No they didn’t. You clearly haven’t a clue what the basic idea of territorial waters means.
Educate yourself and then come back here explaining how these waters “used to belong to Argentina”.
That article doesn’t say what you say it says. It does not say 350 miles: it says up to 350 miles, and that will be towards Antarctica.
Not true Estilicon, and we have been through this before.
Britain took possession in 1690, Spain then claimed it for a while, and then came to an accommodation with France, but did not address the original claim by Britain.
Argentina, despite having no citizens living there, has made a claim on territory of another sovereign nation based on matters taking place prior to its own existance.
Various parties attempted settlement and left, none claimed possession, until Spain tried and Britain nearly went to war over this matter, then Spain backed down.
In 1833 Britain took back the Falklands after it became concerned about Argentine claims, which it had extended beyond the original agreement in 1828, and that agreement was for the construction of a settlement, it was not to cede the territory. Argentina made claims over the islands, this was never part of the terms of the licence to settle. If the Argentine ‘governor’ had not used his ships for piracy of American shipping, perhaps the US would not have desroyed his settlement as retribution, and in any case the British certainly would not want its territory to be used for such a purpose.
This was a huge strategic mistake by Argentina, and if it had not made this claim, it is highly likely Britain would have walked (or rather, sailed) away at some point further into the future perhaps this would have taken 50 or more years - by then there would have been a proper Argentine settlement and proper Argentine residents born and raised there.You can attribute this impetuousness to the personal profit motives of Louis Vernet.
You will note that at the time when Vernet had made this claim, the British protested, and since no response was forthcoming from Argentina, the British exercised their right to reoccupy their territory, I think Britain was very tolerant for the age, the affair might have ended far more messily given the tendency for gunboat diplomacy - Argentina got off very lightly as it could well have put itself in a position of being blockaded.
Also, we note the following, Vernet - who was the main representative of Argentine claims, was purely interested in the Falklands for his own personal business ventures, its not as if he was doing this for the benefit of Argentina, he was simply trying to get Argenitna to defend his personal interests rather than Argentina’s national interests.
As for the British and French trading possession, you need to read your history books and look at India, and Canada. France has never attempted to reclaim either of those territories since being dispossessed, and these changes were part of a very much wider picture of Colonialism - Argentian cannot build a claim based upon a war that ocurred decades before it actually existed.
Britain has never relinquished its claim, and has taken affirmative actions to enforce what it views are its rights, its not like Britain walked away and left it.
Its also worth noting that in 1843 Argentina owed a great deal of loans to institutions in British finance and offered to give up its (false) claim in return for forgiveness of those debts - which give a true measure of just how much Argentina valued the Falklands at the time.
Ultimately it comes down to this, Britain has never rescinded its claim, so it has always been first in line, next, possession does not mean much without a history of settlement, and I reckon that allmost 200 hundred years of peaceful settlement by Britain qualifies in this regard.
The idea that we can roll back national bordes to a time that is convenient is utterly stupid and dangerous, we can take lessons from the Balkans, from the Middle East to see the results of that.
A successful claim by Argentina would hold out the hold of legitimising all sorts of claims, from Alsace-Lorraine, through to parts of Poland against Germany and Ukraine, Finland on Russia and Ukraine. The ones most likely to put such claims forward are very highly likely to be from the nationalistic fringes of of political life and would surely lead to discord, and worse.
I can completely understand the US position, it has nothing to gain by choosing sides, possibly plenty to lose in the form of contracts in potential oilfields by going the wrong way.
Currently this is only oil exploration and with no guaruntees of any outcome so why would the US get involved until things become clearer.
This is not about Iraq, Afghanistan and the US knows we are not about to fall out over this issue, and if the US endorses the British claim, it could end up with more hassle from South American nations, and for what?
The US will play this in its own interests, as all nations do, sentiment and friendship are fine, but it has to be worth the cost, right now the costs for doing nothing are low, compared to the costs of making a statement that would not amount to much in practice on the ground.
