Argentina Claims Falklands (again)

When the Chinese invaded Tibet and began killing off monks and civilians, they also imported ethnic Chinese to establish a better hold on the area. This common practice is what the British did with the Falklands. There are about 3,000 people living there The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scot descent. The balance is made up of descendants from France, Portugal, Scandinavia, and a few from Chile.

Some have argued that when Argentina stopped US sailors, in 1820, who were hunting seals on the Falklands, they thus broke the Nootka Convention. The Nootka Convention allowed equal rights for Argentina, Britain, and the US, to FISH the surrounding areas as well as erect Temporary buildings to aid that effort. Hunting Seals, or hunting of any kind, was not included in this Convention. Preventing the hunting of seals on the Islands was not a violation of the Nootka Convention. What was included in the Nootka Convention, was Britain ceding all rights to the Islands. Britain took the islands by force of arms in the 1883 invasion, and not by any legal authority. They then "Repatriated" the Argentineans who were living there, by forcing them from their homes, and began to bring in British citizens. The British demand of the UN that the colonists living there should get to vote if they wish to stay, the same right they denied the Argentineans living there before them.

The UN is a do nothing assembly. They ignored the killing zone that was Yugoslavia. They ignored the slaughter in Rwanda. They ignored Darfur until finally placing an impotent peace keeper force. While the UN is a nice idea, they are not very good at international disputes.

Why does England care about the Falklands? There is little military need for the location. As is often the case, England is interested for the potential resources there. Think British Petroleum.

As for the Coat of Arms. Have you ever seen the blue and white stripes of the Argentinean flag? I have seen numerous manners of depicting the oceans waves, and it is interesting that the Falklands coat of arms has the same stripes as the Argentinean flag. Given that the sea in the area is a deep green and not blue, I wonder where they got those stripes from?

Fealty to the Queen? The Australians have a thing for the Queen, so does Belize, and a few other places. The Queen is a figurehead, a fancy little bit of fluff good for parades and bonking people on the shoulder with a sword so they can get titles, but there is no real political power there. One can even buy titles I have heard. I like the Queen Mum myself, she has great character, and although they are an inbred bunch, they are nice people for the most part. It doesn't mean that the Royal Family owns the territory.

OK now you can begin to tell me how wrong I am for believing that Argentina should have possession of the Islands.

There was never a large native "Argentinian" population there, so there is no comparison. They were uninhabited, deserted islands for most of their known history.

United Kingdom not England

Our Country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, please don't call it just England. We find it quite offensive.

Annnd...that Island is ours and its not changing hands until the people say so. Plus, I do find it quite hilarious that no one has said anything regarding my comments about the United States.

If the UK has to give back the Falklands, then should White European Americans give back Northern America to the orginal tribes? Should we give back Western Europe to the Romans? Should Arabs be force to give back land to Israel (seeings Israel does not have the same borders as in the OT)

Should Italy be forced to split and give back its land to the orginal countries of that area? Should the German federal government breakup Germany? Should the Spanish government do the same with the Basque region and Catalona?

Should Southern Western area of the United States be giving back to Mexico or should the nation of Aztlan be created?

Should Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Iraq be forced to give back their land to the Persians and the nation of Persia be created again?

Should the Australian government break up its commonwealth and give its land back to the native population? same with New Zealand.

Should the United Kingdom be broken up and England, Scotland and Wales become countries again? plus the creation of a United Ireland?

In other words, you cannot focus on one nation and ignore others.

Re: The British invasion of the Falklands.... -Wikipedia They populated the islands with British subjects to establish a hold, as I indicated earlier.

There are those in Ireland AND Scotland who wish independence from England. Sean Connery is one major financial supporter of the Scottish independence movement. The struggle for Irish independence is long and well known. Difficult, given the number of settlers that were placed there by the British, much like the Chinese in Tibet.

