguments and set out with reason and logic to defend your position. In doing so you might just have come up with a point that would have no answer from the Falklands side. It is not good enough to say the Islands are ours, Yah Boo, because they are an integral part of our territory, therefore the settlers are intruders in our country and have no right to self determination. This is the current official Argentine line but not the original basis of their claim in the 19th Century (1833). Which has been conveniently changed to try and make it more acceptable. Moreno, your representative at the Court of St. James said it was yours because Argentina had succeeded to the rights of Spain and was based on Spains prior occupation and that Spain had purchased the Islands from France and that England had abandoned its claim because it had left its settlement at Port Egmont as a result of a secret promise to Spain. He said that abandonment of the settlement was the abandonment of Englands claim in law, a point which he could not justify in fact nor could he find or produce any evidence of a secret agreement just as nobody has ever since.

These original arguments of course, in any modern interpretation, actually strengthen Englands claim rather than weaken it so of course Argentina has had to change the basis of it claim to try and make it more acceptable.

From my point of view it is illogical to say that simply because a state of affairs once existed at a particular moment in time that it should continue to exist as a sacred right forever. This applys to all countries. It is also not logical to say that because a mass of land is in proximity to a particular state that it is therefore an integral part of that state. The Falklands are several hundreds of miles from Argentina and similarly just as close to Chile. They are 1,000 miles from Buenos Aires, incidentally roughly the same distance as Gibraltar is from London, and roughly the same distance from Montevideo, the seat of the last Spanish Vice Royalty authority that administered them.

England is 22 miles from France but the two countries do not claim each others territory. Well they once did, of course but the arguments for this long ago withered away as yours should. The three lions on the English shield, so loved of English football supporters are the Lions of Aquitaine and Normandy, once ruled by the English Monarchs but no longer claimed by them.

Surely you do not expect us to believe the basis of your claim when it is based on doubtful succession to a defunct Vice Royalty. Truly is Kirchner the King of the River Plate in succession to the King of Spain? Of course not, just like Argentina also did not succeed to all the territories of that defunct Royal Realm nor does it in any sense exercise inherited Royal Kingship over that former Vice Kingdom.

If you are to try to win your point you need to make your argument in acceptable historical terms that can be weighed and debated logically rather than repeating the mantra of the 'wail' of those who know they have lost the argument but hope succeed by bluff.

For John,

Why the emphasis on Political Parties being a necessity for democracy in the Falklands? If you look on the Commonwealth site you will see a number of those small independent countries have no political parties but still have a Prime Minister and other ministries that function pefectly well without them. Political Parties after all represent sectional or bock interests similar to individuals who do not necessarily just represent themselves.

Best wishes,

Ernie

[Johnmcd]

Ernie,
Good posting to Noelia. But background fact and logic alone will not be a resolving tool while outstanding sea territory issues, of a stark economic nature, have yet to be sorted out. You should also note that the argument of distance hardly applies to the Falklands since it lies in an isolated region of the world. Yes, 300 miles from the mainland and thousands of miles from everywhere else. This reality of isolation is borne out by the RAF providing chartered long haul flights via Ascension. These are hardly issues are a sovereignty issue – but more to do with the islanders enjoying a modern contemporary human existence in the far flung!

You say:

“Why the emphasis on Political Parties being a necessity for democracy in the Falklands? If you look on the Commonwealth site you will see a number of those small independent countries have no political parties but still have a Prime Minister and other ministries that function pefectly well without them. Political Parties after all represent sectional or bock interests similar to individuals who do not necessarily just represent themselves”<br>
The Falklands Islands have based their own laws and Constitution on the British Judicial and British Parliamentary system. They state this on their own website, if I’m not mistaken!

The clear fact that you see party based constitutional politics as un-necessary is quite worrying. As far as I can make out…when any nosey islander want to know what their elect are up to then they get told to keep their noses out. They have no political debating chamber – just closed committee rooms for the many acronyms that cover for government.

The last poll on the islands was back in 1997? Anyway, the poll asked, “Under what circumstances would you discuss sovereignty with Argentina. 87% said, “Under NO circumstances” (13% according to my maths is near on 400 residents!)

Ernie, who represents this 13%? Anyone in government? No is the answer of course. Minority views on any issue are at the mercy of a single state unit. Quite frankly that is not government as we enjoy here in the UK.

Or do you believe the islands are closer in politics to those of Trinidad and Tobago? I would think that it is actually much better in the West Indies.

