British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

reply to post by Bahb3


Other ships do come to the North Sea and take all the Cod, but thats not the point...

You seem to be basing your argument on geographic proximity, which means bugger all in the grand scheme of things. The people on the Islands are British and have been for 200 odd years.

In fact, those islands have been British for as long as the South American countries have existed, who incendtally only exist due to Spanish colonisation and the subsequent extermination of the Natives who lived there first.

But that never gets mentioned, does it?

Oh, we also managed fine in '82 with the tiny amount of support the US gave us, we can do it again and if the US gets to a point where they go "native", then we have the EU backing us up.

Originally posted by stumason

. . . In fact, those islands have been British for as long as the South American countries have existed, . . .

In fact, that is a statement of propaganda and is not based in reality. It is obvious Stu that you have never read the related documents where Britain ceded all sovereignty to Spain without proviso. Sadly people will read a wiki page and consider that to be real research. You have chosen to ignore a good deal of historical documentation. It also is quite clear that what you have read you do not understand, the Nootka Conventions and what they do and do not mean in regards to the newly formed Argentina being just one example. A quick look at a wiki link is no substitute for real research, and a readers digest watered down online version of a document is no substitute for hitting the research libraries and getting dusty.

You have an agenda based on your own political beliefs and no intention of considering the facts. That is fine, you have every right to your opinion, just don't try to pretend that your opinion is based on an honest preponderance of the facts. There are plenty of historical documents that indicate your assessment to be incorrect. The British High Court agreed in 1834 that they had no jurisdiction because the Islands did not belong to the Crown. I did not go back in time and make that determination for the High Court, but that was their published judgement. Before 1810 those islands were included into the Sudamerican territories controlled by the Spanish crown. After the Argentinian independence from Spain those islands were under Argentinian sovereignty. In fact, Argentina had positive control of the islands from 1820 until 1833 when the British government took the islands by superior force, shipping most of the Argentinian people back to the continent. A case of Might Makes Right it seems.

There are even two significant documents from prior to that use of might, in which they expressed their belief that they should not be involved in any further colonization in the region. The Nootka Conventions of 1790 were one of them, and the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was another. Not only did the British support the Monroe Doctrine politically, the Royal Navy tacitly enforced it. In fact prior to the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine, British foreign minister George Canning proposed to the American government that a joint statement should be issued stating the very same thing, namely that European powers including Britain should stay out of the Americas and not try to establish any further colonies there, but the American President thought that the statement should come from the Americas themselves and politely declined making the joint statement. Saying that the islands were British as long as South American Nations existed is simply an opinion deliberately ignorant of the facts.

Since you deliberately choose to ignore the facts which have been presented to you quite clearly, and instead choose to repeat inaccurate information, there is little point in suggesting that you research the subject further. You have made up your mind and wish to deny history. OK, Cool with me. Just don't pretend to have any credibility. I wont try and educate you any further as you have clearly indicated that you have little interest in facts, and simply prefer opinion. In the future please state that it is your opinion, that the islands have been British for as long as the South American countries have existed. Various historical documents prove otherwise.
-May the Sun rise up to greet you.

reply to post by hans kammler

joint force harrier is comprised of the inferior harrier gr7 and gr9

Inferior to what?

• 50yo Mirage III's?
  
• 30yo recycled Mirage 5 Fingers?
  
• 40 yo MDA-4's?
  
• 30 yo missile defense systems?
  

or just other Harrier versions?

reply to post by grantbeed

Why the Hell do we own the Falklands anyway?

The sun never sets.

reply to post by NightoftheComet

Anyway, no there is no, and to my knowledge, wont be any continent(S) wide trade agreement.

Monroe Doctrine. Only enforced when it is in USA's interest.

Nothing to do with 'modern' trade agreements.

Everything to do with political hegemony (and therefor trade).

[edit on 28/2/2010 by rnaa]

VEenzeula will assist argentina - as will several other nations - Brazil is not adverse to telling the Brits to rack off either - could get messy.... this will be regional - not merely national.

reply to post by audas


how - precisely ??

does venezuala have any advanced ASW , amphibious warfare capacity , anti shipping missiles , strategic bombers , air to air refueling , a carrier ???

anything that will be remotely usefull ??????????????????

unless they are going to form a balloon division , powered by chavez hot air

reply to post by Terapin


Terapin, you keep selectively reciting the Nootka Convention 1790 and the “without provisio” part in order to prove your case. If you are going to use the Convention as part of your case then you have to take the whole Convention into account, regardless of the inconvenience.

