The "I am sorry" issue

[Maquilishuat]

Hello All:

We have witnessed a lot of efforts to put Argentina in a "I'm sorry" position for its attempt to take the archipelago back.

Life goes on and we all see the use of depleted uraniun in Iraq (both by UK and US). I would like to know what kind of "I'm sorry" is going to take place, for we all know that the isotope average life is counted on thousand of years. Untill then let us see the many birth defects that the Iraqi population will endure. More sad, all "coalition of the willing" soldiers are also exposed to this slow WMD.

Sorry to bring up this reality.

Saludos, Maquilishuat

[Sakura26]

Hello Otto!

You know, Argentina is NOT sorry for trying to get the islands back, we are sorry for doing it in a violent way. However, the big difference between Irak and other weaker countries abused by the emperors of the world, and Argentina is that we wont drop the claim or shut up before a bigger, stronger enemy. That's something to be proud of, and indeed I am. I fully support Irak, and if I ever find some kind of forum like this one, I would be helping them too. The problem is that, the level of undeveloppement of Irak is far worse than latinamerica's, wich makes things easier for the UK and the US and harder for them to make themselves heard.
But anyway, I believe there's always a payback...The invincible Roman Empire became Italy.... It's just a matter of time until the blood spread by the US goes back to them.

Noelia

[Sea Eagle]

Sakura,

I have always said that Argentina is entitled to make any claim it wishes legitimate or not. And please don't ever be sorry on my behalf, sorrow must come from the heart and not as a political gesture.

Just a couple of questions for you to ponder.

When the Falklands becomes independent in association with another state or states in due course as it is entitled to do under UN rules as a completely separate entity geographically, liguistically and culturally. (Regardless of any claims by either the British or Argentina). What will Argentina do then when the Falklands stands alone weak and defenceless?

Secondly, as Argentina is only a remnant and not all of the old Vice-Royalty of the River Plate what would it do about sharing its so called inheritance with the other successor countries to the Vice-Royalty?

I ask these questions only because I believe that you must deal with the reality of your chosen path, as we must also do, rather that the just historical and national myth.

Hi! Otto, good to see you around.

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle

[Sakura26]

Hello Ernie

You posted:

When the Falklands becomes independent in association with another state or states in due course as it is entitled to do under UN rules as a completely separate entity geographically, liguistically and culturally. (Regardless of any claims by either the British or Argentina). What will Argentina do then when the Falklands stands alone weak and defenceless?

First of all, the Falklands becoming an independent state is not a fact yet, it's just a wish, like our wish to recover them, anything could happen. United Nations has forbidden an attack to Irak that was yet made by the UK and the US, so for me, their authority means nothing but crap. However, I would be very disappointed with Argentina if we ever decide to violently attack again, the Falklands or any other country and I'm pretty sure that is NOT going to happen, especially under a democracy, unlike UK and US attacking weaker countries speaking of freedom and justice. Let's not be hipocryte, you are free to dislike Argentina as much as you want, and maybe you're right, if you or people you know were there in 1982. But you cannot deny some facts, like the good will and behavior of Argentina as a democratic country.

You also posted

Secondly, as Argentina is only a remnant and not all of the old Vice-Royalty of the River Plate what would it do about sharing its so called inheritance with the other successor countries to the Vice-Royalty?

No other countries here are setting any claims over each other's territory. If they do, they would have to show all the proofs, geographic, historic and ethnic, the same way we are showing them all the time. Once they do so, I'll let you know what I think about their claim, but until that happens, I cannot judge a situation of which I dont know details.

Regards
Noelia

[Gabriel]

Hi Ernie,

You wrote: "When the Falklands becomes independent in association with another state or states in due course as it is entitled to do under UN rules as a completely separate entity geographically, liguistically and culturally. (Regardless of any claims by either the British or Argentina). "

I agree with Noelia, the US and Britain have succesfully render the UN useless. If I were you, I would look for support elsewhere.

I have a question for you. If the islands are entitled to become independent, why hasn't this happen yet?

Gabriel

[Sea Eagle]

Gabriel,

To reply to you first. I guess the UN was pretty well emasculated long before the Iraq invasion though just to be up to date it has now regularised the situation regarding the future development of Iraq's democracy. Whether the invasion was right or wrong that is now a fact but I believe Great Britain will honour its pledges to leave as soon as possible but unlikely to do so before a democratically elected Iraqi government is in power.

The UN is the victim of the conflicting political interests and manipulations of its individual members who plot endlessly only in their own interests. Neither Great Britain, Argentina nor the USA are innocent of this.

All British Overseas territories are entitled to democratic Independence from the UK at any time they choose but of the remaining territories some are financially and defencewise very weak and prefer to hang on to the motherland's coat tails for protection and in some cases financial assistance. The Cayman Islands, Bermuda and even Gibraltar are pretty rich by most standards but basically are happy mostly with their existing status. Why should they change it when it suits them as it is? I think St. Helena is the only territory that has serious financial problems.