Best wishes
John.

[Sakura26]

Dear Ernie

I did read your facts, but, why should I accept them when nobody accept ours? What I said about Brazil is a silly example, of course it's absolutely impossible (I Hope) for any country to do something like that anywhere. You know perfectly that it's not only a matter of distance, and that the example of Gibraltar and London is not the same as the Falklands and Argentina. It's not only a matter of distances and miles.

Surely you do not expect us to believe the basis of your claim when it is based on doubtful succession to a defunct Vice Royalty.

Then dont expect us to believe your arguments that the people have the right to choose over a stolen territory. If BOTH parts of this conflict are not prepared to lose something, this is never going to end.

Deny me that for the Falkland Islanders the only way to solve this is with the drop of our claim....
Otherwise, tell me what are the Falklands/Britain ready to lose in favor of Argentina to solve this conflict.

I am dissapointed that you either do not trouble to read and/or comment on the postings that set out the negative and unexplained logic of aspects of the Argentine 'claim' to the Falklands.

It's an unexplained logic for you because you're in the other side. It's perfectly logic and reasonable for us. When you feel "threatened" there's no way you can see your agressor's behaviour as logic and reasonable at all.

It would be nice that a 3rd country could judge this conflict from the outside. Of course, impartiality is very hard to find. You will choose the United States for this, and we would choose Brazil. It' would be exactly the same, so it doesnt work.

Despite what everybody thinks, I do care for the fate of islanders. But the same way I admit they cannot just be kicked out from a land they have been living in for decades (I did not say OWN) I would like someone to admit Argentina DOES have rights over the territory.

But if Britain/Falklands remain close-minded and dont want to admit our rights, why would Argentina have to be so kind to admit their?

We have a saying here, that says: Two people do not fight if one of them doesnt want to. The same applies to friendship, we cannot be friends if you dont want to, and be friends means you respect me as much as I respect you ( - please, notice that by "I", "You" I am hipotethically speaking about the countries, not us personally).

If Britain keeps seeing our claim as a crazy passing fancy, Argentina will have to do the same,and this situation is never going to end.

Then again, I ask everybody here, what is Britain/Falklands ready to lose in this negotiation? Thousands of choices have been said already: Sharing sovereignty, divide the islands, etc... Let's pick one and talk about it to see if it would be a good solution.

Best Wishes
Noelia

[Pólux]

I would say that, in order to reach an understanding, or to find a common ground in order to advance, we must agree to a set of facts; not "our" facts or "their" facts, but simply facts. If I can acknowledge that something the other says is true, I should not require the acknowledgement of "my" fact to do so. That is the attitude that led to the current situation.
If I'm willing to discuss the issue, I must not reject the possibility of being shown to be wrong, if that is the case. If right from the start I know what I want and won't settle for anything less even if I'm wrong, I'm not ready for any discussion.

[Sea Eagle]

Polux,

You are right, nobody is prepared to agree on what is ‘fact’ and what is fiction or myth. Though I have hammered away at this for a number of years I have made no progress. I have honestly tried to look at available historical records to achieve this.

I am very prepared to discuss differences of 'fact' but with only one exception some time ago I have never been able to get anyone to discuss them with me on the basis of the available evidence.

Unfortunately if I say something like….. The only eyewitness accounts of the Gaucho Rivero’s actions at Port Louis shows that he was a cold blooded killer who was prepared to kill unarmed people in his quest for gold…..gets a pretty cool response.

Perhaps naturally so when you have been brought up to believe he was a hero in rebellion against the British authorities in the Falklands. Some nations have a need for heroes.

Perhaps there should indeed be a Commission to establish the disputed facts. Though some people seem to take the view ‘My Country right or wrong’ which is not very helpful in establishing facts.

Perhaps a sort of ‘Truth and Conciliation Commission’ where we could all confess to our outrageous beliefs have them investigated and apologise to each other for wrong impressions. ( I cannot say ‘Re-conciliation’ because we were never ‘Conciliated’ in the first place.)

Though I am not quite sure how it would solve the basic differences unless one side or the other gives ground on Sovereignty. Naturally it would be an uphill Conciliation task to persuade an Argentine that Falkland Islanders have the same rights as themselves, indeed the right also to decide where their own ‘interests’ lie rather than being patronised.

Any ideas?