In the context of the Falklands you cite Article 6, which prevented Britain from setting up settlements on land within the Spanish occupied areas. The Falklands are not specifically mentioned contrary to what you constantly imply and the wording “without proviso” is made up as far as I can tell as I have found no text which has that wording. Please feel free to point me in the direction of the text you are referring to (don’t point me to pay sites).

You avoid mentioning that the Convention allowed British seamen rights to build huts etc on land throughout the coasts of Spanish occupied territories and continuation of this right was agreed in the 1825 Treaty of Commerce, Amity, and Navigation with Rio Plata Provinces, as indicated in a previous post.

Of greater importance is your failure to balance your selective picking by ignoring the clause which removed settlement restrictions if another nation attempted to settle. The reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falklands was an interpretation of the Convention by Britain TO THE LETTER! Depending on your interpretation a settlement was either established in 1828 (a commercial venture protected by the British) or in late 1832 when 26 Argentinean soldiers were shipped over (and subsequently removed three months later in early 1833). That act of settlement by Argentina rendered Article 6 null and void and allowed Britain to reassert sovereignty which had never been withdrawn.

Please stop peddling the inaccuracy that Britain “skipped most of the people” back to Argentina. The 25 soldiers (inc. the nine mutineers) were escorted back and the civilians who were part of a commercial venture were allowed to stay.

Also, the principle of uti possidetis juris may sound good, but may not be relevent. According to the principle (as I understand it) a new nation’s borders are held to be “as they were” before independence, but at that time the Falklands had been abandoned by Spain and Britain had prior claim through act and deed with Spain, including the Nootka Convention which you are only capable of selectively quoting.

However, it is all academic as Argentina abandoned their claim through the Convention of Settlement which you are scrupulously avoiding mentioning.

Regards

In my opinion, Argentina gave up its right to claim the Falklands, the minute their soldiers and marines set foot upon them in 1982, by employing bully-boy tactics on a peacful law abiding population of British subjects on British soil.

Every major European nation has pockets of enclaves around the world, the French, Spanish, Dutch and Portugese including the British. No one seems to be trying to claim any of these, so what gives Argentina the right?

If there was no oil around the Falklands, do you really think Argentina would be making a fuss? Its got nothing but sheep and penguins, the landscape is featureless and the weather is atrocious ....... sounds like paradise.

reply to post by paraphi

Papaphi. I will demonstrate without leaving out any of the Convention Articles.

As far as I know there is no original copy available online of the Nootka Convention, only condensed versions. This is why I recommended people who are interested in History to go to the research libraries and get dusty. What you find online is limited in comparison, but lets use the Wikipedia version for simplicity as it is something everyone can easily look to for reference. I will provide Wiki links in Blue so everyone can follow along. Lets forget about the words 'without proviso' for the time being as it seems to cause issue with some.

From the Wiki Timeline:
(I'll skip all the early parts to save space)
-1764 French establish the very first settlement, on the largest island today called Eastern Falkland island.
-1765 British establish their settlement on Saunders Island a much smaller island, part of what is collectively known as West Falklands, and name the settlement Port Egmont, unaware that the French had already been there for a full year. (The Islands are large enough and divided so this is somewhat understandable I guess. It basically means that the British stayed on their small island and did not go to the main island for five years)
-1767: The French settlement is formally transferred to the Spanish Crown and renamed Puerto Soledad, todays Port Louis. It is an outstanding port and Spain compensates France for it's expenditures. When one Crown formally transfers territory to another Crown such a settlement it is generally considered to be "continuous." Same location, same buildings, same settlement, same major port, just different folks. You can find many examples of this elsewhere in the world. (We can agree to ignore this fact if you so insist, and call Spanish settlement at '67. That is fine by me.)
-1771: After a dispute with Britain was settled when the two met each other on the islands for the first time the previous year, they formally agree that Spain retains rights to Puerto Soledad on East Falkland, and Great Britain to Port Egmont on Saunders Island. This was known as the First Falklands Crisis. They had no more disputes with the Spanish over Puerto Soledad after that. . . . Then three years later . . .
-1774 British abandoned their settlement at Port Egmont because it wasn't going well for them, and Spain rules the islands from then on. The British leave a plaque behind in which they claim the land, despite the fact that France had established their settlement on the islands a year before the British had arrived, despite the fact that the French settlement was formally transferred to the Spanish Crown, and despite the fact that Britain had formally recognized the Spanish right to Puerto Soledad just a few years earlier after the First Falklands Crisis… thus ... the British plaque "claim" could only be for their settlement in Port Egmont. They can not try to legally claim land that they had formally agreed belonged to Spain. (Want to refute that? OK fine lets just say for the sake of the discussion that Britain did not recognize the Spanish claim, but knew about the Spanish settlement and never had any issues with the settlement being there. They certainly did not try to drive them off and it was a well established port settlement. Spain then maintains the settlement at Puerto Soledad for a period of 44 years, from 1767 to 1811. Britain did not return after they had abandoned the settlement at Port Egmont. 16 years later while the Spanish settlement was still in full swing, we come to:
-1790 the Nootka Conventons:

