Falklands: a historical time

[JorgeNunez]

Argentinean, British or independent Falklands? Sovereignty and self-determination? Imperialism, implanted population, recession, inflation, corruption?


Fragility in the bilateral relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom has been and is a constant both real and discursive. And in the middle, the three populations: Argentineans, Britons and islanders. Nevertheless, government interests, merely political –not state’s ones- have been present during these 30 years, clearly selfish inclinations on both sides of the Atlantic that have little to do with what matters the three populations involved.

Much has been written and said in English and Spanish. However, it is very little what Britons know about Argentineans and the islanders and viceversa. In addition to this background, the confusing use of legal and political vocabulary that has to do with international relations, both because of ignorance and defined intentionality of those who misuse them.

In about eight weeks the Falkland Islands will have a referendum. Tensions between Argentina and the United Kingdom –or better said, between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom- will arise. It is time then to make clear legal concepts, political aims and real and hidden intentions. Otherwise, Kashmir and Gibraltar are examples of the same situations in which referendums were wasted by those interested in them since the only ones that were benefited were those in power.

In the coming weeks we will look together how to use this event positively, which may be a historical moment for international relations, so that the interests of the three populations can prevail over opportunist individuals. It is the time when the world needs to work in synergy. The Falkland Islands’ case has all the characteristics to be a milestone in international relations. In subsequent posts we will discuss concepts, notions, models, speeches and realities that have led to stagnation and political and legal limbo. Those same elements will enable us to build a framework that can be fair and reasonable not only for the Falkland Islands but also for Argentina and the United Kingdom.

More to follow on Jorge's blog on blogspot (user London1701)

 

[angrysoba]

I expect this is a drive-by posting for you to promote a blog I'm not visiting, but why not wait until the referendum and then agree to whichever way the residents vote?

 

[Janadele]

I love the Falklands. It is so very British. One could feel perfectly safe walking the streets and enjoying the sights and historic charm and quietly observing the adorable penguins. I was privileged to spend some time there on two separate visits, and both times it was a marvellous experience.

Not at all like Argentina. A different world. Nothing in common. In Argentina, it was best to stay in security areas and not wander.

 

[zooterkin]

Seagoon:
My dear madam, with your face you'd be safe in Portsmouth on pay night.

 

[mortimer]

Read my blergh!!!!

 

[Virus]

Britain.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Educate yourself, Jorge.
Until then: door, backside.

 

[JorgeNunez]

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments. Thanks a lot to Darth Rotor for the link, indeed very informative.

I'll reply in genera to some of the questions as the seem related.

I started a blog some four or five years ago. And I've been writing about the Falklands issue for quite a while. In addition to this, I've delivered papers in many countries both in Spanish and English.

Some of the ideas I bring to the table are part of my PhD thesis entitled 'Shared sovereignty in a two State context: a problem of distributive justice'. It is in fact a theoretical project and Falklands is but one of the cases I discuss (others include Gibraltar, Kashmir, Kuril Islands, and so on).

As any thesis, I'm more than happy to discuss and I'm open to debate.

One of the things I deal with there is if the so called third party n the dispute (in the case of the Falkland Islands, the islanders) have or not right to be part of the negotiations. I also deal with self-determination. In a nutshell, even if we left self-determination out of the question, the Falkland islanders should always have participation in ANY discussion in regards sovereignty over the islands.

I'm posting every Monday and Thursday on the blog until the referendum so to have an open floor for discussion. I fully support the Falklands islanders right to have a say.
Once again, why now? Well, as I've said, I didnt start just now! In fact, if you check my very first post in the blog, it's four to five years old.

About educating myself, and although I already posses 3 degrees, 2 Masters and 1 PhD I'm always wiling to learn. So once again thanks for the paper entitled 'False Falkands history at the United Nations'.

All the best,

Jorge

 

[Caustic Logic]

All you study and informed opinions aside, Jorge, it's clear you are self-promoting. Which I get. I mean, who else is going to do it? Especially if you feel your work is important. Mine is, but that's off-topic here.

