E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFalkland Islanders voted almost unanimously to remain part of Britain. Union Jack flags were abundant, and many people turned out in British red white and blue. Bill Neely reports from Argentina.
STANLEY, Falkland Islands -- Residents of the Falkland Islands voted almost unanimously to stay under British rule in a referendum aimed at winning global sympathy as Argentina intensifies its sovereignty claim, results showed on Monday.
The official count showed 99.8 percent of islanders voted in favor of remaining a British Overseas Territory in the two-day referendum, which was rejected by Argentina as a meaningless publicity stunt. Only three "no" votes were cast.
"Surely this must be the strongest message we can get out to the world," said Roger Edwards, one of the Falklands assembly's eight elected members.
"(The message is) that we are content, that we wish to retain the status quo ... with the right to determine our own future and not become a colony of Argentina."
Javier Lizon / EPA
Falkland Islanders celebrate in Port Stanley on Monday. Of the 1,517 ballots cast, just three were against the motion to remain a British overseas territory.
Pro-British feeling is running high in the barren and blustery islands that lie off the tip of Patagonia, and turnout was 92 percent among the 1,649 Falklands-born and long-term residents registered to vote.
Three decades since Argentina and Britain went to war over the far-flung South Atlantic archipelago, residents have been perturbed by Argentina's increasingly vocal claim over the Malvinas -- as the islands are called in Spanish.
Local politicians hope the resounding "yes" vote will help them lobby support abroad, for example in the United States, which has a neutral position on the sovereignty issue.
"We're never going to change Argentina's claim and point of view, but I believe there are an awful lot of countries out there that are sitting on the fence. ... This is going to show them quite clearly what the people think," Edwards added.
'We are British'
The mood was festive as islanders lined up in the cold to vote in the low-key island capital of Stanley during voting, some wearing novelty outfits made from the red, white and blue Union Jack flag.
"We are British, and that's the way we want to stay," said Barry Nielsen, who wore a Union Jack hat to cast his ballot at the town hall polling station in Stanley, where most of the roughly 2,500 islanders live.
Argentina's fiery left-leaning president, Cristina Fernandez, has piled pressure on Britain to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands, something London refuses to do unless the islanders request talks.
Government officials in Buenos Aires questioned the referendum's legitimacy. They say the sovereignty dispute must be resolved between Britain and Argentina and cite U.N. resolutions calling on London to sit down for talks.
Argentina has claimed the islands since 1833, saying it inherited them from the Spanish on independence and that Britain expelled an Argentine population.
Javier Lizon / EPA
A man wearing a Union flag suit dances as he casts his vote in the referendum to decide if the Falkland Islands would remain a British territory.
Falkland islanders, who are enjoying an economic boom thanks partly to the sale of oil and natural gas exploration licenses, say they do not expect Monday's result to sway Argentina.
"Argentina's stance on the Falklands will stay the same," said Stanley resident Craig Paice, wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Our Islands, Our Decision" as he waited to vote on Monday.
"But hopefully the world will now listen and know the people of the Falkland Islands have a voice."
Related:
Argentina slams Olympic ad that sparked row with Britain
UK accuses Argentina of 'threats' and 'harassment' over Falklands
From Jan. 2012: Will Prince William's tour of duty reignite simmering Falklands dispute?
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
When was the last time Argentine had control of those islands?
From what I can tell, the British have controlled the Islands since about 1840. Before that, various nations exercised some control at various times.
The people living there are predominantly British. They want to remain British. Argentina's claim dates from a rather brief period of very tenuous control, between 1828 and 1840. Mexico has a better claim to Texas.
Americans took Texas away from Mexico when they started murdering American immigrants.
Will Britain allow Argentinians to get into Falklands and outnumber Britons? No way. If the British could populate themselves above Indians (only Chinese can!), pehaps they would have staked a claim to India as well.
Anupam Srivastava
Author of A Piece of the Giant, the story of India's transition from a colony
The war against Mexico was fought for one reason only. The "Americans" there wanted to keep their slaves, and Mexico had outlawed slavery. Oh, yeah, and the US needed one more slave state.
