E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.K.'s foreign minister accused Argentina of "harassment" and "threats" over the Falkland Islands, saying that its policy toward the south Atlantic islands was “deeply regrettable.”
William Hague made the comments in an article on Monday for the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the islands.
"In place of the dialogue and engagement we saw in the 1990s, Argentina has in recent years taken a range of measures to try to coerce the islands: from attempts to intimidate businesses involved in the hydrocarbons industry, to the harassment of Falkland fishing vessels by the Argentine coastguard; from threats to cut the one air link between the islands and South America, to actually closing its ports to cruise ships that have visited the Falklands," Hague wrote.
Services were being held in both Britain and Argentina to mark the 30th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War, in which 255 British and 650 Argentine troops died. The conflict ended after 74 days when the Argentinian forces surrendered.
Relations between the countries are at their chilliest in years as Buenos Aires launches a multi-pronged diplomatic offensive to assert its claim to sovereignty over the South Atlantic islands, which it calls the Malvinas.
"I am a Malvinist president," President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said, according to The Guardian. "It is an injustice that a colonialist enclave still exists a few hundred kilometers from our shores in the 21st century. It is absurd to pretend dominion 8,000 miles overseas."
Fernandez addressed war veterans in the chilly Patagonian city of Ushuaia.
"We demand too that they stop plundering our environment, our natural resources - fish and oil," she said, reiterating her calls for London to agree to sovereignty negotiations.
"We're not demanding anything more than that - dialogue between both countries to discuss the sovereignty issue, respecting the interests of the islanders," said Fernandez, a combative center-leftist who easily won re-election last year.
Oil discovery raises stakes
London has controlled the islands since 1833. Argentina has long claimed the territory, saying it inherited it from Spain on independence and that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the islands.
While a repeat of the 1982 military conflict is seen as highly unlikely, the dispute could jeopardize Britain's drive for closer economic and trade ties with emerging Latin America powers such as Brazil.
The discovery of oil off the Falklands has raised the stakes, leading Argentina to threaten to sue companies involved in oil exploration.
Argentina has also protested to the United Nations over British "militarization" of the South Atlantic.
The Guardian newspaper reported that Argentina has grown increasingly unhappy about the prospect of missing out on a potential £115 billion oil boom around the islands.
It has now escalated the dispute with a two-page letter sent to 15 banks, thought to include Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays Capital and Goldman Sachs, warning them of possible civil and criminal charges if they continue work with the five London-listed exploration companies.
Drive on other side of road
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron said he remains committed to upholding British sovereignty over the islands, the BBC reported.
"We are rightly proud of the role Britain played in righting a profound wrong. And the people of the Falkland Islands can be justly proud of the prosperous and secure future they have built for their islands since 1982," he said.
Among those remembering the conflict on Monday was radio presenter Patrick Watts, whose studio was invaded at about 9 a.m. local time on April 2, 1982.
Six Argentine soldiers entered the room and pointed their guns at his back, he recalled in an interview with Britain’s Sky News.
The soldiers forced him to play pre-recorded tapes in Spanish and English ordering residents to drive on the other side of the road and speak Spanish in schools.
Although Argentina’s air force is now ageing, a report by the U.K. National Defence Association said Britain would be “hard put to protect, reinforce or re-take the islands” without an aircraft carrier.
Msnbc.com staff and Reuters contributed to this report.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Monroe Doctrine anyone?Oh yeah.Once again selective enforcement.
The Monroe Doctrine was a condescending horrible document - the people of the Americas have every right to deal with whomever they want - to create a document that state that only the US will dominate in the region is disgusting - it is the same mentality that believed that blacks or native Americans were not human - thank god - America itself is become more asian, Mexican and other ---- cementing the future - no more going back.
It is also the bastardized rationale behind the Bush Doctrine which essentially extended Monroe to the whole world if we feel like it.
The Monroe Doctrine is really a series of unconnected statements made by President Monroe, which depended on British Assistance to be enforced as the US at the time lacked any real sort of Navy, it was more a series of statements for Casus Bellis for against other European Foreign powers that would be assisted by the British Royal Navy.
