British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

reply to post by Terapin


Why keep on mentioning events from 200 years ago and documents from 60 years ago?
The world has moved on since then.
Deal with the here and now.
The simple fact of the matter is that the UK will not relinquish sovereignty as long as The Islanders wish to remain a British Overseas Territory.
And we will defend that right no matter what.
End of story!

The UK has made a very generous offer of sharing the oil deposits with Aergentina, I suggest they take it up or lose everything.

with out dialog there is no democracy, this is a bad exemple specially when everyone is acusing Iran for not dialoguin, Britain and Argetina are doing the same and both countreis are in the G20. Funny how in one side they trying to fight against global warming and behind the back fighting for more oil, this is the reflection of how we all act and they give the bad examples. I recomend that we throw them away in falklands/malvinas and sink those island with all this world problems...maybe they all wont fit in the island

I dont think either one has the right to pollute more, My guess is that if Argentina cant stop them they will drill beside Britain and let Brasil, Chile, Venezuela, Mexico maybe China drill there too for some cash, becouse these people dont have nationality they all want money. We, no matter what country you come from should no let this happen to our planet, but we all the same #

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Gloster]

reply to post by Freeborn


you are brian washed you just repeat what you hear about this problem. Think about it... they refer to you as the "commons" dont they? you have to be at least a laird or lord to be someone, we are nothing to them.

reply to post by Valorian


I quite agree that the prize could well be Antarctica and the vastness of the Southern Ocean. Britain claimed their “share” of Antarctica in 1908 (the slice 20°W to 80°W). Other nations put in claims over the next few decades with Argentina putting in a claim in 1948 bang in top of the British claim (25°W to 74°W) and therefore laying the foundations of future friction and confrontation.

One can see that the proximity of the Falklands would reinforce the Antarctica claim, so whoever possesses the Falklands can not only legitimately claim a massive chunck of the Southern Ocean but can have the related part of Antarctica.

Ho hum.

Regards

reply to post by waynos


Britain ceded all previous claims to the Falklands as part of the Nootka Conventions in the 1790's, which were mostly about lands in North America between the US, Spain, and Britain. As part of the conventions, Britain ceded all rights over the Falklands to Spain "without proviso" or without conditions. Any plaque that was left behind previously thus becomes meaningless as they legally gave up the territory in a multi nation treaty. Contrary to your statement. there were indeed international laws prior to the founding of the UN. Argentina gained it's independence from Spain in 1816 and with this independence, due to the internationally recognized rule of Uti Possidetis Juris, their territory included the Falklands. If you look you will find that such international laws go back beyond Roman times.

When Argentina became independent, Britain was among the first nations to recognize their independence and establish diplomatic and commercial ties. In 1825 England signs with Argentina a Treaty of Friendship and Trade in which, among many things, she implicitly recognizes Argentina's sovereign territory including the Falklands. This important fact, which many seem to deny, was even published in the "Times" of London. This document is one among many where Britain recognizes that another nation is the legal sovereign owner of the Falklands. At no time during these treaties did they dispute Argentinas sovereignty.

When Britain took the island from the Argentinians at gunpoint in 1833 in violation of international law, my understanding is that all Argentinians were expelled, most were forced to go to Montevideo, and that to this day no Argentinian is allowed to live there. If you have information that indicated otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it. I am always interested in seeing new data. It is interesting to note that it was a US violation of the Monroe Doctrine that led to the British gunboat seizure of the Falklands in the first place, and the US has never explained it's reasoning for violating the Monroe Doctrine.


If you are interested in reading more about the interesting legal history of the Falklands, here are a few suggestions:

1.) The Nootka conventions, where you can see that Britain 'cedes the islands without proviso.' (They gave up all rights without conditions.)
2.) Announcements made in 1816 by the British government, and the Times of London, regarding Argentina's new independence, where you can see that the British recognize the Falklands as belonging to Argentina. You can also read about this in "El Redactor” (Cádiz, Spain) from the same date.
2.) The British/Argentinian treaty of Friendship and Trade of 1825 where you can see that Britain once again officially recognizes the Islands as belonging to Argentina.
3.) British court documents from 1833 which demonstrate that the British judges returned the cases against captured Argentinian settlers without finding as they had no legal jurisdiction in the Falklands.
4.) The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback."
5.) In 1965 the UN’s General assembly urged Britain and Argentina through Resolution 2065 to "proceed without delay" with negotiations. These negotiations began almost immediately and were kept mostly in secret and away from the public eye.
6.) The UN General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 confirmed "that the right to self-determination was not applicable to the islanders since they were a British population transplanted with the intention of setting up a colony."
7.) Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "Memorandum of Understanding" was in the final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as condominum.
8.) Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was Foreign Secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."
9.) UN Resolutions from November 4, 1982, requesting a resumption of the negotiations for the eventual decolonization and hand back. (This was after the Falklands war)

