Peter Kellner
:Cameron's EU Tactics Backfire
Deborah Jack
:End Homophobia to Reduce HIV
Philip Mansbridge
:G8 or Too Late: Obama, Cameron and G8 Heads Must Tackle Ivory Poaching Crisis Now
European Parliament Web Team
:Homophobia: One-In-Four LGBT People Victim of Violence or Threats in the Last Five Years
Neil Durkin
:A Week's Delay Should Suffice: Is the UK Still Dragging Its Feet on Guantánamo?
On 2 April, 1982, Argentina invaded The Falkland Islands, believing it had a historical right to re-claim the British protectorate, against the will of its pro-British citizens. They overthrew the Governor, veteran diplomat Rex Hunt, exiling him to Uruguay, and overran Port Stanley. Would Britain let this slide? Not on Margaret Thatcher's watch.
By 14 June, the Royal Navy and Parachute Regiment had defeated Argentine forces, which surrendered after the British Army marched into Port Stanley. 649 Argentines and 255 Britons died in the brief but bloody conflict.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a hubbub about Argentina's renewed bellicosity toward the Falklands, exacerbated by Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton repeatedly calling the islands "the Malvinas." To many observers, this appears to be an affront to British legitimacy, a gesture of support for Argentinian claims and a thumbing of the nose to the special relationship. Then came Obama's Biden-like gaffe on April 17, when he mistakenly called said "Maldives" instead of "Malvinas." Oops.
For a few days there was a lull in Falklands/Malvinas/Maldives news. But then, earlier this week, came the most troubling recent rhetoric , from none other than the new Argentine ambassador to London, Alicia Castro (no relation to Fidel, as far as I can tell, at least biologically). Interrupting British Foreign Secretary William Hague at a human rights event, Castro badgered him over whether Britain was ready to talk over the Falklands' future. The islanders have the right to self-determination, Hague asserted. Then came Castro's outrageous claim: "Self-determination is not a right that every country has or every population has. A province in my country cannot decide if they want to belong to China."
This is pretty rich coming from someone whose government has accused Britain of wrongly holding onto the Falklands like an outdated colonial possession. There's nothing like hypocrisy, eh? Never mind that the people of these islands are overwhelmingly pro-Britain. Apparently there aren't enough of them to have earned the privilege of self-determination, or, presumably, any other democratic right.
Castro's position is preposterous. It has long been the opinion of tyrants and despots that little countries shouldn't have a say in how they run their own affairs. And when these countries opted for independence, the stronger neighbour (be it Nazi Germany in World War II, or Soviet Russia in its aftermath) simply enforced their will militarily. This is not to say that Castro or the government she speaks for is the equivalent of a Stalin- or Hitler-led regime, but there are rhetorical parallels to the diatribes of these leaders. At the least, she is guilty of a diplomatic faux pas.
There are also echoes in Castro's bluster of the disturbing comment made by president of the European Commission, José Manuel Durrão Barroso, in October 2010: "Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong." Indeed, the EU has acted like it is suspicious of democracy on many occasions, not least when it disregarded Ireland's initial "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty, and then poured millions into backing the "Yes" campaign until the desired result was achieved. Supra-national organisations trump sovereignty in Brussels and its dominions, it seems.
To be fair to Argentina and Ms. Castro, colonialist era Britain is far from blameless when it comes to letting people decide whom they are governed by. But the matter of the Falklands was settled 30 years ago and it's clear that that residents of these islands wish to retain their ties with Britain for more than another 30. One can only hope that David Cameron will stand up for the freedom, liberty and the self-determination that Castro would deny them, if Argentine bluster turns into offensive action.
This is no time for hawkishness, but it is worth noting that all too often, the irresponsible words of those opposed to democracy do just that.
Follow Philip White on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PhilipWhiteBook
Mia de Graaf: Sean Penn and the Falklands Farce
Dale Shaw: Why We Should Buy That Old Lady a Boat
Professor Klaus Dodds: Return to Sender?
Will Porter: Only YouTube Can Save the Falklands Now
Falklands War: Living with post-traumatic stress disorder
Falklands tension: Argentina marks Belgrano anniversary
Submarine Museum marks Falklands 30th anniversary
OK! Lets do a deal. Argentina should surrender Patagonia to the UK in exchange on the basis that it's original inhabitants were Welsh.
No can do?
Why?
The present inhabitants don't want to change their nationality.
What's it got to do with them?
They've just struck gold which is worth more than the oil under the Falklands.
You mean to say that greed is at the bottom of all this?
And there were we Argentineans thinking it was all about patriotism.
It to took several invasions by the Spanish Imperialists to establish a beach head. Such was the success of these freedom loving Aborigen people that the Buenos Aires area was denied to the Spanish occupiers until the late 16th century.So fierce was the desire of these freedom loving peoples to retain control of their beloved lands that in 1541 the Spanish were forced to abandon the site until 1580.
The Aborigen peoples continued to put up a spirited fight against the Spanish usurpers of their lands until decimated by biological warfare.
Please support the call to help these Aborigen people take control of their lands once again and help them shirk off the yoke of oppression from Spanish descendents. Long live the Aborigen people!
cf the relations between England and Ireland or Israel and Palestine.
To whom did the garden of Eden belong?