The Argentinians have no legal claim to the Falkland Islands. I could see that if the islands were within the Exclusive Economic Zone they would have a case. The Falklands are 250 nautical miles off the coast of Argentina. This is nothing more than the manifestation of South American machismo. The Brits have a claim dating back to 1833. Argentina didn't have a Constitution until 1853. At that time Argentina's land area ended 500+ miles north of the Fawklands. I believe the Argentinians would find it much more profitable for them to make peace with the UK and work as a partner in economic development.
The falkans was used by Britain as a re-provisioning stop for their fishing ,and commercial fleets since the late 1700's, long before Argentina was a Nation; Argentina has as much ownership to the Falkans as America has ownership to Cuba; this Nationalism chest pounding by Argentina is foolish, Argentina is a beautiful, rich, cultured country, great food, great people, stop this bull about the Falkans.
Hague is very right on this one.The Falklands have never been part of Argentina and they never should be. The people there feel British and they are British.They don´t feel occupied nor do they need to be liberated.They are very happy as they are.So yes! Argentina has some weird bee in their bonnet to keep pursuing this.!!
BULLSH*T on the UK. Nobody with a brain should be picking sides anyway. It is a STUPID arguement and it is based on oil, or the potential thereof.
Obviously, sometimes the UK has given up territories it has controlled, such as with India, but not out of the goodness of their hearts. Because they were forced to. Anyone remember the Revolutionary War as part of US history? Good. And sometimes they don't, because they don't have to, or because the territory has something they want, like the Falklands.
Any of this 'who shouldn't be complaining the Falklands isn't theirs,' crap is exactly that, CRAP! If Argentina had the military might to go seize the Falklands, given where it is, and what it is worth, they totally should. And no BS 'moral' reason, which is really just a British reason to justify getting oil, should be listened to. Neither should the 'proximity' of the Falklands to Argentina be used to justify their position. They don't have the military to do it right now, so that is that.
Remember, the UK decided to let a terrorist who killed Americans (not to mention their own citizens) go free for some contracts in Libya. They're just really pissed that the contract maker (Ghadaffi) was going to get killed in an uprising. So they quick and sent some helecopters to help kill them. Even if they did need the command and control of the US to do it because they can't still figure out to this day how to integrate their military with the French, who are just across the channel from them.
Britain is as stupid as any other country. Get over the lovefest with the accent and the royals.
A U.K. hater! Leave it to Newsvine. I'll bet you would ask a Brit, "what do you bastards do on the 4th of July?"
Monroe Doctrine anyone?Oh yeah.Once again selective enforcement.
What about popular sovereignty? International law? Britain has the stronger claim. Argentina may not like it, but it lost on the battlefield, and it's not winning the hearts and minds of the Falklanders. In fact, the recent stance taken by the Argentine government is chillingly similar to the nationalistic bent of the previous military juntas, and that road ended badly.
I'm not so much a hater of the UK as a hater of all the stupid love they get over Argentina. Why, because they speak the same language? Just dumb.
Derek,
Interesting avatar for someone who professes to hate people who establish and maintain sovereignty by force.
Interesting that you can't bother to notice a joke when it is literally staring you in the face.
The UK gave up many of her territories willingly. There was no heated debate within Canada for removal from the british empire, that came from britain willingly giving it up. Same thing with many other territories.
As for the Falklands, there really isn't any history that ties the falklands to argentina. Argentina doesn't really have an aboriginal culture (one of the few countries in Argentina that doesn't actually) and Argentina's claim is dependent on a very fuzzy interpretation of what is really historical events that predate argentina as a country. Hell using Argentina's argument, Canada would be US territory because the US was closer to Canada when the US became independent. The people that live on the falklands are british, they speak english, always have, it really has no connection to argentina.
Also the Falklands dispute goes back way before the discovery of potential oil reserves. The Falklands war (if you can call it a war) was more about desperate generals/leaders of a failing country wanting to appease its population with adventurous tales about keeping Argentinian pride more than anything. It had NOTHING to do with oil, which as I said, hadn't been discovered yet.
As for the UK letting a terrorist go free? Well that isn't the case, the UK had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was SCOTLAND that made that decision.
