In 1982, 8000 miles away Argentina invaded one of the last outposts of the British Empire. This little known colony, as it was then, was not heavily defended by the British Government. Following an operation that involved virtually the entire Royal Navy, including commandeered cruise liners as troop carriers, the Air Force, Army, and Navy fought a 10 week war that resulted in hundreds of British and Argentine deaths, two VCs and many more decorations. It led to an outbreak of patriotism and ensured that Margaret Thatcher retained power and also saw the beginning of the downfall of Argentine military junta. These islands are known as the Falkland Islands.
Many people who are alive today only know of the Falklands War through reading books, being told about it, or because of Simon Weston who has become the face of the veterans of the war. This war, however, broke out because of a number of factors, chief among them was the Argentine junta’s poor popularity – it was thought that to capture ‘Las Malvinas’ would restore the junta’s popularity, especially as they felt that the UK would not defend the islands.
How wrong they were. Within weeks of the first landings on South Georgia Island by Argentine troops, the government of Margaret Thatcher assembled a fleet of ships the size of which not seen anywhere in the world since D-Day. They sailed over three weeks to the Falklands, almost 8,000 miles away to defend the territory in a move the US Navy thought to be impossible. However, the impossible was achieved and the Falkland Islands remain British to this day.
Next year marks the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War. It will be a sombre day, similar to 11th November for the Islanders and those present. Mr Sawle of the Falklands Assembly says it is an opportunity to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and to reflect on the freedoms their sacrifice has given to the Islanders. Mr Sawle has spoken to many veterans and assured me that not only was there efforts and sacrifices worthwhile but appreciated by the local population.
However, in Argentina today, one of the hot political topics is the status of the Falklands Islands which they call ‘Las Malvinas. Their claims are based on myth about Spanish possession and occupation prior to independence. The frequent statements they make have little effect on the islanders and are largely ignored by the British press. One of the stories that seem to have been missed is a report that Prince William’s deployment to the Falklands as a Search and Rescue pilot is being re-thought. This is because the current Argentine government has advised it would cause diplomatic damage to UK-Argentine relations. In addition to this, Jorge Arguello, the Argentine ambassador to the UN, has claimed that the Falkland Islands are under military occupation! I hope Prince William follows in the footsteps of his uncle, Prince Andrew and sees active service. Not only will this show the Argentines that the island is British ‘property’ but it also shows a commitment from the Government to the local population.
I got in touch with the government of the Falkland Islands and Dick Sawle, Member of the Legislative Assembly, has said that many of the claims that the Argentines make are based upon fabrications and that “There never was an indigenous population in the Falklands. No population of any nationality was ever expelled” but “by constant repetition, [that myth] has managed – quite successfully – to become ‘fact’”.
As many people will be aware, under international law, a territory can only be under military occupation if the population belongs to one nationality and the ruling country is of another nationality. As the Falkland Islanders see themselves as British, much like Gibraltarians, then it would be impossible for the Islands to be occupied. In fact Mr Sawle stressed to me that the British Forces South Atlantic Islands (BFSAI) is a deterrent which is successful but sadly needed.
In addition to this, many of the commercial arguments put forward by both the British Government and the Islanders themselves are usually ignored or torn up by the Argentines themselves. This lack of willingness to co-operate is only further fuel for the Argentine myths as they say a lack of co-operation is not through trying. The Argentine Government’s managements of fish stocks is described as”woefully inadequate” by Mr Sawle while he stated that the Falkland Islands own policies are admired by many.
In another area of possible mutual co-operation, the Falklands Islands government offered to co-operate with Argentina on oil exploitation and, again they tore up the agreement. It was a big story last year when a British company began drilling for oil in the territorial waters of the Falklands, that the Argentines rejected this and tried to prevent any drilling going ahead.
