It is interesting that the Argentines make such an issue of this. Argentina is self-sufficient in oil, has huge agricultural surplusses.
But it has always been mismanaged-compare its economic growth with that of Brazil-Brazil is moving forward, Argentina backwards.
No, good point. The spanish were, and they ceded their rights to the territory to Argentina. So shall we use first settlement wins?
The point is that jingoism aside, there’s really a huge number of arguments for just who called shotgun first. They all have weaknesses, and it’s this lack of absolute claim that makes the thing run on and on.
Being as fair and practical as possible, the only real people who can actually get a say are the ones who’ve been living there for the last couple of hundred years. Obviously that may be perpetuating some historical wrong, but if we start setting precedent otherwise than the populations of North and South America, New Zealand, Australia and god knows how many other places should start to panic. We can’t just all go back to where we belong - there wouldn’t be enough space, and the roads would be a nightmare, and honestly what would the aborigines do with the entire continent, etc.
In the meantime of course politicians on both sides of this and other fences will continue to cry infamy and injustice, because damn it there are elections pending, and an appeal to stupidity is usually good for a few votes. Oh, and did anyone mention the oil?
On a related issue, Argentina bases its claim to the Falklands due to the islands being part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata back when it was a Spanish colony. Argentina says “we’re the successor state of the old viceroyalty, therefore we own the islands that were part of the viceroyalty.”
But there are other lands that were part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata that are outside of the current borders of Argentina. Does Argentina make territorial claims in Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay? Or has it conceded that these areas of the old viceroyalty are not part of Argentina?
No, the Dutch found them, then the French, then the British. The Spanish were late on the scene.
But as we probably both agree, this just proves how messy such issues were and how pointless it is to try and backpedal to a previous position.
Argentina can make a claim if they like but it is tenuous to say the least and it is far too late for them to do anything meaningful about it. The islanders need to decide and they have.
The idea is that the part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata that is now Argentina included, or should have included, the Islands.
The Spanish government disagrees. They said they ceded their rights of the mainland territory to Argentina but that did not include the Falklands. Spain recognizes the Falklands as a British possession.
The Argentinian claims are pretty tenuous from a legal standpoint. They claim that the British gave up their claim when they abandoned their settlement in 1776. The problem is that Argentina’s claim is based on Spanish ownership and Spain also abandoned their settlement on the island (in 1811). If abandonment constitutes giving up a claim, then neither Spain nor Britain had a claim after 1811 and the Falklands were unclaimed territory when the British re-occupied the islands.
Sorry. I was confused by your use of the word “settled”, which I misconstrued as “settled”.
I know. But the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata also included the territory in Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. So does Argentina claim that territory as well?
No, it was more or less mutually agreed at the time that those parts of the Viceroyalty would be their our own countries, while the part that included the islands would be Argentina.
(I still maintain that was stupid, Argentinian troops actually liberated Chile and Peru from the Spanish, only to give them independence, WE SHOULD HAVE ANEXED THEM TO OUR EMPIRE!!! muaahhaha)
If you could provide a cite for that it would be very useful to me.
Spain are signitories to the Treaty of Lisbon, which stipulates that the Islands are ‘special overseas territories’ within the EU, subject to EU law.
Could you cite this more or less mutual agreement?
here:
It talks about Bolivia and Paraguay, Chile was an independent “Captaincy” IIRC, and Peru had it’s own Viceroyalty.
They already left on the Oregon Trail.
Et tu Frodo. You are a Kirchnerista too? 
I am sorry she is a bitch, a nasty full of hate bitch. And Cameron is a clown. In fact, If those two had have a child together, that little spawn would have inspired Stephen King’s novel It.
Not a full bore Kirchnerista, but I do think they are the least worst government we’ve ever had.
define “settled” as it applies to uninhabited islands
Why would Britain be interested in some ‘mutual agreement’ reached as a matter of convenience between Peru, Uruguay, Argentina and others?
There was no obligation to be involved or even acknowledge agreements that did not affect these territories. If Argentina decided to come to such an agreement, this was only as a result of the break down of the Spanish Vice-royalty and does not affect Britain’s claim which pre-dates the existence of any of the countries formed as a result of any of these states agreements
The fact remains, just because Argentina has arbitrarily selected some date that it feels it convenient for its own purposes, this would a stupid precedent to set around the world, think of all that boundary changes in the intervening years? Some of those changes are seen as permanent, shall we select our own convenient point in history and decide to make claims to half of France? Perhaps Mexico should make its own claims and seek compensation to the violation of its territory, the Germans and French could start another world war over Alsace-Lorraine.
The Argentine claim only valid in their own heads, it bears no weight in international law, such as it . It is simply a nationalistic badge to be polished every so often.