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle

[Sea Eagle]

John,

It is obvious that the outstanding issues of the sharing and exploitation of natural resources in the South West Atlantic (and of course South Atlantic) remain outstanding largely because of Argentina’s present Presidential bad attitude. Which if I may say so does King Kirchner of the defunct Vice Royalty of the River Plate no credit at all because he is acting like a total balloon on Falklands and related issues for his own domestic political reasons, presenting the lie of hope of gaining sovereignty over the islands to curry political favour with his domestic voters. The recent Fisheries Commission outcomes clearly shows who it is who is holding up proceedings.

With regard to the distance issue. You need to adjust your thinking here, the Falklands as the central issue is not a matter of its isolation from the world. The Islands and Islanders are where they are, their position is their true and actual location. They are not dislocated at all, you are displaying ‘Argentine Think’, they are where they are entitled to be, and it is you and I who are physically distant from them in this scenario not vice versa. Therefore their location should have no bearing on their rights under the UN Charter any more than the location and proximity of Cuba to the United States should be an issue other than the practical one of developing a policy of good neighbourliness with your nearest, if not dearest, neighbour. As I have said Chile is just as close to the Falklands as Argentina and a darned sight more friendly to boot. So whilst you can’t choose your relatives, no matter how distant they are from you, you can choose your friends wisely and be extremely wary of then ones who want to steal your clothes. So one might say England is far flung from the Falklands, which is inconvenient from the point of view of that country being your best friend, parent and mentor. But all is not lost, maybe air access to St. Helena with cooperation in that direction from the Falklands may make the flight enterprise more commercial to suit your liberal susceptibilities and cut the defence budget. Don’t forget also it was the UK that forced the Falklands into air access in the 1970’s in the first place so no doubt they bear some responsibility for the present situation, would you not agree?

I am sure you know as well as I do that if the UK stopped the RAF or Chartered commercial flights to the Falklands that at present Argentina would immediately refuse all overflight facilties to the Falklands so lets not be too holier that thou about the situation.

With regard to political parties in the Falklands, I would have once agreed with you but now I think they would be too likely to represent sectional interest and cause more strife than they would be worth. In any event efforts have been made to launch political parties before but they have never had the support to even get off the ground.

Who represents the 13%? Well that is like asking in the UK about who represents all the people who voted for the Tories and Liberal-Democrats in the UK. Of course they have representatives in Parliament and I am fairly sure also that some of the 13% to whom you refer in the Falklands will also have voted for some of the successful candidates in the last Falklands General Election because there is no certainty that the 13% to whom you refer were actually left unrepresented at the general election, unless you have powers of divination. You mix apples and pears in your reasoning I think. Even with proportional representation there is a percentage always left unrepresented. So it is a matter of at what level you do this rather than a principle of democracy.

In addition there is no one consolidated view of what ‘talking to Argentina about sovereignty’ would actually mean to the 13% you refer to. In fact you say 13% represents 400 people, slight exaggeration I suspect. That would mean that there were 3078 eligible voters in the Falklands in 1997. Really?? Who represents the 13%? Well some of them would be represented by people they voted in at the General Election, but having said that Councillors represent all their constituents as they do in the UK. They do of course not know who voted for them in any event.

I also disagree with you, it is just the sort of Government that we have in the UK. No better and probably no worse. I personally worked in local Government for quite a number of years and found it little different to what we see in the Falklands. Secretive, personalised, reluctant to reveal its inner workings to the electorate. It seems also that the newish Chief Executive has also brought all the bad habits of UK local government with him to the Falklands. Such as silence the officers who actually know what is going on, (e.g. have a whistleblowing policy so you can control the outcomes) Threaten them with job cuts (also make a few to make your point), criticise them publically all in the name of cost saving and efficiency. It is absolutely no different to the UK believe me. So any nosey Islander is just like any nosey Englishman, he/she gets their nose chopped off sharpish. I suspect you have rose tinted spectacles of how government works in the UK.

Finally, whilst the Falklands type of Government is based on the UK model it is not the same. In fact it is quite different in many respects. Being based on something does not make it the same. The Chilean Flag was designed in honour of the US Flag and is based on it but it represents a completely different entity altogether.

