Royal Navy to deploy nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands

Einhard

Lemming wrote: »

Do you think a country that invaded said same community only thirty years ago and changed its constitution in the 1990s to make it incumbent on the governemnt of the day seek to gain control over said same community has matured in any way shape or form to recognise that right?

No, but I'm talking about the general reality.

One hundred years ago, World War I wasn't yet a figment of someone's over-active imagination. Women's emancipation was a fairly new idea - having only really begun some forty years earlier - that's forty years in an era of no internet, tv, radio, etc. The old empires still held sway and generally was a very different era.

Psssst...that's my point.

BostonB

Lemming wrote: »

D...that's forty years in an era of no internet, tv, radio, etc....

I think you are underestimating the importance of signals, telegraph, cables and radio back then. It was of vital importance.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new_pages/ewarfare_in_ww1.htm

Also the Falklands was an important coaling station and wireless relay station.

Hence the battle of the Falklands. 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

TBH I don't think its entirely altruistic now. With the claims to extend seabed territory and surveys for oil.

my understanding of the BG's 'holistic' approach to the FI was that if they pumped for a small, innoffensive little territory/EEZ, that would undermine the FI's claim to being a 'proper' place with the same rights as any other 'proper' place.

the view taken was that any attempt to minimise the FI's existance - for instance by having a much smaller, hardly noticable, EEZ - played into Argentinas hands by 'de-ligitimising' the FI.

that said, principle always feels better when it makes you rich - though to be fair to the BG, its only very recently that the oil/gas around the FI has been deemed technically accessable and and actually worth the effort required to get it out of the ground. it certainly wasn't in 1982.

more idiocy by Argentina - under the original deal, the oil would have come out of FI territory and gone straight to Argentina to begin the 'onshore' - and hugely profitable - process. now that work will happen in the FI and bypass Argentina completely. thousands of highly skilled and highly paid jobs lost, along with gargantuan amounts of tax liabilties - all to the Falklands. in addition to the growth in population, there'll be a large port needed, and far more flights to the Islands.

Genius.

BostonB

Argentina seems to have walked away from a number of negotiations. Don't really understand that.

Lemming

BostonB wrote: »

100 yrs ago it was 1912. It was in the middle of an arms race.

The provided link makes great reference to a naval arms race. Without doubt other avenues were pursued, but again I do not believe that anybody had the absolute horror of the trenches and wholesale slaughter that followed in their minds in 1912.

BostonB wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the importance of signals, telegraph, cables and radio back then. It was of vital importance.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new_pages/ewarfare_in_ww1.htm

Also the Falklands was an important coaling station and wireless relay station.

Hence the battle of the Falklands. 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Wasn't aware of a naval battle around the Falklands during WWI so thanks for that BostonB. As for the rest, my point was that peoples ability to inform themselves of what was going on in the world was significantly less so than today. I do not underestimate signals, cable et al. but at the same time, those able to access it were also in far smaller numbers. In short, news spread slower and more unreliably.

BostonB

Newspapers were a big deal back then. There was enough to report too. And big wars.

The Crimean War (1853 –1856)
The Second Boer War (1899–1902)
Russo-Japanese War (1904 – 1905)

Antarctic Expeditions
Discovery Expedition, (1901–04)
Nimrod Expedition (1907–09)
Terra Nova Expedition (1910–13)
Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition (1914–17)

So the strategic importance could not be underestimated. Also the general area was in the news too.

Kinda off the topic.

I think Einhard is suggesting, that military might, or the lure of natural resources has less of influence on events that the wishes of the people. While I won't argue, there is empathy for the islanders, I think the pressure might be primarily domestic political pressure.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Argentina seems to have walked away from a number of negotiations. Don't really understand that.

i think its a couple of things that melt together.

a) being beligerant over the FI is always a sure fire hit with the electorate (possibly more so than making actual progress?) - if you're in the sh1t, shout 'las Malvinas' and the public will forget 10% inflation and the corruption allegations.

b) i'm not convinced they think that they'll have 'won' the FI properly unless they take them by force from the colonial/political power. maybe the FI issue isn't really about the FI, its about the UK...

getz

OS119 wrote: »

i think its a couple of things that melt together.

a) being beligerant over the FI is always a sure fire hit with the electorate (possibly more so than making actual progress?) - if you're in the sh1t, shout 'las Malvinas' and the public will forget 10% inflation and the corruption allegations.

b) i'm not convinced they think that they'll have 'won' the FI properly unless they take them by force from the colonial/political power. maybe the FI issue isn't really about the FI, its about the UK...

i am still very surprised the issues of the british presence in belize hasent come up with the ongoing dispute with guatemala [who strange as it may seem] believe it belongs to them.

BlaasForRafa

getz wrote: »

i am still very surprised the issues of the british presence in belize hasent come up with the ongoing dispute with guatemala [who strange as it may seem] believe it belongs to them.

