Posted on 06/27/2006 12:27:16 AM PDT by qlangley
Agentina has decided to "talk tough" according to the Times in its quest for the Falkland Islands. The British government refuses to compromise. While nothing much has changed, it does put the Islands back in the news in the run-up to the 25th anniversary of the Argentinian invasion and its subsequent defeat.
While condemnation of the Argentinian invasion was pretty much unanimous - the vote in UN was overwhelming, and in the US Senate only Jesse Helms voted against - subsequent refusals by the British government to negotiate have drawn condemnation. The Argentinian calls for negotiation may seem transparent: "we failed to take them. Now you give them to us anyway," but refusing to negotiate always looks bad. It makes you seem unreasonable.
And it is so unnecessary. There is a course of action the British government could take tomorrow - could have taken any time in the past 24 years - which would put the burden of obstinacy back where it belongs, on Argentinian shoulders.
Britain's current position is that it cannot negotiate on sovereignty without the permission of Islanders. Blair should subtly change that and say, while we cannot negotiate away the democratic rights of the Islanders, because we do not own them, we have no objection to Argentina pursuing negotiations with the elected government of the Islands.
The thing is, Argentina can't do that. Argentina cannot recognise that the inhabitants of the Falklands have any democratic rights at all, or its whole claim crumbles to dust. Argentina has always insisted it is inconceivable that the Falklands should be able to vote on whether they want to be British or Argentinian. This is essential to their position, as support for the status quo - a self-governing British protectorate - is completely overwhelming.
Argentina wants to push its claim against Britain's on grounds of proximity. It cannot push its claim against the Islanders themselves on those or any other grounds. Given the chance to negotiate with the Islanders, Argentina would refuse. And then they would look unreasonable.
Quentin Langley is editor of www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections.
prisoner6
I would think Argentina would be preoccupied with the World Cup right now and put this Falklands/Malvinas thing off until afterwards. ;-)
> Just why does Argentina want the Falklands so badly they'd go to war?
IIRC (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) the Malvinas Islands were surrendered by Argentina sometime in the 1820's to the British as settlement in consequence of defaulting on loans made by Barings Bank (?), to build a railway that went belly-up...?
prisoner6
The HMS Sheffield...
Gee, they must want to try out the General Belgrano's replacement.
There was a World Cup in 1982 as well. In fact, Argentina, champions at the time, knocked England out of the Cup. It was, as far as I know, the only time countries have played each other at football while their troops were in action against each other.
I don't believe that you do recall correctly, though I guess the loan may have been part of the issue. The date was actually 1831 but, as in 1982, Britain was REtaking the Falklands, which had been British since 1690. The first Argentinian occupation lasted a little longer than the second, but had only taken effect in 1826, so it lasted just 5 years. Admittedly, the Argentinian claim to Islands is one they inherited from Spain in 1816.
Of course, in those days claims were shaky things, especially during the long periods when the Islands were uninhabited. These days international law gives precedence to the wishes of the inhabitants over geographic proximity, which is the current basis for Argentina's claim.
I used to go to Argentina quite a bit in the late 80s and early 90s (for work) and they were still celebrating that World Cup win from the 80s. :-)
I also remember that if someone said "Falklands" in Argentina, they would be swiftly corrected and told that those islands are "Las Malvinas."
My mistake, in my previous post I said the first Argentinian occupation was ended in 1831, it was actually 1833. 1831 was the year the Argentinian settlement there was destroyed by a US warship. The Argentinian penal colony stayed until 1833.
The rest of my post stands. Both Argentinian occupations were pretty brief affairs, amounting to less than 9 years in total.
>>I used to go to Argentina quite a bit in the late 80s and early 90s (for work) and they were still celebrating that World Cup win from the 80s. :-)
Do you mean winning the championship overall (which they did not in 1982, but have done, I think three times in all) or beating England, which they did again in 1986. The latter win was the highly controversial one when Diego Marradonna punched the ball into the net, out of the referee's sight, and latter claimed it was the 'hand of God' that scored the goal. Football fans tell me he was very good, but not THAT good.
> I also remember that if someone said "Falklands" in Argentina, they would be swiftly corrected and told that those islands are "Las Malvinas."
Yes, they would say that. But remember their claim is dubious in the extreme. It is not supported by any of the inhabitants of the Islands, and stems from an 8 year occupation in the nineteenth century. Mexico has a more recent, and less fraught, claim on Texas, in that Texas had not previously been American when Mexico first took it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.