The Falkland Islanders, as mentioned above mainly want to remain British, although with self rule. They have their own Parliament (called Legislative Assembly) and hold free and fair elections. There is a constitution and they govern themselves, with the exception of defence and foreign affairs which remain the purview of the MoD and FCO and their Whitehall mandarins. It is this freedom and this willingness to remain British that drives current policy towards the islands and any negotiations on the status of the Falklands, like Gibraltar, should not be held. The Islanders want to remain British and, as Woodrow Wilson proposed during World War 1, it is this self-determination. This is also Article 1 of the United Nations Charter and until the Falkland Islanders decide otherwise, Argentina should put up and shut up!
Very well put, Mr Patnick! I also read that one of the reasons the Argies were so convinced Britain wouldn’t make a serious attempt to defend the Falklands was because their dictator, General Galtieri, didn’t believe that a country ruled by “two women” (i.e., Lady Thatcher and the Queen) would be prepared to fight a war that might lead to their “sons” coming home in body bags. As you say, the General greatly underestimated the strength of resolve of Margaret Thatcher – and thank God she HAD that resolve! Would the present government?
Posted by A P Schrader | September 24, 2011, 4:52 pmSilly article
Malvinas have territorial integrity with the continent of Argentina
Malvinas had population that was expelled by the british in 1833
Malvinas had a governor in the isles designed by Buenos Aires, that means a legal authority named by the central govern in the isles
This islands were occupied illegaly by Britain and continue so only because of militar force
Its population is implanted, descendants of the same illegal occupants, thats why unlike happened in every country of SAmerica, they hadnt got independance
Malvinas is a colony like the 14 BOTs Britian has over the world in this 21st century
A shame
Posted by Luisana | September 25, 2011, 12:12 amI’d hoped that POT would be immune to trolling, how silly of me.
Good, well written article and one I couldn’t agree with more.
Posted by jbritain | September 25, 2011, 11:17 pmIn what way is “Luisana” trolling? She is disagreeing; she is perfectly entitled to disagree. I encourage people who dissent from our views to debate with us.
Posted by Politics On Toast | September 26, 2011, 5:05 pmSilly and, frankly, ignorant comment from Luisana.
The ‘Malvinas’, as you call them, have never had territorial integrity with Argentina, except for very brief periods prior to 1833. The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans in the 16th-Century and the first people to set foot on them were Capt John Strong and the crew of HMS Welfare in 1690 (who named them after the 5th Viscount Falkland, an Admiralty commissioner who financed their voyage). The first permanent settlement was – it has to be admitted – not British but nor was it Argentine either. The first settlement was founded by a French admiral, the Comte de Bougainville, on what is now East Falkland in 1764 and named the islands the Îles Malouines, from which your ‘Malvinas’ is derived.
The following year, Capt John Byron (grandfather of the poet Lord Byron) of HMS Dolphin claimed Saunders Island, near West Falkland, for Britain and eventually claimed all the islands in the name of King George III (Captain Byron was unaware of the French settlement in East Falkland).
The French settlement was eventually acquired by the Spanish, who governed it as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata – the last and most short-lived of all the Spanish Empire’s dominions. The Spanish drove the British out in 1770 but quickly capitulated when they threatened war. The Spaniards completely abandoned their settlements by 1811, although the British had also been forced to withdraw a few years earlier, owing to economic pressures caused by the American Revolutionary Wars. Settlers of the United Provinces of the River Plate (successor state to the old Spanish colonial regime in Buenos Aires) also withdrew their settlements.
The islands remained uninhabited until a controversial settlement was established in 1828 by the privateer Luis Vernet (a German-born Huguenot) with tacit approval from both Buenos Aires and London but purely for commercial reasons. Eventually, a dispute over fishing rights between the United Provinces, Great Britain and the United States of America led to a raid by the USS Lexington, which destroyed the Vernet settlement. A British task force, led by Capt James Onslow of HMS Clio gained control of the Falklands Islands in 1833 and ended the influence of Buenos Aires over the islands once and for all (excluding that brief blip in 1982, of course). This is the ‘expulsion’ you mention. The ‘population’ you speak of was nothing more than a small naval garrison. The garrison was commanded by Capt José María Pinedo, who would have liked to resist the British had not so many of his own crew been British mercenaries, unwilling to fight their own countrymen!
