Wednesday, April 4th 2012 - 23:55 UTC

Half of Argentines believe Malvinas conflict ‘will never be solved’, shows poll

Half of Argentines believe that the Falklands/Malvinas conflict over which Argentina and Britain went to war 30 years ago, will not be solved, but a clear majority have no doubts about the sovereignty issue, according to a public opinion poll released on Wednesday.

Only 43% of interviews supported the Argentine government current diplomatic course of action

The Belgrano University Public Opinion Centre poll shows that only 35% of Argentines believe the conflict will be solved some day and 15% have no opinion on the issue.

“Expectations of reaching a final resolution of the conflict is predominantly pessimist, 50% of public opinion believe it will never be solved”, concludes the report based on fifteen questions.

However 65% of interviews believe Argentina is in better conditions that in the past to establish negotiations with the UK over the Falklands. But 70% also perceive that the British will never have a real intention of negotiating the Islands sovereignty, which thirty years ago was occupied by Argentine troops triggering a war that ended 74 days later with the unconditional surrender of the invading forces.

Six out of ten in the poll have no doubts about Argentina’s Malvinas sovereignty, 18% believe they are British, 10% belong to both contenders and 13% does not know. But seven out of ten value the government’s efforts to recover the Islands.

Likewise 43% consider ‘correct’ the diplomatic actions undertaken by the Argentine government to promote an opening of negotiations with the UK. However 30% said no and 27% did not know or did not reply.

Half of the interviews showed that they are under the impression the British government are using the Malvinas question to distract public opinion from other domestic political problems.

An overwhelming 91% reject the military option as an alternative to recover the Islands and 58% would not accept a shared sovereignty agreement nor split the Islands between the UK and Argentina.

Six out of ten interviews believe the Islanders (kelpers) should not participate or be part of any negotiation process, while 24% say they should and 14% don’t know or don’t answer.

A similar percentage ignores the fact that the Falklands have a commercial air link with Chile, with a stop in Argentina, and considers the Argentine government should not allow the flights.

Similarly, 65% mistrust the sincerity of the Chilean government when it comes to supporting Argentina’s claim over the Falklands/Malvinas.

The poll was taken between 14 and 26 March interviewed 620 people over 18, residents in Buenos Aires City, half or each gender and based on fifteen questions.

90 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 briton (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:04 am Report abuse
5 out of ten agree to that,
the other 5 think she should vamoose
2 Marcos Alejandro (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:06 am Report abuse
Telegraph(UK) poll results:
“Should Britain return the Falkland Islands to Argentina?”

Yes 62.7% (18,965 votes)

No 24.74% (7,482 votes)

Islanders should hold a referendum to decide 12.56% (3,799 votes)
3 xbarilox (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:10 am Report abuse
I believe the conflict has been solved. But if the Falklanders believe that the millions of Malvinistas in this country will give up their so called Malvinas, you're wrong. That's the truth. This country is like Jurassic Park.
4 briton (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:11 am Report abuse
they did and 100% said no to argentina,
so give up the ghost, before the ghost gets you guys .
5 STRATEGICUS (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:31 am Report abuse
@2 Marcos

This shows the Malvinistas biggest problem in that you are totally delusional and can delude yourselves but the rest of the world is increasingly seeing through your fanatical nazi peronist madness.
The Telegraph poll has been shown to have been rigged with over 15,000 votes coming from Argentina.I wrote to the editor of the Telegraph and he gave me the figures.Have the same poll again and it wont happen again.It was a typical Argie numbers scam.
The Argies create a fake history and make murdering crooks into national heroes.They create false Argie victims who never existed.They go to war on a defenceless tiny population and say it was 'all the juntas fault;nothing to do with Argentina' .They rig economic figures .You are the worlds greatest self delusional liars and you expect anybody in the outside world to believe a word.
You must be mad!
6 Simon68 (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:41 am Report abuse
The poll figures are quite interesting, although it would have been better to conduct a poll in the interior of the country rather than in BA.

I think you wqould find that a large majority would have had no interest in the Falklands and a large minority would have opted for the Islands belonging to their rightful owners, the Falkland Islanders.
7 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:04 am Report abuse

Can someone please save this article for posterity so that we don't have to keep on reading about Britain's military forces, their nuclear weapons, their pirate ship HMS Monstrous and in every single article.


This is not the USA nor the UK. We want to solve matters diplomatically and not with bombs!

Thank you very much.
8 xbarilox (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:16 am Report abuse
@ 7 That's what you say, but is it true? I don't think many people will take that risk.
9 Anti-Fascist (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:28 am Report abuse
Yes because the poorly educated campasino's of Cristina melting face are brainwashed into that point of view.

Unfortunately successive weak British governments have encouraged the Argentine's into thinking they get what is not their's.
10 Sonita888 (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:34 am Report abuse
#5: Most of the people who live here don't believe half the shit that goes around here.

That said: I do belive the Malvinas were and are ours. But, come to it, just like it happened with Uruguay, if we can't reach and agreement with Britain, they should belong to no one and be a new country.
11 STRATEGICUS (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:02 am Report abuse
@ 10 Sonita888

You seem quite reasonable so I don't want to put it too harshly. From the British and Falkland perspective there is no need to reach an agreement with Argentina. Recent articles in the Telegraph and by John Simpson on the BBC point out that Britain holds all the cards in this game of poker as CFK is a busted flush and on her way out.
She has actually done the Falklanders a favour by making alot of people in the outside world look at Argentina and analyse it in depth and realise how irrational and unreasonable it is even at the best of times. Not just the Falklands.
Repsol ,Mercosur,IMF and now Petrobras all have problems with Argentina. The problem is systemic and to do with the Argentinian soul which cannot look reality in the face and accept it.
12 JohnN (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:16 am Report abuse
Certainly the Argentine press have covered the Telegraph poll very well - complete with poll website - just have to google something like - encuesta malvinas daily telegraph - to see all the Argentine and Latin American news headlines covering it. Ample opportunity to do some wholesale voting. With all the recent Quebracho demos burning flags and molotoving British Embassy, would be interesting to see if opinion changes - especially if web-voters IP addresses are correlated in results released.
13 rule_britannia (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:53 am Report abuse
#3 All Argentineans have it drummed into them at school that they have to “recover” the island from the “English pirates”. The latest thing is that every classroom in Argentine state schools must be named after a “hero of the Malvinas”. It's hard for ordinary people to stand up and say that the emperor is wearing no clothes - even if they are prepared to admit it to themselves.
14 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:10 am Report abuse
#13. You obviously haven't attended an Argentinean school, because that is not what they preach.