Not all of these documents are easily available online, but they are well worth reading. Much of what one tends to find online is misleading and often incorrect, so be sure to verify data from a variety of sources. There are biased reports from both sides of the equation so cross checking is a must. Again, please let me know about your information regarding Argentinian Falklanders being allowed to remain after the British 1833 invasion. I would love to read it.

There is a very selective view of the past by supporters of the Argentinean claim and some things are repeated so many times that people begin to believe them as fact, such as the Nootka Convention or the “forcible removal at gunpoint” of Argentinean settlers in 1833. In addition, some facts are conveniently ignored or “glossed over”, so that they become unconsidered in the debate, which then becomes overly simplistic, ill informed and misdirected as a result.

Because of its length this post is in two parts. Hope it is not too boring...

If International Law is to be cited ad nauseam, then let’s go a little further back in time, analyses the Nootka Convention and subsequent treaties to see what they all meant. I also look at the timeline up until the 1940’s when Argentina once again began to claim the Falklands after a long break. I hope that this helps and adds usefully to the knowledge as well as expelling some myths. I have used several sources and triangulated them as best I can.

Let’s start at the beginning.

- 1493 - The Papal Bulls where Pope Alexander VI gave the New World to Spain – that being the non Catholic parts of the New World and beyond.
- 1494 – The Treaty (or Pact) of Tordesillas which modified the Papal Bulls and was an agreement between Spain and Portugal giving Portugal a stake of the area which is now Brazil (a line 47 degrees West).

By virtue of these agreements, by 1530 the line had reached the Pacific. Portugal “had rights to” India and Spain “had rights to” Alaska and Japan. All indigenous cultures and civilisations therein now “belonged” to the Portuguese and Spanish, by Papal decree.

Do these to agreements have any standing in International Law, considering the Pope was giving away lands which were not his! Indeed, the term nemo dat quod non habet (“no one gives what he does not possess”) is surely applicable here. Furthermore, the two agreements were not endorsed by France or Queen Elizabeth I of England.

As a side note, under the Tordseville agreement South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were geographically Portuguese.

Now, let’s add some key dates and review the oft quoted Nootka Convention...

- 1764 – French started a settlement at Port Louis
- 1765 – British settlement started at Port Egmont (the British unaware of the French).
- 1767 – The Spanish claimed the Falklands and demanded the removal of the French, which happened although France did not concede Spanish dominion over the Falklands.
- 1767-1811 – Spanish garrison at Puerto Soledad (having renamed the French settlement)
- 1770 – Spanish attacked the British settlement at Port Egmont
- 1771 – Spanish restored Port Egmont to Britain under threats of war. The agreement to return contained the narrative “… to restore to his Britannic Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands”. In other words, Spain did not assert their title over above the British claim.
- 1790 - Nootka Sound Convention – War nearly broke out between Spain and Britain over Alaska (of all places, Palin take note). Remember that under the Papal Bull, the Pope had given Alaska to Spain! In Article 3 of the Convention Britain undertook not to establish any settlements on either the eastern or the western coasts of South America or on the adjacent islands already occupied by Spain, such as the Malvinas Islands. However, a further “secret” article was inserted in the Convention which removed the restriction on new settlements if any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts already occupied” by Spain. Nootka Convention narrative. Now here’s the rub, because Argentina created a settlement south of the coastal areas occupied by Spain in 1790 meaning that Britain became entitled to form a settlement in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there, which they did in late 1832. Britain’s reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 was an exercise of Britain’s rights under this clause. The Nootka Convention was a bi-partite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.

Now, let’s go back to chronology, but in detail around the next set of events.