By 1841, the Falklands were a formal British colony with resident governor and Port Stanley as its capital. In 1850, Argentina signed the ‘Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship’. They didn’t mention the ‘Malvinas’ again for 34 years, when they suddenly disputed British sovereignty and requested international arbitration in 1884. They were rebuffed. They didn’t press their claims again until 1945, on the formation of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the Falklands were included among the non-autonomous territories subject to British administration under Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Over the next decade or so, the UK repeatedly offered to settle the sovereignty dispute at the International Court of Justice but Argentina refused. In 1967, the UK offered to discuss sovereignty with Argentina, only for a huge grassroots campaign to spring up on the islands themselves, with islanders demanding to remain British and despite repeated bullying and aggression from Argentina, have always resolutely insisted on their right to remain British subjects.
This is called the principle of the right to self-determination and it upon this principle, ultimately, that British sovereignty rests and why the Falkland Islands are and forever shall be BRITISH.
Posted by A P Schrader | September 26, 2011, 2:53 pmAbsolute rubbish.
The Islands were British before Argentina even existed. The only time they we Argentine was when they were illegally invaded by Argentina.
Argentina say they recaptured the Islands but if they had they wouldn’t be sticking guns at the locals ribs. The Falklands are British and shall always remain British. If the Argies dont like that tough!
Posted by Fraser | March 23, 2012, 5:44 pmA P Schrader
Our claim is made under international law, legal, we dont have to shut up…thats your common arrogant attitude you are born with
If you want us to shut up you can go to the UN decolonization comitte, they are calling you every year
Self determination is not entitle to implanted people, like the british living there
If they are british they would be better in Britain
South America for southamericans not foreigner countries
Posted by Luisana | September 26, 2011, 8:15 pmLuisana,
Get real. The British citizens resident on the Falkland Islands didn’t just arrive on the islands yesterday. They and their communities have existed their for hundreds of years. Also, they did not ‘displace’ some aboriginal Argentine population. Many of the settlers who went to the islands with Luis Vernet were in fact British. Notably, Luis Vernet sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires before leaving and even provided regular reports to the British consul on his progress.
Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a government representative in the islands, until Esteban Mestivier was commissioned by Buenos Aires to set up a penal colony! (This never happened, as Major Mestivier’s soldiers mutinied and killed him.)
As I said, Captain Onslow met with little resistant from Colonel Pinedo when he arrived in 1833 – possibly because some 80% of his forces were British!
Argentinian claims that the ‘population’ of the islands was expelled in 1833 has absolutely no basis in historic fact. Contemporary sources suggest colonists were encouraged to remain under Luis Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane. Over half of them were runaway rebels and murderers, eight of whom ran amok, killing the five senior members.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | September 27, 2011, 2:17 amGet you facts Schrader
The claim exists because an international organization considers it real not a lie or an invention.
Your version of history craps, but you can go with it to the UN and make us shut up as you like. Do it, its not they arent calling you, on the contrary.
History… Magallanes called the islands San Antonio and they were been occupied by Spain discountinually in 1520. In 1708 they were called Malouines by frenchs. Virrey Elío ordered in 1811 to abandon Puerto Soledad. In 1820 arrived David Jewett (with order of the War and Navy Ministry, Mr Matías Irigoyen) that since 1815 was under the service of the United Provinces of Río de la Plata. He established an argentinian colony that occupyied their time fishing and “ganadería ovina”. In 1829, Martín Rodriguez, delegated governor, built the “Comandancia político militar” of isla Soledad and designed Luis Vernet in charge of it. (Vernet was a german business man nationalized argentine). He was designed by decree (decreto) that established the “juridica” and historical continuity of soberan rights. He built houses, made a topographyc research, made a fish and meat “saladero”, “una curtiembre” and built “la goleta Aguila”.
