[MP-Ryan]

Qu'est-ce que ****?

Right to self-determination.  The population of the Falklands does not want to be Argentinian.  End of debate.  The only reason this has re-surfaced lately is because there appear to be some valuable natural resources in the waters around the Falklands - waters which, under international law, do not belong to Argentina.  This is a problem, because Argentina could really use said resources to help its economy and bolster its government.  Ergo, "we want the Falklands."

This shouldn't even be an issue these days.  International law is on the side of the islanders; historical precedent is on the side of the islanders; UN precedent is on the side of the islanders; military resolution was on the side of the islanders.  How the UK and Argentina feels about the matter is irrelevant - the islanders want the islands to remain UK territory, and so it shall.

Good grief.

[el_magnifico]

QuantumDelta: It is a common myth that Argentina wants to remove the islanders (I cited it in my first post). It fails common logic, too (you know, you need people in the islands to run them, and the logistics would prohibit exiling them all and replacing them with Argentineans even if we wanted to).
That myth has been conveniently maintained because it perpetuates the image of Argentineans as big mean guys who want to retake those defenseless islands and enslave, exile or kill the islanders, or change their way of life in any way. Fact remains, Argentina currently considers the islands as part of the Tierra del Fuego province, and so they would also be considered Argentinean citizens if the islands were to be recovered.

http://dawn.com/2011/06/15/falklander-gets-argentine-birth-cert-in-legal-first/

You may argue that some islanders may not want to give up being British to get an Argentine nationality. Again, I'm pretty sure if the UK were to sit down and negotiate, those things could be ironed out too, so there would be no need to give up their nationality or lifestyle at all.

---

Ravenholme: I'm not going to answer about the things Sean Penn might have done. I don't care about Sean Penn. He's not relevant to a discussion that dates back to two centuries ago. Citing him is only an attempt to divert this discussion and deslegitimate the Argentinean claim.

The FACTS, as were told to you, may not be the real facts at all (just ONE example: there is enough evidence of discovery by the Spanish prior to 1592). If you can (if you speak Spanish), read the links I'm going to post to you below. If you can't... well, it's just not that simple. That's why it is important that the UK actually sit down with us and talk about it, and failling that, that we solve it via an agreed upon international actor. Status quo or military force do NOT form truth, facts, or rights; just predominance.

---

Karajorma, Ravenholme and QuantumDelta:

Unfortunately, all the sources I could cite about the Argentinean side of this issue are, of course, in Spanish. I don't expect you to be able to read them (though you could hire someone to translate them if you wish, I know Karajorma really wants this material about the reasons Argentina claims the Malvinas and the other islands). Here are two links

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuesti%C3%B3n_de_las_islas_Malvinas
http://www.cerir.com.ar/admin/_cerir/archivos/libros/0000168/REI_03_003_103.%5B1%5D.pdf

(one is from Wikipedia and I'm still reading it as I write this*, the other one is from the Centro de Estudios en Relaciones Internacionales de Rosario) detailing the Argentine viewpoint. They are not the only ones out there, just the two I could find in a quick Google search.
Ultimately, neither you, nor me, have the power or the knowledge to solve this. It will be up to our respective governments.

Failing negotiation (because the United Kingdom refuses to acknowledge there may be something to negotiate, defying the United Nations' position), I think the only way to settle this would be to go to an international body, either a court or an arbiter. Since the United Kingdom happens to think their case is so undeniable and their evidence is so solid, and since they happen to think the Argentine case is so laughable, I don't understand why they would disagree. And yet here we are, 180 years later...

---

Ravenholme and QuantumDelta:

Ah! Yes. My good old friend the IMF.

1) Well, first of all, where did you guys get the data about Argentina falling off the IMF? Here we go again with the inversion of the burden of proof. It's you who are supposed to back your own claims, not me who is supposed to prove them wrong when they have no backing. And yet, here I go again disproving it.