As for the argument, which some use, that one could go back in time forever to find native owners, this is not the case with the Falklands. There was a legitimate claim held by Argentina that was taken away by force. Argentina has never relinquished this legal claim of sovereignty. Guy with bigger stick takes away your land, you have no choice. That doesn't mean that you don't have a legitimate claim.

My friends in London, whom have a long and historic English decent, have no problem with anyone saying England, instead of Great Britain or the UK. I guess some are more hung up on titles and fancy names. Much like no one cares if you say The United States of America, or just the US, heck or even Bushworld.

Lets discuss this again shall we?



Not true. It didn't pertain to just fishing, but whaling AND sealing too. The Argentine efforts to prevent American and British hunting in the region nullified the Treaty. The Americans then despatched warships to eliminate the colony in the Falklands that was causing the dispute.

I might add that with all this discussion about the Nootka Conventions, they did pertain primarily to the Pacific and NW America. Only a side note covered the accession of colonial efforts in S America, which was then nullified with the Argie breaking of the Treaty.



Utter rubbish. The Americans completely destroyed the Argie settlement in 1831. From then on was a settlement made up of escaped prisoner's and Pirates! The British turned up in 1833 to re-assert claims made possible by the Argentine forfiture of the Treaty and sent those convicts and criminals to Argentina.



How quaint. You want Pirates and criminals to have the right to vote? I doubt they'd care much seeing as they had NO Government anyway.

And how about all the Spanish descendants living in Argentina now give back the land stolen from the Natives? Sound fair? You all can have the Falklands if you do that



A number of reasons. Primarily because British people live there. Secondly, it is a Gateway to the Antartic. Thirdly (and most recently), Oil.



Give over. It's wavy lines for the Sea. The Argie flag is split into three, STRAIGHT lines. The only similarity is the colour. So, with your logic, Belgium is really German because their flag has the same colours?

Your funny



Actually, the Queen holds power and alot of it. She chooses not to exercise it because democracy is preferred. If she wanted too though, she could legally disolve the Government's of Australia, Canada and a host of other countries, effectively ruling the from the UK again. The locals might get shirty about that, but legally, Britian could enforce it's rule if it had the will to do so.



Because you are so wrong it is unreal. You cherry pick what info suits you and make up the rest.

The Nootka Conventions were a series of three agreements between Britain and Spain. The US was a later treaty with Spain. Any dispute between the US and Argentina had nothing to do with the Nootka Convention. Britain took possession by Force, and through Occupation.

Australians, at any time they wish, can vote the Queen out of their lives. Canadians as well. So much for the power of the Queen.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by Terapin]

I have already explained this, but for the sake of the intellectually challenged, I shall do so again.

The US inherited the Spanish portion of the conventions under the Adams-Onís Treaty signed in 1819 as well as being party to the original agreement. Russia was also party to the Nootka Conventions.

As stated, it primarily dealt with territorial and economic claims in the Pacific NW, but one section covered S American colonisation as a concession to Spain.

As Argentina inherited Spanish rights under the Treaty when they declared Independance in 1811 and then prevented US and British hunters against the terms of the Treaty, it was deemed null and void as the Argies had broken the agreement.



That they can, but they first need to organise a referendum, for which there is not enough support. Until that time, the Queen holds (technically) power.

Wiggle all you like, but I am going to nail you on this one. You obviously need to do some more reading on the subject.

If the US was part of the Nootka Conventions, who negotiated on their part? Or was it that Spanish rights in the area were later acquired by the United States in the Adams-Onís Treaty signed in 1819, 25 years later? The Adams-Onís treaty, which is often called the Transcontinental Treaty, was principally about land in North America. When Argentina had a dispute with the US in the Falklands, it had nothing to do with Britain. Britain, rather than being diplomatic as is generally the case with treaties, came in with war ships.

There is no denying that Britain took the island by force and through occupation.
Possession by virtue of a bigger stick does not make a legal claim.

Not any real power if you can easily get voted null and void at any time. Nice when the Aussies wont let the Brits dock nuke laden ships. If the Queen ever tried to rule over Australia, her power there would be gone in an instant.

