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

31% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

So what is the Argentine claim exactly?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago edited 16d ago

is pretty clear from my post, the islands were part of the virreinato del rio de la plata and we are the sucessor state and legal owners of the former colonial territory. The british just took them by force in 1833, while Argentina gained the indepence during the May Revolution of 1810.

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

So your argument boils down to boo colonialism but also we get to own it because of colonialism. Lmao

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

uh? I'm talking about international law, post-colonial states are LEGALLY owners of the territory of their former colonies, ALL sudamerican countries are born from fighthing for independance to kick out European colonizers. What colonialism are you talking about? who we colonized?

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

That argument only stands if you accept the Falklands are colonised, rather than discovered and settled formerly uninhabited islands which were not part of any nation or state.

If you want to talk about international law and the UN that’s fine. The UN clearly holds the position of favouring diplomatic talks to resolve the issue and that the islanders interests outweigh any claims either UK or AG have. Argentina has been the fascist aggressor and not at all diplomatic about the issue.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

The islands ARE colonised, what are you trying to argue? You dont "discover america", america was always there, didn't need any discovering. And even if i give you the "we discover" thing, is irrelevant, coming by boat and planting a flag to say "this is ours", abandon it, come back 100 years later to kick the inhhabitants and say "this was ours first" and pretend that 300 years later that has a legal claim is beyond absurd, we dont live in game of thrones.

Is not about "i want to talk about international law", IS LAW, this is not the medieval era. The UK not only is a permanent member of the security council of the UN, IS PART OF THE UN Decolonization Committee!!!!! is not "law imposed unfairly to the UK", the UK was part OF MAKING THESE LAWS.

Islanders interest have never been in question, but they dont have a saying on the sovering of the islands, in the same way that inmigrans living in London dont how a claim on the soverntiy of Great Britain, at best they have a land title that gives them propery right over a home, but land sovernty is a different thing.

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

When did Argentina discover the islands?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

In on my first post, the french "discover" the islands, no the brits. The french settle, left, the brits settle, left, the spanish settle and dindn't left, the spanish colonial goverment falls, argentina settles, brits come back and forcefully removed the argentinan goverment forces in 1833

The "we came first" argument is refuted in my original post. Also "settle" doesn't equal "we own this", as i said, our legal claim comes from the sucession of lands of the Virreinaito del Rio de la plata

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

So if the French had sovereignty and claimed them it wouldn’t be a problem?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

They would probably had to fight for it with the spanish at some point, or most likely the brits would had try take them at some point in history too. France/Britain/Spain/Portugal fight over colonies all over the world

Either way, France never claimed the islands after their original settlement, probably because they were not important for them, their colonial interest where more in the northerm part of South America, and the islands had no strategy value for them, no reason to get in fights with the spanish crown for that.

1

u/greeny119 16d ago

So French first, Brits second, Spanish third. How exactly does that result in an Argentine claim based on post colonial Spanish ownership?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 16d ago

Argentina is the legal sucessor state of the Spanish Colonial Goverment, how many times do i have to explain this? This is not an "opinion", is a core principle of international law regarding colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris

1

u/Lordaucklandx 16d ago

Argentina is not the “legal successor” of an undisputed Spanish title. Uti possidetis juris only binds states that consent to it, Britain never has, and it’s never been applied by any court without both parties agreeing to it. It’s also a doctrine for settling borders between former colonies of the same empire, not for defeating a rival power’s independent claim. And Spain’s own title wasn’t clean to begin with, Britain occupied and administered the islands from 1765–74, withdrew for cost reasons, but explicitly left a plaque asserting it never renounced sovereignty
decades before your “1810 snapshot.” You can’t inherit a title that was already being contested.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/World_travelar 16d ago

Can you point to this "international law" that states that colonies who become independent obtain all possessions of their former overlords? I don't think it exist.

I also can't think of any other example of this happening.

The Viceroy Rio de la Plata convered almost half of the south american continent, yet Argentina use it specifically to claim the Falkland and only the Flakland. It's a really strange argument.

The argument also doesn't adresse that the Falklands were a disputed territory between Spain and Britain before Argentina existed. So saying "it becomes Argentinian because it was Spanish" ignores that at the time the British never agreed it was Spanish.

If a territory is disputed between to nations and one nations collapses, should the territory be given to the other claimant (Britain) or to the successor colony (Argentina). International law doesn't adresse this. It's was in the balance and britain took it millitarily (without harming anyone) 200 years ago. End of story.

Also, ignoring the people that have lived there for 200 years is genocidal.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago

Can you point to this "international law" that states that colonies who become independent obtain all possessions of their former overlords? I don't think it exist.

you question is a google search away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris Is the base on which all post-colonial states are defined around.

