The simple fact is, those islands belong to the UK, dun matter what claims the argies put of the falklands, those folks down there, wont leave or give it up....... So Argentina can protest, moan about it all they want..... to the UN or to whom ever the want to..... They ain getting them back.............

An if they have a problem with that tuff....

They threaten us we will bomb them back to the ice age............ Remember Benos Aries was left alone the last time the UK was at war with them.... What makes you think we will leave it alone this time ehhh...

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
The simple fact is, those islands belong to the UK,

And what do you base this claim on???

If you have read through this thread, you will have noticed that Britain has long been planning on giving the Falklands back to their rightful owner, Argentina. There are documents stating this dating back to the 40's and many others more current. The legal claim of ownership by Argentina is quite clear. The UN knows this, and that is why they are calling for the "decolonization" of the Falklands by Britain There is no doubt that Britain illegally colonized the Falklands and then passed laws to disallow any immigration other than pro British individuals.

If you think Britain has any kind of legal claim then back it up with evidence. Otherwise you are just spouting nationalist nonsense, and not facts at all.

Originally posted by Terapin
If you think Britain has any kind of legal claim then back it up with evidence. Otherwise you are just spouting nationalist nonsense, and not facts at all.

And you've ignored the countless agruements i've used regarding other areas of the world. Its interesting how you have ignored them.

Infinite, I have responded to you other examples, and as you well know, most of them are not relevant. It is Apples and Oranges. You basically ask why we don't return the Earth to the apes. You still have not offered any significant argument that Britain has any legal right of ownership.

There are numerous examples of Britain returning land to local rule. There is a significant amount of documented evidence showing that Britain has indeed been involved in negotiations for the return of the Falklands. Britain, more than any other country, has a long established history of decolonization. Why do you keep trying to point the thread elsewhere when even the government of the UK agrees? Politicians change, but international law is clear.

I guess you must know more than the British government and the UN, but thus far, you have offered noting significant.

As I am neither Argentinean, nor a British subject, any change of hands would have virtually no effect on me, but I choose to Deny Ignorance. Being patriotic is all find and dandy, but it shouldn't stand in the way of truth. You can't refute the evidence for Argentina's legal claim, nor can you refute the documents that demonstrate Britons planning for an eventual Hong Kong like handover. Any denial of these established and documented facts is simply burying ones head in the sand.

I hope it tastes good.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Terapin
Infinite, I have responded to you other examples, and as you well know, most of them are not relevant.

How are they not relevant?

its the same as the Falkland Island, its about land being returned to the original people.

There are very significant differences in the examples you mentioned. If it will make you happy, I'll derail the thread for a moment and specifically comment on your requests.

If the UK has to give back the Falklands, then should White European Americans give back Northern America to the orginal tribes?

Can you demonstrate an established government that had control over the entire US, that was an internationally recognized nation? Some land claims made by native Americans are indeed being granted. Many tribes have a form of self rule within their tribal lands. With the Falklands, there were established borders that both Britain and Argentina agreed upon. Treaties were signed and Britain broke them by invading the Falklands. If the US can return land to native tribes, why can't Britain return land it aquired in violation of international law?

Should we give back Western Europe to the Romans?[

Is anyone making such a call to Romanise the continent? Togas are somewhat drafty, don't you think.

Should Arabs be force to give back land to Israel (seeing Israel does not have the same borders as in the OT)

There are some calling for just that, while others call for the elimination of Israel, which was partially created by the British. As you well know this entire area is under considerable dispute and the whole world is involved in trying to come up with some sort of solution. No one is ignoring the trouble in the Mid East.

Should Italy be forced to split and give back its land to the orginal countries of that area?

Is anyone making land claims to that effect? We could look at Cyprus and the dispute between Turkey and Greece, which isn't that far from Italy. When I lived in Italy, no one I ever spoke to was asking for the break up of the country.

Should the German federal government breakup Germany?

Is anyone asking for that to happen? When I was in Germany, everyone seemed to believe in a united Germany despite the difficulties of rejoining the nation after so many years apart. No one in Bavaria, where I lived, was seeking to separate from the rest of Germany. If Germany can be reunited, why not the Falklands and Argentina?

Should the Spanish government do the same with the Basque region and Catalona?

I spoke about the Basque region before. Somewhat like the Kurdish region in Iraq, the Basque country is an autonomous region within Spain. The Basque Nationalist Party still seeks to alter the Gernika Statute through the Ibarretxe Plan for greater independence. There is some historical merit in this plan. The case with Catalona is much the same and Spain can be argued to have a federal structure in practice.