Hmm, I think you're talking about New Zealand ports....

The U.S. canceled the mutual defense treaty with New Zealand because of their ban on nuclear powered ships and nuclear armed ships, but it's still strong with Australia. I'm sure the same is true with British nuclear ships.

Perhaps I did confuse the two.
I do know that Maralinga still is a major sore spot for Australians. Both Greenpeace and Nuclear Free Australia protest nuclear powered ships, or ships armed with nuclear weapons, that dock in Australia. Maralinga was a British weapon test that dusted the population, despite the fact that some people were permanently forced to leave their lands.

As was the Nootka conventions. When I said the US and Russia where party, I didn't say signatories. They had an (obvious) interest but took no part in negotiations. The Nootka Conventions allowed Britain, the US and Russia unrestricted hunting and fishing access within Spanish territory.

The Adams-Onis Treaty was primarily concerned with the NW American continent, but also gave the US all right's of Spain as confered under the original Nootka Convention, which included fishing and hunting right's within Spanish zone's of control, namely S America and "the islands thereof".



To evict the pirates and criminals. The Argenine colony was destroyed by the Americans in 1831. In 1833, there was no Argentine Colony.



Off of Pirates, yes. Occupation implies there was an original population. Seeing as the convicts and Pirates were sent to Argentina, there was no occupation, but new colonisation by the UK.



Possesion is 9/10th's of the Law, ignoring the fact that legally, Argentina has no claim as they forfitted this when they broke the original Treaty.



As dj said, Aus doesn't bar nuclear ships. The Queen has recently dissolved the Aus Parliament and they abided by it, in 1975 during the Whitlam Government. Aus also recently rejected becoming a republic by a clear 55% majority.

[edit on 4/4/07 by stumason]

Argentina was using the Falklands as a loose penal colony much like devils island, or even Australia. The prisoners were sent there. This makes for an occupation by Britain. A dispute with the US is not an abdication of a treaty with Britain no matter how much you wish it to be.

The Adams-Onís treaty was signed between the US and Spain on February 22, 1819. Argentina declared independence on July 9, 1816, three years earlier. How does the Adams-Onís treaty become a legally enforceable treaty with Argentina?

It does when you break the terms of a Treaty. The US, alongside Britain, was guaranteed access to fishing and hunting within the Spanish sphere of influence. The obligation was passed on the Argentina with their succession. Argentina reneged on the agreement, making it null and void. It is an extraordinarily simple premise.



Beacuse the A-O treaty guaranteed US access to those grounds. Upon succession, Argentina inherited all the legal liabilites from Spain for their own sphere. Even if the A-O treaty wasn't signed, Argentina had a legal obligation under the orginal Nootka Conventions to allow US and British hunters and fisherman access anyway. They reneged on the agreement.

[edit on 4/4/07 by stumason]

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

The Adams-Onís treaty was signed between the US and Spain on February 22, 1819. Argentina declared independence on July 9, 1816, three years earlier. Having read the 16 articles of the A-O treaty, there is nothing in there describing the fishing rights of an independent third party nation.

When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle. Uti Possidetis Juris is a principle of international law that states that newly formed States should have the same borders that they had before their independence. It is often applied to prevent foreign intervention by eliminating any contested terra nullius, or no man's land, that foreign powers could claim.

Any previous treaty by other nations regarding fishing rights, has nothing to do with ownership. The ownership rights were ceded by Britain to Spain and then taken by Argentina, legally, when they declared independence. Upon their independence, they no longer had any obligation to honor Spanish treaties. That's what independence means. Self governing. Argentina had no treaty with the US regarding fishing rights. They had no treaty with Britain regarding the right to fish there. They declared independence from Spain and had full right to make their own laws and treaties within the land they had legal right to. Argentina told both nations that since they were now the rightful owners of the land, that they no longer had the right to hunt seals there. This was their legal right to do so as the new owners. Britain had long before given up any legal claim to the land. They took it back by force of arms, not by any revocation of treaty. Legally, Argentina has a solid case since they have never ceded their rights to the land despite British occupation and have always protested the illegal occupation.