I have attended an Argentinean school, and I can tell you that they do not “drum” into us that the Malvinas have to be recovered because they appear in all Argentinean maps as part of Argentina.

They simply teach us that the islands are Argentinean and part of the Tierra del Fuego province. If inquired, they will explain that they are in practice administered by the UK; but you will never hear an argentinean teacher talking about “recovering” the islands.

As for the rest, you know its all nonsense.
15 rule_britannia (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:55 am Report abuse
#14 Why do you need to lie to us about this? I live in Argentina. I know what I'm talking about. Here is a resource page for Argentinean teachers about the Malvinas: Acto escolar: Malvinas (School assembly: Malvinas) complete with a talk on the history which repeats the same old lies about Britiain recognizing Spanish sovereignty in the 1790s and Britiain expelling Argentine settlers in 1833. Then it goes on about how brave Argentine soldiers were in 1982 and asks the children to present extracts from interviews with veterans. At the end of the ceremony children are told that “Todos los argentinos queremos que las Isla Malvinas vuelvan a formar parte de nuestro territorio nacional” .(“All Argentineans want the Malvinas Islands to form part of our national territory again”).
16 Faulconbridge (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 05:13 am Report abuse
Troneus @7:
'This is not the USA nor the UK. We want to solve matters diplomatically and not with bombs!'
...or throwing people out of the backs of planes?
I amperfectly willing to accept that 91% of Argentinians don't want totry to take the Falklands by military methods. However, how many of that 91% don't want to try to take the Falklands by military methods at the moment because they can't but would change their mind in they could?
17 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 05:28 am Report abuse
@16. I will try and ignore the “throwing people out of the backs of planes” because I think you are clever enough to realise Argentina has had a before and after the military government. Not only that but the times and circumstances have changed.

Do you still burn witches or protestants at the stake? No.

Your second question is worthy of thought. And I must admit it has crossed my mind after I posted that first statement.

It might be the case that the current state of the armed forces plays a role in people's decision. Although, when I read comments on Argentinean newspapers I get the general feeling that, perhaps surprisingly, people do not want more expenditure on defense. I feel people prefer money being spent in other departments. The general consensus I get is that people feel safe as it is and there is no immediate threat so money on Defense would be spent unwisely.

But of course, I have no data to back that up just the sentiment of reading people's comments on the internet.

Myself personally I am a big advocate of increasing the defense budget and modernize it to today's standards.

My reasons are many and most don't have to do with the Malvinas but if anything, it will alert London and, in the best case scenario, they will just have to spill more and more of their money in defense of these islands 12000km away and make them reach a point of wanting to come to the negotiating table. In the worst case scenario, a window might open up for Argentina, in such circumstances, to take over the islands with a group of professional and trained soldiers with modern equipment. Perhaps in a time when London is busy fighting elsewhere as they usually do.
18 shb (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 05:39 am Report abuse
@2Marcos Alejandro .

That pole was mostly answered by Argentinians who flooded onto it- it was not asked only to UK citizens. The pole was quickly taken down.

Recent poles suggest a solid majority in favour of retaining the islands.

@Troneas - the only problem with national opinions is that governments can ignore them. If the islands were undefended and your lot were able to just walk in unopposed- I bet the streets of Buenas Ares would fill with mobs shouting“Argentina” again just like 1982. You can tell us until you are blue in the face that you will never use force again, but we cannot take the risk to trust your good intentions because your country has a track record in breaking its word.
19 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 05:45 am Report abuse
Poll shows that half of Argentinians are too bloody stupid to realise that the Falklands conflict is already solved: the islands are British.

@2 Marcos Alejandro

I like the way you spring on a the results on an online newspaper poll in which anyone could vote as many times as they liked and in which almost 50% of the votes cast were cast from IP addresses in Spain and Argentina. Doesn't that tell you something about the unreliability of your sources when it comes to British attitudes to handing the Falklands back to Argentina.

A far more representative and scientifically conducted picture is found in the ICM poll which found that a full 61% of British voters believe that Britain should protect Falkland Islands “AT ALL COSTS”'. Do you realise the significance of qualifier like “at all costs”?

If you seriously think that the islanders are alone in this and that the British public will wince at the cost of defending against Argentine aggression, then you are madder than a box of frogs.
20 Britninja (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 06:10 am Report abuse
@17 I suppose you could always divert a bit of cash from the “botox and Maximo's pies” budget. Somehow I don't think any of us are going to be quaking at the thought of Argentinian military might for quite some time though.
21 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 06:35 am Report abuse
“65% mistrust the sincerity of the Chilean government when it comes to supporting Argentina’s claim over the Falklands/Malvinas.”

Well at least they got one thing right :)

.. and since 60% of respondents ”believe the Islanders (kelpers) should not participate or be part of any negotiation process”, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the position that Argentina shouldn't be a part of any negotiation process either.
22 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 07:14 am Report abuse

Country A spends U$ 0 on persuasion events and materials to propagate truth A.
Country B spends U$ 10'000'000 x N on persuasion events and materials to propagate truth B.

Evoking Occam the simplest outcome with least assumptions is most likely to be true, therefore more believable. So which truth is more likely to be objective fact, the one you don't need to pay to believe or the one you have to pay millions to get people to believe?

(Answer: Country A, thinly veiled as the British Truth)
23 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 07:50 am Report abuse
@7 Troneas

Yet another of your habitual wackjob extrapolations about the nature of Argentina and the Argentinian people?

If Argentina wants to resolve this diplomatically and not with bombs, the why the hell aren't they using the language of diplomacy and why are they bending over backwards to create tension, starve people into submission and basically go through every move that any rational person would interpret as a prelude to raising the public mood for an invasion?

Whilst 91% claim not to want to go to war, almost 50% are hypocritical enough to support the presidents attempts to raise the tension to a point where the islanders feel that they are under the imminent threat of being invaded.

Your 'logic' is as flawed as any I have seen in these parts .. especially when it is Argentina that has the recent history of unprovoked militaristic aggression in this conflict.
24 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 07:57 am Report abuse
@23 The psychological outcomes of war, and the threat of war are very similar. KFC probably knows this and is and is keen to reproduce these effects that she hopes will cause the islanders some kind of mental ruination. All of this is supported by 6 Nobel prize winners. They love peace, those Nobel prize winners do. *cough* utter bollocks *cough*

The best part is that closer to 91% of Argentinians came out into the streets in 1982 and jumped about happily with glee at the thought that Argentina had caused a war. In 2012 they also jumped about with glee at the celebration of their causing a war.