Lawrence Grossman
95% of ALL SLAVES taken from Africa went to Latin America and the Caribbean and the Hispanics were the people doing most of it!
William travis, The Hispanics did NOT believe in Slavery. The Jews had a big hand in Slavery, about 98% worth, the white man had a 2% doings in slavery and incase you didn't know it many freed Blacks had Slaves, some of whom were family members and quite a few that were used for profit and selling for money, in other words Trafficing in the Slave Industry them selves. All the Shpping lines that delt in Slavery were owned by Jews. I suggest you get past your predjudist of Hispanics because after that goes by where will you put your hate, on the Blacks, or Chinese, Japanese, a few Arabs here? It won't fall on the illegal Canadians here. why is that? Oh yea, they're white.
"The Jews had a big hand in Slavery, about 98% worth"
...really?
Plenty of Jews in West Africa to ship across the Atlantic, eh?
Or the slave trade in East Africa, that mostly served the Middle East and Asia?
Or within the New World, as the militaristic powers (Aztec, Olmec, Inca et al) conquered and enslaved their foes?
Slavery was a global problem, but how are "the Jews" "98%" of it? Especially as an socio-ethnic group that has always been a few pogroms away from local extermination?
How can you wear a Union Jack to vote on land when it is only called the Union Jack when flown at sea?
After some serious ethnic cleansing on the Islands after the war, 99.8% local people vote for the British rule... that's the beauty of democracy...
So that means that all the people who have been living there peacefully since the war should be taken over by Argentina?
Argentina can try to keep the conversation rooted in the past, but this is about the Falklands' future.
Max,
There was no ethnic cleansing on the Falklands. When they were discovered by Europeans, they were uninhabited and have been populated mostly by British and other Europeans since. The Falklands War was instigated by Argentina.
Ethnic cleansing, what ethnic cleansing?
Must be a bunch of neo-cons in Argentina. They lost the election, so now its time for the Brits to give them everything they want. Which part of YOU LOST THE ELECTION don't you understand. Unless, of course you don't believe in democracy.
Maybe Argentina should hold an election of their own, asking the Argentinian people if they want to take over the islands and take all the oil wealth for the state. That'd be legit, right?
In 1833, the UK military expelled Argentine authorities and settlers from the Falklands. After the last war local people who were pro-Argentine were forced to leave as well.
The entire south of Argentina was created by Argentinians expelling the local populations. When the UK controlled the Falklands Argentina was nearly a 1000 miles away. However since the cleansing of the southern tip of south america the islands have become much closer to Argentina. British affiliated people have lived on the island for 10 generations which more then can be said for 60% of Argentinian land.
The Argentina's argument is that "colonialism is dead please give back the islands that were given to us by our colonial masters before we expelled them from a land that was stolen by them from natives during colonization and ethic cleansing which we continued for 100 years after"
Not taking sides but hambone, really....
Do you know what European nation discovered the islands? Try Portugal and they ceded the islands to Spain. The claim Argentina is trying to used is based upon trading outpost on the islands. At one time, Britain and Argentina both had settlements on the island at the same time.
So who is the owner? Just because a population of X inhabits the islands and takes a vote, how valid is that vote if there is no population Z on the island?
Let's look at a corollary of Northern Ireland. They have had votes on remaining in the Union or becoming part of Ireland. So far the voting has kept them in the Union but what do you think will be the outcome when the majority of the Northern Ireland are Catholics?
America took texas as part of manifest destiny....nothing to do with killing american settlers who encroached on mexican soil.
The slave trade was first conducted by the Portuguese, who had expelled the Jews in 1497. All the mercantile nations, England, France, Belgium and the United States involved themselves. I'm sure some Jewish businessmen were involved too. But 98% worth?
You're full of sh*t!
OOOOOOOOOOOO...so that's why Argentina is so hot to annex those islands and why Great Britain is so hot to keep them.
And, as far as the residents go...really...who would you rather have for your government - Great Britain or Argentina??? good grief...