Argentina has continued to cooperate with the IMF to develop a better system to elaborate our indexes. This Press Release from the IMF cites collaboration as recently as December 17, with the material pending review. The IMF has expressed their intention to continue to cooperate with Argentina

MR. RICE: On Argentina, I wouldn't want to preempt that board discussion or any board decision so that I don't have anything further on that except to say as the Managing Director has said in the past, we stand ready to continue to cooperate with the authorities with regard to the issue of the official CPI and GDP data. We stand ready to continue to cooperate.

Yes, there is an issue that needs to be solved. Yes, the IMF disagrees with Argentina on this. No, there is no imminent danger for Argentina of being booted out.

Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, neither the government nor the private firms have been able to publish reliable numbers in Argentina so far. Those who keep complaining about private firms estimating inflation as high as 25% in 2012 and being fined (the private firms) because of it, conveniently ignore that Argentinean law requires them to post their methods for review, so we can all see how they arrived to such astronomical numbers, and so we can all make sure they are following proper statistical methods. They have so far failed to do so. Suspicious, isn't it? Meanwhile, the government has agreed in working together with the IMF and publishing their methodology, but they certainly have a case about it and they are (of course) going to argue in favor of it.

Also, and for the sake of future reference: Some of those rumors that say things about Argentina falling off the IMF and the G-20 are spread by holdouts (mostly vulture funds) who refused to enter in Argentina's debt-swap programmes. The ones who did enter made LOTS of money out of it, but the holdouts want EVEN MORE money, and have resorted to all kinds of questionable and openly illegal tactics, like the recent case of the Frigate ARA Libertad (a trial resolved in favor of Argentina by the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) proves.
Do keep that in mind the next time you hear someone saying Argentina will fall from this or that without any serious source to back their claims. Throwing a tantrum and spreading rumors doesn't change the fact, that they made the wrong decision and lost lots of cash.

2) Ravenholme, your post also assumes the IMF is a neutral and accurate authority figure. It assumes, if the IMF complains, things should be going bad and there is no other explanation. And ONCE AGAIN that ignores a whole historical background. It's not like the IMF is as pure and innocent as a 15-years-old girl, you know? (Or accurate in their policies and predictions, while I'm at it.) Many of their measures and policies are nothing short of criminal.
When it comes to international economic organizations (something the globalized world desperately needs) so far we're stuck with what we have. But don't fall in the temptation of pretending they've never made a mistake or that they may not have a political position (And... surprise! South America rejects that political position and Argentina has been very vocal about it). If you ask me, the IMF seriously needs a reform.

---

Luis Dias and MP-Ryan:

How about, no?
We have a case. We think it's fair that our case be heard. It's not that hard to understand. And the militaristic adventures of a junta supported (and armed) by foreign powers doesn't change more than 200 years of history.
Want us to shut up? Good! Because so do we. But first let's sit down and talk like civilized nations do. That is actually all we're asking for right now. TALK. To finally SOLVE the problem. Are we really asking for that much? Is it that hard to sit down and listen to what we may have to say?

---

Sarafan: The problem is that you asked the question departing from an assumed truth. The default situation was Argentina being in deep economical trouble, and having to prove the contrary. If the question would have been "How is Argentina's economy performing at this moment?" THEN it would have been a neutral question.

You may think the difference is minimal, but in our western world everyone has a right to be innocent until proved guilty, and Argentina is no exception.

I know, it wasn't your intention to be mean or to point fingers. I just want you to realize how you've been conditioned to think Argentina MUST be performing bad. It's not conscious. It's not that you harbour resentments or bad intentions. It's not that you're dumb or easily fooled. You just happen to have that ingrained in you as part of your worldview. And its not only you, it's everyone. Even ourselves. Even me. It's unavoidable to have a certain worldview and partiality. But it helps to be aware of it and of how it reflects in your daily language, judgements, and behaviour. I still have a lot to learn in that, by the way.

(As I'm writing, new posts appear)

Wait! WHAT info? There was no info in QuantumDelta's post. Just "I heard they are being very bad boys, you know". I, by the way, DID provide info in this post and the previous one about Argentina's economy and its relationship with the IMF.