In 1829 the governor forbid the whales capture and the fishing. In 1831, Rosas (our president) change the forbidden to a tax to the fishers. But as always happens the fishers continue overfishing. So Mr Vernet, decided to act and “apresó” (put in jail) north americans fishers that didnt have permission of fishing focas , and he took them to Buenos Aires. Northamericans went for revenge to Puerto Soledad and attacked it. Rosas through its minister made a formal claim to Washington. The northamericans in BA were expulsed from our country, but before going advised to english minister (john Woodbine Parish) that the isles were easy to get invade. And the 2 of january 1833 through the Clio corbette from Río de Janeiro you went to the isles. 15 of january our government claimed ilegal the invasion to the british minister, Philip Gore. You forbidded the gauchos faenar ganado and pretend to pay them in bonds. They rebelled and killed you and put the argentine flag again. In 1834 you came again in Challenger vessel and capturated the argentines and sent them to be judged to London, then later decided to send them to Montevideo.
Its not your land its an illegal occupation with implanted people, you have nothing to do in South America, its all your ambition of hegemony of the world and Antartitca and resources you dont have in your own isles. Argentina and all this region fought against colonialism, and enjoys of freedom. We dont want you.
Posted by Luisana | September 27, 2011, 6:02 pmYou imply, Luisana, in all your comments, that the UN supports Argentina’s claims. May I remind you this isn’t the case and that, although the Special Committee on Decolonisation has called for our governments to resume talks to resolve the sovereignty dispute, the UN is impartial but has always accepted UK de facto control of the Falklands AND, crucially, recognises the right to self-determination of the Falkland Islanders. The Argentines, meanwhile, total disregard for the view of the people of the Falkland Islands, which challenges the very purpose of the Decolonisation Committee, which exists to eradicate situations where nations seek to impose authoritarian colonial rule. Yet this is precisely what Argentina seeks to do in the Falkland Islands!
On the history, I don’t know what drivel they teach you in Argentina but the rest of the world knows the truth.
Ferdinand Magellan (or, rather, one of his captains, Esteban Gómez) may well have sighted the Falklands during his circumnavigation in 1520 but there was certainly no ‘occupation’ (oh, and ‘San Antonio’ was the name of Captain Gómez’s ship, not what they called the islands!). They were possibly sighted 16 years earlier by a Frenchman, Binot Paulmier de Gonneville, and there were numerous sighting of islands that may have been the Falklands in subsequent years by sailors of various nationalities. None of these ever set foot on the islands, however.
The first (possible) instance of a Spaniard actually landing on the islands didn’t occur until 1540, when Ferdinand Camargo sheltered in islands that MAY possibly have been the Falklands. An Englishman, John Davis, also sheltered there in 1592 while part of the second expedition of Sir Thomas Cavendish. In 1675, Anthony de la Roché (an Englishman) formally discovered South Georgia. Then in 1690 came Captain Strong’s landing, which was the first recording landing on the Falkland Islands.
You get your dates wrong about the French. They were not named the Îles Malouines until 1764, when the Comte de Bougainville claimed them in the name of King Louis XV of France and established a settlement of around 150 Frenchmen, called Port St Louis. However, as it excited the jealousy of both Great Britain and Spain, King Louis ordered it dismantled. The colony was subsequently sold to King Charles III of Spain and formally placed in the possession of Don Felipe Ruiz Puente, first Governor of the Malvinas. Don Felipe evacuated the French and re-named Port St Louis as ‘Puerto Soledad’.
I have already elaborated on the colony, known as Port Egmont, founded by Commodore Byron on Saunders Island at the same time, so shall not repeat myself here. Once the Spanish had purchased Port Soledad, they set about driving the British out and in 1770, the Spanish Governor of Buenos Aires despatched a fleet under Don Juan de Madariaga to capture Port Egmont and expel the British. This precipitated the Falklands Crisis, which again I have already delved into. Suffice to say, the government of Lord North began preparing for war, assembling a mighty fleet under Admiral Lord Hawke, and Madrid quickly capitulated. Angry representations were made by the British Secretary of State, Viscount Weymouth, at the court of King Charles III for the instant restoration of the colonists to Port Egmont, and for reparation of the insult offered to the dignity of His Britannic Majesty King George III, by the forcible removal of His subjects. On this occasion, Lord Weymouth refused point blank to discuss any matter relating to sovereignty and, accordingly, the Spanish Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, the Prince de Maserano, publicly disavowed, in the name of King Charles, the actions of the Governor of Buenos Aires.
