Argentine President Lays 'Inalienable' Claim To Falklands, page 1

Argentine President Lays 'Inalienable' Claim To Falklands, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 2-4-2008 @ 11:54 PM by AllSeeingI

Argentine President Lays 'Inalienable' Claim To Falklands

news.yahoo.com

"The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands is inalienable," she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the islands, located 480 kilometers off shore.

The April 2, 1982 invasion prompted then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy naval forces to retake the Falklands, known as the Malvinas in Spanish.

The short, bloody conflict led to Argentina's surrender on June 14, 1982 after the death of 649 Argentines and 255 Britons.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org

reply posted on 2-4-2008 @ 11:54 PM by AllSeeingI

Well I wonder how Great Britain will handle this announcement. Considering that they control the islands now. And I wonder if Argentina is considering making a play for the islands again.
If this turns into a shoving contest it would be hard for the US to remain on the sidelines when Great Britain was a firm ally with the US in Iraq.

Wiki: Falkland Islands

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 06:27 AM by Ste2652

Argentina brings it up from time to time (and have done for decades) but only once have they tried to snatch the islands by force - under a military junta led by General Galtieri. Now that Argentina is a democracy, I think a second war over the islands is unlikely (though it would be foolish to rule it out completely).

The UK's position is simple; if the population of the Falkland Islands decide they want to join Argentina then they will be allowed to do so (this will probably have to be decided by referendum). But until the islanders decide themselves that they want to become a part of Argentina, Britain will defend the islands. So far, there's no sign of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wanting to do that.

As for the US, I think there would be tremendous pressure for them to come down on the UK's side after Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, the Balkans, allowing US planes to bomb Libya from UK air bases and so on. The UK has done a lot for the United States since the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, so support would probably be expected (and, I think, would be forthcoming).

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 06:59 AM by infinite

Argentina does not seem to understand the meaning of the word "democracy". If the people of the Island want to leave, then they will join Argentine. But they do not.

Spain has no problem understanding the will of the people when it comes to Gibraltar, so why can't Argentina?

But this is really a non-issue, every President always mention the Island in order to play to the populists*. There would not be a second war, Argentina said it would "never happen again". UK military force on the Island is much improved now, with a 5,000 stand by force stationed on St.Helena

*from article

The comments came as Kirchner faces her own woes, battling against farmers who have barricaded roads in a protest against a stiff tax hike on soybean exports.

The conflict has created shortages of meat and other staples in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and tested the social fabric, with pro- and anti-government supporters holding dueling rallies.

That's why she mentioned the Falklands.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 07:13 AM by Harlequin

reply to post by infinite

Irrespective of any historical arguements - that sir, is spot on

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:55 AM by Muppetus Galacticus

I just posted over in the duplicate thread that this rhetoric is brought out every anniversary of the Falklands invasion, with this article from a year ago yesterday. So highly unlikely this is the time they try again.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Argentinian foreign secretary today said his country's government would use "more firmness" in its attempts to gain sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

"I have the commitment of the government to find more firmness in reclaiming sovereignty [of the Falklands]," Mr Taiana said, according to Clarín newspaper's website.

So, while the other thread is closed maybe I can get some answers here

How is the Argentine economy doing?
What is the condition of their navy?

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 10:02 AM by thought

reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus

The Argentine economy is growing considerably, but their inflation is high and they are still way behind the UK. Their Navy is dwarfed by the Royal Navy, which has the second largest Navy in the world.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 10:16 AM by Ste2652

reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus

The Argentine economy is improving (especially compared to what it was at the beginning of the decade), with a growth rate of 8.5% last year... but this is unsustainable, and is bound to slow over the next few years. Inflation is also a problem (as it was back in 1982). Still, there are problems as this latest dispute with the farmers shows. As the Yahoo article says and Infinite suggests, it seems successive Argentine governments bring this issue up every time they get into trouble.

As for their navy, you can find some info on it here. They no longer have an aircraft carrier but it's still formidable. Bear in mind, however, that the only major naval engagement in the Falklands War was when the Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine. Of course, Britain is about to get new submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers.

Where Argentina falls down is their air cover... most of their aircraft are from the 1960s and 1970s whereas the UK is bringing in the new Typhoons and will (hopefully) have F-35s by the middle of the next decade. These are far more advanced than anything Argentina can put into the air. Also, let's not forget that there's an RAF base on the islands now (which wasn't there in 1982) and a garrison of troops. The Royal Navy also has a couple of vessels on patrol down there permanently, and it's likely there's a submarine or two as well. In short, I suspect it would be very difficult to mount a second invasion of the islands... and I don't think any Argentine government would risk it.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 11:07 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Ste2652 The UK has done a lot for the United States since the invasion of the Falklands in 1982, so support would probably be expected (and, I think, would be forthcoming).

If I'm not mistaken, the US provided a lot of intelligence and satellite information to the UK that time. No reason the (former) colonies wouldn't come to the aid of Mother England, one more time.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 11:15 AM by Ste2652

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Indeed, but the British government was disappointed at what it perceived to be Reagan's indecisiveness over the issue and the delay in declaring full support for the UK's efforts. They were also suspicious of some members of the Reagan Administration who actively favoured Argentina, too (Jean Kirkpatrick, for instance).

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 12:36 PM by Harlequin

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

there is an aweful lot of debate as the the `actual` help (if any real help) the USA gave - Galtieri was liked by Reagan and even after the invasion was being equivocating, the offer of a carrier was a white elephant - `heres a ship , but no crew` , satellite imagary was not forthcoming and the so called rushed supplies of missiles - well , they were on order an paid for anyway.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 12:37 PM by CaptGizmo

reply to post by Ste2652

I don't think the U.S. would hesitate to help GB.In my opinion the U.S. and G.B. hare probably the strongest of any two allies the world has ever seen.I look at it like this we bicker back and forth a little over small things but if anyone wants to start something with either one then you know one or the other has always going to backup the other.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 12:45 PM by budski

I'm a great believer in self-determinatiion, and for that reason I supported the first task force and would support any future operations if diplomatic means failed.

I can't really see this happening though - it's just a bit of sabre rattling by the argies.
Maybe they need to distract the populace for some reason at the moment by doing a bit of flag waving and mouthing off.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 12:46 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Ste2652Indeed, but the British government was disappointed at what it perceived to be Reagan's indecisiveness over the issue and the delay in declaring full support for the UK's efforts.

I think it's safe to say that the US didn't want to offend too many of their right-wing South American general pals...while still recognising the need to do the right thing towards the traditional allies. Chalk it up to geopolitics.

reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 01:15 PM by Freeborn

This get's quite borng after a while.

The Falklands will remain British as long as the islanders wish to remain so.
It would be political suicide for any party to even consider handing them over to Argentina, who have no real historic claim to them other than proximity.
There are too many Falkland's vets here and the events are still firmly etched in the British psyche and memory.

There is also the little matter of vast mineral wealth in the South Atlantic.