*: I want to make it clear, I never post a source without reading it first (at least the relevant parts). But that article is so HUGE, I won't be able to finish reading it today. It actually exposes the arguments of BOTH sides.

[Flipside]

Well seeing as are we faced with two conflicting, but equally legal claims in both countries, from each countries' perspective at least, then it really only can boil down to a referendum in the islands themselves can't it?

I would say, ultimately, that the right to self-determination is one of the ultimate expressions of Democracy, and a referendum at least moves the argument from paperwork to people and, indeed, from what happened 300 years ago to what is happening right now.

[NGTM-1R]

QuantumDelta: It is a common myth that Argentina wants to remove the islanders (I cited it in my first post).

I find it interesting you're citing something QD stated at best peripherially, as if it is the thrust of his argument. Why you feel the need to address it at length as though it's meaningful, when the primary thrust of his argument was about self-determination, would doubtless be a fascinating discussion. As would your inability to counter, or even confront, the issue of self-determination. All you are willing to do is dismiss, with but a single sentence, the wants and desires of the native population of the area in question.

Indeed, your complete inability to grasp that this is a matter of national sovereignty and thus it is utterly necessary that historical claims be tossed aside, is why nobody takes your repeated defense of the Argentine position seriously. (Much like why nobody takes the Argentine position itself seriously. We all know where historical claims leave us, we've seen the State of Israel.) National sovereignty is a matter for the citizens, and failing that force of arms when it comes to the unscrupulous. Argentina has failed on both those counts. There is no discussion left to be had on the issue.

[el_magnifico]

Well seeing as are we faced with two conflicting, but equally legal claims in both countries, from each countries' perspective at least, then it really only can boil down to a referendum in the islands themselves can't it?

I would say, ultimately, that the right to self-determination is one of the ultimate expressions of Democracy, and a referendum at least moves the argument from paperwork to people and, indeed, from what happened 300 years ago to what is happening right now.

No, because as I have stated before, Argentina doesn't regard the islanders opinions as those of a neutral third party, but as those of actors implanted by force by the United Kingdom. And the United Nations agree that self-determination alone cannot solve this, by calling Argentina and the United Kingdom to sit down and negotiate.

You know what the sad part is? With Argentina being as promising as it is for the future, were it not for the deplorable military actions of the Argentine junta in the past, I'm pretty sure by now we would be walking towards a shared sovereignty or some similar agreement.
Instead, we're wasting everyone's efforts and losing lots of money we could be earning by working together (or not wasting in military operations), simply because no one is willing to compromise enough (or even SIT to talk). The fact it may eventually boil down to international tribunals or arbiters to solve this, is ultimately an indication of failure for all parties involved.
This is just a thought about how damaging military dictatorships or unilateral interventionism can be in the long run.

[NGTM-1R]

No, because as I have stated before, Argentina doesn't regard the islanders opinions as those of a neutral third party, but as those of actors implanted by force by the United Kingdom.

It really doesn't occur to you that their neutral starting status is irrelevant to the issue, or that treating them as some kind of openly hostile force by disregarding their opinions is a very good reason why Argentina shouldn't be given control of them?

[Davros]

how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phonebox
.
.
.
Tell them they own it

[el_magnifico]

how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phonebox
.
.
.
Tell them they own it

Too late. Someone already made that joke before.

[Flipside]

Thing is, as I said before, if they are considered British invaders now, then they won't magically be considered Argentinian 'rightful inhabitants' afterwards, the world doesn't work that way. They'll still be British invaders, only now they'd be on an Argentinian soil rather than their own.

There's no way on Earth that Argentina would magically 'accept' the inhabitants as being rightfully there, regardless of the outcome of any UN meetings, the Government can make all the announcements it likes, but they would, as attitudes towards them have already shown, be personas non grata both on the island and on the mainland.

The thing is, the islanders may be saying the similar things to the UK, but that doesn't mean they are being told to say it by the UK, they simply have similar opinions. The mistake is the assumption that the islanders are obviously just shills because they are not saying what is wanted to be heard.

