Argentina pulls out of pact with UK over Falkland Islands

[Fuffy 1,049]

12 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

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

But the point of pulling out of the pact is to reinstate the claim of sovereignty, no? This is what the article said:

"The Argentinian Government wants to renegotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands, also known as the Malvinas Islands. To this end, it is proposing a meeting with the British at the UN headquarters in New York."

So pulling out of the economic pact is a stepping stone to renegotiating sovereignty and therefore territorial claims?  

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

But the point of pulling out of the pact is to reinstate the claim of sovereignty, no? This is what the article said:

"The Argentinian Government wants to renegotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands, also known as the Malvinas Islands. To this end, it is proposing a meeting with the British at the UN headquarters in New York."

So pulling out of the economic pact is a stepping stone to renegotiating sovereignty and therefore territorial claims?  

The claims of sovereingty never ceased, we renew them in front of the UN constantly (and continued to do so even when the pact was in effect). The pact didn't adress nor did it modify them in any shape or form.

The fact that the article claims that shows either ignorance or a clear bias. As does the title of this thread.

[Natalia Kills 413]

4 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

The claims of sovereingty never ceased, we renew them in front of the UN constantly (even when the pact was in effect). The pact didn't adress nor did it modify them in any shape or form.

The fact that the article claims that shows either ignorance or a clear bias.

Reading through your comments, there's a lot of circular logic going on. You're also not responding to the poster's comment about whether you think it's right to expel a population who've lived on the island a lot longer than the Argentinians ever did, especially since Argentina forcefully occupied the islands.

It's pretty hypocritical to cite colonization when Argentine essentially wants to recolonize a bunch of remote islands it temporarily had for less than a few years well over a century ago. That's like if Scandinavian countries said they rightfully own Newfoundland because they had a short-lived settlement there years ago. Or if the US claimed eternal sovereignty of the Moon caused they stepped on it for a few hours and stuck on a flag on it. 

And calling something clear bias because it disagrees with your view isn't logical unless you can have responsible proof. The article states they're leaving the pact to renegotiate sovereignty, which makes sense cause why else would they do so? Unless Argentina is leaving the pact because it doesn't want to renegotiate sovereignty and give away its claims.

I think you're letting pride and nationalism come before logic and reasoning here. I know Argentine media and politics use the Falklands as a scapegoat for nationalism (just like Brexit for the UK) but this is clearly pointless propaganda designed to distract the public. Argentina already looked like a fool after it invaded the islands, it doesn't have to repeat the same mistakes and could move on to more pressing matters.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Pineapple said:

And calling something clear bias because it disagrees with your view isn't logical unless you can have responsible proof. The article states they're leaving the pact to renegotiate sovereignty, which makes sense cause why else would they do so? Unless Argentina is leaving the pact because it doesn't want to renegotiate sovereignty and give away its claims.

Except the pact never stopped the claims of sovereignity since they are not adressed in it, therefore the conclusion the article arrives to is incorrect.

I don't think the inhabitants should be removed from the islands, we all know how that works. In fact, that's what the UK did in 1833. It should also stand that the self determination of the inhabitants  is rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with the forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, and that the UN has ratified it. So unfortunately international right denies them the choice over that. It should also be taken into account that the inhabitants are not native and were transokanted into the island, therefore a territorial claim doesn't conform with the definition of colonialism. Funny you mention the US since the occupation of Hawaii is similar in some ways... or you know... Puerto Rico.

That being said, removal is definitely not the solution, nor are the island's inhabitants to blame for the situation the UK government caused in the first place.

[Fuffy 1,049]

27 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

The claims of sovereingty never ceased, we renew them in front of the UN constantly (and continued to do so even when the pact was in effect). The pact didn't adress nor did it modify them in any shape or form.

The fact that the article claims that shows either ignorance or a clear bias. As does the title of this thread.

I think that's what I'm to say to you though. The pact is the context for the sovereignty claim and that's what we were discussing.

I personally didn't see any bias in the article, it was short and straight to the point. I checked for other news sources and they all say pretty much the same thing.

I don't want to say you're deflecting but we keep switching from treaties to economic activity and then from sovereignty claims to the pact. 

Ultimately whatever decision is made, it comes down to whether it's fair to expel the population that live there today. I know it may feel like an excuse to Argentinians but it's just the reality of the situation today. I don't see how any rational person would think it's fair to expel the British population who've peacefully lived on the islands for over a hundred years or force them to change their citizenship.

Argentina has a lot of great things going on for it, these islands aren't worth it. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

I think that's what I'm to say to you though. The pact is the context for the sovereignty claim and that's what we were discussing.

The pact doesn't adress the sovereignty claims in any way, so no, it doesn't put them in context. The pact the article refers to was signed in 2016, the umbrella formula was adopted in 1989 when both countries restored relations, and the context that gave is that all of those relations would remain ASIDE from the sovereignty dispute.

I don't think it is fair, and I don't think that the solution would be to expel them. Sovereignity changing shouldn't mean the deportation of the inhabitants. Something along the lines of a dual citizenship in case the islands end up switching control at some point should be the way to go, therefore they would retain their cultural identity.

The fact is that the people currently living in the islands are not responsible for the actions of their country almost two centuries ago. But governments rarely took (and take) people into account when trying to expand themselves, and we're left with the results of that neglect.

[Natalia Kills 413]

3 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

Except the pact never stopped the claims of sovereignity since they are not adressed in it, therefore the conclusion the article arrives to is incorrect.