What law does apply then? They’re British, they want to be British, and we fought and won a war saying that they’re British. The Argentinians simply do not have any sort of rational basis for claiming the Falklands. They’re not even close to the Argentinian shore: ~500 miles at the nearest point.
Not necassarily. large chunks of land were traded form money, significant chunk of the US is like that, Alaska and Louisiana.
Other chunks fo the US come firmly under ‘might is right’, think of Texas.
In other words, there have been ways and means historically, but in this current phase of international relations, the wishes of the citizens are usually taken as being the main determinant, but like every rule, accommadations can be made, exceptions may be generated, some rules apply to some and not to others.
International politics is a big boys game, interests are what matters the most, idealism usually comes a good way down the list.
Sometimes we have to be pragmatic, look at Northern Ireland for an example of that, Argentine would be far better served by building much closer links, instead of the nationilistic whining that certain inhabitants seem to express.
How tenable would the current British position be if there was a vote in the Falklands and the residents chose to become citizens of Argentina? It isn’t rocket science, this is largely what rolled the various colonialist powers out of their previous holdings.
Maybe Estilicon could see that this is the only realistic solution for his nationalistic desires, and the more Argentina pushes for sovereignty, the more the residents will be suspicious and reluctant.
Woa.
Very conflicting versions of history here.
As I knew it the history was like this:
Spain and England claim the islands
Then Argentina claims the islands based on the Spanish claims.
Argentina builds a settlement in the islands.
An US ship destroys the settlement because the settlers did not let them hunt for seals without permit.
The English build a settlement on the island, under protest form Argentina.
If that version of history is correct, then I think that the Argentinian protests about oil exploration have a point (UK stole the islands, we will not ask for the islanders to be annexed to Argentina if they dont want to,but at least share the oil revenues)
Now, with the other version things don’t look so clear, any source where I can read about that version of history and see if it checks out?.
I write this as an Argentinian who thinks that the Islands should be British as long as their inhabitants want it, but (based on the history I knew) think they should, as i said above, share the off-shore oil revenues.
So democracy at home, ignoring self determination in the Falkland Islands? I think even even the most nationalistic Argentinian would admit that the residents of the Islands don’t want to become part of Argentina. At this point, I am not sure it really matters how the Islands became British. There has to be a point in history at which a line is drawn, and we turn round and look at the wishes of the people there. Unless of course you think the 86.4% of Argentina’s population that is of European descent should give up their land to the indigenous peoples of the area.
This why I dont think the islands should return to Argentina, now, when we talk about economic issues, things are not so clear, don’t you think?.
I think there is a reasonable case to be made for an examination of the future of oil revenue.
This is a settled debate. Why is the US position on the Falklands even an issue?
Frodo
The differance between what you have been informed of, and the things I have posted are not so far apart, and it takes only a little adjustment to make them agree.
First, we ignore the fact that the first recorded landing on the Falklands was by the British who were following up on a previous expedition nearly 100 years earlier.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html
It was this first landing that the British claimed it.
France was thefirst to make a permanent settlement, however it then made an agreement to hand it to Spain, without consulting Britain.
Spain decided that the Falklands was theirs under and agreement with the Portugeuse in 1493 - despite repeated insistance by Britain.
That agreement of carving up the entire world between Spain and Portugal can hardly be taken seriously as a claim some two hundred years later, and surely no person intehir right mind could imagine it ever had any real relevence once Britain and the Dutch got in on the colonisation route bigtime.
It appears though that it is through this specious treaty mediated by the Pope that is indeed the basis that Argentina claims the Falklands, even though this territory had not yet been discovered, and would not be discovered by the Spanish anyway.
Argentina claims all the territories that were held by Spain in that region, which by implication of the 1493 treaty also included undiscovered lands - which is completely ridiculous. This is the only route of Spanish claims, its like reserving a seat on a car that has not yet been built or sold, but its this that Argentina claims rights through Spain.