[el_magnifico]

The thing is, the islanders may be saying the similar things to the UK, but that doesn't mean they are being told to say it by the UK, they simply have similar opinions. The mistake is the assumption that the islanders are obviously just shills because they are not saying what is wanted to be heard.

The thing actually is, by failing to recognize their origins may influence their behaviour, you simplify the situation to a point where it's not negotiable.
Let's say you own a house. The house is taken away from you. You protest and initiate legal actions. While legal proceedings are taking place, the original usurpers die and their sons have inherited (de facto) the house. Now, you would still consider yourself the legitimate proprietary, even if their sons were born and raised there.

That is NOT to say the islander's words aren't worth taking into account. Just that it isn't a neutral voice, and it isn't the only thing that should be taken into consideration.

And, once again I tell you, the United Nations have agreed that the situation of the Malvinas is a case of colonialism and needs to be negotiated. The argument about self-determination doesn't apply to this case.

---

About the rest of your post, your argument is wrong for two reasons:

1) Because you still think in terms of the war. I didn't said "British invaders", but rather "British population implanted by force". Subtle, I know, but it removes the blame from the islanders themselves for the situation.

As it has been historically demonstrated, the Argentinean behaviour towards the islanders hasn't been one of hostility. I point you again at the article I posted before about James Peck:

“A lot of things went through my head,” he said in Spanish. “But my life is here with my children and my friends.”

Sounds to me like he actually felt well treated here.

Consider also the case of Rick Jolly. While not an Islander, he was a surgeon and British officer during the conflict. He was not only respected, but actually awarded an Order of May (one of the highest Argentine decorations) for his service during the war.

Moreover, the Argentine culture is far more acceptant of British citizens and culture that you seem to believe. With Argentina being the cultural melting pot it has always been, British citizens have contributed considerably to the development of Argentina, its history, and its culture. English is widely spoken amongst the upper and middle classes (especially the upper class). British culture, while many times questioned, is also respected. British musicians like the Beatles and Pink Floyd are held in high regard. Some British persons like Admiral Brown are not only respected, but are national heroes. British immigration is encouraged in the Argentine Constitution, as per its status as "European immigration" (First Part, Chapter I DECLARATIONS, RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES, Section 25).*

Section 25.- The Federal Government shall foster European immigration; and may not restrict, limit or burden with any tax whatsoever, the entry into the Argentine territory of foreigners who arrive for the purpose of tilling the soil, improving industries, and introducing and teaching arts and sciences.

While I'm at it, I would also like to point you to the Constitution's Temporary Provisions, article "First", about respect to the islanders way of life.

First.- The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.

The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.

2) Still, if none of this convinces you, the argument about the possibility of there being problems in the future by mixing the Islanders with Argentineans of the mainland is ultimately very poor. If that criteria would have ever been heed before, there would be no racial or religious mixing, because mixing people who have had problems in the past is problematic. Fortunately, so far we've thought the benefits far outweight irrationality in these scenarios.

And I would like to remind you that Argentina isn't asking to be handed the islands and their inhabitants without conditions, either. We're asking to NEGOTIATE. Any number of possible agreements, including the UN or even the UK themselves permanently watching over the process of integration, could be achieved. It wouldn't be unheard of to have an agreement like that.

There are many possible solutions to such supposed problems. When the political will exists, problems become opportunities.

*: Now if you ask me, it's discriminatory to foster only one type of immigration. But that's a matter of another discussion altogether.

I will not actively participate in this discussion any longer. I will be travelling for my vacations in a few days and I have to begin preparations. I've already stated my point and achieved all I set out to do in this thread. I will be posting my conclusions in my next post. I also will, of course, keep reading you all a bit longer, so you can have a right to a final word with me.

[el_magnifico]

It surprises me (positively) that a 2 pages discussion about the Malvinas/Falklands issue could be had without a single insult and a single call for violence. I REALLY wasn't expecting this.
The actual level of politeness, rationality, education and dignity displayed by the British members of this forum during this discussion are truly a testament of a developed culture. You leave your nation in a good standing in my eyes. I wish it could always be the case throughout the internet and in real life. And I wish, someday, this whole conflict gets to a solution that benefits us all.