Their words say they dislike war, their actions say they love war.
25 Musky (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 08:39 am Report abuse
@7 Troneas

Argentina does not want to go to war, good. Argentina want to solve matters diplomatically, good. So, check on your historic sources, check on the Convention of Settlement and you see that it was resolved over 160 years ago. Check on the evidence of the past, not your governments rhetoric or erroneous school books. Check on the true evidence, look at the Beagle Channel dispute, look at the evidence to see the UK/Argentine relationship of old. Look at the situation now, and ask yourself why your government continues to make noises to raise your passions. I listened to a 20 minute speak by William Hague at the Lord Mayor of London's Ball (it was on the internet), the Falklands had a 20 second mention...hardly a passion riser, whereas your government seek to stoke the fires of a false argument. Ask yourself why... and if you haven't found an answer I'll tell you, your government hides behind this façade so you are blind to your country's own trouble.
26 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 08:55 am Report abuse

Well put yourself in the Argentineans shoes. Its easy to lecture about the “language of diplomacy” and to talk about the islands for 20 seconds in parliament when you hold all the cards and refuse to listen to the other party's claim.

The UK has done this time and again until it reached a point where they found that negotiating was a better deal for them than turning a deaf ear.

The military government thought that time would come in 1982 with the war. Thatcher gave a rats ass about the loss of lives and had to save her government so off she dispatched the task force ignoring even US recommendations. But the invasion had the prime purpose of getting the UK to pay attention.

But of course the time when they will acknowledge the concern of Argentina has not yet come. So - in frustration - Argentina tries to find ways to get them to listen.

Its not so hard people. Try.
27 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 08:56 am Report abuse
@25 You're talking about Operation Soberanía where the Argtards said they didn't like war, and were secretly planning an all out attack in order to annex Chile into the Argnetinian Empire.

It's another example of Argentinians saying one thing and doing another. They simply cannot be trusted.
28 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:14 am Report abuse
@26 Troneas

No-one is refusing to listen to Argentina's claim, so there is another of those bizarre propagandist lies to tell in order to make your repellent nationalism seem more acceptable.

Listening doesn't mean capitulating to unreasonable demands .. especially when it is the very government that is making the unreasonable demands that broke of negotiations and tore up all the accords on cooperation that had been agreed since 19820.

So do kindly give it a rest with your ridiculous half-baked excuses. The fact remains that it isn't everyone else's fault - it is Argentina's fault .. and worse than that, it is the fault of the CURRENT government.
29 MurkyThink (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:14 am Report abuse
Seems very hard to solve this problem
Argentines are very lax,slacked,careless....
British are stubborn, obstinate.....
30 DJ56 (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:27 am Report abuse

“They simply teach us that the islands are Argentinean and part of the Tierra del Fuego province. ”

Which did not exist until the 1880's!
31 Musky (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:28 am Report abuse
@26 Troneas
Argentine passion on the matter has made me wonder about the Argentine claim and so I have followed up historic data on the matter. I am confident of the legitimacy of the Falklands and saddened that you and a large portion of your country live in a dream world. You even claim to be the victim in a war of your own making and expect us to negotiate with a Junta that killed 30,000 of its own people. Now, because you've managed to hold on to a democratic government for the last 29 years you expect us to step back from democracy, human rights and law to negotiate away the rights of the islanders so you can make your dream world a reality.
We do hold all the cards but we play by the rules. Sadly Argentina does not. It is a child in an adult world.
32 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:44 am Report abuse
@26 Troneas

The Faroe Islands are closer to Norway, Britain, Ireland and Iceland than they are to Denmark .. and the inhabitants are ethnically more Norwegian and Irish than they are Danish - but are any of those countries running around ramping up the diplomatic tension in order to get ownership of them?

Orkney is as close to Norway as it is to mainland Britain - and has a long history of Norwegian rule - but are Britain and Norway anything other than the best of friends?

Greenland has massively less independence than the Falklands do and are closer to just about everywhere other than Denmark - and even has an indigenous Inuit population - but are the USA, Canada and Iceland falling out with Denmark about it and constantly trying to create an almighty stink at the UN C24?

Canada has outstanding territorial disputes with Denmark / Greenland .. but they agree to differ and aren't constantly trying to whip tension up in order to distract attention form a terminally ill economy.

No-one is saying that Argentina can't regard the Falklands as their own; but there are ways an means of settling disputes - or at the very least agreeing to differ - and it is self-evident that the Argentinian government has no interest in any civilised approach that doesn't guarantee recovering the Falklands.
33 Alexei (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 09:55 am Report abuse
@2 LOL Telegraph readers? “return” How could we even “return” something that you never owned? Talk about 'clutching at straws'. That's what happens when a British newspaper doesn't block Argentine IP addresses from an on-line poll. Dream on. 90% of Guardian readers would have voted against that stupid question, I imagine the figure for the UK population generally would be about 95%, the remaining 5% being the usual degenerate miscreants and some recent inherently anti-British malcontent scroungers recently arrived from places even worse than Argentina. I imagine the accompanying comments of the so-called “Telegraph readers” went something like “MALVINAS ARGENTINAS JAJAJA BLAH BLAH.. etc. !!!!!” :))

Anyway, that desperate silly argument was soundly repudiated some weeks ago:
34 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:11 am Report abuse
Troneas, in a trade or political negotiation both sides bring something to the table. In the case of trade one side brings money and the other brings products and or services.

So considering you already lost the islands in war (Uti Posseditis) what exactly is Argentina bringing to the table in this magical dreamed-up negotiation?
35 Alexei (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:12 am Report abuse
@14 Troneas

A bit of 'drumming' in going on here. Balanced and informative education Argentina style.

I particularly like this line: “It was conquered by the Spaniards, so it's ours”

And the lovely little song at the end is quite inspiring :))
36 J.A. Roberts (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:17 am Report abuse
Troneas, it's a well known fact that Argentine kids are presented a certain version of Falklands history and it's not politically correct to question this version.

I know this because I experienced it myself. And I know that this continues today. Best to look at all the facts and draw ones own conclusions, rather than being told what conclusion to draw.
37 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:27 am Report abuse
@36,35 Even now the Argtard furkfaces are saying the Falkland Islanders are brainwashing their kids with the wrong (non-argentine) version of history (sauce:

This article clearly states “In Argentina, the Ministry of Education prepared a book to teach about the conflict in the classroom. It's called ”Think Malvinas“ and contains documentary sources and testimonies.”