GM Chef
When I was in the military, I went to Argentina in 1989 on temporary duty with the Argentines. To a person, Argentina treats "las Malvinas" War as the same as American Independence, or at least that was the prevailing thought they shared. The land is off the coast by a few hundred miles and is /was nothing more than a coaling station for the British Whaling ships of the 19th century. Now, your caption of the article makes a lot of sense as to why the people on the Falklands want to remain British controlled, as well as the British government's desire also. - oil and natural gas!
GM CHef
Not hard to see why those folks would choose Great Britain. The corrupt politicians in Argentina would have taken everything and left the Falkland Islanders hanging with nothing!
@Jack,
More importantly, the Falklands were also a whaling station, providing supplies and rendering whale oil for shipment. This was a year-round operation that made it a rather busy place. As the whaling industry waned, the need for a coaling station and oiling station became more important. All in all, there have been plenty of British people on the islands since 1840 and earlier. And those people tried to make the islands as self-sufficient as possible since otherwise everything had to be shipped in. Now the Falklands export a good deal of lamb, mutton, and wool.
GM jack. It's fascinating that you've actually been to the Falklands. ☺
GM Ed. Exactly!!! ☺
How about governments wanting to pick up a piece of real estate just because they care and feel they're able to offer the citizens a more equitable and better lifestyle??? LOL!!! Fat chance...
Argentina wants to plunder the Falkland Islands wealth for themselves. The residents don't want to be plundered. This kind of piracy has always gone on in all cultures. No culture is guilt free of exploitation. Britain has a choice defend or not defend as do the citizens of the Falklands. Argentina needs money to support their epansion agenda which thinks it has the moral superiority and can force others to conform to their agenda.
Yes, kinda (?) like the Capitalist here.
Oh boy! Another territorial dispute over some remote barely populated islands! This sort of thing is only going to increase and get more intense as global supplies of various resources dwindle. People give environmentalists a hard time and while it's true they can go a little over the top in their efforts, it's also true that conservation and renewable resources are increasingly falling under the category of "national security".
Countries aren't securing resources for the sake of national security, they're securing it for the sake of their budgets.
Many nations have watched in envy as state-controlled companies extract oil and gas and then bankroll the rest of the government, including lavish public sector jobs and handouts to secure re-election, and decided they want a piece of the action. National security is just another excuse for the state to hoard resources.
Sovereignty was first claimed in 1690 and after various occupations by different empires the islands have been continually settled since 1833. To put that into perspective that is before many states in the US had even joined the union. The Falklands may be closer to Argentina, but they are not close, they lie hundreds of miles away from Argentina and well away from Argentina's EEZ.
Also Britain has a similar issue with the Faroe Islands, but you dont see British people acting like bullies towards the inhabitants or the Danish.
The decision is for the people who live there, Argentina can do one.
I really don't understand how Argentina thinks it can ever win this fight. The people say no, Britain says no, the geography says not really, and the UN, at best, says "sit down and talk it over". Under what circumstances would it ever be acceptable for Argentina to come in supplant the British?
Force of arms? They tried it once in 1982 and lost.
Well, if they can't beat Britain, then that's right out, isn't it?
double post
Too bad our administration has repeatedly sided with Argentina calling for negotiations while at the same time claiming to be neutral.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/
Obama would sell out his own family if he thought it would put him in the spotlight.
Reagan had the exact same stance in 82' before being rebuffed by the Argentinians. Then it was because of the cold war. Now there's no benefit in pissing off whichever side gets control of the resources.
George W Bush would have declared war on the penquins claiming that quano was a WMD
Not completely true John & John.
When the Soviets secretly offered to have one their subs sink either of two Royal Navy carriers en route to the South Atlantic in 1982 and allow Argentina to claim the credit, the Argies became so agitated by the brazen offer that they felt compelled to confide in Al Haig.
Loss of either carrier would have made the British effort untenable.
President Reagan did not mince words with his subsequent hands-off warning to Moscow and both ships duly arrived on station off the Falklands as planned.
