Falklands Dispute: Views from Argentina and Beyond

  • News
  • Thread starter Ryan_m_b
  • Start date
In summary: As far as I know, the Falklands were originally taken by force from the Argentinian government in the early 20th century. The islands have been a source of contention between the two countries ever since.
  • #1
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,963
721
In recent weeks the relationship between Argentina and Britain has gone sour again over the disputed Falkland Islands. Since the brief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War 30 years ago Britain has kept a constant military presence on the island (the reason Argentina managed to take the islands so easily in the first place was the near non-existent military presence Britain had in the region in 1982 after the removal of HMS Endurance leaving just a handful of marines to defend the islands).

The latest dispute is over the replacement of HMS Montrose (and old model frigate) with HMS Dauntless (a new model destroyer) which the Argentine government claims counts as militarisation of the South Atlantic. They've also claimed that a nuclear submarine has been deployed to the area, an accusation that has been described as "absurd" by UK officials (the deployment of nuclear submarines is a classified matter anyway).

I'd like to get some opinions of non-UK (as well as UK) citizens because from the perspective over here arguing over the Falklands seems bizzare. Interviews with the islanders reveal that they want to remain as they are and don't want to be governed by Argentina so I'm interested to know especially of any Argentinian/South American views on this. Why are the Falkland islands a big political issue? Why not leave the islanders as they are?

To stake my opinion if the Islanders wanted to be called the Malvinas and wanted to be under Argentine rule or self rule I would be whole-heartedly supporting that as well. Is this all just political sabre rattling or do the general populous of Argentina (and the other South American countries that refuse to trade with Falkland sailors) genuinely feel the islanders should be made to go under Argentine rule? Another question is what do Argentines and others think about the UK increasing its defence of the island? It wouldn't be needed if the threat of invasion wasn't there.

One last point; budget cuts to the UK's military over the last few years have significantly weakened its capability. It was in the process of replacing its aircraft carriers and the planes that operate on them with the goal of having a gradual switch over but controversially a few years ago this plan was accelerated so that all but one of our aircraft carriers has been decommissioned (with the new "super" carriers not coming online for a few years yet) and the planes that operate on them such as the harrier have been taken out of service (not to be replaced until the joint strike fighter is introduced, again some years yet). According to various analysts I've seen on the news this is why preventing the islands being taken by increasing the garrison makes more sense because retaking would be harder.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Only people in the UK really follow the Falklands debate, it is a largely unknown dispute to the rest of Europe except for the Falklands war. I have no idea if when you start playing military tactical games there is any real advantage for the UK to hold on to it. It always seemed to be about sovereignty, but now also is about oil, so the ante went considerably up since that last war.

(Also, I don't think a lot of people care about this conflict. In case of another war, most of Europe will just grab the nachos and watch it on television. Somehow, it's less interesting than a Middle East conflict.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
MarcoD said:
Only people in the UK really follow the Falklands debate, it is a largely unknown dispute to the rest of Europe except for the Falklands war. I have no idea if when you start playing military tactical games there is any real advantage for the UK to hold on to it. It always seemed to be about sovereignty, but now also is about oil, so the ante went considerably up since that last war.
Perhaps you missed my main point; considering the islanders do not want to be taken over by Argentina why are so many countries supporting Argentina's claim? In fact why do people in Argentina even want to take over a series of islands who would rather not?
MarcoD said:
(Also, I don't think a lot of people care about this conflict. In case of another war, most of Europe will just grab the nachos and watch it on television. Somehow, it's less interesting than a Middle East conflict.)
That's a pretty sick comment to make. If that was an attempt at humour then you failed utterly.
 
  • #4
Ryan_m_b said:
Perhaps you missed my main point; considering the islanders do not want to be taken over by Argentina why are so many countries supporting Argentina's claim? In fact why do people in Argentina even want to take over a series of islands who would rather not?

As far as I know, the Falklands were somewhere in history forcibly taken from Argentina, conversely the UK thought it had a claim whereas Argentina disputed that.

Personally, I think it is mostly up to the islanders since I don't believe in historical claims.

That's a pretty sick comment to make. If that was an attempt at humour then you failed utterly.