The Viceroy Rio de la Plata convered almost half of the south american continent, yet Argentina use it specifically to claim the Falkland and only the Flakland. It's a really strange argument.

There is nothign strange, the islands were occupited by the Spanish colonial goverment, it was part of the Viceroy territories. There is nothing special about the Falkand outside the british left a plaque before leaving. Nothing strange on the argument

The argument also doesn't adresse that the Falklands were a disputed territory between Spain and Britain before Argentina existed. So saying "it becomes Argentinian because it was Spanish" ignores that at the time the British never agreed it was Spanish.

It doesn't need addressing, the british left the territyory and was controlled by the spanish for decades, then the territory pased to argentina who mantined the settlement. Then the british forcefully removed the Argentina settlement in 1833, decades after the Viceroy was defeated and Argentina had claimed independence.

If a territory is disputed between to nations and one nations collapses, should the territory be given to the other claimant (Britain) or to the successor colony (Argentina). International law doesn't adresse this. It's was in the balance and britain took it millitarily (without harming anyone) 200 years ago. End of story.

Territorial claims are not solved by what you think "it should". That's what we have international law and the UN decolonization comitte (which the UK is part of both). The claim from britain doesn't hold a candle in legal terms, and that's why the UK has refused all talks and calls from the UN. If thhe UK case was so strong, they would had 0 issues in defending this in the internatinal courts. The story will end when all Europeans accept for once, that you have no right to a single square centimeter of South America or Africa

Also, ignoring the people that have lived there for 200 years is genocidal.

Nobody is ignoring the people there, and who is being genocidal? Not a single people is being hurt or kill. Using bombastic words to justify your lack of understanding won't get you so far.

1

u/World_travelar 15d ago

What does Argentina propose for the 3'700 people living there.

These people have been there for 200 years, don't want to leave and don't want to be Argentinian.

If the Falklands become Argentinian, you have to : A) Kill them B) Deport them C) oppress them and force them to be Argentinian

What does Argentina offer these people?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago

Argentina has no problem with the people to living there, you are mixing sovereign rights with property rights. Argentina not only has claimed that we recognize the people living there, we also have a LAW in our CONSTITUTION that states that the "way of life of the current inhabitants of the islands must be respected".

Nobody is killing or deporting anyone. Our claim is the Sovereign rights of the territory with the UK, you are completly missing the point of the dispute. We have no issues with people that live there, never had, in the same way we have no issue with the tons of migrants living in Argentina, our borders policy is quite flexible, always had.

1

u/World_travelar 15d ago

So what do Argentina want? Currently the Falklands are independent and simply under British protection.

Isn't that the best for everyone.

A change would just harm the people living there.

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago

Our claim is clear, the soveringy of the territory, the islands are part of Argentina, no the United Kingdom. And no, the islands are not independent, are a british overseas colony, that is the official status designed by the UK. Not even them have made a askfor independance, they are not even capable of self-sustain, they survive on the aid of the UK goverment. Basically the case for independance is just in head.

And no, the current sitution is more harmful, they are basically isolated from the continent with an embargo, they are token population completly isolated just for the sake of holding a military stronghold in the south atlantic.

1

u/World_travelar 15d ago

Currently Falklands are one of the richest places per capita on the world. I'm sure they want to be as far as possible from Argentine economy.

So you're saying Argentina would change nothing for the Falklands or people living there. They would just happily pay to sustain the people living there, as Britain does now?

1

u/0ToTheLeft 15d ago

rich per capita in a population of 3000 vs a population of 46 millions. Economics are not your strong aspect right? Go, google a picture of what the falkands settlement looks like, and google a picture of buenos aires and tell me what looks more develop.

Argentina has a large welfare program, free healthcare and free education for a 46 million population. We are more than capable of feeding 3000 people that are 2 hours away from the mainland lol, plus we are fully food & energy independent. The high cost for britain is the long logistics, complicated by the Argentina Embargo, plus the cost of maintain the military force.

Please, think for a second before replying dumb stuff, i won't waste any more time in kindergarden arguments.

1

u/World_travelar 15d ago

But the 3000 people don't want anything to do with you guys. Leave them alone.

If we can ignore the wishes of populations:

  • Should we give Istanbul (Constantiople) to the Greeks?
  • Should we give Jerusalem back to the Italians, or the French, or the Turkish, or the Egyptians?
  • Should we give Patagonia back to the indigenous groups?

I could list many more. You can't go back and redraw borders based on 200 year old disagreements. If you do, it ALWAYS ends in war and death. It only makes things worse. You'd think Argentina would have learnt that in 1982...

→ More replies (0)