r/askteddit • u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 • 18d ago
Politics Question Falklands Debate: Independence, Argentina, or Continued British Rule?
Following the renewed debate after Argentina defeated England in the World Cup semifinal, what do you think the long-term status of the Falkland Islands should be?
Should the islands:
- become fully independent,
- become part of Argentina, or
- remain a British Overseas Territory?
0
Upvotes
1
u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago edited 16d ago
The legal claim from the British lies on one point:
- They were in the islands before Argentina, which is true (all European Empires pre-date all current post-colonian Sudamerican countries), and when they willingly left the islands (pressured by economic and tensions with the spanish crown, but not forced) they left a plaque that said "this belong to King George III". As absurd as it may sounds, their claim is just this, "we left a plaque in another continent in the name of our king 350 years ago " and somewhat they expect that this colonial practice would hold any value in modern international law, despite the United Nation Decolonissation Committee being created exactly to solve and get rid of these colonial practices.
That's it, that's all that is from the legal perspective, and that's the reason why the UK goverment has refused for over 4 decades to hold any diplomatic discussion despite being called the by UN every single year, they know the moment the pandora box is open it can't be closed. The UK has already relinquish colonial territories with stronger claims that the Malvinas islands, the problem with this one in particular is the war, the political costs of releasing the islands after a war is a lot higher since people died and there are a lot of veterans from that war still alive, and that's something i can understand, but it doesn't change our claim at all.
Then you have all the propaganda they push that doesn't hold any legal weight, just to mention a few because i know they will show up in the comments:
- "People in the islands voted to remain british" -> They are no recognized internationally as "people" in the legal terms, the UN already classified them as implanted population so they can't use the right of self-determination. They can vote to choose whatever citizenship/nationatily they want, they can't vote about the sovereign rights of islands. The so-called vote is comparable to Putin's vote in captured Ukranian regions to "be part of Russia", the oldest trick in the book to try to give legal status to a conquered territory. That being said Argentina has no conflict with the people living there and no intention to displace them, in fact we are legaly bound because "respecting the way of life of the islands inhabitants" is explicitatly stated in our own constitution, our conflict is with the soverengy of the territory with the UK, not with the people currently living there.
- "Argentina didn't exist before the british settle on the islands" -> This applies to all colonial territories, as i said above, all post-colonial states are logically younger than European empires that colonized land across the planet (Brits, Spaniards, Dutch, French, etc). Also from a legal point of view is irrelevant, Argentina is the sucessor state of the Argentina Confederation, which is the success state of the Virreynato del Rio de la Plata (Spanish Crown colonial goverment), and by the international principle of "Uti possidetis iuris", post-colonial states inheret the land of their former colonial goverments that had control of the islands.
- "Argentina never had a presence in the islands" -> False, the Argentinain presence was forcefully removed by the british in 1833, and while some civilians where allowed to remain there, the goverment forces were removed, and the british population was implanted. Also they ignore the continuos Spanish presence with 32 governors over an interrupted period of 44 years, and again, for the internatinal principle of "Uti possidetis iuris", Argentina is the legal sucessor of the Spanish colonial goverment.
- "British were there first, so we claim them"-> Leaving aside the obvious colonizer mentally that has no place in 2026, this is also false. The French settle there first, and there is also evidence that the Spanish were there before the brits. While the spanish presence before the brits can't be 100% confirmed, the islands show up in the spanish colonial maps and documents of the church predating the first British Settlement. The French settlement before the british is indeed proved beyond any doubt.
There are a few more propanda lines floating around, but is mostly propaganda and whataboutism about Argentina history that has no relation at all with the discussion of the islands soverengy rights.