“The 1982 war is taught in primary and secondary schools. The contents that are offered here are those of the British curriculum, which in the course History, for example, does not include the conflict with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falklands. They do not touch the confrontation 30 years ago, nor that of 1833 [was there a conflict in 1833?], when the Argentine Hero Gaucho Rivero murdered Brisbane Mathew and John Simon, the then the authorities of the land.” ... Hmm, I wonder why they study real wars and real history rather than something only important to Argentina??

They're so funny these lying argtard toads,
38 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:55 am Report abuse
@28. You cannot label them “unreasonable” demands when you do not know what those demands are. You are taking for granted that Argentina wishes to enslave the population when, in fact, this is far from the truth. The military government I believe was too inflexible on these matters - as shown by the “Operation Sovereignty” and incidents that preceded that. They had an “all or nothing” mentality - nothing meaning someone would get hurt in a war. I do not believe this is the case now.

@32. Its not just about geographical circumstances. There are historical and political considerations too. By political I am mostly referring to UN resolutions.

@34. Obviously, as far as UK interest go not much, as far as they are concerned. I see opportunities that could be brought to the table. Of course we are all speculating here but unless Britain opens the door we will never know. I could imagine something like Argentine sovereignty over the islands, status quo administration of domestic affairs, cooperation agreements benefitting the islanders such as university scholarships, dual nationality, tourism promotion, preference for British investments in Argentine assets... I don't know the list is endless but I think most important of all, removing distrust and fostering cooperation under circumstances that both (or all parties) feel comfortable and happy with.

@35. Now how can you watch something like that and not be touched? It goes to show how important and relevant this matter is to the nation. Its not just looney caprice as some might believe.

@36. I'll give you that. But I sustain that teachers do not foment the “recovery” of the islands. Yes to the claim, not the recovery.
39 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:02 am Report abuse
@34 'Taking' Argentinian Sovereignty isn't 'bringing' something to the table.

What are you bringing to the table in a negotiation? Answer the question.
40 Brit Bob (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:03 am Report abuse
To address the headline - then half of all Argentines are still deluded.

I'm sure that if the 'other half' actually knew the real history of the islands instead of believing the propoganda they would stop whining.
41 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:15 am Report abuse
@38 Troneas

What was that about not putting words in mouths?

1) I am perfectly well aware of what Argentinian demands are and I am also perfectly well aware that a pre-condition of talks about sovereignty in a manner that totally disregards the rights and opinions of the Islanders is wholly unreasonable.

2) As for this disgusting lie about me taking it for granted that “Argentina wishes to enslave the population” - I wont even dignify that with a response .. because nothing I have said suggests anything of the sort.

There is still an “all or nothing” mentality within the government .. and the government is who you are expecting people to deal with. If that isn't the case, how come the post-junta Kirchner government tore up all the bilateral agreements designed to build the trust and allow the relationship to develop? .. and how come by far the biggest constituency in Argentina is the one that says that they Islanders should have no say in their own future and no part in negotiations about their own future?

You seem totally oblivious to the fact that with Argentina having bent over backwards to destroy goodwill - and continue to bend over backwards to foster ill will - then it is up to them, not the Islanders and the British, to seek to rebuild some of the trust and goodwill that they have chosen to throw away.

Sorry, but you really are tilting at windmills with this ludicrous propagandist drivel of yours.
42 Alexei (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:19 am Report abuse
@38 “Now how can you watch something like that and not be touched? It goes to show how important and relevant this matter is to the nation”.

Are you having a laugh? It would be hilarious if it was a comedy sketch instead of a documentary. It's child abuse, and goes some way to show why so many Argentines are so ill-informed, hysterical and deluded.
43 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:19 am Report abuse
@39. As I said, as long as Britain refuses to comply with UN resolutions all we can do is speculate. For now we will just have to wait and see how much this impasse will affect British interests in south america. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe none.

And I will soon be disinclined to discuss these matters with you if you continue to be rude. The use of terms such as “Argtards” doesn't make you increase your standing here nor does it validate your statements. On the contrary.
44 THOR94 (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:22 am Report abuse
43 Troneas But Argentina refuses to acknowledge the human right of self determination, that is also part of a UN resolution. so Argentina cant rely debate or argue on the issue of complying with the UN.
45 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:26 am Report abuse
@43 Troneas

Britain is no more refusing to comply with UN resolutions than Argentina is. There isn't a single UN resolution that says that sovereignty must be negotiated and that unreasonable pre-conditions must be accepted.

Far from it, the UK repeatedly offers negotiations, but Argentina - continuing to go out of their way to ensure that sovereignty talks will be a wholly unacceptable prospect to the Islanders - refuses those talks without talks about sovereignty.

If the UK was flagrantly and unreasonably disregarding UN resolutions to talk, the there would be widespread international condemnation and UN resolutions specifically condemning the UK .. and there isn't
46 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:31 am Report abuse
@41. 1) The opinions of the islanders are, as far as international law is concerned, legally expressed by the UK. Hence why Argentina will only talk to the UK. So heres the impasse: islanders hide under UK skirts, UK says islanders can't be asked, Argentina is left talking to itself.

IF that door were to be opened for negotiations, I am sure London will do its best efforts to bring forth all the concerns of the islanders.

2) Those negotiations were torn when London unilaterally decided to begin exploiting natural reserves around the Malvinas. You might find it hard to believe but Argentina does consider them to be part of its national territory so you can lecture me about cooperation all you like but London has began surveying and drilling without Argentina's consent, declared the South Sandwich and South Georgia islands a big protected ocean zoo, and then rang argentina and asked if they wanted to “cooperate”.

Then they conducted missile drills.

47 Brit Bob (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:31 am Report abuse
@39 The Falkland Islands are in the Atlantic not in South America. Argentina has no right to the islands only a twisted made up history which is not based on fact. You have allowed yourself to become duped by lies.

The UN will always take the 'please talk and settle your differences approach.' I am sure that if Saddam Hussein had complained to the UN about Kuwait and had lodged a territorial claim on their oil fields the UN would have come up with the same 'please talk and settle your differences approach.'

No one in their right minds wants to do business with the present Argentinian regime -25% inflation but only acknowleding 10% - telling lies to their own people over something as straightforward as inflation.
48 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:35 am Report abuse
@43 Troneas

Anyone with half a braincell can see that Argentina, if they really wants to negotiate sovereignty, needs to court the Islanders with friendship and cooperation .. not with ridiculous sanctions and doing everything possible to make life as difficult for them as they possibly can.