The level of indifference varies between conflicts. Sometimes, the world is sick.
 
  • #5
MarcoD said:
Personally, I think it is mostly up to the islanders since I don't believe in historical claims.
Agreed. Any kind of "people long dead who existed before anyone today was born who identified themselves as the same nationality as me were grievanced by people long dead who existed before anyone today was born who identified themselves as the same nationality as you" just strikes me as bonkers.
MarcoD said:
The level of indifference varies between conflicts. Sometimes, the world is sick.
Depressingly agreed.
 
  • #6
Ryan_m_b said:
Depressingly agreed.

It was a very cynical remark. But then again, sometimes biting the bullet opens the road to positive action. Concretely, nothing has happened yet, only some remarks were made by politicians, so I am not worried.
 
  • #7
Ryan_m_b said:
… Why are the Falkland islands a big political issue? Why not leave the islanders as they are?

it's not the land, it's the sea …

the argentinians think it's unfair that such a tiny island should make such a large hole in what would otherwise be argentina's exclusive and valuable fishing and mineral rights
 
  • #8
in my opinion: the Falklands belong to the UK because the UK currently owns them and can defend them.
 
  • #9
tiny-tim said:
it's not the land, it's the sea …

the argentinians think it's unfair that such a tiny island should make such a large hole in what would otherwise be argentina's exclusive and valuable fishing and mineral rights
Hmm a bit of googling reveals that the territorial waters of the Falklands are meant to be 12 nautical miles from the coast. However googling for pictures shows things like this that seem much larger. Unless I'm misunderstanding and the Maritime/Total Exclusion Zone set up during the war is still in effect?
 
  • #12
The vast majority of the Islanders seem to want to remain British, so I'd say that's that. Even an attempt to buy them out wasn't received particularly well (or maybe the offer just wasn't high enough):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-could-be-offered-475000-pounds-1460603.html

Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.
 
  • #13
tiny-tim said:
the dispute is over 460,000 square miles of seabed rights, see …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-rival-claims-to-seabed-around-Falklands.html :wink:
Borek said:
Ahhh that makes sense. Looking at the UK section of that wiki it seems like the Falklands accounts for ~8% of the UK's EEZ. Naively I'd say that the obvious answer would be to simply draw the EEZ boundary precisely in the middle of the two lands.
MATLABdude said:
The vast majority of the Islanders seem to want to remain British, so I'd say that's that. Even an attempt to buy them out wasn't received particularly well (or maybe the offer just wasn't high enough):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-could-be-offered-475000-pounds-1460603.html

Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.
I'm all for self determination.
 
  • #14
I have nothing but the deepest contempt for the suggestion that Britain’s preparadness to defend the Falkland Islands has anything whatever to do with the prospect of oil reserves being found in their proximity. Such a notion is not supported by any kind of understanding of actual events. The Falkland Islanders might well choose independence if such a thing were feasible with such predatory neighbours. As it is, the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and to fail to defend them would constitute a betrayal. In 1982 and today, the British government defends the Falkland Islands not because of its moral rights. It defends them because of its moral duty. There is nothing more to it than that.
 
  • #15
Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands
 
  • #16
John61 said:
Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands
Apart from the oil wells in the sea territory that Britain claims. But I agree with you though. I'm interested and confused as to why anyone thinks that Argentina (who are now turning away cruise ships that have been suspected to have visited the Falklands) has a valid claim.
 
  • #17
The Falkland Islands are utterly devoid of financial or strategic benefit to anyone. And Argentinian claims to the territory have no basis whatever.

The bald reality is that, if significant retrievable oil reserves are found anywhere in their proximity, then the way of life of the Falkland Islanders is doomed whomsoever holds sovereignty. If the United Nations could do anything of service to the Falkland Islands, it would be to place a total exclusion zone around them specifically to exclude any and all activity related to exploration for or retrieval of oil and gas. And if that made the actual retrieval of any discovered oil reserves impractical, then so be it. It won’t happen of course, and that is why it is greatly to be hoped that either there are no oil reserves in their proximity, or, whatever reserves there are prove impractical to retrieve. That way the Falkland Islanders can continue their lives unmolested and the Argentinians can continue to call them whatever they like.
 