Let's not forget the backstory to all this. The government in Argentina at the time was a right wing dictatorship that the U.S. supported 100%, up until this incident of course. See the military dictatorship didn't realize the point of the U.S. support was for Argentina to do what the U.S. commanded, not to receive anything real or tangilbe from the U.S. They didn't study the U.S. backed dictatorships in Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, Nigaragua, (the list goes on and on) very well.
I know it was Scotland's judge....but BP is a UK company, and that's who won from the deal. Separating the Scottish judicial system is just a way for people to feel better about it, I think.
And Dem in Texas, lol! Yes, it was the Falklands dispute that helped Argentina towards a democracy. By the way, remember, we help our allies, with oil. That actually makes us exactly no different than any other developed nation in the world, for better or worse.
Derek,
The Scottish judicial system is separate from the English Judicial system. It isn't like a state judicial system in the US relative to the Federal system. It is in many ways, like a completely different country, and in many ways, Scotland is a different country.
As for the BP link, I have read about many causal links, but I haven't seen enough to say that there is meat to it. Does it warrant an investigation, probably, but since so many of the participants, on the libyan side, are now probably dead, it would be pretty difficult to find enough proof.
Either way, any contracts are now dead with the events that have taken place in Libya, and that was with UK participation, so any benefit that BP gained is now moot.
Dem in Texas.
Actually a dictatorship (even a military one) can be either right or left wing. Considering the amount of expropriation that occurred under that dictatorship, it can be argued that it was a left wing (extremist of course) one.
Jonathan: The ones that dem in texas mentioned were all right-wingw dictatorships, sponsored by the corporations of the US through their proxy, the US government. I suggest you to read "The Pinochet files," where you are going to find all the communications between the white house, the CIA and the American Embassy in Santiago (not hearsay, the actual documents) related to the coup d'etat that deposed Allende in Chile first. Then came the others, all with the blessing of the US government. I agree with you that a dictatorship can be from the left too. Look at the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But we created the monster by supporting tyrannical governments in the first place. Compare it to what happened with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
justiceforall,
I am not sure I would consider the Argentinian one a right wing dictatorship, though it definitely was nationalistic, just like I don't know where I would put Kirchner's party (Peronist IIRC) as either right or left wing, as it seems to have elements of both (the worst of both if you as me)
The others, well the US backed ones were all right wing, but they weren't the only dictatorships, as Nicaragua had a left wing dictatorship as well as a right wing one. So yeah, if you are going to make the comment 'all right wing dictatorships are right wing dictatorships' then that is just a self referential validation of that statement.
Another failed colonial power trying to reclaim past glory.
The one in the 70s absolutely (I had to endure it over there). Peron was a right winger who entered the power with the 'blessing' of the left. In its deal with the left, he gave too much power to the unions. But then again the country Peron found in the 40s wasn't the same he found upon his return in the 70s before his death. The Kirchners? I don't know, they're a dilemma to me.
I agree with you that it does not matter what side of the aisle you're standing, a dictatorship is a dictatorship. Look at Cuba, they switched from a right wing dictatorship (Batista) to a left wing dictatorship (Castro). The same applied in Nicaragua (Somoza and the Sandinistas).
But the US always had the tendency to support those right-wing regimes to fight the 'evil' of communism, and in doing that they allowed many criminals to decimate nations.
justice,
Well I say that because most military dictatorships really ca't be defined as right or left wing. The soviet union ended up being largely a military dictatorship, yet it wasn't considered right wing.
I never really thought of Peron as being a right (or left winger) but more of a nationalistic dictator (even though he was elected), but I make that comment as an outsider looking in more than someone who has lived it.
So you think the US should have stopped Britain in 1833 ?
Please do tell how.
Ca. 1830 the United States Marine Corps landed on the Falklands to destroy pirate bases. Fortunately, having done so... we got the hell out of town... The British liked the house cleaning job and took over... and have been there since... All of this before the Alamo fell...
The Brits *really* wanted to negotiate their way out ca. 1982... before the invasion. But the Argentine government essentially demanded an unconditional surrender... with no face saving... But when the Argentine dictatorship invaded... and killed a British Marine in the process... and had to be forced out in a war that cost the British hundreds of its finest young men... the view of the British people changed.