The FIG has a unicameral system with no upper house , no cabinet, no ministerial system, no defined government or opposition. It appoints unelected and ex officio persons to the Executive Council in which respect it is more like the US Cabinet system that the UK. It does not appoint its own Head of State (Governor) nor does it have a leadership system. By doing this those in power manage to avoid much responsibility for their actions. The old colonial system still persists in many respects, where the ‘Government’ is seen to be some sort of ethereal body that is somehow in existence and responsible for everything, but also somehow detached from the elected members, this is to be much regretted.

So as you can see I am not entirely uncritical of the FIG, having said that it is the only Government they have and not an althogether bad one, so they do have my support on most of the main issues that exist.

Best wishes,

Ernie

[Johnmcd]

Ernie,
I do believe that you do understand both sides of the divide but fail in fair reference both.
The problems the islands have over the Gap and exploitation of fishing licensing in general cannot be seen from one point of view. This problem arose immediately when the UK unilaterally expanded the islands EEZ – long before Kirchner came on the scene and obviously well after the 14 July 1999 agreement was reached.

I take your point that the islands relative isolation is not the core issue at hand. Of course there are many other matters – most notably the immoral claim.

By isolation I simply point out what the present Governor has already said, that the islands ‘need’ their closest neighbours co-operation. This is not taking up on any negative view presented by Argentina – it is recognising the reality of exactly where the islands are.

That fact that the islands are in isolated location makes the FIG manifesto policy of having nothing to do with Argentina ridiculous. You make other hypothetical comparisons, but aren’t these of the same type that Noelia forwarded and you lambasted?

Please don’t blame the UK for any further island deficiency (air links) or malady. The islands have been self serving now since 1985. It they who keep our tax payers payers pinned down. The same tax payers that paid the £300 million for the MPA complex and FIPASS. Who runs FIPASS now ? Yes, you’ve got it in one – the FIC!

More islands gifts for those whose profits are non returnable.


The MoD should stop carrying indulgence fare islanders immediately. The islanders should start ordering their own Chartered flights by themselves for themselves and if the FIG wish to subsidise those flight tickets – then that’s their business. Is that not fair considering the boasts we hear of islander wealth and average annual income?

I believe so and I also believe that to be fair considering the defence cuts our forces have endured just recently.

Representation, across the board, of the small community cannot easily be excused as a failed experiment or apples & pears. The FIG being non party can only audit themselves (not unless we have another Shackleton report) . All democratic governments must meet a duty of representation of different groups at all levels. How else will the FIG be informed that policies issued targeted correctly? And not to the detriment a clear minorities – who have no voice?

Perhaps proportional representation is something for the future providing distinct parties are formed as a central part of government performance.

We should note that in the UK it is unlawful for any government to knowingly or unwittingly to politically use their office to discriminate against minority political groups. They must have their say and their platform on which to say it – what ever it is.

Of course those groups are yet to emerge on the islands and cannot because of the current system in place.

I hope from these mutterings that you can see how the islands today have a democracy deficit that should not be excused just because you always want to be seen defending their side.

Best wishes,
John.

[Gabriel]

TEXT

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Noelia:

Your example is not silly at all! This already have almost happened, believe it or not.

Some years ago several NGOs tryed to separate a piece of Brazil for the indians Yanomami, which are nomads tribes that live in our border with Venezuela. The amount of land was about three or four times the area of Portugal. This movement was quite serious and prompted our military immediately against it. A new country would have been born just to “protect” the poor indians (that actually did not ask anything, just to be left alone). When our diplomacy changed the issue of where this piece of land could be taken, which was anywhere the NGOs choose but with the limitation that this land had to be located at least 100 km from any border, they dropped the subject and found something else to do.

They clearly wanted to create a new country taking land from both Brasil and Venezuela. The “rights” of the indians could have been clearly preserved if a piece of land, does not matter where in the rain forest, were reserved for them. But the objective was clearly to steal our land, using the indians as an excuse.

Sound familiar?

Saludos amigos, Maquilishuat

[Sakura26]

Hello Otto!

Wow, I didnt know about that...I just chose the brazilian forest because it's a good example of an uninhabited territory that is part of a country. With this example, even when no argentine population were in the Falklands (theory that I personally do not believe) , and the british settled there before us, it doesnt mean they own the territory, the geographical issue is important too.

Glad to see you around here again.

Best Wishes
Noelia

[jessefoxlet]

A very informative and interesting thread.

It's a pity your points (John & Sea Eagle) can not be accepted by Sakura, otherwise she would have to admit that Argentinas claims to the Islands should be dropped.

Keep trying, it may sink in eventually. I will not hold my breath though.