You know what, I can't be arsed to go over and over the same points with you. I'd have more luck chatting up a badger and getting married to it.

You cannot cheery pick parts of a treaty and ignore the rest. Argentina reneged on the treaty (the parts where fishing/hunting right's were guranteed) and as a result, any British obligation to give up claims in SA was also null and void.

It's that simple. Everyone else understand's it but you.

EDIT: I think you'll find that many treaties will be passed from one country to another as they change.

If you insist that Argentina had no treaty because it declared independance, then any claim they ALSO inherited from Spain is also null and void. Ergo, Argentina's claim, dating from the early 19th century DOES NOT predate the british claim.

Either way you look at it, Argentina has no leg to stand on.

[edit on 4/4/07 by stumason]

To clarify, you have two options:

Either Argentina inherited the claims AND the legal liabilites forthwith (the Nootka Convention), which they broke.

OR

Agrentina did not inherit the claims AND the legal liabilites fothwith (the Nootka Convention). In which case, the British claim predates the Argie one.

You make two significant claims. One, that Argentina assumed obligations made by Spain, and two, that Argentina violated a treaty negotiated between Spain and Britain. Lets look at these two points.

I'll give some familiar examples that someone from Britain will well understand. When Ghandi told the British that they were not behaving like proper gentlemen and were no longer wanted in India, Britain responded with brutality. They went so far as to surround and shoot, peaceful men and women protesters to death with machine guns. The world looked on in horror at these acts. Britain soon learned a great truth,... that might does not make right, and India received it's independence. Upon gaining its independence, India was free to negotiate it's own terms with all other countries and was not bound by any treaties or contracts Britain had made with other nations. If anyone wished to engage in trade with India, they had to negotiate with India on new terms. Many nations did indeed negotiate with India for trade goods such as cotton cloth. Nations with previous contracts with Britain had to negotiate anew with the sovereign nation of India.

When the American colonies declared independence, Britain offered them War instead. Colonial leaders began to make treaties with other nations in preparation for the time when their freedom would come. Once Britain had been beaten and independence was granted, the newly formed nation was free to arrange it's own treaties with all other nations. They did so in abundance, negotiating with France, Spain, Portugal and yes even Britain. They were not legally held to any previous treaties or contracts made by Britain with other nations. They, like India, were free and independent nations with the lawful right to engage in commerce and political negotiations on their own terms.

Now, when Argentina declared independence from Spain there was a very brief military reaction from the king of Spain, and then Argentina was granted independence. The king of Spain did not say, you are independent, except for treaties I have all ready made, or for treaties I may yet make in the future regarding the land. Argentina gained full legal status as an independent state with all the rights and privileges of a sovereign nation. With this independence, due to the internationally recognized rule of Uti Possidetis Juris, their territory included the Falklands. Britain recognises this rule and has on a number of occasions. You man note that the fifth largest country in the world owes it's borders much to this very principle as do many other nations. It is a rule dating back to Roman law and during the medieval period it evolved into a law governing international relations. It is also used in modern history. The reason why the territory included the Falklands was due to the fact that they were governed from Buenos Aires under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Spain legally recognized and acknowledged this claim when granting independance. In fact, Argentina's independence was partially due to two failed British attempts to attack Buenos Aires in 1806, that gave confidence to the colonial forces who then turned their attention to their own political situation.

Since Argentina was a free and sovereign nation, they had the right to negotiate their own treaties and contracts with any other nations they chose. You claim that they HAD to assume the obligations of Spain, but it is you who is making the assumptions. There is no basis for this claim. As a free nation they were not legally bound by any treaties made by other parties regarding their own territory.

