Falkland Islands and the right to self-determination

[Rolfe]

The first 125 or so posts have been split from the UK General Election thread. I've moved the posts so that the discussion about colonialism and when a population becomes indigenous can be continued without the spectre of rule 11.

(Suggestions for a better title will be welcomed)

Posted By: Agatha

I wonder if he's ever been to the Falklands? I have, and that is a monstrous suggestion. Regardless of how we got here, the present situation is that there is a community there of English-speaking people of British background who have been there for four or five generations or more. It is their home. They are not Argentinian. Their society and culture and way of life are not Argentinian. He might as well propose to give joint soveregnty of New Zealand to Papua New Guinea.

 

[Rolfe]

Well then the Argentinians can just ship in some Spanish speaking Argentinians and 4 or 5 generations later everything will be fine and it will be Argentinian.

Really didn't think you would be an apologist for colonialism.

It's only land. There are no Argentinians there now, whatever the conflicting stories of the past. They'd do well as an independent country actually except they couldn't defend themselves against Argentina so if they did achieve independence it would be lucky to last a week.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's only land. There are no Argentinians there now, whatever the conflicting stories of the past. They'd do well as an independent country actually except they couldn't defend themselves against Argentina so if they did achieve independence it would be lucky to last a week.

They're self governing anyway.

 

[Rolfe]

They're self governing anyway.

I know. Everything but currency, defence and foreign affairs. They get no money from Westminster but they get to keep everything they produce. Scots who know me may understand that I was green with envy to some extent. They have what Scotland was promised in 2014, pretty much the same as what the Faroe Isles have from Denmark.

The difference is that the Faroes expect to become independent at some point (although they're in no hurry because Denmark doesn't interfere and in particular doesn't bleed them dry and then tell them they're too poor to live without handouts), and this is possible because there's no obvious shark circling waiting to swallow them up. The Falklands can't really aspire to that (although I got the impression quite a few people wished they could) because they can't afford the military hardware to fight off Argentina and probably don't have enough people to do that either. They're absolutely dependant on Britain for that function.

The main concern that I could see was healthcare. They've only just managed to buy a breast screening unit. They don't have access to the high-tech medicine most of us take for granted. If someone is seriously ill and needs a big all-singing-all-dancing hospital they are flown to Santiago in a fast military jet which I think costs about £50,000 a pop.

The Falklands, today, are a chunk of real estate which happens to be closer to Argentina than to anywhere else, but the people who live there are no more Argentinian than the New Zealanders are Papua New Guineans or whatever the term is. There is no local "indigenous " population either trying to co-exist with their immigrant oppressors, or languishing on the shore near Buenos Aires pining to return. The Australian Aborigines and the New Zealand Mauri have a better case for having their lands returned to them. At least they're actually there and actually exist. Or maybe the Spanish should give Argentina back to the Mapuche and the rest.

 

[lobosrul5]

Well then the Argentinians can just ship in some Spanish speaking Argentinians and 4 or 5 generations later everything will be fine and it will be Argentinian.

Really didn't think you would be an apologist for colonialism.

I don't get it. Argentina's claim to it is... its a chain of islands out in the Atlantic and we are the closest nation, so it should be ours?? There were no native inhabitants when the first Europeans arrive. There was briefly a Spanish garrison and fishing port there, then English before Argentina even became independent. The first people to really call the island home were English settlers in the late 19th century. Hell, if the claim is first people there, then it should go to France.

 

[jimbob]

I wonder if he's ever been to the Falklands? I have, and that is a monstrous suggestion. Regardless of how we got here, the present situation is that there is a community there of English-speaking people of British background who have been there for four or five generations or more. It is their home. They are not Argentinian. Their society and culture and way of life are not Argentinian. He might as well propose to give joint soveregnty of New Zealand to Papua New Guinea.

It's only land. There are no Argentinians there now, whatever the conflicting stories of the past. They'd do well as an independent country actually except they couldn't defend themselves against Argentina so if they did achieve independence it would be lucky to last a week.