It should be remembered that the Argentine government in 1982 was a vile dictatorship that had made thousands of its own citzens vanish into "night and fog..." It was massively unpopular and did a "wag the dog" to try to distract the Argentine public... After losing, it was overthrown...
The Argentine government (over the passionate objections of the families of the draftees killed in the war) refused to take back the bodies of the men that it squandered... Leaving a "claim" of sorts buried in the soil of the Falklands.
Actually the Monroe doctrine was developed in parallel with Great Britain to ensure that no 'other' european power would colonise the Americas. So before you quote you really should understand. Not to mention that the Falklands as a colony dates from before US independence and the monroe doctrine clearly states that status quo colonies are not subject to the doctrine and that it really addressed the threat of Spanish reengagement with the South American mainland.
Tough economic times in Argentina. To distract people from their government/big business induced plight, lets put on a puppet show! Look, its bright and glittery. Oh, we've all forgotten what a rotten economy we have. Those damn Brits. We would be a strong nation if we had the Falklands back. Nice to see that the Argentinians are governed by lying phonies.
Much more ethical to the reasons the conservatives in the US start wars. Greed, power, and fear.
Wakehead: true, it was awful how the Republican President Johnson started Viet Nam for the same reasons. Or the Republican President Kennedy invaded Cuba (or not). Or how Republican President Truman started the Korean War. Or how the Republican President Roosevelt lied to get the US into WW2 to help out his cousin running the UK. Or how the Republican President Wilson greedily got the US into WW1 by favoring the British until the Germans had to start attacking US shipping...
Mark from Bridgeport - President Johnson did not start Vietnam The war started in 1954 long before he was President. Eisenhower was President when it started I believe and he is the one who started getting us involved. "Democrat" Eisenhower right?
wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_Vietnam_War_start_and_end
"Republican" Kennedy in Cuba? You mean those pictures of missle site were made up? Kind of like "Democrat" George Bushes weapons of mass destruction? Did Bush actually have photographs available to the American people?
Yep.. "Republican" Truman goes us into Korea.. and Eisenhower got us out of Korea.. but that's okay because Eisenhower was a "Democrat" right?
Yep... "Republican" Roosevelt lied to get us in WWII. Yep, we should have stayed out of it completely.. and there was never any sentiment in this country for europe at all. How was this greedy?
Yep... "Republican" Wilson was greedy and knew that we had to get in the war so he could make money.
ItsAboutTime: Thanks for proving my point regarding partisanship.
It's about time,
Actually the Vietnam war predates 1954 as well, with US involvement being present as aides to the french when it was still Indochine as one political unit.
What Johnson did however was use a fabricated incident (Tonkin) to justify a massive escalation of operations, which prior to that time was really just an advisory involvement, not a combat one.
@ItsAboutTime - your facts are wrong on a couple of things. The Viet Nam conflict actually started in the 1860's when Abe Lincoln was president. Yes,you read that right. Seems the king of Viet Nam wanted help kicking out those pesky French, but they were supplying the Union forces, so Abe couldn't help.
More to the current point, Eisenhower only sent advisors, one of whom was my father. They were not sent as a military force, all though their lives were at risk. You can thank Kennedy, Johnson, and MacNamara (the '60s equivelant of Bush, Cheney, and Rummy) for escalating our involvement to the cluster screw that Viet Nam became.
Mark from Bridgeport - If that's how you took the comment, that's great, but I don't think that was the intent. I fail to see how Roosevelt or Wilson lead the United States into war for Greed, Power, or Fear. Each World War is clearly justified in my head. Korea/Vietnam, I fail to see why the US was there in the first place... The Cuban Missile Crisis is not even a war... and the latest BUSH war, was purely fought over a lie, with absolutely no justifiable reason for US Involvement.
Jonathan-1917156
I did some research and the first information (that I could locate) dates back to Woodrow Wilson:
#Woodrow_Wilson_.281913.E2.80.931921.29
On_the_other_hand
Please post some facts that indicate Lincoln was actually involved in Vietnam. I see no connection and would be interested in seeing how this actually is accurate. See other comments on VietNam.