  • #18
Whilst keeping abreast of the situation I've found this article by the BBC (good but possibly a bit bias) that summarises the competing claims for those still interested:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169
 
  • #19
What's in Antarctica ? Are not Britain's claims there based on Falklands?

or am i fifty years behind?

In 1981 a Englishman visited our office and I asked him about their interest in the islands. His reply was "A few thousand of our blokes who want to stay British."
Sounded logical enough. We wouldn't want to give away Hawaii.
 
  • #20
jim hardy said:
What's in Antarctica ? Are not Britain's claims there based on Falklands?

or am i fifty years behind?
I don't think based on, about a century ago when Britain was reafirming claims over the Falklands it did so over some Antarctic Territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory

Considering no claims of Antarctic Territory by any country are really respected it's a bit of a pointless thing anyway. Ideally I'd love to see the antarctic treaty extended but I'm skeptical.
jim hardy said:
In 1981 a Englishman visited our office and I asked him about their interest in the islands. His reply was "A few thousand of our blokes who want to stay British."
Sounded logical enough. We wouldn't want to give away Hawaii.
That's pretty much the size of it. The majority of the population of the islands who are the descendants of some settlers hundreds of years ago identify as British and want to remain that way. If they wanted to become Argentinian I would be shaking their hand and saying goodbye, I really think it should be down to them.
 
  • #21
Ken Natton said:
In 1982 and today, the British government defends the Falkland Islands not because of its moral rights. It defends them because of its moral duty. There is nothing more to it than that.

You may be well be right in this case, but it's worth remembering that Britain certainly does not have an unblemished record when it comes to safeguarding people's rights to live where they want. Only a decade or so before the Falklands War, the inhabitants of UK-owned Diego Garcia were given short shrift and told to clear off so that the UK could offer the US military a population-free island as a base.

Depressingly cynical this view may be, but if the UK government were routinely in the business of doing the morally right thing they'd have done very many things very differently. This doesn't preclude them from ever acting out of morality, but its more likely they're acting out of self-interest. Imagine the media damage that could be done to a UK government that didn't act tough. The original war is viewed by many to have come at a wonderfully convenient time for the government, which was enjoying some of the lowest poularity ratings on record.

One thing did puzzle me at the time, though. It was clear that being part of NATO, and therefore being theoretically able to invoke full NATO support if your territory were theatened, did not offer any 'protection'. The US was particularly sensitive about concealing the support it was giving to a NATO democracy against a dictatorship. Perhaps everybody was embarrassed.
 
  • #22
Goodison_Lad said:
You may be well be right in this case, but it's worth remembering that Britain certainly does not have an unblemished record when it comes to safeguarding people's rights to live where they want.


I was not seeking to suggest that Britain's record on foreign policy matters was unquestionable. The prevailing suggestion on the thread before I posted was that Britain's only interest in the Falkland Isdlands was because of the prospect of finding oil reserves over which Britain could thus lay claim. I felt it necessary to offer a different viewpoint. I am certain that such was no part of the motivation in 1982 and I see little reason to believe that it is what is driving the current British government's stance. Doubtless that draws a big raspberry from the cycnics, but the truth is that there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is founded entirely on cynicism.
 
  • #23
MATLABdude said:
Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.

It will be a long time before Welsh independence would become a serious prospect. Even here in Scotland there isn't exactly overwhelming support for it and there isn't anything like that level of support in Wales.

John61 said:
Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands

What would the Sea Harriers have to shoot down? We could slash the garrison the Falklands and the Argentines still wouldn't be able to take the place, their military simply does not have the capability it did in 1982. The crowing in the British press about our inability to retake the Falklands completely ignores the fact that Argentina could not occupy them in the first place.
 
  • #24
Ken Natton said:
I was not seeking to suggest that Britain's record on foreign policy matters was unquestionable. The prevailing suggestion on the thread before I posted was that Britain's only interest in the Falkland Isdlands was because of the prospect of finding oil reserves over which Britain could thus lay claim. I felt it necessary to offer a different viewpoint. I am certain that such was no part of the motivation in 1982 and I see little reason to believe that it is what is driving the current British government's stance. Doubtless that draws a big raspberry from the cycnics, but the truth is that there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is founded entirely on cynicism.