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

Is anyone making such land claims? Were there not treaties and such signed establishing the borders? Many Mexicans live and work in the US and their economies are closely tied. Argentineans are not allowed to own property in, nor immigrate to, the Falklands due to British law. The same cannot be said about Mexico or other central and south American nations, in relation to the US.

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?

Britain created many of those borders after W.W.II and it has been a mess for a long time. Historically, those lands were under constant change and warfare between various tribes. Even the Mongols invaded the area. These conflicts persist and the borders do indeed change. It is quite possible that there will be new borders for Iraq in the not too distant future, and perhaps new independent states. While Britain decolonised many areas in the Mid East, they have yet to decolonise the Falklands.

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

If you read my post you will see where I discussed tribal rights and 6,000sq Km being returned. I don't know of any one calling for the break up of the Aussie commonwealth, nor was there an established nation there before current Australia was formed. Yes, I agree, it is horrible that tribal cultures around the globe seem to get the short end of the stick.

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

There are some who call for independence in Ireland and Scotland. Due to the significant transplanted population, the vote will always go for a United Kingdom. If an internal government were to form, with the will of the people for independence, I believe the UK has signaled that it would willingly grant it in both the cases of Ireland and Scotland. Britain will not allow free immigration in the Falklands and has always stacked the deck by only allowing pro British immigrants.


In the case of the Falklands, we have two established nations. Britain recognized and supported the independent establishment of Argentina. They signed treaties and trade deals. They then, with force of arms, violated the national sovereignty of Argentina, and colonized the Falklands. International law, then and now, calls for the return of said land.

If you wish we can derail the thread and talk about other nations, there are many all across the globe, but this is a discussion specifically about Argentina's legal claim for the return of land that was illegally colonized. The examples you mentioned are for the most part quite dissimilar to the situation with the Falklands. Have you been able to refute the legal claim of ownership by Argentina? Have you been able to refute any of the evidence I presented demonstrating that Britain has indeed participated in hand back deals based on the Hong Kong model? Since Britain itself, has acknowledged the reality, that someday they must return the land, why do you deny it?

Originally posted by Terapin
If you wish we can derail the thread and talk about other nations, there are many all across the globe, but this is a discussion specifically about Argentina's legal claim for the return of land that was illegally colonized.

A) I am not derailing anything, just proving a point. I've used point to prove that Falklands is not the only disputed area and you cannot be bias to one area of the World.

and

B) illegally colonized? please tell me what is a legal colony then?

(Terapin, I do respect your comments...im not being a pain )


[edit on 14-4-2007 by infinite]

A) As I indicated my opinion that the Basque should be given more independence and the fact that this is a thread on the Falklands, I do not believe I am biased towards any particular nation or state. As I indicated, I am neither a British subject, nor Argentinean, and I have nothing to gain either way. This sites motto is Deny Ignorance. That is the aim here. Many in this thread have made false assumptions regarding the law, history, and even Britons position. My bias is towards the truth.

B) A colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically distant state. A legally formed colony is when a settlement is established by a "parent" state, in uninhabited and unclaimed land. As the Falklands were previously claimed, inhabited, and that legal claim was recognized by Britain, their invasion and subsequent colonization, can only be considered illegal. Many colonies, throughout history, were oppressive colonies that were forced upon their inhabitants. Notice how many of them have been freed from colonization. This is why the UN has a special Committee on Decolonization. There is talk of a Moon colony or even a Mars colony in the future. As any colonization would be an international effort, and no one that we are aware of lives there, (unless you believe some on this site), it would most likely be considered a legal colony.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Terapin
A) As I indicated my opinion that the Basque should be given more independence

thats gonna upset the Spanish members

their invasion and subsequent colonization, can only be considered illegal. Many colonies, throughout history, were oppressive colonies that were forced upon their inhabitants. Notice how many of them have been freed from colonization.

The United States wasn't, the land stayed with the Europeans. So, the United States is an illegal colony if we go by the UN because the colonization was forced on to the native population. You seeing my point now?

Its a complicated matter, I think we can both agree on that

The US was colonized by Europeans and later given independence. Remember, A colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically distant state. While the land belonged to the European nations that colonised it, it still fits in this category. Yes, many native tribes were displaced, as was common when there was no established recognized nation. With the Falklands things are very much different.

Sure, some Spanish may not agree with me regarding the Basque Country, but the Basque enjoy an autonomous region and only wish to strengthen their independence. Not sure if will ever happen but it would solve a good deal of violence.