As I have vouchsafed, the British withdrew from the islands for economic reasons in 1774, leaving behind a plaque claiming ownership. The Spanish reoccupied the islands during the Anglo-Spanish War but as they too were progressively losing control of their colonies, Spanish troops departed from Port Soledad in 1806 when the Governor, Juan Crisostomo Martinez, was recalled by Madrid. He also left behind a plaque claiming sovereignty, so the UK is not alone in this practice!
As you say, the remaining Spanish settlers were withdrawn in 1811 by the last Spanish Viceroy, Francisco de Elío. In 1816, the United Provinces of the River Plate declared independence from Spain and later became Argentina (recognised by my government in 1825). Good on you, I’m very happy that you won your independence but it doesn’t give you automatic sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Now, you mention the infamous Colonel Jewett, commander of the frigate ‘Heroína’, which visited the Falklands in 1820 and raised the first Argentine flag. He was an American, who served in the US Navy in the War of 1812 against Great Britain, when he acted as a ‘privateer’. After that, he flogged his services to the newly-independent United Provinces, who availed themselves of his skills as a corsair against the Spanish and commissioned him to re-take the Falklands. By the time he arrived at Port Soledad (later re-named ‘Puerto Luis’) and after an attempted mutiny on board, 80 of his 200-strong crew were either sick or dead. When he arrived, he found some fifty sealing ships of both British and American nationality. Colonel Jewett therefore made a pact with the British explorer Capt James Weddell.
The testimony of Captain Weddell casts serious doubts over whether Colonel Jewett was acting in the interests of the United Provinces. The fact that he approached Captain Weddell so cordially suggested to the Captain that Colonel Jewett’s primary motive was secure an exclusive claim to the wreck of the French ship ‘Uranie’ that had a few months previously foundered at the entrance of Berkeley Sound.
Colonel Jewett later left the Falkland Islands, taking the American schooner Rampart as a prize and was relieved of his command by Buenos Aires. He never established a working Argentine colony at Port Luis and, indeed, later entered the services of the Brazilian Navy, and saw action fighting against Argentine forces.
You mention Luis Vernet’s appointment as Governor of Port Luis. What you don’t mention is that the British Consul, Sir Woodbine Parish, formally protested the appointment, at which Sr. Vernet was quick to stress to the British that his interests were purely commercial. Many of the settlers he took with him were in fact British and before leaving he once again sought permission first from Sir Woodbine and, after receiving the Consul’s consent, agreed to provide regular reports and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands. All the way through his association with the Falklands, Sr. Vernet was keen to deal with the British. He fell foul of the Americans, however, under the circumstances you describe, which ended with the USS Lexington destroying Port Luis. No doubt you are also aware that Buenos Aires attempted to despatch a second governor, Major Mestivier, who was murdered by the survivors on arrival.
It was the British who regained control of the islands in 1833 and have been in control ever since. 178 years! It is simply no use, Luisana, to claim that the current population of the Falkland Islands are not permitted self-determination because they are “implanted people”. Descendants of people ‘implanted’ 178 years ago acquire the right to govern their own destiny. Falkland Islanders have nothing in common with Argentina – culturally, linguistically, historically or politically. Most can trace their ancestry back many generations and, unlike Argentina, the Falkland Islands never had an indigenous population. In that regard, Falkland Islanders have more right to live on the islands than Argentine citizens have to live in Argentina!
Your government confuses ‘territorial integrity’ with geographical proximity. Self-determination is not, however, about the sort of authoritarian colonial dominance and ownership that Argentina wishes to exert over the Falkland Islands. The islanders are British and they want to remain British because it is only by being British that they will remain FREE!
Posted by A.P. Schrader | September 29, 2011, 7:09 pmSorry, I know that was a very long posting. Just to add very briefly – because you mentioned your ‘president’ (a.k.a. military dictator), Gen Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Were you aware that, in 1841, the good General Rosas offered to relinquish Argentina’s claim to sovereignty over the Falklands in return for relief of the Argentine debt to the City of London?