I don't get it. Argentina's claim to it is... its a chain of islands out in the Atlantic and we are the closest nation, so it should be ours?? There were no native inhabitants when the first Europeans arrive. There was briefly a Spanish garrison and fishing port there, then English before Argentina even became independent. The first people to really call the island home were English settlers in the late 19th century. Hell, if the claim is first people there, then it should go to France.

Exactly. But as the Falkland islanders are one of the few people whose ancestors didn't displace anyone else - they should have the right to chose.

 

[Rolfe]

And they did choose. Twice. Three people voted to join Argentina. And these three people were not the remnants of the cruelly dispossessed indigenous population either. Because there is no such population.

Colonisation happened. There are very few places that didn't have an indigenous population that was over-run and enslaved and wiped out and so on. Argentina certainly had that! The Falklands and the Cape Verde Islands are the only ones I know about off the top of my head (probably because I visited both archipelagos earlier this year).

I totally don't see why the people who managed to make a self-supporting community on the Falkland Islands should be forced to give up their land for Argentinian settlers (themselves colonists from Spain) who are no more native to the islands than they are. Ship in a bunch of Spanish-speaking Argentinians to displace the English-speaking population (who sound like Kiwis to me actually) on what grounds exactly? Because Argentina is the nearest land mass? On that basis England gets Ireland. Oh wait.

 

[jimbob]

And they did choose. Twice. Three people voted to join Argentina. And these three people were not the remnants of the cruelly dispossessed indigenous population either. Because there is no such population.

Colonisation happened. There are very few places that didn't have an indigenous population that was over-run and enslaved and wiped out and so on. Argentina certainly had that! The Falklands and the Cape Verde Islands are the only ones I know about off the top of my head (probably because I visited both archipelagos earlier this year).

I totally don't see why the people who managed to make a self-supporting community on the Falkland Islands should be forced to give up their land for Argentinian settlers (themselves colonists from Spain) who are no more native to the islands than they are. Ship in a bunch of Spanish-speaking Argentinians to displace the English-speaking population (who sound like Kiwis to me actually) on what grounds exactly? Because Argentina is the nearest land mass? On that basis England gets Ireland. Oh wait.

Yup, which is why Corbyn's reflexive pro non-West response is sometimes way out of line. I remembered the vote, and that it was overwhelming, but not the numbers.

 

[Rolfe]

Yup, which is why Corbyn's reflexive pro non-West response is sometimes way out of line. I remembered the vote, and that it was overwhelming, but not the numbers.

I didn't know the detailed background before I actually visited the place. I'm personally disinclined to support the actions of the British Empire and the various colonial adventures that absolutely destroyed so many countries and cultures. I am a very strong supporter of the Chagos Islanders. My instinctive reaction to the Falklands was essentially "the Brits are at it again", as the Irish say.

However, I visited. It's a bit like visiting rural New Zealand I think, certainly as far as the sheep and the accents are concerned. It was nice to be able to open my purse and spend normal money rather than wonder whether this place takes Euros or maybe US dollars? (And they didn't bat an eyelid at Scottish notes, which was just as well.) There are a few people who are rabid Union Jack wavers, but this is not most people. The people I spoke to told about how proud they were to be self-sufficient, but at the same time how grateful they were that Britain was prepared to defend the islands militarily. Of course they wouldn't need that defence if Argentina wasn't circling like a shark.

They've been there for at least four generations. It's their home. They farm the land and they work to improve their infrastructure. They're developing their tourist trade. Many of them have never been anywhere else.

Since then I have discussed the issue with an Argentinian acquaintance and while it's obvious Argentinians feel strongly about it their actual claim seems to be entirely based on "the islands are nearer to us than to anywhere else" and "we had a small military garrison there a couple of hundred years or so". It's not compelling.

It may be that the current population was put there as a "plantation" to secure that area of the south Atlantic for the British Empire, but that was a long time ago. Now, it's just another place that has a population of European-origin settlers who have made it their home (not unlike Argentina itself), and very unusually they haven't displaced anyone else to do that.