- 1811 – The Spanish withdraw from Falkland Islands.
- 1820 – The Argentinean employed privateer and US national David Jewett turned pirate by attacking a Portuguese ship and ended up on the Falklands, where he pirated a US ship and “claimed” the Falklands for Argentina. A letter printed in the Salam Gazette (Massachusetts) on 8 June 1821 of Jewett’s declaration, was reprinted in the London Times on 3 August 1821 and subsequently reprinted in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821. How can a declaration by a pirate and reported in this way have any credence and yet Argentina thinks it does.
- 1824 – An Argentinean expedition to exploit the wild cattle on the Islands was initiated and no permanent settlement was established.
- 1826 – Second Argentinean expedition to exploit wild cattle, lead by the Louis Vernet.
- 1828 - Louis Vernet approaches Argentine government with a colonisation proposal, which they agreed to. He settled at Port Louis (where the French originally settled back in 1764). Note that Vernet also lodged his cattle venture with the British and he sought British protection. His venture was self funded and a commercial.
- 1829 – The Argentineans let slip that they wanted to build a penal colony and fort on the Islands. The British formally protested the Argentinean intentions.
- 1831 – Vernet seizes three US sealing ships. He did not seize British ships as he hoped for British protection and had been communicating with the Britain from the onset of his venture.
- 1831 - US President Jackson complains of acts of aggression around the Falklands.
- 1831 – US warships were already in the area and arrested the culprits on the Falklands, much to the annoyance of the Argentinean authorities (diplomatic relations broken and only restored in 1844). He also persuaded most of the settlers to leave and transported most of them (plus slaves), leaving around 25 settlers behind. He later released the seven miscreants. The US did not (as is oft reported) destroy the settlement.
- 1831 – The British were alarmed by the US naval actions undertook to ensure a British naval visitation was made annually to ensure there was no question of British rights.
- 1832 – Late in the year, Argentina sent a garrison of 26 soldiers with families to the Islands in order to protect “their claim” and to harass US sealers. The British immediately protest this action. The Argentinean captain was murdered by his mutinying soldiers who took control of the garrison and later fled to the hills.
-1833 – In January the HMS Clio arrived (the first planned annual visit by the British) and removed the Argentinean garrison, plus the mutineers who were returned to Argentina. The civilians were not removed and the settlement was not destroyed (as is oft reported). It is likely that had the British not removed the garrison the US would have done so, as USS Lexington was in the vicinity to protect US sealers which were being harassed. Note also that the Argentinean garrison was on the island for only three months.
- 1834 – Britain begins to establish authority and law as clearly this had been lacking.

Part two covers the ommissions and misdirection...

[edit on 20/2/2010 by paraphi]

Part 2

Now, just to cover a few additional facts which are often skipped over by the pro Argentinean claim lobby.

- 1842 – Argentina sought to cancel a debt owed to the Barings Bank in London by offering to cancel the Argentine claim to the Falklands in exchange. The British Government said “no” because in their view Argentina did not have any rights over the Falklands they could not use that as collateral.
- 1850 – The Convention of Settlement which settled “all outstanding differences” between Argentina and Britain. Argentina did not raise the issue of the Falklands again for a prolonged period and abandoned their claim through acquiescence i.e. failure to protest. In fact, the Falklands were not mentioned again by the Argentinean President’s Messages to Congress until 1941. This Convention ended Argentinean claims.
- 1884 – The first time the Falklands are mentioned at a diplomatic level since 1850.

Just as an end note, in 1947, 51, 53 and 54 Britain asked for arbitration to resolve the sovereignty question, but Argentina refused. If Argentina were so sure of their claim, then they would have welcomed the opportunity to settle the dispute once and for all – would they not. Instead Argentina has chosen to hide behind the UN Decolonisation resolutions, a very selective interpretation and re-writing of history and nationalistic rants by Argentinean politicians in trouble. The UK is correct, why talk about sovereignty when it is not in question as talking about it presumes it is negotiable.

The politics at the UN is frankly mad – how can China participate in decolonisation discussions when they sit in Tibet, for example and how can nations who have spent hundreds of years subjugating the indigenous nations sand people (like Argentina) hide behind such hypocrisy? The Falklands was at least unpopulated, so no one was caused harm!

Regards and sorry it's so long, but hope it helps.