Fair point, and I, too, don't think mineral reserves are the reason. I think in '82 it was a combination of outrage at Argentinian nerve plus good old fashioned opportunism that led to war. I'm sure many politicians did feel a moral duty to defend the islanders against the invasion, but after public outrage had been whipped up over a place that most people at the time thought was somewhere near the Shetlands, the rest, as they say, is history. I'm pretty sure that the present government could not generate consent for anything like a similar campaign, and I'm even more sure that they haven't got the resources to mount one anyway. However, it seems that the Argentinian miltary has been run down even more than the UK's, so it's a problem that won't arise.

This time, I think the UK, politically, has no option but to counter the public noises from Buenos Aires. But I do feel that political reasons are at least as important as any sense of moral duty.

In defence of we cynics, though, I'd say much cynicism is well-founded on pretty impressive heapings of precedent. However, in fairness to politicians, the electorate makes them that way - politicians, more than ever before, are acutely conscious of how any utterance could be presented to the public by the media. We voters don't always cover ourselves in glory, either.
 
  • #25
At least this time the UK will not have to suffer the advice of then US Secretary of State Al "Im in control here" Haig, who told the UK to just give up the islands, to heck with the people there.

WSJ said:
The release is the result of a 2002 request by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, ... These records are an as-it-happened chronicle of decision-making in the White House. ...

The most striking revelation from the meeting is the degree to which Haig's compromise favored the Argentines. The minutes are quite clear on this point: Haig "then described the elements of the American plan which in effect would give ultimate sovereignty to Argentina but under evolutionary conditions which the Islanders could ultimately accept."

It's far from clear, however, that the islanders could or would accept Argentine sovereignty, nor that Haig was really solicitous of their interests. He had recently told U.S. congressmen that the principle of "self-determination" did not really apply to them.
.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html
 
  • #26
mheslep said:
At least this time the UK will not have to suffer the advice of then US Secretary of State Al "Im in control here" Haig, who told the UK to just give up the islands, to heck with the people there.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html
To be honest there are far too many people with that attitude today. George Galloway recently argued that the people weren't natives but settlers (just how many generations you have to spend somewhere to become a native I have no idea) and should be paid to be relocated. An even more annoying attitude is when one sees actors voicing their uninformed opinions and people listening...because they're actors...
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b said:
To be honest there are far too many people with that attitude today. George Galloway recently argued that the people weren't natives but settlers (just how many generations you have to spend somewhere to become a native I have no idea) and should be paid to be relocated. An even more annoying attitude is when one sees actors voicing their uninformed opinions and people listening...because they're actors...
Galloway? I thought he'd be in jail by now, or at least widely recognized as a vulgar marxist, oil-for-food, Saddam hugging, clown.
 
  • #28
mheslep said:
Galloway? I thought he'd be in jail by now, or at least widely recognized as a vulgar marxist, oil-for-food.[/URL]

I don't agree with Galloway on this particular point, either. But, since you mention the oil-for-food allegations, he was very good at the US Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations. I cheered.

Having been accused of giving false or misleading testimony under oath, he challenged them to charge him with perjury. Which they didn't. He did, though, win £150,000 damages from The Daily Telegraph in a related libel case. (The idea that the US Senate accused him of grubby deals with dicatators! Oh, the irony!)

So it's a pity he's well off-beam on this one - but generally his instincts are right.

On the territorial claim issue, the UK still faces a claim from Spain over Gibraltar (and the Spanish are in dispute with Morocco over various pieces of land). The legacies of Empire. Heaven knows how many territorial disputes there are in total, but many of them will simply rumble on unresolved for decades until one side gets bored.

The appetite of western democracies for miltary interventions of any sort, let alone defending remote appendages, has so diminished over the last decade or so that it would take something pretty seismic to generate enough public consent for any new conflict where our own forces were in danger from a well-armed modern miltary.
 
  • #29
The appetite of western democracies for miltary interventions of any sort, let alone defending remote appendages,

The downturn in acceptance for warfare has generally been over the fact that the public is not clear on whether the military action has any defensive value. I don't think it's obvious that a direct threat to a part of the UK would engender a response like 'what and get into another Iraq?' or anything similar.
 