It's possible that interests as regards control of local resources might arise to cause conflict in the future. If a lot of oil was found near the islands, that could get interesting. But at the moment it's just people, on a fairly small bit of real estate, that Argentina which has plenty of real estate of its own wants to put its name on for reasons that seem no more than nationalistic pride.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I didn't know the detailed background before I actually visited the place. I'm personally disinclined to support the actions of the British Empire and the various colonial adventures that absolutely destroyed so many countries and cultures. I am a very strong supporter of the Chagos Islanders. My instinctive reaction to the Falklands was essentially "the Brits are at it again", as the Irish say.

However, I visited. It's a bit like visiting rural New Zealand I think, certainly as far as the sheep and the accents are concerned. It was nice to be able to open my purse and spend normal money rather than wonder whether this place takes Euros or maybe US dollars? (And they didn't bat an eyelid at Scottish notes, which was just as well.) There are a few people who are rabid Union Jack wavers, but this is not most people. The people I spoke to told about how proud they were to be self-sufficient, but at the same time how grateful they were that Britain was prepared to defend the islands militarily. Of course they wouldn't need that defence if Argentina wasn't circling like a shark.

They've been there for at least four generations. It's their home. They farm the land and they work to improve their infrastructure. They're developing their tourist trade. Many of them have never been anywhere else.

Since then I have discussed the issue with an Argentinian acquaintance and while it's obvious Argentinians feel strongly about it their actual claim seems to be entirely based on "the islands are nearer to us than to anywhere else" and "we had a small military garrison there a couple of hundred years or so". It's not compelling.

It may be that the current population was put there as a "plantation" to secure that area of the south Atlantic for the British Empire, but that was a long time ago. Now, it's just another place that has a population of European-origin settlers who have made it their home (not unlike Argentina itself), and very unusually they haven't displaced anyone else to do that.

It's possible that interests as regards control of local resources might arise to cause conflict in the future. If a lot of oil was found near the islands, that could get interesting. But at the moment it's just people, on a fairly small bit of real estate, that Argentina which has plenty of real estate of its own wants to put its name on for reasons that seem no more than nationalistic pride.

It wasn't worth the life of a single Matelot.

 

[Nessie]

And they did choose. Twice. Three people voted to join Argentina. And these three people were not the remnants of the cruelly dispossessed indigenous population either. Because there is no such population.

Colonisation happened. There are very few places that didn't have an indigenous population that was over-run and enslaved and wiped out and so on. Argentina certainly had that! The Falklands and the Cape Verde Islands are the only ones I know about off the top of my head (probably because I visited both archipelagos earlier this year).

I totally don't see why the people who managed to make a self-supporting community on the Falkland Islands should be forced to give up their land for Argentinian settlers (themselves colonists from Spain) who are no more native to the islands than they are. Ship in a bunch of Spanish-speaking Argentinians to displace the English-speaking population (who sound like Kiwis to me actually) on what grounds exactly? Because Argentina is the nearest land mass? On that basis England gets Ireland. Oh wait.

I work with an Argentinian. His attitude was that the war was just an attempt to distract from domestic issues, most Argentinians did not know much about the islands and certainly did not feel any great desire for them to be Argentinian and if anything, they were worried about the potential cost to Argentina of having them, especially if they had managed to win the war and now needed to defend the islands.

 

[Darat]

I don't get it. Argentina's claim to it is... its a chain of islands out in the Atlantic and we are the closest nation, so it should be ours?? There were no native inhabitants when the first Europeans arrive. There was briefly a Spanish garrison and fishing port there, then English before Argentina even became independent. The first people to really call the island home were English settlers in the late 19th century. Hell, if the claim is first people there, then it should go to France.

It's not the main Falkland islands that are the jewel it's South Georgia and its location compared to the Antarctic.

 

[lobosrul5]

It's not the main Falkland islands that are the jewel it's South Georgia and its location compared to the Antarctic.