His offer was declined by my government, who were already in the process of setting up a legal system for the new colony regardless of Argentine pretensions.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | September 29, 2011, 7:15 pmSpain occupyied the isles discontinually since 1520.
Posted by Luisana | September 27, 2011, 6:15 pmAnd the daughter of Vernet, called Malvina Victoria Vernet, was borned in Malvinas Islands, and la nieta o biznieta is going to the UN
to defend argentina`s side
Posted by Luisana | September 27, 2011, 6:47 pmLuisana you need to check your facts. When the British forces claimed the islands in 1833 they were colonising a previously uncolonised part of British territory. The Royal Navy laid a plaque on the islands in 1774 as the military forces that had been stationed there were needed for N America. The British had first established a colony in 1765.
As for your comment about displacing peoples there was no NATIVE population that were forced out – unlike in South America where the Aztecs, Incas and other tribes were forced out. If you go by your logic any Spanish/Portugese people in S America should leave so there would be no Argentinian claim to the islands anyway then!
Posted by Alex Patnick | September 28, 2011, 12:47 pmWell Alex it seems you know little of history a plaque is not a way to get sovereignity. If it is that way I can go to Liverpool put a plaque in an apartment and next time take the apartment by force, expelled its people bring my friends, put some arms and bullying my neighbours and say its my argentinian apartment.
We are not squatters like you. The spanish people colonized our territory full of 22 tribes of indegenous only in Argentina (aztecs are not argentinian, some incas came here escaping), killed some of them, thats true but not all, they used to steal our metals (Argentina means silver)you know colonizators dont like to much to work. And they mixed a lot with indegenous, they convert indegenous to chrisitianism and make them work the land in what was called colonias indígenas. We are so mixed that 56% of our actual population has indegenous genes. There were argentinians in the isles, it can be proved so they were the natives, because we have native ancestry.
And for your toasts I give you an interesting article that shows how you are colonizing and invading and stealing this poor and undefendless but rich in resources countries in the actuallity but in name of peace (killing is always a crime)and with the support of a corrupt international community of 30 countries. The same you did in Malvinas. (and Im not saying Khadafi is a good man, but that only you are worst).
http://www.africanews.com/site/OPINION_Libya_The_return_of_colonialist_bondage/list_messages/39637
You should always hear both sides of history, the ones that wins and the ones that lose, to really make your own opinion.
Posted by Luisana | September 28, 2011, 1:29 pmAlex leaving a plaque is not a way of getting sovereignity!!
If it is so, I can go to Liverpool leave a plaque, come latter with my friends, expelled the people by force, put some arms arround, and say I have argentinian sovereignity over Liverpool.
The people on the isles were argentinian and so natives. Living here were and some still are, 22 indegenous communities (aztecs werent argentinians, incas came from north escaping, but arent originals of here) and were subjugated to work in the mines, spanish came to steal our silver and gold and make them work the land and to serve them. You know colonizators dont like to much to work. But here they also mixed in mestizos, criollos, gauchos, mulatos, etc. So we have indegenous ancestry in our blood.
And colonization of Malvinas is the same you are doing now in Libya, Afghanistan etc. With the difference that now you do it in the name of peace with the support of corrupt international community. You invade rich in resources but poor undefendless countries only to steal, obviously you say to rebuild (occupy and steal). The same as 200 years ago.
You have to know both sides of history, the ones that wins and the ones that lose to take your own conclusions.
for your toasts an interesting article
http://www.africanews.com/site/OPINION_Libya_The_return_of_colonialist_bondage/list_messages/39637
Posted by Luisana | September 28, 2011, 1:46 pmThe people of the isles were argentinians, so natives. As we are mixed people.
And second leaving a plaque is not a way to get sovereignity. We were there heritated the isles from Spain, had a legal authority and you expelled us.