Lets look at the Nootka conventions. We agree that they were negotiated between Britain and Spain, primarily regarding land in North America. In the conventions, Britain ceded rights of ownership of the Falklands to Spain, while Spain gave away claims to land in North America. There is another article regarding, that since they were now such good chums, wouldn't it be nice if they could get along and use each others ports and such, and Spain in a gesture of good will, agreed that Britain could fish the waters around the Falklands and erect temporary shelters as needed. No where in the conventions does it state that Britain cedes the ownership of the Falklands so long as Spain owns them, and so long as they can fish there. There was no proviso rule negotiated that said if Spain gave the land away, or if Spain, or anyone else ended British right to fish there, then Britain got ownership back. Britons ceding of rights of ownership is quite clear on that account.

You claim that Argentina violated the Nootka treaty by telling the Americans they could not fish nor hunt seals there. Lets look at that claim. The A-O treaty was between Spain and the US. Spain could not have legally given any rights to the US regarding the Falklands and Nootka treaty, as they had been the legal property of Argentina for three years and were no longer in the control of Spain. The US did not acquire any legal rights from Spain regarding the Falklands and thus Argentina could not violate a treaty which it was not part of. As for Argentina telling the British they could not hunt nor fish there, that was their legal right as Britain had made no negotiations with Argentina regarding the area. Britain did indeed acknowledge Argentina as a legitimate country when it gained independence in 1816, and there are records of trade between the two in the year following independence. Britain chose to ignore the sovereign right of any country, to govern the use of its territory, and simply took the islands by force. Might, does not make right.

Claiming that Argentina HAD TO assume the obligations of Spain is false. They could have, had they chosen to, and negotiated to mantain fishing rights for other nations, but they were not obligated to. You can see that they indeed chose to exercise their sovereign rights.

Claiming that Argentina violated a treaty between Spain and Britain is False. Argentina was not party to the Nootka treaty, and had no obligations under any treaty that was negotiated by outside parties.

Britain had ceded rights to ownership without proviso thus claiming that a violation of a treaty, automatically returned ownership to them is False.

Any claim that Britain had ownership that predated Argentina's ownership is irrelevant as they had indeed ceded ownership to Spain making any previous claims ipso facto, null and void. When they yielded their claims without proviso, this legally covers any and all previous claims.

Might does not make right. The legality of Britons actions is clear. It was a violation of known and established international law. Argentina has never yielded ownership and has a legal right to sue for the property back.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Terapin]

Just because you keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over... does not make it right!

Are you doing this on purpose or do you seriously not get it? It has been explained countless times already yet you continue to ignore the facts as presented.

Get over it mate, you are wrong and no amount of repeats will change that. You aren't fooling anyone.

Cheers,
Zep

Just what am I wrong about? The treaties are there for you to read if you wish. I invite you to read each one and see for yourself. The dates are confirmed. The legal principles are well established. If you wish to state a case which proves I am wrong then do so. Simply making unsupported claims that I am wrong means nothing. Prove it.

I have demonstrated the legal claim of ownership. I have demonstrated that the Nootka conventions clearly show that Britain ceded ownership without proviso. Show me where in the Nootka conventions this is untrue. I have demonstrated that Argentina was under no obligation to honor treaties it was not part of. Show me where Argentina was legally bound to honor treaties made by Spain. I have demonstrated that Argentina had legal ownership to the land when it gained independence from Spain. Prove to me that Spain did not make Argentina an independent nation prior to the A-O treaty. Prove that these are untrue if you can.

If all you can offer is "It belongs to Britain because I say so", then you offer nothing but nonsence. Go read the laws and treaties and then prove me wrong.

Aside all the political and historical discussion it's interesting to note that in some respects the UK is less capable now than it was in 1982 and that problem will get worse before it gets better. The Argentinians currently are in no position themselves (militarily speaking) to launch a campaign but should Russian market open up to it in the near future things could get interesting. With the current global situation should the Brits have to go at it alone in the near future they could be in a lot of trouble. Perhaps more so than they were in 1982, and that too was by no means an easy victory...

[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]