Islanders - what, some kind of canoe-rowing injuns? Probably have some silly language they're trying to preserve and whatnot? I hope the Falklands stays as British as possible, so Janadele can feel safe there. Any place that can become or remain as British as possible, should. End of story.

Or was that a cousin of sarcasm speaking?

ETA: Jorge, I'm curious: did the PDF Darth link you to teach you anything new, or was it a fail? You could help us out by assessing that report, which he finds interesting, and adding some nuance maybe. Myself, little knowledge, no real opinion. The Pasce/Pepper site hosting that seems, on a quick scan, narrowly dedicated to debunking Argentine claims and, it seems, supporting British ones. I would imagine the native's views are only passively treated, as being supportive of the Brits but falsely claimed to support Argentine bids.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

They do have a say. They are the ones voting in the referendum and there's no reason to assume it won't go exactly the same way it did last time.

3 people voted to join Argentina. Three. There were over three times as many spoiled or blank ballots (11).

The problem with the Falklands is that Argentina likes to rattle its sabres every time they have a domestic problem and the Falklands is their favourite sabre to rattle. It's almost pathetic really, particularly considering the claim by the Argentinians that the Falklands are a vestige of Empire and therefore bad all the while ignoring that the only time both Argentina and The Falklands were part of the same state it was the Spanissh Empire.

 

[JorgeNunez]

Hi Caustic Logic,

If you're happy to understand I'm self promoting my blog, I won't argue about it. That's a value judgement and everyone is entitled to do so. And if my work is or not important, well, that's another value judgment and I cannot give you an answer that would be very subjective. I don't go for tangential arguments. One thing I can say and it is that I'm not here to reinvent concepts or realities. It is self evident the Falklands issue has been going on for too long and there are people directly affected.

About your question re. PDF Darth provided the link, it is indeed interesting. The main reason, I did know about the arguments and counter arguments from both Agentina and the United Kingdom. But the PDF has most of the historical counter arguments from the UK in terms of history and documents in a very clear manner.
Who is right? Who is wrong? That's one of my points. By only reading the PDF you'll see clearly that a main part of the arguments is related to interpretation: is a bilateral peace treaty enough to prove Agentina didn't claim? Are second hand declarations valid in order to prove the right to claim? And so on.
As in any legal issue, this is a matter of interpretation. There are indee rules to do it. However, and unfortunately, this is an international issue with political elements (as well as financial, social, etc.). So it is not as simple as saying you a wrong, I'm right. Or you lie, I don't.

There are many angles and points of view I could take. I'm mainly concerned about people and, in this case, the Falkland islanders that seem to be the centre of a dispute and they are not even invited to participate.
I can only hope governments are enlightened enough and think of people rather than particular interests.

All the best,

Jorge

 

[WildCat]

There are many angles and points of view I could take. I'm mainly concerned about people and, in this case, the Falkland islanders that seem to be the centre of a dispute and they are not even invited to participate.

So voting isn't "participating"?

It's quite clear the islanders want to remain British, you've been blogging about this subject for 5 years and haven't figured that out yet?

 

[McHrozni]

The problem with the Falklands is that Argentina likes to rattle its sabres every time they have a domestic problem and the Falklands is their favourite sabre to rattle. It's almost pathetic really, particularly considering the claim by the Argentinians that the Falklands are a vestige of Empire and therefore bad all the while ignoring that the only time both Argentina and The Falklands were part of the same state it was the Spanissh Empire.

Precisely. The worst fear of the current Argentinian governmnet is successfully reclaiming the islands. They'd loose their very best way to redirect attention away from mounting domestic problems.

If Argentina were to make a consistent case for Falklands, it wouldn't be Argentina any more, and it would have to evaculate a very substantial portion of their population first.