I don't see the two as being comparable really, Belize is an independant country whereas the Falklands are a British overseas territory with home rule. Belize is a full member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

The British are in Belize at the invitation of the Belizians(not sure if thats the right term for the people of Belize) due to the threat from the Guatemalans. The british are in the Falklands because it is a British territory under potential threat.

getz

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't see the two as being comparable really, Belize is an independant country whereas the Falklands are a British overseas territory with home rule. Belize is a full member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

The British are in Belize at the invitation of the Belizians(not sure if thats the right term for the people of Belize) due to the threat from the Guatemalans. The british are in the Falklands because it is a British territory under potential threat.

they only achieved full independence from the UK in 1981 [formerly british honduras] and has a population of only 230,000 [about the size of a small city.] guatemala has had claims to it ,much as argentina has had to the falklands, this is why i see similarly ,a former western colony in south america,

Fratton Fred

getz wrote: »

they only achieved full independence from the UK in 1981 [formerly british honduras] and has a population of only 230,000 [about the size of a small city.] guatemala has had claims to it ,much as argentina has had to the falklands, this is why i see similarly ,a former western colony in south america,

well worth a read

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5237235/Phoenix-Squadron-by-Rowland-White-review.html

gurramok

The BBC's explanation on the competing claims of Las Malvinas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

BostonB

gurramok wrote: »

The BBC's explanation on the competing claims of Las Malvinas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

That doesn't format correctly in Chrome but its does in IE. Well for me anyway.

gurramok

BostonB wrote: »

That doesn't format correctly in Chrome but its does in IE. Well for me anyway.

And The Guardians version
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2012/feb/02/who-first-owned-falkland-islands
And comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/falklands-islanders-sold-out
Which indicates the playing field has substantially changed since 1982.

Venezuela's sabre rattling http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/06/falklands-argentina-britain-blockade

BostonB

Thks for the links btw.

junder

So many people with an opinion on the falklands, so for a change let's hear what the falkland islanders have to say for themselves

Will no one listen to us Falkland Islanders?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ers?CMP=twt_gu
Well-meaning actors and musicians have overlooked the legal right of a people to determine their own future


Stanley Falkland Islands
A view of Stanley, capital of the Falkland Islands. Photograph: Daniel Garcia/AFP/Getty Images

The Falkland Islands have been much in the news of late, and we are extremely grateful for the strong support we have and are receiving from the people and the government of the UK. However, among the informed commentary, there are misperceptions being perpetuated by people taking it upon themselves to publicly comment on a people and a place they have never visited, and clearly know little about. We would encourage everyone, actors, musicians or otherwise, to come and visit our home in order that they can properly appreciate a matter that frequently gets overlooked – the unassailable right of a people to determine their own future, in their own home.

I would like to take this opportunity to correct some common myths about our history. First, the Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors – the islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego – an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people expelled were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population of the islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly 200 years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the islands their home.

The UN charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principal known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. This fundamental right is being ignored by the Argentinian government, which is denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British overseas territory by choice, which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain, but are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our legislative assembly members – they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation.

We are economically self-sufficient, except for the cost of defence – for which there would be no need were it not for the claim made by an aggressive neighbour. Through our own efforts, our economy allows us to enjoy excellent health services and education provision, with Falkland Islanders studying for their A-levels and degrees overseas, paid for by the Falkland Islands government. It is testament to the strong bond our young people have with their home that nearly all return on completion of their studies.

The Argentinian government is claiming that the UK is exploiting the natural resources of the region; an absurd claim on a number of fronts. First, we manage our own resources. Our farming practices are largely organic, our ecotourism industry is famous across the world, our fisheries are internationally acclaimed for their responsible management and sustainability, and our developing oil industry is managed by our government and regulated to a minimum of UK North Sea standards. Our environment is very much our home, and as such we value and protect it.

While the Argentinian government's calls for negotiations with the UK may seem benign, and a rational way to end the dispute, it should be noted that the Argentine constitution requires the outcome of negotiations to be nothing but full Argentine sovereignty over our home. As far as we are concerned, sovereignty is not up for discussion. On all other fronts, we want nothing more than to have a relationship of co-operation for mutual benefit, with Argentina and all of our neighbours. This has proved impossible. In 1995, we entered a joint agreement with Argentina over hydrocarbons exploration: in 2007 the Argentinian government tore this up. In 1999, the Falkland Islands signed a joint agreement with Argentina to co-operate in a number of areas, including sharing of information on joint fish stocks. Only the Falkland Islands has upheld its side of this agreement; the Argentinian government has reneged on nearly every point.

More recent actions, such as attempts to ban our ships from entering South American ports; decree 256, which denies passage of vessels transiting Argentine waters; the banning of charter flights in support of our tourism industry; laws taking sanctions against companies involved in peaceful commerce in both countries, all point to a desire by Argentina to frustrate our international trade and attempt to isolate us.

The Falkland Islanders are a peaceful, hard-working and resilient people. Our society is thriving and forward-looking. All we ask is to be left in peace to choose our own future, and responsibly develop our home for our children and generations to come. We would ask, particularly of those who take it upon themselves to comment from a standpoint of ignorance on our future, that our rights, and our points of view, and above all our wishes are respected and considered as enshrined in the UN charter.