Well done chap. I had deliberately ignored Terapin's Nootka Convention "misinformation" as I have done this topic to death over the years every time the Falklands crops up and frankly, I am tired of repeating myself.

It has to be said (I didn't notice it in your excellent posts) that even if Argentina had a valid claim on the back of the Nootka Convention, they broke this convention by harrassing and preventing US and Uk sealers from working, which had a right (under the Nootka Convention) to be there. So, if we're going to be finiky, they broke the only Treaty which gives ANY WEIGHT to their claim over the islands.

The Nootka Conventions were primarily between Spain and Britain. When Argentina gained it's independence it was under no legal obligation to honor any treaty made by third parties. Britain congratulated Argentinas independence and made it perfectly clear that they considered the Falklands to now be Argentinian sovereign territory. Any deals Britain had with Spain were now moot, and new treaties had to be made with Argentina, and they were. They clearly established that Argentina legally owned the Falklands. Stating that Argentina broke the Nootka Conventions, which they had no part in, is a meaningless argument. Britain entered into trade agreements with Argentina in which again they establish Argentinian sovereignty over the Islands and at no time did they raise any question over their ownership. At no time did they bring up the Nootka Conventions as a legal reason for seising the islands at gunpoint.

I would still like to see data regarding Argentinians being allowed to remain on the Falklands after the British invasion of 1833. I would also enjoy seeing the source material for the information you posted.

There is a reason why the many nations of the UN continue to seek the decolonization of the Islands. There is a reason why Britain has a long history of making plans for an eventual handback. Clearly they are aware of the facts more than you or I. I would not presume to be better qualified that the many nations of the UN and Britain to judge their decisions to be poorly considered.

Originally posted by infinite
.... and the must advance UK anti-aircraft and ballistic missile system is located in the South Pacific.

Why, why would you have your most advanced AA and ballistic missile systems in the ........South Pacific??? Worried about those Nazi's coming up from the South Pole still?

That makes no sense to me to have it based there.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Terapin
The Nootka Conventions were primarily between Spain and Britain. When Argentina gained it's independence it was under no legal obligation to honor any treaty made by third parties.

Terapin, you have cited the Nootka Convention as a point of international law that supports the Argentinean claim, yet now you suggest it does not count... Which is it?

Originally posted by Terapin
Britain congratulated Argentinas independence and made it perfectly clear that they considered the Falklands to now be Argentinian sovereign territory. Any deals Britain had with Spain were now moot, and new treaties had to be made with Argentina, and they were. They clearly established that Argentina legally owned the Falklands.

Britain may well have supported Agentinean independence, but I cannot find any reference to any Argentinean / British treaty which suggests that Britain conceded the Falklands were Argentine. Indeed, Britain has acted consistently to maintain its claim and even Spain never asserted their claim was superior. The Argentinean's gave up their claim in 1850.

Originally posted by Terapin
I would still like to see data regarding Argentinians being allowed to remain on the Falklands after the British invasion of 1833.

There were 34 civilian residents. Four chose to go, the rest stayed. The British did not invade – they reasserted their claim and removed the military garrison and murdering mutineers placed there three months earlier. Look up research by G Pascoe and P Pepper.

Argentina puts so much weigh on the UN Decolonisation because they don’t have a legitimate claim. They hide behind the politics of the UN. Look at the stuff that comes out of the UN where the Islanders are referred to as the “alien” population, from an Island which was uncolonised.UN Decolonisation with same old historical omissions

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
Terapin, you have cited the Nootka Convention as a point of international law that supports the Argentinean claim, yet now you suggest it does not count... Which is it?
Regards

The reason why I mentioned the Nootka Conventions, is that in the original documents it very specifically used the legal term "without proviso" when Britain cedes it's sovereignty over the Falklands to Spain. These words are very important legal terms and should not be omitted from any discussion on the matter, yet often when reading the English translation, they somehow disappear as they did in the website you linked to earlier. Agreed, that they go on to allow hunting and fishing and shelters etc. for both parties involved, particularly in the secret addendum. The jist of that portion of the Conventions is the ending of all further colonial ambitions in the Americas by both Spain and Britain. The important fact is that Britain relinquished all previous claims of sovereignty, so when people state that Britain was there first, or that they had sovereignty first, it becomes a moot point. Pascoe and Pepper fully admit in the paper you mentioned, that any British rights to the use of the Falklands after the Nootka Conventions were "meager" and did not include sovereignty. My favorite part is where they state when discussing Areguati, and I quote directly from the paper,"Britain had a claim dating from the establishment at Port Egmont 50 years earlier, and whether that was valid or not..." "Valid or not," LOL they put their foot in their mouth with that statement and any serious research paper would never make such a misleading gesture.