If we were to hold by this logic, then the US would also be Spanish, as would all of the Americas, and everything East of the Azores would be Portuguese.Its pretty clear that to make territorial claims on this basis is just simplistic nonsense, and person attempting to substantiate claims this way is just an idiot - but that does not necessarily stop people being idiots.
The following is not a bad history, it is not too partisan, it is difficult to find realisticaly neutral links on this matter.
http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html
In short, the British were there first, claimed it but didnt do much, France moved in and sold them to Spain, which it was not entitled to do - one is not usually entitled to sell something to another person if it is not yours in the first instance, so the British decided to do something about it, after all, Spain had subsequently granted settlement rights to their greatest enemy - France and that could not be allowed to happen, not in the face of a global war. Britain took them back, stayed some years, left again but still maintained their sovereign rights.
In between, the Spanish and French came to various agreements that included the Falklands, conveniently ignoring the British claim, and none of these agreements could have any genuine force given that possession also requires both exercise (use) and the power to enforce, and neither Spain not France could do this.
The British then lent the island to Spain’s colonialist holdings, which became Argentina and its true that there was a settlement, but it was still under British soveriegnty, but the newly emergent Argentinians attacked some US shipping in a dispute over certain rights, the US retaliated by destroying the settlement, the British decided enough was enough, and threw out the miscreants, on both sides.
That’s how its been since 1833
In your recieved version, the differences are not great,and one can readily be fitted within the other but you will note that you have not mentioned that notorious Papal Treaty of Tordesillas - you’ll note the French were not particularly keen on that treaty either, in fact, just about the only ones who recognised it, was Spain and Portugal.
I can only assume that this is something that Argentina does not mention much, I wonder why.
Here is the current position, which eliminates the remaining grounds for claim such as contiguity,
Here is a more scholarly work which explains how the histroy as taught in Argentina has been seriously distorted… I’m willing to bet that this has not been made widely available in Argentina.
If this is the case, I can’t see how Argentina would have any claim.
I was aware that the facts as taught in the schools here were distorted, in fact, the facts a listed them were the vision I got by investigating if the version I was taught was correct, most people here think more or less something like this:
“The islands were inhabited by Argentinian settlers and then the English pirates came and stole them”.
Assuming those links that is correct, then the issue is if the islands belongs to the first who lands on them (England), or the first who settles them(France –> Spain –> Argentina).
I agree that Tordesillas is not a valid basis for a territorial claim.
Now, this is somewhat academic, since the Islands themselves will no doubt remain in British hands for the foreseeable future.
However, the economics rights to the oil and gas reserves in the south seas, around the Falklands/Malvinas (and the Sandwich and other South Atlantic islands, the question of sovereignty over them being even more convoluted that those of the Falklands) is not so simple, I think that is in the best interest of both nations that a settlement to the conflict is agreed before the reserves are exploited.
I agree. Oil is too valuable a commodity to be in the hands of any particular country. It should be the planet’s oil, not whoever happens to live above it, or whoever finds it. I’m not saying individuals or companies shouldn’t be able to charge a fee for finding and tapping it, but they shouldn’t own it.
Just as a matter of interest, how does the US administration refer to the islands? Do they call them the Falklands or the Malvinas?
“Those itchy pimples on my ass” is how Obama probably refers to them.
“Las malviqué?” or “the falkwhat?”, depending on the language of his interlocutor…
State Department publications refer to them as “Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)”.
The CIA Factbook refers to them as the Falklands (with Malvinas in parens)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html
As to the claim to the oil I find from a realpolitik sort of way it will be hard for any argument to get past the ‘Fuck you. You lost the war.’ stage without some sort of white knight backing up Argentina. But I honestly don’t see any other nation seeing that in their own interest without some serious backchannel givebacks from Argentina.
Toss in the inability (stated upthread) of Argentina to enforce their rights through, well, force, and Argentina is in a terrible bargaining position of their own making.
The simple fact is this: 99+% of the world doesn’t give a flying fuck about the Falklands and doesn’t want to be bothered with it. It doesn’t and won’t impact their lives and anything could be happening their and they wouldn’t care unless there was some egregious atrocity that was caught on tape.