The first of the three conventions is called the The Nootka Sound Convention and this is what deals with the area surrounding South America including the Falklands

In which Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's territories in the Americas. Take a quick moment to click the link and refresh your memory.

Article One and Two are strictly about land in North America and do not apply to this discussion. They are just setting a friendly tone. The Spanish agreed to be nice, as did the British.

In Article Three, South Seas, it states "places not already occupied" and the Islands were indeed occupied and had been for 23 years with the settlement at Puerto Soledad which Britain knew all about. Article three gives either of them the right to conduct their business in places"not previously occupied,"

In Article Four they talk about the Spanish Settlements and agree to stay away from any area "already occupied by Spain." They knew full well about the Spanish settlement in Puerto Soledad. The rules officially said they had to stay 10 maritime leagues from the Islands.

Article Five is about North America. They had a minor scuffle and resolved it. That is why it is called British Columbia to this day. They agree to use each others North American ports in a friendly fashion. No biting!

Article Six, Britain agrees not to establish any future settlements along the coast "and on the islands already occupied by Spain". Not the word "Islands." This means that Britain can not establish any settlements on the Islands. It's Spanish now. There are no current British Settlements. Future ones are prohibited. This article is the one that is linked to the Secret Article later on.

Article Seven. Lets be nice. Lets not be violent. If we have any disputes lets settle them in an "amicable manner" I wont take your stuff at gunpoint and you wont take mine. I will be a proper British Gentleman and you will be a proper Spanish Gentleman. Lets have some tea.

Article Eight. Signed Dated Duly Noted. Stamped, Counter Signed. Lets have cake!

Secret Article which goes on to discuss areas "Situated to the south of the parts . . . actually occupied by Spain" not the parts already occupied by Spain, but the coasts south of those parts.

So, to recap: They agree to stay away from Spanish settlements, to not hunt, fish etc. near any Spanish Settlement, and as Port Egmont had rotted away unused by that time, they could not reestablish it as it was on islands occupied by the Spanish Crown. Britain knew all about the settlement at Puerto Soledad and this is what is meant by "Islands already occupied by Spain." And the Secret Article is about costal areas south of the islands and the mainland previously occupied by Spain, not the Falklands themselves. Once they, or some yet to be named third party, established a settlement South of the Spanish areas, then at that point anyone was free to try and establish a claim on land South of the Spanish areas.

Established settlement, the land is yours free and clear and we will stay away. No settlement areas, Great, lets keep it that way with no more settlements, but if anyone tries in a new area to the south of your land, then we can too, on occupied southern lands.

Most people look too quickly at the Secret Article and misunderstand it's meaning by failing to notice that it specifically stipulates that its provisions are strictly about unoccupied lands to the south. It specifically stipulates that it is only about that "present article" and no other article. Any violation of the Secret Article does not invalidate the previous eight articles, it only modifies article six to allow possible new claims in the unoccupied land to the south of Spanish land.The rest of the articles are set in stone. Spanish land is Spanish land as defined in 1790. If Argentina inherits it, so be it. The Secret Article does not refute that at all.

How does Wikipedia Recap Nootka: Here is what they say...

***

"…The first convention recognized the Spanish sovereignty in the Falklands islands as well as the Patagonian ports of Puerto Deseado, and Carmen de Patagones"

***

There are no conditions to this recognition of sovereignty anywhere in the Articles of the Convention. There are only conditions on land south of Spanish occupied land. If you can manage to find a more detailed version of the Conventions, this is why you will see the term 'without Proviso' but even the generic version is clear enough on this point.