Much the same for the Falklands, they seem relatively happy with their current status and do not even appear to be keen to advance their mode of Government to the maximum ministerial level possible even under their present constitution. This possibly has something to do with their small population and relatively large territory (Bigger than that of many fully independent countries). Also there is always the shadow of an unfriendly neighbour to consider. The present Argentine administration is about as unfriendly as it could be short of taking active agressive action.

By contrast, Uruguay and Chile have been more friendly (whatever they say by tut tutting publically) and this reflects their position in reality since the inception of the British presence in the Falklands. Both Uruguay and Chile maintained Honorary Consulates in the Falklands for many years by which token they actually recognised and dealt directly with FIG. Uruguay in particular maintained very strong links I personally used the Consuls services in Stanley many times over the years.
It is a great pity these countries were coerced by an agressive Argentina to change their defacto recognition publically.

I personally believe that in due course the Falklands will opt for Associated Independence as a logical step. Hence my question to Noelia. They already run their own internal affairs and the UK looks after their Defence and represents their wishes on the international arena.

They merely need to formalise this arrangement constitutionally to put the UN and Argentina on the back foot.

Regards,

Ernie

[Sea Eagle]

Noelia,

I have never seen any proofs of Argentina's claims over the Falklands. I have seen many assertions and statements, also many versions of the truth, but nothing that definitively tells me that Argentina is entitled to sovereignty over the Falklands.

It has always been accepted internationally that a country must be in actual and effective possession of territory in order to maintain sovereignty. Clearly in the 1820's Argentina did not achieve this as history is witness. The argument of inheritance is a spurious one that has never been sucessfully applied to any similar territory anywhere else in the world to my knowledge.

This is a point that you need to convince not only me but the rest of the world if your claim is to be taken seriously.

By your own rules if the population of the Falklands became independent you would be obliged to recognise that fact otherwise Argentina would revert to Spain and the USA to the UK.

By the way its not like you to dodge the issue as you have in your reply.

Regards,

Ernie

[Gabriel]

Hi Ernie,

Thanks for your reply. The UN has issued an order for the governments of Argentina and Britain to settle the dispute. Britain refuses to talk about it, with the blessing of the islanders. I am afraid you are trying to have it both ways. Either the UN is relevant or it isn't. If both you and me are only going to use it for propaganda purposes and ignore it whenever it doesn't suit our needs, then it is irrelevant and therefore it can't be used.

As far as Spain goes, Argentina did not go to the UN to gain independence from Spain. Spain was soundly defeated in a great revolutionary war. Same with the US/UK. So by our own rules (Argentina and USA) you would have to fight and defeat both Argentina and the UK if you want to be independent (or maybe just Argentina, if the UK will just get out of the way at your request, as you say). I am not suggesting you try this, of course. I am only saying your analogy does not make sense.

Regards,

Gabriel

[Sea Eagle]

Gabriel,

Sorry but Argentina has already been soundly defeated in conflict on the question of ownership so your logic is faulty.

On the question of obeying the UN it is Argentina who will not talk... except on the question of sovereignty only. All other subjects are open for discussion by the UK and Falklands to settle the dispute but Argentina will only discuss a time table for handover. That is not a formula for solving the dispute, that is a formula for a British surrender following Argentina's military defeat on the subject.

The realistic solution is Falklands self government with as close as possible links with the UK and hopefully Argentina. Unfortunately Argentina wishes to be a control freak in 19th century terms.

Countries that gain independence by violent means only get to inherit the territory they can hang on to by force. That is a legal fact internationally.

My analogy makes perfect sense.

Regards,

Ernie

[Sakura26]

Hi Ernie

You Posted

I have never seen any proofs of Argentina's claims over the Falklands. I have seen many assertions and statements, also many versions of the truth,

That is far more than what I've seen from the British part to weaken our claim. The proofs are there and it would be great to have people from other countries to express their opinion. However, I hope you agree with me that, people's opinion is not completely impartial, if you pay attention latinamerican countries seem to support Argentina while most of the english speaking world supports the UK... It's not a matter of "who is right" but about "who are my friends".

but nothing that definitively tells me that Argentina is entitled to sovereignty over the Falklands.

The truth is, that, even if the whole planet accepts Argentina as owner of the Falklands it will be still a mistake of the whole planet for you, the same as if they keep under british rule, I'll always think OUR territory has been stolen. We're just too involved to be neutral in this claim.

By your own rules if the population of the Falklands became independent you would be obliged to recognise that fact otherwise Argentina would revert to Spain and the USA to the UK.

The difference is that Spain and the UK have not been claiming for decades their territories, territories that are clearly part of the continent, it will be absurd for Spain to claim them. The colonies of Africa got independent and are only few miles away of Spain, there is no way that Spain could keep a territory so far away of its territory.

What do you mean by dodging the issue in my reply?

Best Wishes
Noelia

[Gabriel]

Ernie,

It is your logic that is faulty, not mine. You raised the question of independence, not me, and Argentina was never defeated by the islanders. But of course you know this, so why are you twisting the facts?
And about your phrase: "Countries that gain independence by violent means only get to inherit the territory they can hang on to by force. That is a legal fact internationally." Are you saying Britain and Spain are ready to re-take the USA?

Regards,

Gabriel