by cofty 182 Replies latest social current
I don't agree that Argentine has a legal claim. The treaties involving Hong Kong were well documented.
British blood was spilled because of Argentina's foolishness within living memory so no negotiation is possible unless the islanders ask to be allowed to go.
Why is it a shock that politics depend on pragmatism as well as principle?
Yes, Cofty, Hong Kong was really a commerical agreement, just a lease for 99 years, a land with very considerable Chinese population.
Fact: the Falkland Islanders are British, see themselves as British, want to be British, want the British there for protection (read the above for why) and most emphatically want their wishes to be respected. They use British currency as well as the Falkland pound, live under English common law,
Britain respects their wishes, and firmly believes in and supports those who believe in self-determination.
Fact: David Cameron no doubt found it inappropriate to talk to Cristina Fernandez about the Falkland Islands when she herself, on June 15th, refused to talk with the Falkland Islanders themselves; she also refused to accept from them the letter they attempted to hand her in person at the United Nations.
The Falkland Islands Government website is illuminating. If anyone is in any doubt what the islanders want, just visit it and explore.
You'll see that members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly addressed a Committee of the United Nations.
Member of the Legislative Assembly, Gavin Short, spokesperson for the Legislative Aseembly, said
“We are incredibly disappointed that the President of Argentina refused to accept an invitation from the Falklands Island Government to sit down and discuss the Falkland Islands.
“This is representative of the Argentine Government’s policy towards the Falkland Islands people – to ignore us, to deny our human rights, and to deny our rights as a people to determine their own future.”
No shock, just let's not pretend Britain's position is built on principle above all else.
Nomad Soul - you're an idiot.
Slim - if Argentina had the military might to take the Falklands there would be no diplomatic posturing from them they'd just do it. If the US did not support the British then we would be forced to concede the Islands. This is how it all works when it comes to military might. However, Britian is militarily stronger than Argentina so this has to be done diplomatically. Britain gains nothing from sellings it's people or it's resources or it's pride to Argentina. Argentina offers nothing but poor governance, political ineptitude, theft of resources and displacement of the population. Argentina are too weak to press their claims by force and have too weak a legal claim to push for it diplomatically. So it's stunts and hand waving.
SBF - Its always nice when pragmatism coincides with principle though.
Which is the case here. Plus a strong sense of family feeling.
Hong Kong’s 99 year lease was only for what was known as the ‘New Territories”. Hong Kong proper and Kowloon were actually ceded to Britain ‘in perpetuity’ by the feckless Qing Dynasty. Since China wasn’t going to renew the lease, it would have been impractical to return the New Territories while keeping the other two. The New Territories were Hong Kong’s lifeline, and their return to China would have left the city almost completely dependent on the mainland anyway.
Thatcher’s government was espousing a leaseback agreement with the PRC at about the same time as they were discussing the same thing with Argentina regarding the Malvinas. The PRC rejected the leaseback and insisted on all three territories being returned in 1997, and got their wish in 1984. Argentina accepted the leaseback option in principle. Thatcher’s deputy, Nicholas Ridley, was in support of this plan and went to Stanley to sell it to the islanders. The islanders rejected it, and the Falklands lobby in the Commons started to get more vocal and so the government started stalling Buenos Aires. It was within this vacuum that the junta made the decision to retake the islands. The HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn, and the invasion was to originally happen during the austral winter of 1982. A few drunken Argentine scrap metal workers on South Georgia decided to raise the Argentine flag and shoot wildlife, which prompted the British to dispatch a nuclear submarine to the area. The junta pulled the trigger prematurely, and the debacle of the Malvinas War thus began.
Every indication points to the British government wanted to rid itself of its colonial responsibility in the Malvinas from the 1960s up until the 1980s. Simon Jenkins notes in his book “War in the Falklands” that had Argentina been a tad bit more patient (perhaps for a Labour government?), the Malvinas would have eventually been hers under a leaseback agreement. The principle here is one of military belligerence. China was even more stubborn than Argentina in refusing any British administration whatsoever after 1997. But they had the foresight that time was on their side, which unfortunately, the Argentine junta did not realise. The military action and subsequent war subjugated the anti-colonial Falklands speculations to the socialist fringe and leftist intellectuals in the UK. Had China decided to invade in the 1980s, who knows what would have happened? China then was a lot weaker than it is today. But the proximity of China to Hong Kong and the fact that it was even further than the Malvinas leads me to believe that the UK would have eventually accepted it as a fait accompli. The Malvinas by comparison are hundreds of kilometres from the nearest Argentine base in Rio Gallegos. They were just barely within the range of the Argentine Mirage warplanes, which meant that any attacking planes had little time to play with when hitting their targets. This had to figure in the decision at Whitehall on their decision to send the taskforce. Hong Kong was an unsustainable proposition. The Malvinas were a lesser gamble and a much needed morale boost after the British humiliation at Suez in 1956. The aggression of 1982 trumped existing British uncertainty over the invasion of 1833, and the current stalemate has resulted. We have the 1833 invasion of the Malvinas and the Ulster Plantations of the 1600s, yet when the demographics become favourable, we hear no shortage of the self-determination principle. 180 years too late from my perspective.
I have Anglo and American acquaintances who live in Argentina. From what I understand, the government there is a shambles, so it isn't surprising to see such a high level of dysfunction at the very top. On the other hand, they tell me the dysfunction of the Argentinian state is actually a wonderful thing. Unlike the US, the government is too inept to really enforce its will over the people very well. Since it cannot bear the whip to any effect, they experience a greater degree of freedom than "back home."
I know a fair number of Argentinian expats. In my experience, these people are ungovernable. Functionally, they are anarchists. Que siempre sea asi. However, this society seems to lack a basic number of cultural features that would make a more laissez faire society work well. Corruption, for one.
One of these days I'll pay a visit, although Chile seems more to my liking.
The latest news is from a report today in The Sunday Times.
The British Government fears an Argentinian attempt to cause disruption at the Olympic games.
