Suggested Trade-Off

[Sakura26]

So you dont mind giving me the clock, and you dont like living in England but you are obsessed with the Falklands, which are an overseas little territory?

OK Argentine fellows, I think we must take advantage of this....lets give up with the Falklands and let's ask for Australia!!



Sakura

[jessefoxlet]

Evil said:

It would be better if you would familiarize yourself a bit with the issues of the dispute................

• 
  1769 .................
  
• 1811 ........................
  
• 1820 .........................
  
• 1821...........................
  
• 1823 ..........................
  
• 1825 ..........................
  
• 1829...........................
  
• 1833...........................
  
  
  
  
• 1965 to Present Day – Three UN Resolutions and numerous ones from the UN Decolonization Committee (C-24) has called upon the governments of Great Britain and Argentina to settle the dispute through negotiations, something that Great Britain has refused to do breaking the treaty with the UN as well as the 1823 and 1825 treaties with Argentina.

Evil Kondor

We are now in the 21st Century. Get used to it.

Waste of time. We cannot trust you. We will NOT negotiate sovereignty. Get used to that too.

The UN also states that the Islanders have the right to self determination. Get used to that too.

[Sakura26]

[glow=red,2,300]WE ARE NOT GOING TO DROP THE CLAIM[/glow]


Get used to that.....TOO


Sakura

[Evil Kondor]

Jesse:

Thanks for your response.

We are now in the 21st Century. Get used to it.

Waste of time. We cannot trust you. We will NOT negotiate sovereignty. Get used to that too.

The UN also states that the Islanders have the right to self determination. Get used to that too.

Why did you summarily dismiss the dates I gave you? Is it that hard to argue with facts? Instead you opted to state that something would never happen, because you say so!

Why do we I have to get used to what? Great Britain has walked out of many colonies that your country stated emphatically, at one time or another, something they would never do. I can give you a plethora of examples. I'll give jus three: Hong Kong, India and Diego Garcia. Why are the Falklands any different?

In Diego Garcia the inhabitants were unceremoniously evicted from their homeland in order to turn over the Island to the Americans. No principles of self-determination were observed there!

The UK has changed, over the years, about the reasons to continue their presence in the Falklands. Your country has gone from Historical Rights (the strongest of assertions,) to Exclusionary Rights (length of possession,) to Self-Determination rights (the weakest of the three.) If Great Britain has an unalienable right to the Islands why not use the Historical Rights arguments, which is pre-emptive to any kind of claim. No one claims London or Buenos Aires because each country has, without any doubt, the historical rights to the cities - end of argument.

I am not saying with my above statement that I am in favor of an unconditional return of the Falklands to Argentina. What I am saying is that your argument is not a valid one.

The UN has called on Great Britain and Argentina to negotiate and end the dispute, something that Great Britain has refused to do. Your country is a signatory of the UN Charter and thus is violating one of its treaties. In addition, the UN has never said that the Islanders have the rights to self-determination. Instead, it has stated that the Islanders interests should be taken into consideration. This is quite different from what you stated.

Best regards,

Evil Kondor

PS: We do not trust you, either. This is the purpose of this site - to build bridges!

[Sea Eagle]

Evil Kondor,

As you already know I disagree with your interpretations of historical events.

Without going into dates, which I can do and will if I have to, lets just look at a few historical events.

1. The French made the first settlement on the Falklands.

2. The British made the second settlement not knowing the French were there.

3. The French made way for Spain based on some dodgy territorial grant made by a Pope when without any secular authority he split the new world between Spain and Portugal. (If this were still accepted now (part of the basis of Argentinas claim) then a lot of people would have to return to Europe including all Canadians and US citizens). We think the French sold their settlement to Spain.

4. The Spanish settlement was then the third settlement on the Falklands.

5. The fourth settlement was that of the United Provinces.

6. The first declaration of possession was made by the French.

7. The second declaration of possession was made by the British.

8. The third declaration of possession was made by Spain.

9. The fourth declaration of possession was made for the Governor of Buenos Aires, of the United Provinces of the River Plate, the precursor of modern Argentina.