All Indochina ( as I am sure you are aware) was more than just Vietnam as well..
Thanks for the all the comments.
Wilson deliberately supplied the UK but not Germany, thus voiding "neutrality" for fun & profit.
FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to get the US into the war to cement his lifetime Presidency as the New Deals were basically failures.
I was referring to the Bay of Pigs.
All wars are lies. If you're going to bash one, you bash them all.
Hey we got our own problems and the Brits got theirs.
I did not know the University of Kentucky cared about the Falklands or Argentina.
Oooh the banks and oil companies are fighting with each other. You would be a sucker if you managed to get caught dead in the middle of this conflict.
@!$%#ty Brits. Give the island back.
Right V1nay...and the people who live there and want to be under British rule can all go to hell, right?
Aint gonna happen, the Oil/Gas find down there is bigger than all the Saudi Arabian fields combined.
You don't really think a piss poor island off the coast of Europe wants the cost of protecting those islands or is some sort of magnanimous gesture to the couple of dozen people who live the (or the million or so sheep!) without a return?
These fields were suspected (lot of seismic work had been done) before the Argi- bargy that went on down there in the early 80's
They can go to the same place that the people who wanted to live under British rule went to in America in 1780.
Phil- there is no indications to date that the deposits are of that size, but there are big enough the justify the rest of your arguments.
jje: Not what I've heard
"Giving the islands back" to Argentina is about the same as giving Canada back to the Spanish.
Go back south of the border George and take your little dog with you. Let Argintina start some crap with the Britts again and watch them get their ass handed to them AGAIN.
The Brits made the higly unwise decision to get rid of the only aircraft carrier they had because it was "old" before they had the new one ready - which will not be ready for some years.
I wonder what would happen if the Brits, arguably our closest ally, were to be attacked in the Falklands and the Brits asked us to help them out with a carrier to defend the Falklands. Do you think Barak Hussein Obama would help them out?
Instead of decommissioning our next carrier we should sell it to the Brits.
Joe - Ronald Reagan didn't help them, I don't think B.O. would.
I don't see why not. Britain beat Argentina's invasion in 74 days. We could probably manage 74 hours.
Joe - Ronald Reagan didn't help them, I don't think B.O. would.
Actually, Ronnie did provide assistance to Britain, in intel and war materiel, such as missiles and detection equipment.
Wm. Sanders: That, and allowing the British to train in the US (I believe in North Carolina...).
Its always all about the oil these days. Even Syria and Eygpt, which have no oil, become important because of their proximity and political implications to places that do have oil. War is never really about principles: Its about resources.
Bingo.
Hey, can't blame Argentina for wanting a piece of the pie! Don't think they will get it, but they can try.
The fact that the inhabitants of the islands themselves are overwhelming opposed to any change in their British sovereignty seems to be of no concern to the authorities in Buenos Aires.
Buenos Aires doesn't really give a crap about the inhabitants nor even the economic prospects of the islands - it's simply nothing more than an international pissing match. The UK embarrassed Argentina in front of the world in the 80s and they still have their panties in a knot about it.
The inhabitants are British because they kicked the Argentines out. If Argentina could, they would repopulate it with Argentines and then have a vote. Worked in Hawaii!
The Dutch, British, French and Spaniards were there before any Argentinians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Argentinians were Spaniards until Spain gave it up.
In your lineage you left out the original discoverers the Native people of Patagonia. Of course in modern history natives of any country have no original ownership and are left out of the ownership equation after being forced off or killed and then we select which time we want to proceed forward and recognize ownership of what land. Somethings in the ancient tradition still seem to prevail, like military strength determines who owns what land.
From everything I've read, Patagonian's MAY have visited the islands. There is no concrete archeological evidence it was every inhabited by humans before the Dutch arrived. If there is some archeological evidence of habitation prior to the Dutch arrival, I would be very interested in reading it. Can you provide a link?
(From a scientific point of view, humans evolved in Africa and that is the only continent we are indigenous/native to. We migrated every where else.)