If we stick to the topic of the Falklands, things are quite clear and well defined. Hence the UN statements and the documented British plans for return.

Yes, the current inhabitants may not like it and I understand their reasons. They would not be forced from their homes however, and they would be allowed to maintain a cultural lifestyle that they are accustom to. Argentina has upon many occasions guaranteed that. Argentina is not trying to deport them, they are merely trying to reclaim the land. No land will be seized and any inhabitant will be allowed to sell their land if they choose to. The UN would not back any forced eviction, nor would any nation. This is why the 99 year plan is a good one as there is no rush nor surprise.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

There is an interesting proposal regarding the 99 year plan that was created Héctor Carlos Martínez.

Part of it could be a certain period of joint Anglo-Argentine sovereignty with the islanders’ participation during which a gradual cession of sovereignty could be discussed, bearing the following conditions:
-At the end of the joint period any islander who would not want to live in the islands would be fully compensated by Argentina and relocated in England (if he or she so wished).
-The islanders would remain British citizens. Also, if they chose, they could have Argentine citizenship.
-The islanders’ descendants would have the right to British citizenship, say for 3 generations.
-Argentina would let the islanders choose their way of local government, keep their language and culture.
-The currency system would be dual sharing both British Pounds and Argentine Pesos.
-A joint Argentine-Falklander committee would be established, with offices both in Port Stanley and Buenos Aires, to manage matters of common interest like oil and fishing exploitation, ecology, tourism , cultural exchange, sports events, etc.
-The islanders would choose their own Senators to represent them in the Argentine Congress like any other Argentine province does.
-They would have their constitution and flag.
-The official name would be “Falkland Islands” in English and “Islas Malvinas” in Spanish.
-The defense of the islands would be done by NATO troops (no Argentine troops preferably to deflect any negative associations).
-Argentina would not levy any kind of taxes on the islands or the islanders beyond what is needed to mantain the islands infrastructure. In other words, no Falklands taxes going to mainland use.
-Argentina would provide massive investment on the islands in infrastructure, communications and health care among other things in order to upgrade the islanders’ quality of life while, at the same time, would not attempt to “colonize” the islands by settling thousands of Argentines. Integration would come gradually and slowly.

In summary, at the end of whatever period of either lease-back or joint sovereignty administration, the islands would become an associated province of Argentina with a special status guaranteeing the preservation of their culture and language, similar to what the province of Québéc has in Canada. Argentinians would be allowed to immigrate to the islands and own properety.

The Benefits of this for Britain would be a shedding of colonial image; saving hundreds of millions of dollars per year from the defense and sustain of the islands; an improved relationship with Argentina (England has invested around 3 billion dollars in Argentina in the recent years after the reconciliation started) which could lead to further concessions in bilateral and economical negotiations. There is also the possibility of a shared oil exploration and revenues in the future. Furthermore, she will have a very important ally and a “big door” to the Mercosur which is growing year after year and includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Paraguay. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru have associate member status in Mercosur. There are many British descendants living in Argentina and this would bode well for international relations. Mercosur is an important market and having closer relations can only be good for the British.


[edit on 14-4-2007 by Terapin]

You can go on an on all ya want....

Simple fact is, the UK will never give those islands up, no matter howmuch you or argetinia moan, or whine about it....

Do you really think the British Public would support the UK Gov if they decided to hand those islands back to the argies through UN Control???

I do not think so......

Many died fighting over those islands lets not forget that......

Until the day, the folks on that island say or we do not want to be british anymore..... Then Argentinia should respect their wishes and leave them alone......

Just to add me penn'orth to the discussion..
I came across this map of the Antarctic and it's outline of national territorial claims, and it would seem that Argentina is not only asserting it's claim to the Falklands, but also the British share of the Antarctic region as a whole.




Seems that there is more at stake than just a few small islands

Spencer, I have a question for you: Given that it is illegal for any Argentinean to immigrate there, or any non pro British individual, what do you think might be the case if immigration had always been free and open?

Currently all local attitude regarding the islands future are based on a controlled population. If there had always been open immigration then things would be different. Let the islands have open immigration policies, then local choices on the matter would have merit.

Whether you like it or not, UN and British officials have indeed considered the matter and a hand back will eventually come about. I understand why people feel reluctant about this, national pride and all, but in time all things change. While you feel that people fought and died for the islands, Argentineans feel doubly so as they were attacked and expelled long ago by an illegal British occupying force. I guess in your mind that it is totally OK for British forces to steal land. Much of the world has a different opinion on this. Britain has a long history of returning colonized land. This is just one more.