Thank you for your time.

[karajorma]

It's worth bearing in mind that Argentina is itself a colony. How would you feel if someone claimed you don't have a right to vote in your countries elections unless you are a member of one of the native tribes?

@Ravenholme, thanks for that. It didn't state anything I didn't know before but unless I wanted to repost the whole of wikipedia's Falklands Island entry I didn't have a nice way of pointing out how completely threadbare the Argentinian argument was.

[Phantom Hoover]

hey el_magnifico, constantly bemoaning how everyone else in a discussion is stupid and immature is not going to win you any friends

[el_magnifico]

hey el_magnifico, constantly bemoaning how everyone else in a discussion is stupid and immature is not going to win you any friends

I've not done such a thing. In fact, I've done quite the contrary, if you read my last post. NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Could you point me to the places where I told people here they were immature and stupid? Or is telling people that they may be wrong the same as treating them as stupids? It's not like I also haven't been wrong before, couldn't be wrong now, and couldn't be wrong in the future.

[General Battuta]

His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.

[el_magnifico]

His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.

You counting me as a friend would certainly be an honor to me.

[SpardaSon21]

The people on the Falklands want to be British.  End of discussion.  I certainly can't trust the UN General Assembly to be impartial about this since how many members are either A. former colonies who might want to poke a European power in the eye over a similar issue, B. Argentinian allies on this (probably all of South America due to simple proximity), or C. not-quite-enemies of Europe/NA (North Africa, Middle East, China, Russia)?

Seems to me like a large part of the General Assembly might want to side if not with Argentina, then at least against Great Britain on this issue for reasons other than the facts on the ground.  I'm not saying that I am anywhere near impartial on this, just that I can't trust the UN to be impartial either when an issue of possible colonialism by Great Britain, an American ally, is brought before them.

[karajorma]

Basically it comes down to this. Both sides originally have fairly weak claims to the islands. So prior claims basically nullify each other.

So in the end you have the Argentinians claiming it was very wrong of the past British Government to force the settlement on the Falklands Islands to come under British rule despite many of them not wanting to do so, and then trying to use that as an excuse to do the same thing in reverse now.

I can't see why anyone is still arguing in favour of the Argentinian position when it is so obviously hypocritical.

[NGTM-1R]

NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

The pity of it is the comment I got a warning for, the one you so eagerly hold against me, is something that you've been actively engaged in proving in this very thread: Argentina's contact with the reality of the outside world is often very shaky (continual citing of the General Assembly as some kind of saintly impartial body, for example) because of its own nationalistic feeling and its historical (and current) limitation of the freedom of the press, as well as its relatively recent drives to create press organs that are part and parcel of the government because it doesn't like what the actual press is saying.

EDIT: For the curious: a brief primer on the turbulent history of Argentina's government vs. Argentina's press since 2008. It amuses me that article's neutrality is disputed, considering how strongly it focuses on actions rather than results of actions.

[el_magnifico]

NGTM-1R is an special case, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

The pity of it is the comment I got a warning for, the one you so eagerly hold against me, is something that you've been actively engaged in proving in this very thread: Argentina's contact with the reality of the outside world is often very shaky (continual citing of the General Assembly as some kind of saintly impartial body, for example) because of its own nationalistic feeling and its historical (and current) limitation of the freedom of the press, as well as its relatively recent drives to create press organs that are part and parcel of the government because it doesn't like what the actual press is saying.

EDIT: For the curious: a brief primer on the turbulent history of Argentina's government vs. Argentina's press since 2008. It amuses me that article's neutrality is disputed, considering how strongly it focuses on actions rather than results of actions.

I just want to let you know, if you were issued a warning, that I absolutely did NOT report your post (or any other post so far, for that matter). If your post was reported, and you got a warning, look somewhere else for the culprit.

As for the rest, I've already told you I'm not going to discuss with you about this. Just give it a rest, OK?