The position paper you mention by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper, two amateur historians (one being a language lecturer and the other with an honorary BA in Geology) is an interesting work of historical investigation, but you must keep in mind that they both set out with a foregone conclusion before they even began to conduct their research. I always try to avoid sources that have a predetermined bias. Their paper, while seemingly well researched, is full of deliberately misleading suggestions. One example is their discussion on the captain who claimed the Islands in Argentinas name, Captain Jewett. They gloss over the fact the the claim was witnessed by several other captains who were present at the time, as well as glossing over his letter about the event sent to the US captain Captain William Orne of the American schooner General Knox. They only mention it in one sentence. They also attempt to invalidate the claim by calling Jewett a "pirate" just about every time they mention him. He was indeed a privateer commissioned by the Argentine government, as were numerous British ships in the region. Privateering was a practice that was not abolished until 1856, well after this time. When Jewett seized cargo from an American merchant ship headed for Spain, the authors label him a pirate, despite that fact that between the end of the Revolutionary War and 1812, less than 30 years, privateers from Britain, France, Naples, the Barbary States, Spain, and the Netherlands seized approximately 2,500 American ships. Sir George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland was at times a Privateer yet one would hardly call him a pirate for it. The British often attacked ships, even during peacetime, and it was considered by them a "legitimate policy of military and economic competition." The attempt to discredit Jewett as a "Pirate" is disingenuous at best. His claim of the territory was chartered, witnessed, and documented.

Pascoe and Pepper make a number of similar errors due to their predetermined agenda. They often will cite a historical document in their footnotes, but choose to deliberately ignore portions of it which go against their case. I have visited the National Archives in Buenos Aires (Archivo General de la Nación) I am a professional in the museum field having worked on projects for the Smithsonian in Washington DC and various US National Parks for example, and I am often extended professional courtesy in such archives. I have looked at a number of such documents and it is interesting to note the details and documents that Pascoe and Pepper have chosen to purposefully omit. This deliberate omission taints their work, and thus it is not considered a scholarly report on the subject. When one of Jewetts crew describes his time on the island and mentioned that he personally "vegetated" while suffering from scurvy, they make the claim that the entire crew did nothing at all but sit around. This is an example of their misrepresentation. In bold typeface they state that Jewett "issued no orders to anyone whatsoever," without any proof. It is simply a statement of opinion designed to mislead the reader.

They claim that there never was an Argentine governor for the Falklands and initially gloss over Louis Vernet, trying to focus on Pablo Areguati instead. Loius Vernet was indeed the "civil and military comandander" during his first trip to the Falklands, as they agree, but they fail to mention that this makes him governor. You will find that this is common and continues to this day, that the ranking military and civilian officer is the defacto governor until one is otherwise appointed. My father was temporarily the governor of the upper Marianas Islands near the end of WWII as he was the highest ranking naval officer in the area. No formal proclamation was made, it was a simple radio handshake from his superiors, but he had full legal authority to govern the area until a new governor was appointed shortly thereafter. It is mentioned in his military record however and he did indeed undertake the office in official capacity signing various legal documents prior to the appointed governor taking over. Pascoe and Pepper mention Argentine historian Ricardo Caillet-Bois, stating that he wrote the most detailed book on the Argentine claim, but try to diminish his excellent work by saying that he "fudges" the claim, which is entirely untrue. It is quite scholarly and full of historical references. They choose to focus instead based on a brief single newspaper story to support their views on the lack of a governor, rather than a detailed research paper. Interesting to note that they make the error of mentioning that a British Naval officer was once in charge of governing the islands despite the fact that he was not officially appointed Governor. They can't have it both ways, and indeed legally the claim for Vernet being the first Argentine Governor holds true. They often try to have things both ways in their paper, being for their position when it suites them, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

When Argentina became independent Britain negotiated new treaties with them and one of them was to seek permission from Argentina to continue to use the Islands for Hunting, Fishing and Shelter. It was granted to Britain in the normal spirit of International Friendship. This was part of the 1825 "Treaty of trade and Friendship." Pascoe and Peppers completely fail to even mention this document for obvious reasons. They also deliberately fail to ever mention the Monroe Doctrine and the British proclamation of support for it, despite its significance in the history of the region and the events surrounding the British seizure of the Islands.