No one in the world today lives on land that is "theirs". Everyone took the land from someone who was there or considered it theirs before them. Most Argentinians aren't descended from the Indian tribes that lived there and most of those Indian tribes fought other tribes to take the land they were on when the Spanish came. So before you "claim" any land as your own be aware that someone else could claim your land as well.
What's the difference which flag flies over the islands? The same elites control both governments, and the oil companies, in any event.
This logic can be extended to all administrative districts, err I mean countries, in the world.
Argentine oil companies are controlled by the state. British oil companies (or whatever oil companies the Brits choose to work with) are not. So you are mistaken in that there's no difference. The oil resources would go directly in Argentina's coffers were they to get ahold of them.
Leave the Falklands alone Argentina, the British won´t let you have a piece of the pie even if you try!.
People have a right to self determination and Falklanders have decided to be British, 99% as a matter of fact!
Recent polls attest to that!!
I guess the oil and other minerals, then, belong to them and not to Argentineans.
Recent harassments such as: intimidation of businesses involved in the oil industry; Falkland fishing vessels by the Argentine coastguard; threats to cut the one air link between the islands and South America; to actually closing its ports to cruise ships that have visited the Falklands; all they do is worsen the climate for diplomatic talks. And, in the eyes of some, constitute acts of war that, nevertheless, diplomacy can still handle.
The British have been there for at least 180 years ++ Falklanders consider themselves members of the British Empire as they call it. Additionally, the Argentinean government is one of the most interventionist in the world with a very low economic freedom index. Under their rule, islanders would get the shaft and their US$38 thousand per capita income would probably plummet even below Argentina´s US$ 15 thousand per capita income. If Argentina rules the Falklands all the islanders´ hard gained riches through sheep farming would be lost. Just look at the history of their currency:
The pound is the currency of the Falkland Islands, a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic Ocean. The symbol is the pound sign, £, or alternatively FK£, to distinguish it from other pound-denominated currencies. The Falklands pound has always been pegged to the pound sterling at par and banknotes of both currencies are used interchangeably on the islands (although only notes issued by banks in the United Kingdom are generally accepted in Britain itself).
The pound was introduced following the reassertion of sovereignty in the Falklands Islands by the British in 1833. Initially, the British currency circulated, with the pound subdivided into 20 shillings, each of 12 pence. Specific issues of banknotes have been made for the Falkland Islands since 1899. In 1971, the pound was decimalized and subdivided into 100 pence. Coins have been minted specifically for the Falklands since 1974. During the earlier Argentine occupation, the peso circulated. In 1974, ½, 1, 2, 5 and 10 pence coins were introduced. 50 pence coins were introduced in 1980, followed by 20 pence in 1982, 1 pound in 1987 and a circulating 2 pounds in 2004. The ½ penny coin was last issued in 1983 and was demonetized shortly after. Smaller versions of the 5p, 10p and 50p, corresponding to the current UK issues, were issued in 1998, replacing the larger versions (which for the 5p was eight years after its introduction in the UK). The introduction of the circulation £2 coin in 2004 was six years after the same coin was issued in the UK. All the coins have the same composition and size as the corresponding British coins.
Between 1899 and 1901, the government introduced notes for 5 and 10 shillings, 1 and 5 pounds. The 5 shilling notes were issued until 1916. In 1969, in preparation for decimalization, the 10 shilling note was replaced by a 50 pence note. 10 pound notes were introduced in 1975, followed by 20 pounds in 1984 and 50 pounds in 1990. Banknotes in circulation are:
Falklands' banknotes feature the same images, differing only in their respective denominations and corresponding colors. On the front side, all notes contain a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, the Falklands' coat of arms, a small map of the islands, and images of two of the islands' main animals, penguins and sea lions. On the back, notes feature pictures of Christ Church Cathedral in Stanley and Government House, the official residence of the Governor of the Falkland Islands.
How more British can you get??
Finally, it´s funny to assume that Argentina can reclaim islands they never owned. Before Britain it was Spanish, before Spain it was French, before France it was Dutch. The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina. These islands were uninhabited that made a good emergency port for whalers, pirates, and ships transiting the Cape. The only permanent residents to ever desire living there have been British for almost 200 years. Argentina claims are based on a gift of the Islands from Spain when they achieved their independence. But could Spain give something they didn't own? In any case, the population of the Falklands is British and wishes to remain so. Their wishes, above all, must be respected even if force has to be used.