  • #30
Goodison_Lad said:
but generally his instincts are right.
I have the opposite opinion. Some Galloway gems:

“Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability.’’

— Spoken to Saddam Hussein, 1994

“Democracy in Cuba is more free than in the U.K.’’

— 2006 speech to the Oxford Students Union

“Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. ...’’

— 2002 interview with The Guardianhttp://www.thestar.com/news/article...e-galloway-not-a-terrorist-just-a-holy-terror
 
  • #31
A minor yet pathetic development
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17946838
Argentina has riled the Falkland Islands by broadcasting a political advert filmed on the territory without authorisation.

The advert features an Argentine athlete training in the Falklands ahead of the London Olympics in July.

It ends with the slogan: "To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil."
 
  • #32
Ryan_m_b said:

Yes, all pretty depressing stuff, but the key word is 'pathetic'. The issue of the Falklands is going nowhere. However, I fear there could be an unpleasant reception for Argentina from the UK public at the forthcoming Olympics. The press would love this. I only hope people will ignore it, both as the pathetic posturing it is and the predictable response from Hammond et al. But I wouldn’t put any money on it.


mheslep said:
I have the opposite opinion. Some Galloway gems:

Agreed, some foolish stuff. But he takes no nonsense off the rich and powerful in the UK, and I stand by my view that his instincts are generally right. He was absolutely brilliant on BBC’s Question Time recently.

Office_Shredder said:
The downturn in acceptance for warfare has generally been over the fact that the public is not clear on whether the military action has any defensive value. I don't think it's obvious that a direct threat to a part of the UK would engender a response like 'what and get into another Iraq?' or anything similar.

Yes, a direct military threat to the UK is one thing, and I think you’re right to say that there would be a strong public demand for action. But I can’t conceive where such a threat could realistically come from.

Elsewhere in the world, though, I’m not sure. The public response to casualties in Afghanistan suggests that politicians would have to be mad to consider hazardous interventions. Of course, politicians are quite good at whipping up the required sentiment through the media when it suits them, but I think that it will be a very long time, if ever, before the UK gets involved in another significant military venture.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the reduction in the capacity of the UK to defend the Falklands is greatly exceeded only by the reduction in Argentinian capacity to take them.
 

What is the Falklands Dispute and why is it important?

The Falklands Dispute refers to the ongoing territorial dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, a group of islands located in the South Atlantic Ocean. Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands, which they refer to as the Malvinas, while the UK maintains control over the islands. This dispute is important because it has led to conflicts and tensions between the two countries, as well as debates over international law and the right to self-determination.

What are the main arguments of Argentina in the Falklands Dispute?

Argentina's main argument is that they have historical, geographical, and cultural ties to the Falkland Islands, which they claim were illegally occupied by the UK in 1833. They also argue that the principle of self-determination should not apply to the island's inhabitants, as they were brought to the islands by the British and do not have indigenous roots.

What are the main arguments of the UK in the Falklands Dispute?

The UK's main argument is that they have maintained control over the Falkland Islands for over 180 years and have developed a self-sufficient and self-governing society on the islands. They also argue that the principle of self-determination should apply to the island's inhabitants, who have expressed their desire to remain British in several referendums.

What is the current status of the Falklands Dispute?

The Falklands Dispute remains unresolved, with both Argentina and the UK maintaining their claims to the islands. The two countries have engaged in diplomatic efforts and negotiations to find a peaceful resolution, but no agreement has been reached. The UK continues to control the islands, while Argentina has imposed economic and political measures in an attempt to assert their sovereignty.

What is the international community's stance on the Falklands Dispute?

The international community, including the United Nations, has generally taken a neutral stance on the Falklands Dispute. Some countries, such as the US and Canada, have expressed support for the UK's position, while others, such as Mexico and Brazil, have called for a peaceful resolution through negotiations. The majority of countries recognize the UK's de facto control over the islands, but do not take a stance on the sovereignty issue.

Similar threads

Writing: Input Wanted Great Lakes Earth Map
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • DIY Projects
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Back
Top