Further, in January 1833, murders took place on the Islands. The suspects were caught and sent to England to be judged, but the English court stated that because the murders had taken place in lands that did not belong to the British Crown, they could not be judged there, and they were returned to South America. Pascoe and Peppers attempt to claim that it was because they were not British citizens, but lack of citizenship never stopped the British courts before. In their work they even mention cases of non British citizens who were tried and found guilty in British courts, once again trying to have it both ways. This lack of judicial authority proved that the British courts knew that they had no jurisdiction over the islands, a belief shared by the former British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, vanquisher of Napoleon.

When mentioning that settlers were allowed to stay on the islands, one should clarify that all official Argentine personnel were removed, and only those Argentine settlers who worked for Vernet were allowed to stay. This was because Vernet had expressed some loyalty to Britain and was rewarded for it, thus his "gauchos," or cowboys, were allowed to continue to service his landholdings. The other settlers whom remained were of other nationalities.

I could point out a number of other discrepancies in their paper, but as I stated earlier I try to avoid any source which comes with a predetermined bias. I do not cite the non scholarly work of an honorary geologist and language lecturer, as it has certain inaccuracies which make it unacceptable as a valid research document. They make proclamations without sources, and use bold typeface to add emphasis to personal opinions, two things which one never does in a serious scholarly paper. It is a good jumping off point if one uses their footnotes to seek out historical documents, but their conclusions omit a great deal of information simply to suit their goal. On the opening page they claim that they are stating "the true history" of the Falklanda and claim the Argentines are guilty of deliberate omission, yet they follow the same pattern of omission that they decry.

James Callaghan, when he was foreign secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement. Britain has a long history of negotiating for such a leaseback. The number of nations supporting Argentina is growing, and this week even the White House publicly refused to endorse the UK's sovereignty over the islands nor its right to explore for oil in the area

Originally posted by paraphi

Look at the stuff that comes out of the UN where the Islanders are referred to as the “alien” population, from an Island which was uncolonised.

Regards

To reiterate, The reason why the Commission on Decolonization does not mention Self Determination in the case of the Falklands, is because it is comprised of a Transplanted population placed there for the purpose of Colonization. It is not an Oppressed population being ruled by colonial masters. The example I used earlier was India, where Britain ruled over an oppressed population. By transplanting a population to the Falklands, and enforcing an exclusion policy of immigration, they have eliminated the right to Self determination. Those are the rules which the UK helped to write. I did not make them up and neither did Argentina. The UK headed the commission that wrote those rules, and they do not have the same immigration exclusion policy in the UK nor on their other overseas territories.

In referring to the Islanders as "Aliens" it is simply a matter of speech indicting that they are a transplanted population from afar. It is not a derogatory term, but one of legal definition.

reply to post by Terapin


I just have to despair over this logic.

Half of the world's population has been "transplanted", including all of Latin America, the US and Canada! How can the UN be so selective? How the Argentine’s say (with a straight face) that the Falkland Islands population are the result of colonialism when the Argentina is a product of colonialism. Skewed logic from the politicians.

Everything about this affair is selective and frankly bonkers.

So Argentina lost the "international law" argument and have lost the "claim" argument. They can hardly win the "island is just a stone’s throw away" argument as it is 300 miles off the coast. They have no legitimate case so they rely on the "Falkland Islands population are based on a colonial past" and the pretend that they don't have European ancestry either!!

Come on. It’s moronic.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


When did Argentina lose the International law argument?? They do indeed have a valid claim based on historical facts. In short: The British relinquished all sovereignty to the Islands to Spain in 1790. Argentina became their legal sovereign rulers when they became an independent nation in 1816 due to a internationally recognized legal principle. They Established a settlement with governor, and Britain even signed a treaty of Trade and Friendship in 1825 which specifically asks permission from Argentina to continue fishing and hunting and erecting temporary shelters. Then Britain seized the Islands at gunpoint and forced off all the representatives of the Argentine government, allowing only a few Argentine cowboys to remain among the new settlers they imported to establish a new colony. Even the Duke of Wellington, vanquisher of Napoleon, stated at the time that the British did not have clear legal sovereignty over the Falklands.