Therefore, it follows that the Falklands are British territory, and England might have to enforce this with her naval, aerial, and infantry forces. It would be another war, and Argentina would lose it badly!
Owning an island or country in those days was simple. You claimed it and defended it. That is what guaranteed ownership. And yes Spain could give away what they didn't own, otherwise we wouldn't have Florida and other lands.
To say that Argentina has no claim on the Malvinas is ridiculous. There are treaties dating to the 1600 which shows British and French renouncing any claim to the islands and supporting Spain's sovereignty. When Argentina declared its Independence from Spain as the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1816 it inherited all possessions of the Vice Royalty of River Plate which administered the Islands since 1774. On December 15,1823 , the British government recognized Argentine declaration as a independent and sovereign state. More importantly on Nov.6,1820, American privateer Colonel David Jewett (in the service of the Argentine Navy) claimed the islands for Argentina . In 1833 the Argentine inhabitants of the island were forcibly removed by the invading British who were given the choice to leave or freeze to death since their homes were being "repossessed" by the British militia . To argue that the inhabitants of the Malvinas are and always were British citizens is nullified by the British Nationality Act of 1981 which clearly states that they are in fact NOT British citizens. Although the Argentine invasion of the islands was under the rule of a dictatorship it does not discount the centuries old claim. But , by the same argument, it can be said that British claim on the Malvinas was an attempt by the war monger Margret Tatcher so distract her citizenry from the spiraling economic woes of the UK and the abysmal failure to subjugate Ireland. The only reason the piratical Brits are there is because of their failed attempt to colonize Argentina during the 3 failed invasions of the River Plate resulted in the destruction of most of the invading British fleet. The survivors of the failed invasion limped to the nearest port that was established by the the French and administered by Spain which was port Soledad in the Malvinas. Talk about overstaying your welcome.... well its costing them £63 million (over a $100 million ) a year to stay.
To the fool who said that Argentina would lose badly in a war against the UK, that is jingoism and hyperbole at the extreme. A small imperialistic island nation on the exact opposite end of the world thinks it can win a protracted war ....i think time and history has proven the fallacy of that remark. Read what a "third world" nation did to your prized navy and Harriers , its in your history books, fool. Argentina didn't lose the war due to UK superiority , it surrendered due to a popular uprising which would not be fooled as easily as the British population into being distracted by the countries real problem. 2 thousand sheep shaggers were only a threat to the sheep.
The war of 1982 was a just war and freedom was restored. Too bad the other war's since have not gone the same way!
You don't see the Falkland Islander's planting bombs or attacking the, "occupation forces," leave them in peace.
Argentina invaded in 1982 to cover up for the "Missing One's," due to their own Junta killing their own people and as a diversion tactic incited the pusuit of a so called,"Common Enemy."
This time they are equally as wrong as before and they are equally as broke, which is the main driver this time and a major contributing factor last time. Inflation then as now, is running well above 15% and will continue to get worse. This is the real cause of everything this mad women is trying to do. It is just greed for the Black Gold, greed.
The Falklands should be independant of everyone and they are! They contribute Nada to the UK and it costs the UK to defend them against the fanatical invader, who incidently have never been there otherwise.
I would not have another British life lost in conflict with Argentina and they should have been made to drop their claim as part of the surrender terms anyway, either that or send them to Cuba where all the other dictators hang out.
Do not pander to these people, if they even try to invade again, just nuke them! Make sure they no the price to pay, well in advance of any further $&%*&$%£
Onward Thatcher's soldiers, it's your job to fight...
"And, you know, I don't really give a toss if the cause is wrong or right,
My political neck means more to me than the lives of a thousand men,
If I felt it might be of use to me I'd do it all over again.
The Falklands was really a coverup job to obscure the mistakes I've made,
And you know I think the gamble I took could certainly be said to have paid.
With unemployment at an all-time high and the country falling apart
I, Winston Thatcher, reign supreme in this great nations' heart."
I hated the bitch as well, but unfortunately and I hate to say it, she was right!