What Argentina is doing is diametrically opposed to what anyone with an open and honest agenda would be doing .. and given that, why would anyone with any common-sense actually trust the claimed (but, from an outside observer's perspective, totally unconvincing) peaceful intentions.

@46 Troneas

The claim that the negotiations were torn up when London unilaterally decided to begin exploiting natural reserves around the Falklands is a complete fabrication. You really should go away and check your facts before repeating that sort of spew.
49 Welsh Wizard (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:44 am Report abuse
38 Troneas

Some interesting posting and some informative arguments, good to have you here. With regards to negotiation, it seems that Cristina's government has taken an increasingly hard-line on the sovereignty of the Islands, going from wishing to enter into negotiation to effectively declaring sovereignty as part of constitutional practice. On the reverse (and discounting anything you hear in the Argentinean press (I know hat is being reported as i speak to my Argentinean family about it regularly)) the British government has not been using this to hide anything. There have been a couple of articles but the main news topics have been about economic/domestic policy and the EU crisis. On top of this the islanders have stated that they would be happy with a UN controlled vote. Given that human rights of the people living there should be taken above any argument on either side regarding territorial sovereignty (and this is something I'm sure Cristina would agree with in any other situation) would this be an acceptable compromise?
50 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:47 am Report abuse


“This means that, as suggested a few weeks ago by Cristina Kirchner, the government seeks to renegotiate bilateral agreements on this accord, signed in the early nineties, whose letter is still valid but dead. Argentina went into withdrawing from these treaties in 2006-2007 when a new fishery system was put in place in the islands, and the British took more unilateral action in disputed areas.”

“The UK has extended its maritime control and the islanders began to issue licenses for 25 years against what Argentina protested strongly. The Government seeks to improve the position on this whole scheme that gave all the islanders and nothing to Argentina.”
51 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 11:49 am Report abuse
@46 Troneas

And where has the UK ever said that the Islanders can't be asked about sovereignty? It hasn't and you are yet again engaged in your barefaced lies.

And what if there are missile drills? Are you seriously telling me that Argentina – even with its scaled back forces - doesn't have defence exercises? If so, you really are making a laughingstock of yourself. Are you really lowering the debate to a point where you introduce the preposterous notion that only Argentina is allowed to defend itself and that anyone else doing what any country in the world would regard as perfectly reasonable is tantamount to militarising an entire region?

I know you try to put on this pretence of being a reasonable voice, but your are in actual fact as unreasonable, stubborn and propagandist as an Argentinian I have ever known … and I have known a hell of a lot who are a lot more reasonable than you are and, even though they believe the Islands are Argentinian, can the how futile and counter-productive the approach of the current government is.

But of course, the truth is that the current government doesn't actually want anything resolved, because it needs the dispute as a bogeyman to blame for everything that is rotten in Argentina.
52 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:02 pm Report abuse
@47. Do I really have to go into the historical and political differences between the Malvinas and Kuwait? Starting from the fact that Kuwait is an internationally sovereign State, and the Malvinas are not?

@49. Hello Welsh Wizard. What do you mean by a UN control vote? I remember reading something on that regard that was rejected by the UN or Argentina (can't remember now). Could you elaborate please? Im interested.

@51. The UK has repeated countless time that the “islanders do not want the UK to begin any sovereignty talks with Argentina”.

Has it not?
53 honoria (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:04 pm Report abuse
7 Troneas
“The opinions of the islanders are, as far as international law is concerned, legally expressed by the UK. Hence why Argentina will only talk to the UK. ”

So you don’t want to talk to Falkland Islanders as only the UK can account for us. If the UK are the only players, why then is Argentina inflicting collective punishments on Falkland Islanders, e.g. the blockade? Why are you sending us mobs of thugs with camera crews? Is it because we are an easy target?

“So heres the impasse: islanders hide under UK skirts, UK says islanders can't be asked, Argentina is left talking to itself”

So grow up and start talking to us. Britain is within the law when it asks you to do so.

“I could imagine something like Argentine sovereignty over the islands, status quo administration of domestic affairs, cooperation agreements benefitting the islanders such as university scholarships, dual nationality, tourism promotion, preference for British investments in Argentine assets”

You mean you would run the Falklands just like you run Argentina? Administration of domestic affairs? – the place would be robbed and in ruins within months. Dual nationality? – no benefit to us. Sending our children to your schools to be taught that their parents are squatters and pirates? – no. Tourism? – we already get plenty of Argentine tourists. Investing in Argentine assets? - the words Argentine and asset hardly go together, do they? Got anything else worth having? In truth you need to forget about all of the above. What you need to do is show us that we can trust you and respect you as a neighbour. Once you have that position, we can start talking about a normal relationship which will not involve transfer of sovereignty.

Perhaps the warriors among us will desist with the war talk if you guys will STOP banging on about your fake 1833. And I do believe that if Argentina had the upper hand with military forces you would be stamping all over us right now.
54 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:11 pm Report abuse
@50 Troneas

Oh dear .. most of the agreements had been torn up long before then and when Cristina Fernandez's husband was still president, so that totally undermines your claims that it was about exploiting resources .. not that there is anything in the least bit unreasonable about the Islanders exploiting the natural resources of an area that, until determined otherwise, is quite legitimately theirs to do with as the like. Any argument that they can't is based on this same preposterous notion that has currency in Argentina that it is reasonable to try to isolate the Islanders into submission (which not even Argentina's neighbours who support the basic sovereignty claim think is reasonable).

Argentina may get to share after negotiations. It doesn't get to share by spitting their dummy out when it gets jealous and demands what belongs to others.

You really do need a better source of propaganda.

@52 Troneas

Yes, that is the Islanders wish .. but you claimed that the UK was denying Argentina the right to ask the Islanders. The Islanders have offered to hold a referendum under UN oversight, but that isn't good enough for Argentina .. so again you argument is clearly a spurious one. But once again I see you revert to Argentina's banal per-condition of any negotiation having to be conditional on their being talks about sovereignty. Why would anyone who Argentina goes out of their way to make an enemy of ever dream of agreeing to discuss sovereignty.