The subject of Transplanted Populations is often misunderstood an waved about out of context. The entire reason for this issue as it relates to the Falklands is twofold. First, The representative settlers of the legal rulers were forced out at gunpoint by the British in 1833. Then the British transplanted a new population to replace them.

Second, the British set up an unusual exclusion immigration policy, a policy that is entirely different from every other immigration policy on every other British territory. Due to this exclusion policy, the British artificially maintain a very specific population of citizens. They do not allow the normal open immigration that is in effect in the rest of the British Territories, and most of the rest of the world for that matter. It is an artificially maintained society that is comprised of an insignificant number of local neighboring citizens. The UK and much of the worlds nations are full of citizens from neighboring nations but on the Falklands there is no such normal migrational ebb and flow of peoples. By Legal definition, it is indeed a transplanted population.

Keep in mind that the UK was at the top of the commission that wrote the rules for the UN used to determine the difference between an oppressed, and a transplanted population. By their own definition the Falklanders are transplanted so British supporters are misguided to get upset about the correct use of the label. A label definition that Britain created.

Personally I couldn't care less about a few raggedy acres of god forsaken dirt in the middle of nowhere. I am neither British nor Argentinian and the dispute does not effect me at all, nor do I suspect it directly effects anyone here on ATS. I am however a student of history and international policy and I do care about making sure the correct information is used in the argument for either side, which ever way it swings. I hope cooler heads prevail and that this remains simply a diplomatic dispute. I know that Hugo Chavez is a blowhard and wont do anything to start a war, and Argentina has also no interest in such an outcome. The Best thing Britain could do, in my opinion, is to end the exclusion immigration policy and normalize relations with the rest of the world. This does not mean that Argentinians would flood the islands with people by any means. They would still, like everyone else be required to actually buy property, which does not often come up for sale, and they would have to compete with everyone else for the property. Any influx of new citizens from anywhere in the world would be a very slow and long drawn out process as it should be, due to the very small size of the colony. Those who immigrate would have to become British subjects by the way, so no fear of a back door sneak by the Argentine government. I guess you could allow a limited number guest workers, but they would have no rights to vote for anything anyway. C Britain has placed a bubble around the islands for a long long time, and that isolates them and keeps them out of step with the rest of the world. Perhaps easing that bubble open slowly, might smooth things out in the long run. It has worked elsewhere.

[edit on 26/2/10 by Terapin]

reply to post by Terapin


Terapin, we are going around in circles here so I’ll just reference my previous posts which address the points you make.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Nootka Convention in 1790 had a further article which gave British entitlements, which of course followed the 1771 agreement by Spain (on restoring the British presence on the Islands) that they did not have a superior claim.

Argentina did not establish a settlement in 1825. A self-funded commercial venture was established which also sought British protection. The position of “governor” was not given. The Argentinean representatives removed at gunpoint were murdering mutineers and soldiers who had been put in place three months previously. Britain was OK with a commercial venture, but not foreign soldiers.

And the Convention of Settlement followed by 90 years of silence, and all that.

Yawn. Let’s just agree to differ. We are becoming repetitious. I think you cite a selective and simplified view of the situation and doubtless you think I dwell too much on the detail.

My position is clearly pro British because on this one I see that they are right and they have a historically legitimate claim and current legitimacy based on the fact the Islands are occupied by people who don't want to be Argentinean. The latter point may not go down too well in the UN, but that’s the compromise of politics which entertain so many countries where the concept of self determination is alien and a threat. The UN Decolonisation Commission contains some such countries, so they would hardly want to set a precedent, would they.