Just cut the air route and harass oil exploration vessels. It costs a lot of money to keep a British force in that part of the globe. You don't have to beat them militarily - just drive up the price enough for the opposition party to jump on it as an election issue. Remember getting money from oil takes decades, politicians simply don't have that long.
This whole article confuses me. Argentina is a US state next to Manitoba, Alberta, Minnesota & Montana. So they conveniently neglect to tell us that it's really a conflict between the US & Britain. Don't you think we'd want to know that? And speaking to the "conflict" - with the Falkland Islands way over between Greenland & the Faroe island how would the people expect to get between the state of Argentina & the Falkland Islands. It's not like it's just sitting there in lake Superior. Come on, MSNBC - you can do better than this. Typical reporting. It's no wonder people are so clueless about geography.
Your post confuses me. Are you stupid, are you trying to point out some geographic error that I have missed, or perhaps you are making a very convoluted political statement? When oil was discovered off the Falklands (in the south Atlantic which is no where near any place in Canada) it was obvious that Argentina would be again trying to seize the islands. Argentina has been trying to assert a claim on the islands for years and it has gone to the UN, the Hague and to war to prove it is entitled. In no way shape or form could their claim be considered legitimate and the people who live there have been British for centuries. So how does this become a US/UK conflict? Should it? If it went to the point that the Argentines invade the Falklands I believe it should, the UK has continuously backed us up for over 150 years, they have shed their blood for our freedom and theirs in concert. I would support the UK in continued freedom for the people of the Falklands. This is truly a case of a schoolyard bully (Argentina) trying to beat up on the little kid cause he has lunch money.
margeimpalla123 - "It's no wonder people are so clueless about geography."
Apparently just you!!!
Argentina is a U.S. state????? ROFLMAO!! You should be more than embarrassed. Argentina is a COUNTRY on the south-eastern tip of South America. The Falkland Islands lie east of it in the south Atlantic. The only island between Greenland and the Faroe Islands (in the north Atlantic) is Iceland. A little comprehension of geography before posting please.
I'm thinking this is supposed to be sarcasm because I doubt the poster could be that stupid and still know how to use a keyboard...at least I HOPE it's supposed to be sarcasm.
Somehow Argentina raised the issue right after UK retired the last of their aircraft carriers. What a coincidence!
The war is over...rattling the rusty saber won't win you allies, it won't win hearts and minds, and it sure as Hell won't win battles.
Argentina should just move on. Reopening old wounds won't help matters.
British attempts to hold on to the pitiful remnants of their empire are pathetic!!! All nations having territorial claims against London should unite and present their case to the U.N....Spain over Gibraltar...Argentina over the Malvenas...Ireland over the 6 occupied counties...Iraq over Kuwait..the list is almost endless...America continues to waste the lives of our service people and national treasure enforcing geo-political boundaries invented in London and Paris over a century ago...Lebanon,South Vietnam and the engorged Iranian state which contains Kurds and Baluchs are some of the more glaring examples!! Unless we make a serious effort to break with Western Imperialism and its sad legacy we will suffer the same fate as the British and French empires... on the ash heap of history!!!
NO FREE TRADE WITHOUT FULL EMPLOYMENT!!!
Those ARGENTINES are STILL hurting after they surrendered in 1982?! Don't they have some problems of poor uneducated sick people they should take care of at home?
"The soldiers forced him to play pre-recorded tapes in Spanish and English ordering residents to drive on the other side of the road and speak Spanish in schools."
Make no mistake about it, it's ABOUT ARGENTINE RACISM. They were conquered and forced to speak Spanish, so that is their culture they want to force on others.
As someone who lives in South America I can say this is much more than just an "Argentina vs UK" issue. Here in Peru just recently British ships were not allowed to port because of an agreement we have with one of the countless "associations" these Latin Americans have. I couldn't even tell you which association it is there are so many. But to the point I think is at the bottom of this is that South America is awakening to it's position in world affairs and so they are looking for their own "Puerto Rico", if you will, to protect their southeastern flank. Falklands. Argentina is just voicing, at their own risk, the feeling of most South Americans. The world is changing.
I'm not really choosing sides here, just stating what I see from my perspective.