Citizen Smith,

As you may also have noticed on that map, several nations have overlapping claims, but none of them matter when it comes to ownership or control. The Antarctic Treaty signed by 45 nations, including the ones you mentioned, pretty much makes all Antarctica an international territory and outlaws any millitary activity. Those treaties regulate international relations on the continent. Overlapping claims there are not a source of tension nor are they intended to be. They are simply reflections of historical expeditions, and no one takes them as exclusive rights. Argentina is not making any challenges or requests to the UN regarding any overlapping claim with Britain and Chile.

On an interesting side note, The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements, are collectively called the Antarctic Treaty System or ATS.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Terapin]

Sorry, been out of the loop for some weeks due to RL commitments, but I'm back to see this discussion is still dragging on! Jolly good! I have some catching up to do....

Only one quick thing for now though, but I notice Terapin states that Britian should decolonise....

The Falklands aren't a colony.

They are a self-governing dependency. Not that they are actually dependant on the UK for anything apart from fighting off wayward Iberian invaders.

The only matters the UK proper get's involved in are Foreign Affairs. Anything else is entirely up to the islands.

Kind of sidesteps the issue of "direct political control" you mentioned, Terapin.

Antarctica is international territory, no nation has any specific claim territorially to the land its self.. (Some nations claims literally melt away in the summer and return in the winter.. )

Anyways, the entire philosophy that colonial powers HAVE TO give back land to the "original" people is complete crap.. the powerful will take what ever they please, no matter how ethically wrong. That is the way of it, there is NO claim to any land on this planet except what can be held with force.

Originally posted by stumason


The Falklands aren't a colony.

This is an interesting statement both philosophically and legally. While I am neither British nor Argentinean, I understand why people on both sides of the issue feel the way they do. Queen and country, patriotism, national sovereignty, righteous indignation that someone else would try and lay claim to "their" land. That is also pretty much how the Argentineans feel. Nothing I, or anyone else in this forum sais, will have any impact on any eventual outcome for the Falklands. It will be generations, in my opinion, before any significant changes could occur, but the issue of whether or not the Falklands are a British colony is a valid question.

I believe that we can all agree that at the time of the initial British invasion seven generations ago, they were indeed colonized. Are they a colony today? Well, in the legal sense, yes. By definition, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. Colonies in the modern world very often use other nomenclature in their self description. In the modern world, the terms overseas territory, or dependent territory are preferred to the older term Colony, but the legal definition is the same.

Are then Falklands under British control??? Stu mentioned the local government and that is worth looking at. Generally colonies have a "governor" and a supporting counsel. This is not a hard rule, but it is quite the norm. Sometimes the governor was appointed from the home country, and other times he was locally appointed. The supporting counsel, likewise, could be appointed or even locally selected. Colonies that are mostly locally self governing, are not unheard of at all. This is the case in the Falklands. It is important to remember however, that the laws that declare who can, and cannot, legally live there, are British laws. Britain is the one negotiating with foreign nations regarding the territory. The recent resource exploitation treaty that Argentina walked away from was put forth by Britain and not the local Falklands counsel. Britain has negotiated with several other nations in treaties regarding the Falklands territory. Britain supports the islands financially and with the British Military. The Falklands are held to British laws. All local Falklands counsel decisions are subject to the approval of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Yes, the Falklands, while having a local self rule, are indeed subject to the political control of a geographicaly distant state, Britain. Stu called them a "a self-governing dependency" which is legally the same thing as a colony. The UN lists the Falklands as a colony.

Some may believe that there are no more colonies in todays world, but while the name may have changed, their existence is still there. Here are a few other examples from Wikipedia:

• Gibraltar has been a colonial possession of the British since 1713. (The word "colony" is no longer used, however. The small minority of former British colonies still under British sovereignty are now termed Overseas Territories.)
• Puerto Rico's relationship to the United States is considered by some to be colonial, since citizens are subject to laws passed by Congress without their consent. This view is shared by many supporters of independence and statehood for the island, as well as by some supporters of current Commonwealth status. However, other Puerto Ricans do not agree with this perception. A change to the current commonwealth status was rejected in all three plebiscites in 1967, 1993, and 1998.
• Similarly, Guam's relationship to the United States is also considered by some to be colonial, as its citizens are also subject to the laws of Congress passed without their consent. Guam is formally known as an unincorporated territory.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Terapin]