This is why Argentinas claim that the British violated their rights in 1833 has merit. Britain ceded the territory to Spain by treaty in 1790. Spain ceded the territory to Argentina in 1816 due to internationally recognized principals. Nowhere does it say if you leave for a bit we can take it. Spain still had formal sovereignty when it became Argentinas. Britain has sovereignty today on other islands where no one lives, and they are indeed still British. I can not go there with a row boat and simply claim it for China because there is no government building on it can I? Britain took the Falklands with Gunboats, not by reassertion of legal sovereignty.

They then went on to remove the majority of the Argentine settlers including all official Argentine personnel. They only allowed a small handful of Argentine Gauchos to remain to tend the Cattle. Beef, it's whats for diner.

Read through the Convention Articles again, and pay close attention to where they mention areas already occupied, and pay particular attention to the Secret Article where they very specifically stipulate that it is only about land South of where Spain already has settlements, it refers to Article Six which uses the words "Islands" in describing Spanish territory. It also stipulates that any violation there of does not effect any other article other than Article Six, that it is only about the Present Article, not the others which were set in stone in 1790.
Hope this helps clarify.

reply to post by Terapin


My friend, I and my countrymen really don't give a toss about an obscure treaty which is more than 200years old.
Literally hundreds of treaties involving most of the nations of the world have been agreed and broken since then, and not a word is whispered about them.
How many treaties did the US government sign and break with Native Indians?

It is irrelevant for one basic reason; it fails to deal with the reality of the situation now.
And that is the islanders themselves, who have been there for approximately 200 years wish to remain British.
End of story.
What is so hard about that to understand?

I would suggest Argentina accepts the UK's generous offer of sharing in the development of the oil fields around The Falklands.

Who knows, in years to come the increased co-operation and contact between the islanders and Argentina may make joint sovereignty pr something similar more appealing to the islanders themelves.
But until such time soveriegnty is non-negotiable.

Please stop dragging up hundreds years old texts that have absolutely no relevance in the world we live in today.

[edit on 2/3/10 by Freeborn]

reply to post by Freeborn


You are free to ignore history if you please. In todays world. The Falkland Islands are listed for Decolonization by the United Nations. a body that the UK was a founding member of. They have the support of nations around the Globe and the rules in this case were written by the UK.

These sort of Negotiations have been going on for ages and will continue.

reply to post by Terapin


We don't give a flying # about the UN and it's 'decolonization'.
It's simply not going to happen.

You fail to respond on any comments about other similar situations and continue with your anti-UK agenda and propoganda.
How many of these treaties have the US broken?
avalon.law.yale.edu...

Instead of dragging up this age old nonsense why not try to seek a viable and realistic solution which is agreeable to everyone, the arguements you are using carry absolutely no weight whatsoever.

reply to post by Terapin


I would just like to point out that between 1799 and 1815 The British was at war with France and Spain, thereby negating any treaty that the countries were party too. Any treaties would automatically become null and void, so your Nootka arguement goes out of the window.

Also, where do you stop at 'de-colonisation' as virtually all the worlds landmass has been conquered and integrated at some point in its history, that is how countries are made.

As the saying goes ''Possession is nine tenths of the law''.

[edit on 2/3/10 by Wotan]

What defines "colonisation"?

First generation settlers? Second?

When someone is born in a place, they are native to it, are they not?

Are people suggesting that no one on the Falklands was born there?

And of the ones that were born there, are people suggesting that they do not want to remain part of the Commonwealth and a British Overseas Territory?

Following the colonisation argument...surely that means the USA has no standing in modern law? Argentina itself was a Spanish colony originally, wasn't it?

Talk of "de-colonising" is gibberish. It means nothing.

Forcible removal of a populace does have another name though - ethnic cleansing.

reply to post by Terapin


We are doing the Nootka Convention to death – it is becoming over analysed and we are going around in circles. The problem with the Convention is the so called "secret" article which made the whole thing null and void when Argentina established a settlement. FYI I hope to get hold of the original text and will U2U to pass it on.