And I see you vanishing up your own backside. On the one hand you are claiming that it is unreasonable not to be allowed to discuss sovereignty with the Islanders .. yet on the other you are justifying ignoring the islanders and only talking directly with the UK. Do make your mind up.
55 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:24 pm Report abuse
@53. Hello Honoria. I've addressed your first question before somewhere. It is my belief that comes as a result of frustration of the negative of the islanders to allow the UK to discuss the impasse. One has to take at face value that the UK would represent the islands faithfully and transmit all negotiations if they were to take place. Of course, I am a sceptic who believes that, even for the UK, the islanders wish come second to their own agenda and interests. It would be interesting to see how they react IF a time comes when the islanders decide to find out what the Argentinean proposal is.

Personally, I see the point in skipping the “middle man” (i.e. the UK) and develop closer diplomatic ties with the Malvinas representatives. I suppose this doesn't happen for two reasons:

1. The Malvinas government hasn't really taken any steps either to foster diplomatic ties.

2. The Argentinean government doesn't want to lower itself to talking to what they might consider an illegitimate government promoted by the UK. I suppose the fact that it is not a sovereign state in its own right but a BOT prevents them from doing so and might imply they recognize the islands government as such.

And I am confident little or anything at all would change for the islanders if sovereignty would shift to Argentina. Just like Hong Kong I am sure loads of clauses and points would guarantee pretty much the continuation of things just as they are.

Argentineans are obsessed with one thing only: putting an Argentinean flag on those islands and sending the British military - not the islanders - back to Europe. For the rest, I am sure no one will pay much attention what is happening down there.
56 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
So there we have it. @55 Troneas is a sceptic who doesn't trust the UK to honestly respect the views of the Islanders (which it is clear are in no way censored .. unlike much of the supposedly free media in Argentina) yet he expects everyone to take at face value Argentina's assurances of good and peaceful intentions, even though Argentina's stance is clearly designed to foster ill-will.

It really is quite astonishing and just goes to show how utterly futile it is for anyone to reason with the government of Argentina, or indeed anyone who is willing to swallow their half-baked propaganda.

And they wonder why people wont negotiate on their terms?

/over and out
57 honoria (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:50 pm Report abuse
55 Troneas
I believe you are suggesting that Britain won’t discuss sovereignty with Argentina because Falkland Islanders will not permit it. This is not the case. Britain won’t discuss sovereignty with Argentina because Falkland Islanders do not wish it.

You also seem to be suggesting that if we ever changed our minds and wanted to discuss sovereignty with Argentina, Britain would not permit it. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. I can’t see why not, but we’ll never know.

Don't measure our relationship with Britain in the same way that you measure the relationship of the Argentine government with its people.

“The Malvinas government hasn't really taken any steps either to foster diplomatic ties.”
Falkland Islands government, Troneas. What about the 1995 Hydrocarbons Agreement. What about the 1999 Agreement? A pretty decent effort under the circumstances but Argentina couldn’t keep their word and ditched them.

“The Argentinean government doesn't want to lower itself to talking to what they might consider an illegitimate government promoted by the UK.”
Well its about time you got over yourselves and started acting and talking like rational people.

“I am confident little or anything at all would change for the islanders if sovereignty would shift to Argentina. Just like Hong Kong I am sure loads of clauses and points would guarantee pretty much the continuation of things just as they are.”
And therin lies the problem. We can’t trust Argentina to keep any promises it makes, as per my references to the agreements made in the 1990s. If sovereignty shifted, I am confident that Argentina would quickly lose interest in its promises and the Falklands would end up very much like the impoverished rural areas in Argentina.
58 Welsh Wizard (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 12:56 pm Report abuse

The Islanders have said that they would be happy with a vote regarding their sovereignty. Both UK and Argentina governments would be able to canvass for votes in to run up to any referendum and the voting itself with the wholly and independently controlled by the UN thus affording both side equal air time and also equal access to voters. Surely this is the most humanitarian way to sort it out and the people who have been living there (rightly or wrongly) feel that it is their home. After all, it’s them that matter, not some mutual pen1s measuring between the British and Argentinean governments.
59 THOR94 (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:06 pm Report abuse
@55 Troneas (#) I think that you may be incorrect that the UK is using the 'self determination' argument as a cover to keep hold of the islands. You say it would be interesting what the UK would do if the islanders wished to become Argentine, or inquire into their proposal. But there was a time when the British Government saw the Islands as a political landmine. They knew that they were damaging SA relations, and they tried to make the islanders feel more connected to the mainland, so they would swap their views on nationality. This included measures such as reducing supply support and boats to the islands. Unfortunately it didnt work, and so the UK could not hand back the Islands. They carried on with negotiations, but Argentina wanted indisputable sovereignty over the islands with no rights for the islanders. The UK wanted the Islanders to retain many or their rights, while seeing a handover to Argentina. Obviously the Islanders were not swayed by Argentina ignorance over their rights. Then Argentina invaded strengthening their resolve to remain British, and forcing the British to bar all negotiations unless the islanders wished them. Hence the British really do care about the islanders rights to self determination, just as they did in many countries around the world, when the empire was dissolved. So really had you not invaded, and taken an alternative approach, then you may well have had the Islands. Now the Islanders are full independent apart from Defence, and that dependence was created because of you, so there is nothing you can really offer them that they want.
60 PirateLove (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:12 pm Report abuse
Its appauling what the Argentine government has achieved through Institutional brainwashing of its youth from at an early age, a very sad ploy in keeping the Falklands issue long standing.

Argentina is corrupt to the core and spreading lies is their only and best weapon, but that only works on fools. all highly self damaging and amusing at the same time.
61 Conqueror (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:17 pm Report abuse
@7, 14, 17, 26, 38, 43, 46, 50, 52, 55. Having read all your comments, I am going to make an attempt with you as I did with “Raul” yesterday. In the first place, you should arrange to stop brainwashing your kids into believing that the Falkland Islands are part of argieland. They aren't. You know they aren't. The UN knows they aren't. The world knows they aren't. So start by accepting the facts. The Islands are British. They aren't called “Malvinas”, they are called “Falklands”. The Islanders are British. The Islanders intend that their Islands should remain British. Your pitiful excuse about the “military government” is just that, pitiful. Are you going to try to tell us that all those people are dead? All of those people were fully in favour of violence, invasion, subjugation and war. So drop the “junta” excuse. It was YOU and people like you. You want someone to TRY? Why don't you TRY? You have NO valid claim to the Islands. Britain has given up many things when others have presented valid arguments. YOU dont present valid arguments or claims and so there will be no “negotiations”. Next I turn to the matter of UN resolutions. As I pointed out to “Raul” yesterday, they are irrelevant. ALL UN GA resolutions are NON-BINDING. Why is it so difficult to get this over to argies? No body is required to do anything in response to a UN GA resolution. And the same goes for C-24. Don't waste anyone's time even mentioning them. The same goes for your little South American “brotherhoods”. They don't matter. It is also a major mistake for argieland to “demand” anything. Another important feature is to “tell the truth”. Like who tore up the fishing and hydrocarbons agreements and threw a hissy-fit. I would particularly like to draw your attention to your last paragraph @55. Britain - 1833 - same thing - more justification and legality. Drop all these things and you “may” get to debate. Keep it up and get reported as a troll.
62 rebeldenacion (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:26 pm Report abuse
And just what did you all expect from Argentina, a repeat performance of course.......for your viewing pleasure:
Gracias Cristina y Nestor!!
63 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:53 pm Report abuse
@54. Actually, this won't do. Argentina doesn't recognize the islanders right to determine their political situation that excludes Argentine sovereignty over the islands.