It sums up entirely the futile attempt at democracy by Argentina when attitudes such as are expressed by their ambassador to London is so succinct. It is not aquestion of what the Falkland Islanders want but a case of what Argentina wants at any price. They have little or no respect for themselves in determining who or what governs their country and so wish for expansionism towards a scrap of islands in the South Atlantic some 300 miles from their mainland. Why stop at the Falklands why not lay claim to Australia New Zealand or any other islands that take their fancy. No Argentina want the Falklands because there is the possibility they may be sitting on untapped oil resorces to which they believe they have a rightful claim. Surely such a rightful claim to these reserves rests with the Falkland Islanders and the prize is the royalties that will boost their economy. Junta are all too common in Argentina and worse we now have Obama and Clinton acknowledging this false claim by calling the place the Malvinas. Geography was never their strong point.
This nonsense really has to end, Britain should make it clear any attempt at another invasion will result in a full nuclear strike on Argentina ending the problem once and for all.
I imagine the Falklanders are capable of self government if larger nations would let them get on with it. What a pity the British and Argintinian bluster obliges them to chose between bad and worse.
"What a pity the British and Argintinian bluster obliges them to chose between bad and worse"
There is no British bluster - it is FACT - the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and not "Argintinian" (that same as injuns?) - there is no bad and no worse - Argentina was the aggressor in 82 with a clear act of war. Britain retook what is rightly theirs - get over it, move on. If they tried again they would get the same again - these colours dont run.
If your notion that Ireland supported Nazi Germany is based on the fact that De Valera offered condolences to Germany on the death of its head of state in 1945, this was a proper expression of Ireland's neutrality at that time. We would equally have offered condolences to UK or USA or France of Spain, perhaps even communist Russia, if a head of state in any of these countries had died during this period.
So, as you can see from these facts, Ireland did not support Nazi Germany.
The British removed the Argentine garrison in 1833, but actively encouraged all of the colonists to stay (they had, after all, asked for British permission before they set off for the islands) and all but four of them did stay.
If it was still seriously contested, then why did Argentina sign the Arana-Southern Treaty (aka the Convention of Settlement of Existing Differences) in 1849 and ratify it in 1850. It also managed to only mention the Falkland Islands once in diplomatic meetings in the following 91 years.
Incidentally by your own arguement, doesn't that mean that Argentina (being made up of largely European immigrants) shouldn't be allowed to be independent? After all the removal of most of the previous population of Patagonia was done in a far less civilized way than a request for troops to leave (with the offer of a lift for anyone else).
Nonsense the proof to my argument is the fact international law as punishment still refuses to acknoledge the status of Falkland Islanders they can only class as British identical to Mainland British no other rights. So no vote by the British on the Falklands on self determination would be valid under International law. I didn't make these laws take it up with the UN if you have a problem.
It started in 1940 when Argentina was supporting Germany and its bombing of London.
Argentina will take the Island by force , put the Brits off, put Argies on .
Everyone will then support the Argie islanders right to stay there . Yes?
OK Argies Take the Islands, Wait 100 years. Then you are legitimate
Beware. USA will support their poodles to keep them useful.
If Germany landed on the Isle of Wight, replaced the people with germans. Would those people have the right to stay there?
Britain has a legitimate claim and there were no native inhabitants of the islands, as well as had an earlier settlement than Argentinians.
Hmmm ... no.
The only people asked to leave were members of an illegal Argentinian military unit that was hoping to set up a penal colony.
No civilians were expelled. In fact, the British authorities actively encouraged them to stay -- and which they did (except for 4 people who asked to leave).
Passage of time will never can be an valid argument to justify the sovereignty over a region illegally invaded.
Also, Argentina had 4 military governments, all them represents about 50 years, yes, 50 of the last 100 years without democracy, we suffer without it, so we never deserve to any other country/region don't have it, it's not logic.
All we say is Malvinas citzens and they self-determination can't be part of discussion because they aren't "orginal habitants", they are settlers. UK never want to discuss his illegal invasion.
Sorry my imperfect english, I hope you understand.
Regards.
Try doing some research and you would find the original inhabitants of the Falklands were French settlers, France removed them when Spain legaly bought the Falklands off France as part of the sale agrement. Why couldn't Britauin have just bought the Falklands off Spain instead of invading and removing its colonists? Then Argentina would not have had a leg to stand on?
Britain never 'kicked out the few argentineans inhabitants in 1833'. The only people asked to leave was those of an illegal military expedition that had tried to set up a penal colony. The other (Louis Vernet's) settlers were asked to remain by the British -- and did so (other than 4 individuals who asked to leave).
"...Argentina never stopped to claim sovereign over Malvinas...".
Actually, Argentina was silent on the matter following the ratification of the Convention of Settlement:
"CONVENTION between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship".—Signed at Buenos Ayres, November 24, 1849 (Ratified May 15, 1850).
It only resurfaced in the 1940s.
What a pile iof lies Spain bought the Falklands from the French who removed their original settlers as part of the deal their is a treaty to prove it nobody disputes this. The British just invaded and forcibly evicted the legal spanish colonists as punishment international law wilrefuses to recognise seperate Falkland Islander status just British. So no seperate right to self determination, why couldn't Britain have bought the Falklands off Spain like Spain bought the Falklands off France then you wouldn't have got yourself in this mess?
Forget Taco Bell its too facist for a newly freed East LA, my vote goes to Wendys.
Once the Franchise Wars occur.