And third you need to know the history of the ones that wins and loses too to make your own conclusions.
search in the google what africans think of you: “Libya the return of colonialist bondage. in africanews.com”
Posted by Martina | September 28, 2011, 1:53 pmAlex
we argentines are of native ancestry dont you know?? Mixed people, spanish, mestizos, gauchs, criollos, mulatos, etc All that is argentine.
Leaving a plaque is not a way of getting sovereignity
Posted by Luisana | September 28, 2011, 2:22 pmAdministrator’s note: My apologies to both “Martina” and “Luisana” whose latest comments were caught in an over-enthusiastic “spam” filter I’ve just installed.
On a side note, are “Martina” and “Luisana” the same people? It’s just that you both share the same IP address – and you both have the same obsession about leaving plaques.
As a courtesy, could I ask you to post consistently under one name? Sock-puppeting isn’t cricket, lady/ladies.
Posted by Administrator | September 28, 2011, 11:24 pmSorry Luisana but your argument that the Falklands is Argentinian because of a fishing colony in the 1800′s is a pretty weak excuse to have British and Argentinian soldiers spill each others blood.
Right now in the modern world there is a population living there that want to be British, deal with it! This whole ” We were here first” mentatlity is a load of bull. Does that mean America should be given back to the native Americans or Australia to the Aboriginals? Hell were all meant to have originally started in Africa so does that mean the world actually belongs to Africa?!?!
What you are saying and justifying is that Argentina has a right to force thousands of people in against their will into Argentinian rule for a centuries old reason.
Theres a reason that doesn’t fly well with the UN. So either get over it or come up with an option that doesn’t lead to bloodshed.
Posted by Rik Parks | September 29, 2011, 10:24 amAmerica should not be given back to natives, because we the southamericans are mixed people between europeans colonizators inmigrants and natives living here.
My country is not thinking in any militar option, just going to international orgenizations to lead with the matter in peace.
Sorry I put another name when this page didnt accepted Luisana. Thought it was the nick you didnt like. I thought it was an open to all opinions page, as you are talking of Argentina.
AND DONT TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO, its not your matter, its ours.
Posted by Luisana | September 29, 2011, 12:14 pm“Sorry I put another name when this page didnt accepted Luisana.”
Sorry for the inconvenience. It was a technical fault.
Your opinion is always welcome here.
Posted by Administrator | September 29, 2011, 1:28 pmReally in all fareness it is not about what Argentina wants. It is not what the US wants. It is not even what the United Kingdom wants. It is about what the Falklanders want. They should have the right to choose their own future. If they want to remain british then they should remain british
Posted by David | December 15, 2011, 8:00 pmCorrect. Self-determination lies at the root of this issue. The right for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to remain British for as long as they so desire is non-negotiable.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | December 26, 2011, 6:19 pmArgentinas continued interest in the falkland is mostly because of the oil deposits, we know that earths fossil fuels will have ran out in the next hundred years and this will be the end of argentina as a modern or indepedent nation. There augument is based on something that “may” have happened before victoria become queen, and compared to our (Britains) augument, we got genuine ownership. The fact that we have had people living there for hundreds of years and the fact they wish to remain a part of the UK and that argentina invaded the UK (falklands) will easly perswade the NATO and the UN to favor the UKs augment. If Argentina wants a share if the oil then there first step is to renounce there claimed on the south atlantic islands and then to foster a close trading relationship (that can be useful the fact that british and argintine traders can use the falkland as a commercal base between the nations) an arangement like that can benifite the UK argentina and the falklands. it just comes to show that argentie leadership are as dense and expantionist as the US republicans.
Posted by TMc | January 22, 2012, 12:48 pmHello everyone! I’m argentinean, and you can imagine what my ideologies about this Malvinas/Falklands conflict are. I personally agree with everything Luisana said. And despite of the offensive title this article has, I must admit the good will at respecting opinions that the administrators have, even towards ‘Argies’, as you call us. Anyways, I’d like to round up this idea by saying that the governments should be debating things like these instead of you. I don’t know who’s right, but I only know that these kind of issues only generate hate and hurt feelings. We have so much more important things in our daily life to care about.
Best regards…
Posted by Martin | March 5, 2012, 6:34 am