But this wasn’t the question I was asking. If Argentina is claiming there was an agreement that the Falklands were part of the territory being handed over from Spain to Argentina, then it would have to be an agreement between Spain and Argentina.
As I pointed out earlier, Argentina is arguing that Britain gave up any ownership claim to the Falklands by abandoning them in 1776. So doesn’t that mean that Spain also gave up any ownership claim to the Falklands when it abandoned them in 1811? And if Spain had given up its ownership claim to the islands in 1811 then they couldn’t have passed that no longer existent claim on to Argentina in 1816.
If Argentina recognizes that a Spanish claim existing on the islands, even though Spain had no settlements on the island, doesn’t that mean that the British claim on the islands was also valid, even though it had no settlements on the island?
I’d say Argentina would have a stronger claim if it adopted a consistent policy on abandonment. Simply say that any country loses its claim if it voluntarily withdraws its settlements. So neither Spain or Britain would have any claim to the island after 1811 (and Argentina would have no claim from its 1820 landing). The islands were unclaimed territory when Argentina started a settlement in 1829 and this claim would have priority over the British claim which, under this argument, would derive from their 1833 re-settlement.
If these were all of the facts, then I’d say Argentina should be pushing this argument and it would have some reasonable grounds for its claim.
But the problem is that when the Argentinians were planning on going to the Falklands in 1829, they asked the British government for permission to settle on the islands. This can certainly be used as an argument that the Argentinian settlers saw the islands as a British possession.
I used to be, like most Peruvian, on the pro-Malvinas side and Peruvian supported Argentina in the Falklands war (hell, people lined up in the Argentinian embassy to sign up to fight, we were Argentina only ally.).
How did Argentina paid us? Selling ammo and guns to Ecuador during our war. Fuck, it they couldn’t help tey should at least be neutral.
Serious answer: It was one more shame of the shameful Menem years, we were(most of us) seriously angry about that incident (the selling of weapons was secret and illegal also).
Joke answer: hey! the weapons and ammo we sold to Ecuador were all duds! they didn’t work, we were doing you a favor!
Serious answer: You’re right, but Cristina’s apology some time ago was incredibly insincere. We in Peru are still waiting for a real apology.
Joke answer: Yeah, the guns were shit , but the bullets weren’t. Interesntingly it was a package deal “We’ll only sell you the ammo if we can dump this shit on you”.
Didn’t know about that feeling in Perú, I can speak only by myself but I present my most abject apology about that, It’s one of the most shameful actions of the Argentinian government in the last 20 years or so (at least in the international scope).
I don’t know what remedy there was for France selling Louisiana to the Yankees in violation of the treaty with Spain that put Louisiana back in French hands, but if there was a remedy, it apparently was not enforced.