I will try to explain to you the best I can. you might not agree with it, or find it silly, but this is the position of Argentina.

In essence, Argentina sees any attempt by the islanders of “self-determination” as a clash between the sovereign rights of a State (Argentina) and the interest of people, or a community. As such, it would be inadmissible to allow said interests to go beyond to what the State allows individual freedom of nationals or foreigners in their soil to do.

Aside from the fact that the UN / OEA / UNASUR etc. do not consider the Malvinas eligible for self-determination since they understand the colonials sent by Britain in 1833 displaced the original inhabitants, the Malvinas currently has around 2000 locally born citizens.

and 2000 a country do not make. Much less when, according to Argentina, they've settled there without permission in the first place.

To illustrate the Argentine assessment more clearly i'll give you an example:

Say I travel with my family, a few friends, their families, uncles, grandparents, and what not to some inhabited atoll in Cooks islands in the Pacific.

I design a flag, declare the Republic of Troneas, establish a constitution, call up CFK to represent my new nation in the UN and assist me with military defense.

Now the Cook island government is not impressed, but Argentina sends a military warship and claims it will defend Troneas Republic because I have the right to determine my own destiny in my newly conquered atoll.

Cook island complains to the UN, the UN says talk to Argentina, Argentina says Troneas has the right of “self-determination”. After much instance, I offer the chance of putting it up for a vote in the UN! A territory that was formally of the Cook islands!

This is Argentina's outlook. It is a matter of State.
64 ChrisR (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 01:55 pm Report abuse
17 Troneas

I agree that Argentina has had a before and after the Junta government.

Regrettably, the CFK government exhibits all the attributes of a growing female child, particularly the 'I will cry and cry until I make myself sick' bit.

How often have we seen this in the recent past with the Mad Bitch herself leading the chorus?

This time however it is growing tiresome.
65 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:06 pm Report abuse
@63 You're guilty of passing opinions as facts. The United Nations in 2008 REFUSED to accept Argentina's argument that the people of the Falklands didn't have the right to self-determination.

In 1833 only a few people chose to leave (, and they weren't even Argentinian if I recall. We know this from the passenger manifests on the boats.

Your analogy isn't correct, it implies that you owned the islands, which you never did. It doesn't correctly represent the timeline of how things occurred or the ownership.

A better analogy would Kuwait, which had people and resources, and then was rudely invaded by a country nearby that just felt it owned them.
66 Troneas (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:08 pm Report abuse
@64. I don't like her either. In many ways. I approve of some of her policies, dislike others, but I do not stand her.

But its easier for foreigners, especially those trying to find faults, to find them as they will only pick up on major scandals and controversies and skip the day to day news that aren't published outside Argentina.

I hated George W. Bush. I cannot think of a leader (Argentine or otherwise) that has managed to annoy me more than him.

I find Cameron a schmuck as well. Don't know why his mannerism, hairstyle and spoiled brat look just gets to me.

I miss the days of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. That was class.

But I recognise silly Cameron is not Britain, nor the British people. And perhaps he does some good for his country... So attacking CFK looks, attributes and everything else isn't really productive nor it will help you understand the wider picture.
67 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:20 pm Report abuse
@63 Troneas

Oh dear. I am sorry, but you are off again with your rabid propagandist drivel. Not only that, but your argument changes from post to post as you realise you are talking yourself into a corner.

It is an outrageous and unsupportable lie to claim that UN don't recognise the Islanders as being eligible for self-determination .. in fact, quite the opposite is the case and in 2008 the UN General Assembly dismissed an attempt by Argentina's friends on the UN C24 to say that. The UN General Assembly voted by a significant majority to maintain the principle of self-determination - as specified in the UN charter - trumped ALL other considerations and that a territorial integrity only applied to keeping territories contiguous when being granted self-determination.

CHALLENGE: Where EXACTLY does the UN say that self-determination doesn't apply? Provide the proof.

Similarly with the Organization of American States (and eve UNASUR) - there is just nowhere where the OAS has deemed that self-determination does not apply .. not that it would in any case be any of their business to override the UN charter.

But hey, if Argentina wants to dictate who is and is not illegible to discuss, then once again it is Argentina expecting people to negotiate on their terms only, and there isn't a single credible organisation that will view that as reasonable.

As for the last piece of your argument, that is just desperate and totally incoherent drivel .. and even if it made sense, it would be an argument for Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands - it would be an Argument for why most of what is Argentina shouldn't in fact be a part of Argentina.

If that is really Argentina's outlook, as you claim, then Argentina is merely proving that it isn't worthy of statehood and a place at any negotiating table .. but then, that is probably why the majority of countries think that Argentina's sovereignty claim is a rather pitiful joke that just creates a tragic spectacle.
68 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:28 pm Report abuse
Troneas, different name.. same M.O.

Being Argentinian means being a brain-dead drone, destined to be servile to some mafia-ghoul, and her god-forsaken offspring, none of which share a moral boundary between the lot of them. It also means being infested by a pathological monomania from a young age, where you're taught that the only important thing in life is to demand someone else's things, regardless of the fact you don't technically own them. With the addition of guns, this makes the locals just a gang of armed thugs with no respect for the law or objective truth.

I wouldn't wish that hell on anyone, certainly not on the islanders.

P.S. In 2008 the UN said everyone is entitled to self-determination, and in 1982 the Argies completely ignored the UN. What does that tell us about the UN and Argentina?
69 TroneasOne (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:28 pm Report abuse
@65. They are not “opinions”. This is Argentina's appreciation of the events, depicted in this analogy.