We can argue the toss about whether the Argentine claim was carried over from the Spanish, whether the Spanish claim lapsed when they left in 1811, or whether the Convention was in force at the time as Britain was at war with Spain, or whether the Falklands were counted (not being mentioned specifically and 300 miles away from the mainland hardly makes them an “island of”). However, at the end of the day Argentina gave up their claim in 1850 with the Convention of Settlement and that provides incontrovertible evidence of Argentina’s position.

It is a bit rich to endlessly quote a Treaty written in 1790 with all the context and confusion of the time and ignore a clear position stated in 1850.

Since Argentina resurrected their claim in the dark days of WW2 (after a break of 90 years), they have persistently cited a position based on a selective view of history and the perpetuation of untruths or exaggeration.

An end note. I would be less cynical if Argentina has not laid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI). South Georgia has been claimed by Britain since 1775 and although an “island” does not seem to have been part of the Nootka Convention. I am going to pressure my MP to claim Iceland as it is on the same continental shelf as the UK and only a few hundred miles away, plus it’s an island! You see, it all gets rather silly all this “I don’t have it but it’s mine” mentality. Argentina needs to reconcile itself the political and social reality or they will cut of their nose to spite their face when the oil starts to flow and a pipeline goes into Chile! Their continual belligerence hardly persuades the Islanders that they would be better masters, but then under decolonization the Islanders would be booted out so who cares about them!

Regards

reply to post by neformore


I did not invent the term and make no proclamations on what Decolonization means. I am simply reporting on the facts. The UK was the leading member of the UN commission and the UK over saw and established the regulations and meanings. They were the ones who determined When, Why, How, and Where. I did not put the Falklands on the List of areas to be Decolonized.The UN with the UKs guidance did. I did not make the regulations.

I am not anti UK, I am simply pointing out why Argentina has a reason for their protest. Perhaps this article from the UK based "Guardian" Newspaper will put things in perspective.
The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance

From the Article:

Anyone who studies the tortuous history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. The treaty of Utrecht recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain. Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a crude act of imperial aggression.

Distant colonies are a post-imperial anachronism. Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world, either at the UN or at The Hague, will insist on it. The government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead of the silliest of wars a quarter century ago.

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by Terapin

 

. The problem with the Convention is the so called "secret" article which made the whole thing null and void when Argentina established a settlement.

Wrong.
I guess you did not pay attention to the items I pointed out to you regarding the Secret Article. The Secret Article very specifically states that any such violation will only affect the Sixth Article. It would only affect in a very specific manner. It does not invalidate the entire convention. The Secret Article only deals with land south of established Spanish Settlements. Spain was the only nation with a Settlement on the Falklands at the time and Britain knew this when they talked about Spanish occupied "Islands." It is not vague. Please go back and read it again as you still seem to misunderstand it's meaning. On a side note, I agree with you on South Georgia Islands. Argentina has virtually nothing to go on with their claim due to continental shelf. It is wishful thinking at best.

The transference of sovereignty from one nation to another is a well understood process and has happened more times than one can count. The Uti Possidetis Juris principle predates the British Empire, is no mystery at all, and was universally accepted. The British empire took advantage of this principal in other areas around the globe and did not contradict it's validity.

When Argentina legally inherited an area it was impossible for it to violate a treaty made between Spain and Britain. Britain was obligated to negotiate anew, and Argentina did not, and could not, violate Nootka as you state. Nootka established Spanish sovereignty and there were no conditions placed upon this sovereignty. Nothing in the conventions limits the ability of Spain to transfer sovereignty. There was only conditions placed on land to the south which was outside of established Spanish territory. The conditions were very specific and quite limited in scope. This is precisely what the conventions stated. International law is specific and not that hard to follow.

reply to post by Terapin


The British people could not give a flying fig what the leftist rag ''The Guardian'' states. There is no way in hell that a UK Government will 'hand over' the Falkland Islands, not while there are veterans still alive, it would be political suicide, especially to some tinpot South American regime.

A lot of Brits may not of heard of the Falklands pre-1982, but most know of them now and have taken them to their hearts.

As for the article saying they are an expensive nuisance, what a load of tosh. For a population of their size, they are pretty well self-financing.

reply to post by Wotan


How many millions of pounds are spent annually, out of your pocket, on the military and government support? Yes, today the Falklanders do well with their income from leased Fishing Rights, but it is still an expensive ticket for the UK. The number one employer in the Falklands is the government. That can never be good.