Regards

These dogs tried to colonize Argentina twice, we sent them back home, and they came again in 1982 and took by force the islands, and now they just want the oil... thats not an empire... just a bunch of greedy pirates. And who are you to talk about international law?? You made it! For your own profit... always. And you ll never win the football world cup... The queen sucks!

reply to post by paraphi


Paraphi, While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, the problem for me is that you seem to base your statements on incomplete information. Wikipedia and other similar online sources are well known to be lacking. This is why such sources are not allowed to be used as a source for academic papers. The Nootka Conventions link you offer is a watered down translation. Please refer to the original where Britain "cedes all rights of sovereignty to Spain without proviso" Sure, they go on to agree to allow each other to share the use of the islands and not to establish any permanent settlements, but when it comes specifically to sovereignty, the Conventions are quite clear. The conventions in and of themselves in the parts where they are not simply dealing with North America, are also all about ending further future colonial ambitions by both parties. As I stated previously you should also refer to the Treaty of Trade and Friendship that Britain in which they ask permission of Argentina to hunt, fish and set up temporary shelters. If Britain had sovereignty, why would they ask permission???? The Duke of Wellington indicated that Btritains sovereignty was doubtful, as did the British courts. Both the Duke of Wellington and the British courts have more standing on the matter than you or I do, that is certain.

Second, the Position paper you reference most of your information from, or at least it is the only reference you mentioned to me, was created by a honorary geologist and a language lecturer and not professional historians, is a very bias and incomplete in its data as they set out with a specific agenda. This is much like pharmaceutical researchers who start with a conclusion then try to fit the data to it. It is unscientific and leaves much to be desired in the way of accuracy. In the position paper you referenced, even the authors had to admit that after the Nootka Conventions British rights to use the islands was in their words "meager." They chose to omit any reference to the Treaty of Trade and Friendship, because it would significantly damage their case. They also chose to omit any mention of the British support and the Royal navy support for the Monroe Doctrine for the very same reason.

I encourage you to further research the data and to refrain from using any incomplete documents or those which were created to prove one side or the other. Follow the data without any previous conclusions. If you wish to direct me to any historical document, I would be very willing to look at it and if need be change my conclusions. I am openminded about the subject, but I have yet to see any references that were not either watered down, or deliberately bias by way of omission or preconceived conclusion.

Why is it that the UK has such a long history of entering into negotiations for a leaseback?? Why do people argue about the UN and Decolonization, when it was the UK who wrote those particular rules for the UN?? Why does Britain continue to maintain a unique exclusion policy of immigration for the colony that is unlike any other immigration policy in all other British territory??

It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to hold an opinion on either side of the equation. Pro British or Pro Argentinian, either opinion is fine with me. But opinions are not facts and it is complete data we should be looking at from a historical perspective. I encourage everyone interested in history to look at the actual documents when possible, or vetted copies, and not to rely on incomplete online links. The two sources I personally tend to ignore the most; Argentine position papers, and Falkland Islander position papers. British documents tend to be quite good although they are a bit difficult to get at. Portuguese, Argentine, and Spanish documents are also good and some are more accessible than others. There are even some interesting related documents in Asuncion, Paraguay of all places. Position papers however, by their very nature, are always bias and are not historical documents. Most basic online sources are simplistic and contain inaccurate data. Spending time in dusty research libraries can be dull, but the data tends to be of higher quality and should be cross referenced.

With all respect Paraphi, I agree to disagree with you on a number of points you bring up. That is fine as this is a civil discussion and unlike others on ATS you have been respectful and haven't resorted to insults which always weakens anyones standing. Perhaps instead of history we should be discussing the future. This is why I mentioned my opinion that ending the unusual exclusion policy might be a very good and harmless manner to slowly cool off the issue over time. Regardless what you or I may think on the subject, Politicians will do what they please.

[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

UNless Gordo is really stupid he will know these clear cut facts.

1. At the moment, Gordo has less than a snowballs chance of being re-elected. This was the same for Mrs Thatcher in 1982 who was also leading a Britain in deep recession then.
2. After Mrs Thatcher beat the snot out of the Argies in 1982, she was utterly invincible.
3. Gordo must go to a General Election by 3rd June 2010.
4. Gordo has just enough time to start a fight with the Argies.

Logical conclusion then is that Gordon Brown will happily escalate this into a bloody and brutal fight with Argentina as soon as possible... and, given our weaker situation and the fact that the Argies will have learn a bit about how to fight the UK, this time it will be very savage. And if they don't attack? Gordo has every reason to create a false flag incident to start a punch-up.

Annex Argentina to the U.S. tat 80 dollars a barrel that is like 4t that would stop the debt.

How bout create an American Oil cartel and hold Europe and the middle east hostage with debt.

There is enough oil over here to send them into a third world nation.