Thats as may be, but Argentina has no legitimate claim at all on South Georgia that I can glean from wikipedia. Its also easily over 1000 miles from Argentina, not exactly in territorial waters

ETA: it does appear they occupied it, and gave it back during the Falklands War without a shot being fired. Something I did not know.

 

[Rolfe]

I work with an Argentinian. His attitude was that the war was just an attempt to distract from domestic issues, most Argentinians did not know much about the islands and certainly did not feel any great desire for them to be Argentinian and if anything, they were worried about the potential cost to Argentina of having them, especially if they had managed to win the war and now needed to defend the islands.

I find that very plausible, although I know some people do feel strongly about it - it's a matter of honour, a point of principle, that sort of thing. More likely among Argentinians living in Argentina I suspect. My friend Angel lives near Buenos Aires.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't get it. Argentina's claim to it is... its a chain of islands out in the Atlantic and we are the closest nation, so it should be ours?? There were no native inhabitants when the first Europeans arrive. There was briefly a Spanish garrison and fishing port there, then English before Argentina even became independent. The first people to really call the island home were English settlers in the late 19th century. Hell, if the claim is first people there, then it should go to France.

You don't get what?

That importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us' is colonial BS?

I'm not saying anything about the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims. I'm merely pointing out that the colonial shizzle don't fly with me.

 

[lobosrul5]

You don't get what?

That importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us' is colonial BS?

I'm not saying anything about the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims. I'm merely pointing out that the colonial shizzle don't fly with me.

You said before :"Well then the Argentinians can just ship in some Spanish speaking Argentinians and 4 or 5 generations later everything will be fine and it will be Argentinian.".

THAT would actually be colonialism, by either forcing a settled population out, exterminating them, or exerting control over an unwilling population. No one lived on the Falklands when the British first settled it.

What would the alternative be? No population ever expands to empty territory. When should that have ended precisely??

 

[Giz]

You don't get what?

That importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us' is colonial BS?

I'm not saying anything about the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims. I'm merely pointing out that the colonial shizzle don't fly with me.

The indigenous population, the only group to ever have a community there (births, deaths, families), are the Brits. That makes them the first peoples and the Argentinians the colonial imperialists trying to plant a flag on someone else's homeland.

 

[Rolfe]

The indigenous population, the only group to ever have a community there (births, deaths, families), are the Brits. That makes them the first peoples and the Argentinians the colonial imperialists trying to plant a flag on someone else's homeland.

Whatever the colonial reasons for Britain sponsoring an emigrant colony on the Falklands after 1840, that is the truth in today's terms. The Falkland Islanders are Falkland Islanders. I can't actually confirm whether they even have right of abode in Britain - I know they didn't in 1982, but it's possible that has changed. Nevertheless they don't pay taxes to Britain, they don't send representatives to Westminster and they don't receive any money from the British treasury. They have their own government and their own economy.

The islands did not have a permanent self-sustaining population before then, only military garrisons, a prison, and some itinerant seasonal cattlemen trying to exploit the wild cattle on the islands. All inhabited islands got their populations from somewhere else originally. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone who isn't an Argentinian colonialist would want to evict them and supplant them with another population who have no roots on the islands and have never lifted a finger to farm there.

That would be "importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us'", indeed.


ETA: Amusing fact. Apparently since Argentina claims ownership of the Falklands, and anyone born on Argentinian soil is an Argentine national whether they like it or not, the Falkland islanders are technically Argentine nationals and the islands are indeed inhabiited by a native Argentinian population. I admire the ingenuity!

 

[Andy_Ross]

You don't get what?

That importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us' is colonial BS?

I'm not saying anything about the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims. I'm merely pointing out that the colonial shizzle don't fly with me.

Exactly this, I watched people die for that **** hole.

 

[Giz]

Exactly this, I watched people die for that **** hole.

Oh gosh, saving a British protectorate from a brutal military dictatorship , such futility.

Oh wait, actually probably the best uses of our military.