William, do you want to apologize or admit that Reagan had the same philosophy?
Mrs. Thatcher, facing pressure to resign, had expected resolute support from Reagan in retaking the islands by force. Instead what she got was studied neutrality. “We are friends with both countries,” the president breezily remarked. Was it really worth going to war over what he called that “little ice-cold bunch of land down there”?
Reagan’s folksy rhetoric obscured a strategic dilemma. The United States had a longstanding alliance with Britain, but by 1982 the right-wing junta in Argentina had become a key cold war ally in Latin America.
Before the invasion, when Argentina’s leadership asked Reagan’s roving ambassador, Vernon Walters, what would happen if Argentina took the Falklands, he told them the British would “huff, puff and protest, and do nothing.”
From an article : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/with-friends-like-these.html?_r=0
It was indeed Reagan and Thatcher who set American policy toward the Falklands. And it has remained the same since. The comment about Obama is sheer idiocy and about what one would expect from a Texan.
The UN resolution that advised the British and Argentinians to sit down and discuss came in 1964 after the third offer in the UN by the British to let the International Court of Justice in the Hague settle the matter. So many events, including the Falklands War have happened since that the UN resolution is now moot.
Interesting that the Monroe Doctrine was signed a couple of decades before the British last took control of the islands. Accordingly, the US really should really have sided against the Brits and ejected them at the first opportunity.
They must get welfare and Obamacare type benefits to want to stay under the Queen.......
Ignorant moron.
The morons are the people that follow NBC blindly to think of Obama as the Messiah. You will get collapse everytime for a different viewpoint. Such blind head in the sand socialist democrats. You have to laugh at how many voted for the moron above.
Even though it was over 30 yrs ago, that was some intense fighting. The Argentine Air Force flew some intense sorties at ground level right among the Royal Navy task force. Lot of brave pilots there.
R Scott
They certainly did as they sunk the HMS Shefield in a daring low level raid and a few other ships. The British sank the Argentine ship Bellagrano, I believe by way of submarine torpedo's. The battle for Stanley was a battle that could have gone either way, until the British surrounded the Argentines and had them surrender.
Im never thrilled by pilots deaths, any soldier's or serviceman's death, but there is one where an Argentine pilot was flying just above an RMS Destroyer's conn tower, then was blown to pieces. I mean, the Argentine's were not going to win, but these guys fought the code.
Hey! if they want another war, bring it on!
jack from Jax.. Something interesting is that the Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix. "The unsinkable" or "Lucky Phoenix". This ship was hit 9 times during WW2 and was repaired then sent out again and again. It was sold to the Argies in 52 i think. What chance did it have against a NP sub. I also believe she is the only ship to be sunk by an NP sub in the history of warfare. No point just some FYI
Latin Americans want to take over the Western Hemisphere for their own.
YANKEE, GO HOME!
First, the assault (under the guise of immigration) on the United States, followed by an attack on Canada.
.
William,
You forgot your tin-foil hat at the Tea Party klan bake ..err... I mean clam bake. I'll drop it in the mail and you should receive it at your undisclosed underground bunker shortly.
Latin Americans want money and power. Same as everyone else.
I advise you get over it and watch them play the game.
How about the French Canadians? Are they allowed to stay???
A refrendum is a fair assessment only if free access to the Falklands to both Argentinians and Britons was granted.The world decolonised decades ago. Britain needs to run up and modernise.
A referendum makes perfect sense in this case. This was a vote by the people leaving in the Falklands: most of which have long generational ties to the islands. Your argument makes no sense unless Britain has forceably removed native Argentnians from the Falklands and maintained a steadfast policy of not allowing large numbers of Argentinians to the Falklands. Even then, no country would agree to allowing the immigration into their country of a large number of people hellbent on establishing a majority in order to change sovereignty. Ask the Tibetans how they feel about China moving in large numbers of Chinese to outnumber the native Tibetans. That's a far move devious and cowardly way to conquer a people.
I'm sorry but really stupid argument. Are you suggesting that Briton and Argentina should stuff as many people as possible on the islands and then have an election? The election was held by the people that live there. Any other option would be invalid.
