Argentina pulls out of pact with UK over Falkland Islands

[Better Day 5,766]

“Argentina is backtracking on a compromise reached in 2016 with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands.

After a meeting with his British counterpart, James Cleverly, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in New Delhi, Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero announced that his country was withdrawing from the so-called Foradori-Duncan Pact” 

Source: https://www.brusselstimes.com/388221/argentina-pulls-out-of-pact-with-uk-on-falklands-malvinas

The Falklands will always remain British, it’s the will of the people. 

[My Name Isnt Alice 3,737]

Watch Mrs. Thatcher rise from her grave

[Benji 20,113]

Now is not the time Argentina, we’ve already got one madman trying to steal land in Europe to deal with 

[Better Day 5,766]

10 minutes ago, My Name Isnt Alice said:

Watch Mrs. Thatcher rise from her grave

That was Liz Truss. She quickly returned to her grave 

 

[Nemo 4,410]

I never understood how that place was worth fighting over.

[Better Day 5,766]

16 minutes ago, Nemo said:

I never understood how that place was worth fighting over.

Especially since Argentina has never owned it and Britain has controlled it since before Argentina even became independent 

[Leoooo 2,300]

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

I never understood how that place was worth fighting over.

Oil and impeccable fishing rights I fear 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Benji said:

Now is not the time Argentina, we’ve already got one madman trying to steal land in Europe to deal with 

well... someone stole Southamerican land first

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Midnights Mayhem said:

Especially since Argentina has never owned it and Britain has controlled it since before Argentina even became independent 

we owned it uti possidetis iuris since becoming independent from Spain, Treaty of Tordesillas gave the ownership of the islands to Spain, and after the independence process started in 1810 we inherited the land having instaurated a government there in 1829, until it was ILLEGALY ocuppied by the UK in 1833 and they kicked out the inhabitants... But colonialism dies hard I guess

[Fuffy 1,049]

7 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

we owned it since becoming independent from Spain, Treaty of Tordesillas gave the ownership of the islands to Spain, and after independence in 1810 we inherited the land having instaurated a government there in 1829, until it was ILLEGALY ocuppied by the UK in 1833 and they kicked out the inhabitants... But colonialism dies hard I guess

Ah, so there's a bit of an error in this logic. 

The Treaty of Tordesillas was drafted and signed between Spain and Portugal only.

Even then, it was only loosely followed by both parties. No other nations or monarchs were brought into either treaty negotiations among other European powers, otherwise all of British/French North America would legally have been Spanish had they both signed it too.

Spain even signed a new treaty with France (Treaty of San Ildefonso) that conceded what Tordesillas set out to do. The Dutch also ignored it and colonized Brazil for a while, as well as colonizing the Moluccas which ignored the other treaty the Spanish and Portuguese signed (Zaragoza).

So treaty claims are baseless today, especially since both nations are no longer involved in the islands and no other parties were originally invited into treaty discussions.

In a way, citing ownership of a territory through an expired colonial treaty isn't a feasible claim if the argument is to decolonization, which usually is done to protect indigenous populations.

That said, I think any country that once had a population on the islands living on it had a valid claim to the islands at the time of settlement as it was uninhabited previously, including Argentina. But since the islands had no indigenous population at that point and were just trading posts, Argentina's claim has realistically expired. 

Unfortunately, the islands were used as a propaganda piece by populist parties to boost nationalism when their governments were struggling, hence the war. 

I honestly think it's most peaceful to leave the islands are they are rather than have the population evicted or be subjected to a forced citizenship change against their will (which is messy from a legal perspective). Argentina has much more important things to focus on that would benefit it. 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

 

That said, I think any country that once had a population on the islands living on it had a valid claim to the islands at the time of settlement as it was uninhabited previously, including Argentina. But since the islands had no indigenous population at that point and were just trading posts, Argentina's claim has realistically expired. 

 

We had population and in June 10 1829 the Comandancia Política y Militar de las Islas Malvinas was created, giving a governmental structure to the territories. 

Also, I'm gonna correct you on something, while the Islands and the war have been used by populist parties in recent years, at the time of the war they were used by the last military dictatorship we had to try and save face, and they were far from populists.

[Emvee 8,825]

So, how many Argentinians live in the Falkland Islands today? 

 

[Fuffy 1,049]

21 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

We had population and in June 10 1829 the Comandancia Política y Militar de las Islas Malvinas was created, giving a governmental structure to the territories. 

Also, I'm gonna coreect you on something, the Islands and the war were not only used by populist parties in recent years, but at the time of the war they were used by the last military dictatorship we had to try and save face, and they were far from populists.

That's fair, I should have said nationalist sentiments rather than populist, my mistake.

The Political and Military Commander was a short-lived position and government, even then the British disputed it because they made a sovereignty claim before Argentina when they left the island. The British also refuted the claim when Argentina made it through granting Vernet (the Commander) his title. So it wasn't really like the Argentine government established it without anyone else claiming the space (which in my opinion would have been more valid for Argentina)?

Parking the sovereignty claims aside for a moment, because they're all pretty weak for every country that's ever been involved, what's the point for Argentina to take the islands now? Especially if the argument is decolonization and that the current islands have had generations grow up there and create their own culture. 

Is that really worth the hassle and upheaving the lives of the generations of people who live there now? 

I'd totally agree with you if the islands had a deep tie to the continent rather than a short-lived government and population that lasted less than a few years. Or if the population wanted to be Argentine or abandoned the islands. But the Argentine argument to owning the islands ironically sounds more British than the British one in this debate, it's a land grab more than anything meaningful. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

what's the point for Argentina to take the islands now? Especially if the argument is decolonization and that the current islands have had generations grow up there and create their own culture. 

It's not a point at all since that's not what the pact we pulled out from is about. The pact was about economic activities, not territorial claims.

Argentina's territorial claims over the islands are a separate subject from this pact, signed in 2016, that didn't mention the territorial claims in the text. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Emvee said:

So, how many Argentinians live in the Falkland Islands today? 

 

UK kicked all of them out in 1833 when they occupied the territory