I don't think the inhabitants should be removed from the islands, we all know how that works. In fact, that's what the UK did in 1833. It should also stand that the self determination of the inhabitants  is rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with the forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, and that the UN has ratified it. So unfortunately international right denies them the choice over that. It should also be taken into account that the inhabitants are not native and were transokanted into the island, therefore a territorial claim doesn't conform with the definition of colonialism. Funny you mention the US since the occupation of  Hawaii is similar.

That being said, removal is definitely not the solution, nor are the island's inhabitants to blame for the situation the UK government caused in the first place.

So you don't think they should leave but you also don't think they should be self-determined? That essentially means the population have to be forced to become Argentine citizens or foreigners in their own home, if they don't return to the UK. 

You have to remember that the Argentine population was barely on the islands for less than a handful of years and the British have been there for much longer than that. 

Plus, as a single sovereign nation they have a longer claim than Argentina, which bases its claim on being a former colony of Spain, which had a foothold in the island after the British. Spain bases its claim on buying it from France, though the British disputed this original claim.

Note that France, the original claimants of the islands, support the UK's right. So even if we look at 'who was there first', it still doesn't make sense for Argentina to own the islands.

At best, Argentina temporarily occupied the islands when the sovereignty was disputed. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Pineapple said:

So you don't think they should leave but you also don't think they should be self-determined? That essentially means the population have to be forced to become Argentine citizens or foreigners in their own home, if they don't return to the UK. 

You have to remember that the Argentine population was barely on the islands for less than a handful of years and the British have been there for much longer than that. 

Plus, as a single sovereign nation they have a longer claim than Argentina, which bases its claim on being a former colony of Spain, which had a foothold in the island after the British. Spain bases its claim on buying it from France, though the British disputed this original claim.

Note that France, the original claimants of the islands, support the UK's right. So even if we look at 'who was there first', it still doesn't make sense for Argentina to own the islands.

At best, Argentina temporarily occupied the islands when the sovereignty was disputed. 

I don't think they should leave. As I said in another response something along the lines of a dual citizenship would be the best way to go. Hell, even joint administration of the islands would be great imo (I know that's not a popular sentiment though).

Also, it's not only about the time, but the fact that a government was instituted in the islands before the 1833 occupation.

But then again, this pact has nothing to do with sovereignity claims since the umbrella formula was adopted in 1989 when both countries restored relations, and that means that all relations between the countries from that point onwards would remain aside from the sovereignty dispute.

[Fuffy 1,049]

8 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

The pact doesn't adress the sovereignty claims in any way, so no, it doesn't put them in context., the pact the article refers to was signed in 2016.

The umbrella formula was adopted in 1989 when both countries restored relations, and the context that gave is that all of those relations would remain ASIDE from the sovereignty dispute

I don't think it is fair, and I don't think that the solution would be to expel them. Sovereignity changing shouldn't mean the deportation of the inhabitants. Something along the lines of a dual citizenship in case the islands end up switching control at some point should be the way to go, therefore they would retain their cultural identity.

The fact is that the people currently living in the islands are not responsible for the actions of their country almost two centuries ago. But governments rarely took (and take) people into account when trying to expand themselves, and we're left with the results of that neglect.

I can understand the case for dual citizenship, though I think all the islanders wouldn't want that now because of the forceful occupation they suffered in the war. 

It'll probably take at least a generation or more before the islanders would be open to becoming Argentine citizens. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fuffy said:

I can understand the case for dual citizenship, though I think all the islanders wouldn't want that now because of the forceful occupation they suffered in the war. 

It'll probably take at least a generation or more before the islanders would be open to becoming Argentine citizens. 

tbh, I don't see that happening. Imo joint administration of the islands is the way to go, but we all know that's never gonna happen.

also, I would love to see the same empathy the current inhabitants get with the ones the UK displaced in the first place.

[Better Day 5,766]

6 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

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

Humans had never stepped onto the Falklands until the Spanish arrived. The British has owned the islands are almost 200 years, all the people on the islands are British descendants and the Falkland island people voted in 2013 to remain part of the United Kingdom. 

[Better Day 5,766]

2 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

I don't think they should leave. As I said in another response something along the lines of a dual citizenship would be the best way to go. Hell, even joint administration of the islands would be great imo (I know that's not a popular sentiment though).

Also, it's not only about the time, but the fact that a government was instituted in the islands before the 1833 occupation.

But then again, this pact has nothing to do with sovereignity claims since the umbrella formula was adopted in 1989 when both countries restored relations, and that means that all relations between the countries from that point onwards would remain aside from the sovereignty dispute.

The Falkland Island inhabitants do not want dual citizenship. Only 3 people, in 2013 voted against staying British. It’s the will of the people, until the tides have turned they will not be any appetite to forcing a citizenship into the people of the Falkland Islands that they voted against only 10 years ago. 

[Better Day 5,766]

2 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

tbh, I don't see that happening. Imo joint administration of the islands is the way to go, but we all know that's never gonna happen.

also, I would love to see the same empathy the current inhabitants get with the ones the UK displaced in the first place.

The Falkland Islands are pretty much self-determination, yet again the will of the people. The people reserved powers are with the UK and that’s foreign and defence matters. I don’t see the British people giving their powers to a foreign entity like Argentina. 

[Bat 6,162]

10 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

But colonialism dies hard I guess

But it's not colonialism if it's rightfully theirs and the will of the people that have been living there..

[Better Day 5,766]

1 hour ago, Bat said:

But it's not colonialism if it's rightfully theirs and the will of the people that have been living there..

The folk of Argentina seem to think they have a right to the Falklands because it is the closest country to it which is completely untrue. It is like saying the Fareo Islands should not belong Denmark but to the UK or Norway.