Why would the Argentinians need free access to the island in order to legitimize the vote? They don't live there.
And the "world" may have largely decolonized, but that was because those colonies desired independence. So long as the people within the colony are satisfied with the arrangement, there's nothing wrong with it.
@SF Accountant,
The issue of decolonization comes up in support of Argentinian claims because the UN actually did pass a "universal decolonization" resolution that would have severed all political ties between the Falkland Islanders and the British. The British do not recognize this resolution because it failed to account for the wished is the people of the colonies. The Falklands simply do not have enough population and resources to be an independent country, so it is almost a certainty that they will always be someone's colony.
Makes sense. Why should the UN be able to sever political ties between two strongly affiliated entities that wish to preserve their relationship? The British have a pretty strong case for this one.
So, while attending a school in the South there was some confusion between the teacher and the recent transfer student from NY during a lesson about the history of the Falkland Islands. The student replies, "Yo, Teach, which Falklan' Islands are you talkin' about?" The teacher states that there is only one Falkland Islands. Confused and irritated the student replies "The hell you say, teach. There's Falklan' Islands all over the planet!" The teacher reassures the student again that there is only one Falkland Islands. "Yer sh!ttin' me teach, they're everywhere! You don't know what yer talkin' about. I mean there's the Hawiian Falklan' Islands, there's the Caribbean Falklan' Islands and somewhere out in the middle of nowhere is Gilligan's Falklan' Islands!
A refrendum is a fair assessment only if free access to the Falklands to both Argentinians and Britons was granted.The world decolonised decades ago. Britain needs to run up and modernise.
Please study the history before making such uneducated statements.
Historical accounts indicate the French had control for a short period, and then the British. Other than that, they were uninhabited. The Falklands belong to Britain, and there is not a shred of evidence to support Argentina's claim to the Falklands. Argentina has as much claim to Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay as they do to the Falklands. Argentina is barking up the wrong tree, and needs to find something else to do.
Surveys in the area before the Falklands War of 1982 had indicated the riches that might lie beneath the sea floor. There's the real reason, political squabbling.
But if the Falklanders want to remain British, then leave them the hell alone.
Oh, and does anyone think for a moment that had China chosen to reclaim Hong Kong before 1997, the Brits would have sent a battle fleet over there?
Not really a likely scenario Hong was leased to the British the lease ran out and China took it back. China has a history of honouring its international aggreements on the rare occation that it makes them they are normally fairly gagey. Tho in truth they leased Hong Kong to the British while staring down the barrel of a Royal Navy Gun.
The Falklands has become a Argentine mechanism for distracting the attention of the Argentine people. It was General Galtieri's who was hugely unpopular played the Malvinas card knowing success would secure his political future fortunatly this Military Dictator failed and was ousted long live British Democracy.
Why don't they declare Independence from both countries and then all the people on the island will be rich????
Well, apparently, it's because they like being British. There are benefits that come with that administration, you know.
Probably because if they were independent of the UK, they would still have to rely on them to protect them from just getting invaded by Argentina anyway.
Britain is a criminal country of thieves, murderers and liars. Britain occupies Australia, New Zealand, Falklands, North America, kills millions of local people. Britain cooperated with Hitler in 1930s (along with France) and responsible for death of over 56 mln. people. Britain cooperated with Hitler’s and palestinian arabs in Holocaust agenda and responsible for death of thousands of Jews. Britain lost legitimacy and shall be eliminated from the Earth.
Fella, you have a very severe case of headus-in-rectus. You need to remove your head from your rectum and have it examined. Something is perversely wrong with your brain! Some parts may actually be missing! Have the doctor confirm that you actually have a complete functioning brain, and then take an IQ test. Your score may qualify you to be institutionalized.
EK the name for marks condition is cranialrectalitous.
You talk but make no sense.
Good for them!... but in reality... who gives a "chit'?
I'm more interested in America staying a democracy for Americans... with this commie in the White House!