McHrozni

 

[JorgeNunez]

Hi WildCat,

Indeed, they have said time and time again they want to remain British. However, to have a referendum has to do with other issues, not the actual result. To have a referendum supports British international agenda and self determination, something key for them for global legitimacy.
The main problem for the Falkland islanders is not the referendum or self determination. I is the fact that Argentina is their natural neighbour and, therefore, first port of call for business, importation, exportation, etc. And even if we left Argentina outside the equation, the rest of Latinamerica has tighter links with Argentina than with the United Kingdom (e.g. Blockage in 2012 to ships with British flag in latinamerican ports).

The referendum is but one of the steps in a larger international agenda.

Best,

Jorge

 

[carlitos]

I love the Falklands. It is so very British. One could feel perfectly safe walking the streets and enjoying the sights and historic charm and quietly observing the adorable penguins. I was privileged to spend some time there on two separate visits, and both times it was a marvellous experience.

Not at all like Argentina. A different world. Nothing in common. In Argentina, it was best to stay in security areas and not wander.

Yeah, Argentina is a real hellhole. You might as well vacation in Somalia.

 

[JorgeNunez]

Hi McHrozni,

I do agree there are other elements that turn the issue into a never ending story. Sometimes it is better to keep a conflict going on for ever. Why? People and cohesion when having an external and common threat.

Best,

Jorge

 

[WildCat]

Hi WildCat,

Indeed, they have said time and time again they want to remain British. However, to have a referendum has to do with other issues, not the actual result. To have a referendum supports British international agenda and self determination, something key for them for global legitimacy.
The main problem for the Falkland islanders is not the referendum or self determination. I is the fact that Argentina is their natural neighbour and, therefore, first port of call for business, importation, exportation, etc. And even if we left Argentina outside the equation, the rest of Latinamerica has tighter links with Argentina than with the United Kingdom (e.g. Blockage in 2012 to ships with British flag in latinamerican ports).

The referendum is but one of the steps in a larger international agenda.

Best,

Jorge

Why would they wand to be independent? Argentina would just invade again and take it for themselves, the islanders would have no hope of preventing that. The only real options are to remain British or become Argentinian. And it's quite clear they want no part of Argentina.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sorry Jorge, I'm really not getting what your point is here. I figure it's entirely my fault for misreading but what are you trying to say?

 

[McHrozni]

The main problem for the Falkland islanders is not the referendum or self determination. I is the fact that Argentina is their natural neighbour and, therefore, first port of call for business, importation, exportation, etc.

So Argentina should rule the islands, because they could do it most easily?

Does that even count as an argument?

I do agree there are other elements that turn the issue into a never ending story. Sometimes it is better to keep a conflict going on for ever. Why? People and cohesion when having an external and common threat.

It's the best way to turn attention away from your failings and maintain power through inherently undemocratic means. I fail to see any legitemacy in Argentinian motives.

McHrozni

 

[Garrison]

Hi WildCat,

Indeed, they have said time and time again they want to remain British. However, to have a referendum has to do with other issues, not the actual result. To have a referendum supports British international agenda and self determination, something key for them for global legitimacy.
The main problem for the Falkland islanders is not the referendum or self determination. I is the fact that Argentina is their natural neighbour and, therefore, first port of call for business, importation, exportation, etc. And even if we left Argentina outside the equation, the rest of Latinamerica has tighter links with Argentina than with the United Kingdom (e.g. Blockage in 2012 to ships with British flag in latinamerican ports).

The referendum is but one of the steps in a larger international agenda.

Best,

Jorge

No the referendum is the final step. Or are you in favour of ignoring the right to self determination?

If Argentina entertained any real hopes of gaining sovereignty over the islands they would be trying to wing the locals over; not constantly pretending they are some sort of occupying force that turned up yesterday. But of course Argentina's political leaders aren't interested in anything but soundbites to pump up their popularity and distract their people from a crumbling country.

The support they get from the other Latin countries is likewise a lot of empty gestures. Most of Argentina's neighbours appear to be rather hostile to the Kirchner government and they certainly aren't going to do anything meaningful to help.