So on the basis of precedence Argentian is last in the queue.

So it follows that France gave up its settlement, Britain gave up its first settlement, then Spain gave up its settlement, the United Provinces settlement was destroyed by the US navy. Three of the four declared their declarations of possession to still be intact, so this is a difficult one for Argentina which relies so heavily on its declarations of Sovereignty all of which came last in line.

The British re-possessed the Islands before the United Provinces were able to restore any valid authority after the US destruction and went on to establish a successful colony which has gone on to be accepted by the majority of the world as an established and demonstrably legal, stable and sustained community which in international law after 170 years or so is sufficient to establish British sovereignty (Known as prescription). The Argentine attempt to emulate this position was a very transient and fragile attempt of less than 1000 days which did not succeed. Had it done so then its rights to sovereignty would have been established in the same way as the British rights have now been. Unfortunately in International Law failed attempts do not count. This required criteria to establish sovereignty did not take place so Argentina's claim is of academic interest only and lacks the aroma of reality to most people.

Hong Kong is unrelated to this issue at all, Hong Kong has an ethnic Chinese population. To all intents and purposes the Falklands had no fixed or indigenous population, not even a first generation of colonists to consider when the British re-possessed it. Hong Kong also was owned by Treaty with the Chinese and the New Territories were leased from the Chinese, a lease which expired in 1999. The British took a pragmatic decision to agree a one country two systems arrangement with China which released Britain from many colonial obligations to Hong Kong and preserved its business interests and investments. Hong Kong is nothing like the Falkands at all.

I agree that Diego Garcia is a disgrace but there are legal moves afoot which may well resolve this situation in due course so all is not yet lost. But it remains a British territory still and has not been 'given' to the Americans.

India also is quite different. The British only ever remained in India with the tacit consent and collusion of the Indian ruling classes who ultimately relied on the British to preserve their position and colluded in exploitation. There was never a large enough British presence in Indian to subdue it if India had decided otherwise. But we are talking about Empire here and Empires come and go. The British Indian Empire (and its Vice-Roi) came to an end by mutual consent in 1947 concluding a self- determination agreement made in return for India's active support for GB in the Second World War. The fact that it split into two, now three countries was of their own choosing. Though I suppose in Argentine terms India would have a legitimate claim on Pakistan and Bangladesh which were part of the Indian Vice Royalty under the British.

Self-determination I do not know why Argentina presents self-determination as a newly introduced element in the Falklands issue, it has been an ongoing part of the dismantling of the British Empire since the 19th Century. One only has to look at the Commonwealth (The organisation of former British territories the majority of which have achieved self-determination under the British http://www.thecommonwealth.org) and how it evolved through this process replacing British rule.

Lets get real about these things and not try to create new myths to support the already old and shaky ones that exist.

I agree that Britain, Argentina and the Falklands should talk about issues that concern them but the C24 has not called upon Britain to negotiate and hand over Sovereignty to Argentina, merely to negotiate and settle the 'dispute'. In itself 'dispute' is not the reality and incorrect terminology because it is Argentina that is making a claim not Britain and therefore must make its case. Nevertheless we are all in the South West Atlantic and should work together and negotiate on matters of mutual concern. However it is Argentina that is presently reluctant to do this, not the UK, because it wants only to talk to Britain on how it will obtain the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Argentina currently is confrontational and uncooperative in South West Atlantic matters. The Falklands and UK are always ready to talk about solutions to the problem that do not include any sovereignty hand over of the Falklands.

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle

[GWS22]

Sakura26 said:

No thanks.. But we would be happy to exchange the Falkland Islands for....mmm lets say... London!

It would be a little far away from here but.. who cares, I always wanted to own the Big Ben clock...

;D
Sakura

Must point out that big ben is not the clock but the bell within the four clock faces