Commie? Seriously? What is this, 1952 Mr. McCarthy?
The commie that got elected - twice - by democratic process? You're interested in America staying white, gun gripping, women's and minority rights-hating, and stupid.
Well that solves that dispute. Don't cry for the Falklands Argentina...move on.
Game, set, match.
with britain, the islanders will always be properous, and live under a fair democratic government. from the rio grande , to the tip of south america, is just one big poor mexican state. one dictatorship after another, one squalid country after another. the hispanic race seem too stupid, to understand democracy. north of the rio grand , under anglos, you have wealth and prosperity and south , you have one big squalid hispanic culture.
@Frank,
Go google "Argentina" and look at some of the pictures. Ditto for Sao Paulo and numerous other South American cities. You will see modern vibrant cities that are far from "squalid." Yep, there is huge disparity between the wealthy and the poor, but we are catching up with them quickly.
Fun fact: Argentina is a whiter country nowadays than Great Britain.
Also, "Hispanic" is not a race.
The islands were first seen/discovered by the Dutch, then British, then French. They were uninhabited until the French founded the first colony in 1764.
The first British colony (1765) was established 5 years before the Spanish invaded in 1770. The Spanish were forced to withdraw in 1811. From 1820 until 1833, the Falkland Islands were variously occupied by Argentina, USA, and then the British. The British never have given up sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It was the British who have permanently settled the islands since 1833.
The Falkland Islands are over 300 miles from the Argentina mainland. (In contrast, the Bahama Islands are less than 1/2 that distance from Miami!)
Bottom line: There were no native people on the Falkland Islands. These islands were fought over by various empires, but Britain, relative to Spain/Argentina, has the best claim by far. The British found the islands before Spain. The British settled the islands before Spain. The British Falkland Islanders have lived on the islands for longer than Argentina has even been a unified country!
Dale, it seems like it depends on what history book you read on this one. Still, I kinda agree that they Argentina should just let this one go.
Rob99, It is true that the history does depend a bit on the writer. However, everyone agrees that the islands were not inhabited when they were first discovered. Also, they are a little over 300 miles from Argentina and the Bahamas are less than 1/2 that distance from the US. Basically my argument is that as uninhabited territory, the people of the first permanent settlement with multiple generations (the British one) are the legitimate natives. Further, the distance to the islands is no more justification for Argentina sovereignty than the US would have with the Bahamas and the Bahamas are considerably more habitable.
Well, that settles it. The people want to stay with Britian, so Argentina better butt out. Enough of the stupidity regarding their claim to the Falklands. If the UN and America refuses to see this is what the Falkland people want, then it's clear they do not care for freedom and democracy at all.
It looks like they are not to keen on being connected with Argentina,....can't blame them. I'd wager Margaret is smiling from ear to ear. Sure wish the US would put UN membership on the ballot in the United States.
Huh? US would put UN membership on the ballot in the US
Only 3 no votes. Now that should tell you something. Britain Yes and Argentina or anyone else Absolutely NO! If Argentina were to take over they would send 10,000 Argentinians to the Island and run the British folks off. Since there are little problems there, leave the Island alone and let the folks there decide what they wish.
The British NEVER know when to leave...we had to fight a war to evict them here...they still occupy the tip of Spain and we are going broke defending the geo-political boundaries the British imposed around the world...Kuwait..Greater Iran..Iraq..Yugoslavia...Czechoslovakia...and on and on...this is the New World...we don't need old Imperialist states occupying ANY of it!!!
Umm... Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore. Time to update your atlas.
Well, with 99.8% of residents telling them to stay, I find their confusion forgiveable. You DID read the article, right?
So you prefer a new order of Imperialist states? Because it's hard to think of any other word for Argentina's sketchy claim to sovereignty of the islands based on the outcome of a war. The Falklands at least gets to choose which Empire to belong to, and they have spoken.
So why don't you let Hawaii become independent i see no difference.
And Puerto Rico wants to become our 51st state...
Since when is islands choosing which country to be part of "Imperialism"? These places would have a hard time on their own.