Does the UK say it happened otherwise? Yes. Hence why we go round in circles arguing in this site.

But in my post I attempted to explain to Welsh why Argentina would not find it acceptable to discuss sovereignty “of its land” with a group of people.

You understand differently; or disagree altogether. And thats fine. But these differences in perception and understanding of the problem are what make this a very complex case.

And what business did Captain Onslow have in the Malvinas in the first place? Argentina was an independent country by then, the islands of not Argentinean (inherited from Spain) belonged to Spain.

Point is he had nothing to do there but to set up illegal colonies to have a close presence of the then strategic Beagle Channel. Same reason they went to bother the Egyptians when they opened Suez and same reason the Americans colonized Panama when they built the canal there.

70 LegionNi (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:34 pm Report abuse

As Skare points out in post 67 the UN has never stated that the Falkland Islanders are eligible for self determination.

The territorial integrity argument would only be applicable to the Falklands if Argentina had proven that the islands were ever be internationally recognised part of Argentina.

This has never been the case however.
71 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:44 pm Report abuse
@69 TroneasOne

Once again your argument disrespects the UN, because the UN General Assembly in 2008 specifically stated that territorial integrity arguments have no place in determining decolonisation of a territory listed in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and can not be applied retrospectively- and in any case, the UN C24 operates under the pretext of “Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” .. not using listed territories to settle old scores and salve self-inflicted wounds to national pride.

Perhaps Argentina should grow up as a nation and stop trying to rewrite the rules without the consent of the United Nations ... or even better agree to a proper and fully binding hearing on sovereignty before the International Courts of Justice (which the UK has offered on multiple occasions).
72 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 02:48 pm Report abuse
@69 Look I'm not sorry the myth about people being sent away from the islands in droves isn't in any way historically correct, because of ship manifests. I'm not sorry that the British asked them to stay on with the other whalers who were there and raise cattle to sell to passing ships. I'm not sorry that because of this reason, the current islanders are related to the people that stayed, and they choose not to be Argentinian.

Just because something belonged to Spain, doesn't mean it belonged to you. New Zealand and Australia were both part of the British Empire, but it doesn't mean one owned the other when they got independence. South Korea and Manchuria were both part of the Empire of Japan, but this is not a reason for either Korea to claim Manchuria, as a part of their country. Singapore and Malaysia were both a part of the British Empire, but Singapore left Malaysia and now Malaysia cannot claim they somehow own Singapore, even though they used to be a part of the same colony.

The Argentinian argument is just nonsense that has no bearing in logic or precedent.
73 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:09 pm Report abuse
And since I asked Troneas to provide concrete proof of where the UN has stated that self-determination does not apply, it is only fair that I show where the UN very specifically voted to support the continued principle of self-determination and strike the UN C24's shoddy attempt to invalidate self-determination in the case of territorial disputes:

20 October 2008, 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions: amendment carried in favour of the United Kingdom and against UN C24, Spain and Argentina.

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
74 GreekYoghurt (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:20 pm Report abuse
@73 I gave up trying to tell the argtards that the UN disagrees with their 'shared not-truth' about self-determination.

Probably worth flagging up this statement for the Argtards ... “By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right.”
75 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 03:36 pm Report abuse
@74 GreekYoghurt

Well, thankfully most people on the streets in Argentina are much more reasonable. In forums like this you tend to attract the more extremist element, the types who throw Molotov cocktails and fourteen-year-olds who think it is the UK's fault the can't afford cream for their zits.

Most Argentinians of my acquaintance deplore their own government, aren't represented by the comments you see here and would much rather play a long game based of mutual cooperation and friendship - still preserving the belief that the Islands should one day become part of Argentina .. but at a time when wounds have healed, the mutual trust is rebuilt and the islanders have made that choice freely for themselves.
76 axel arg (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
I respect everyone's opinions but i dont agree on some of them. Beside, people has a basic knowledge about the history of the conflict, but for most us, the cause is very important.
I have always expressed that the solution must benefit both sides, that's why i dont agree with some people who say that arg. shouldn't share the sovereignty with the u. k., perhaps most our people doesn't know that the u. n has never asked the u. k to transfer the sovereignty to us, it has only called the two nations to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution.
On the ether hand, for being honest, i think that nothing would be unfairer than the application of self determination for the islanders. They are living in a territory which was stolen to arg. in 1833, i know that most you dont believe in this argument, and you have right to ignore it as much as you like, but there are documents that prouve what i say, i have important information in my survey about it.
I know that you are going to argue about the occupation of the argentine state in patagonia, when it stole many of the lands that belonged to the originary people, and killed many of them, but what you ignore, is that the argentine state made historic reparations for our brothers who belong to the originary people, their rights are included in article 17 of chapter fourth of our constitution, that article reffers the pre existence of their culture, the protection and the restitution of their lands etc etc, beside, the congress is going to discuss about the reform of the civil code in a few monthes, and one of the projects aims to protect the comunitary lands of the originary populations. However, the u. k. never made any historic reparation for having deprived arg. in 1833, and it wont never do any.
On the other hand, i think it would very unfair too if the islands are only under our sovereignty, the islanders are not guilty for what happened in 1833, that's why we need a fair solution for both people.
77 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:17 pm Report abuse
@76 axel arg

The mysterious secret documents that prove something .. which I am sure you aren't actually going to share with us, eh?

How many people do you think will fall for that one?

78 JoJo (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:49 pm Report abuse
Hi Axel:

“i have important information in my survey about it.”

When are we going to see your survey, so we can make up our own mind whether your sources and interpretations are correct or not?
79 Skåre (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
@63 Troneas

You went very quiet as soon as you were asked to provide proof that the UN had ruled that self-determination didn't apply. If I were a cynic I'd begin to suspect that you ran away when you realised that your bluff had been called ;)
80 Xect (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 05:39 pm Report abuse

There are truly far too many reasons to give as to why Argentine diplomacy is fundamentally flawed.

1. Your president acts like a 5 year old with her name calling antics and bizarre behaviour. The same goes for the cabinet who mimic the behaviour of their illustrious leader
2. The Argentine government are habitual liars and have been proven so, so many times its ridiculous from ludicrous UN speeches that are so bad foreign nations laugh at them through to the IMF, ICSID etc etc
3. The Argentine government have proven to be over recent times highly aggressive not just to the UK and the Falklander's but also to many other countries.
4. The Argentine government breaks nearly every promise it makes.
5. Your own constitution forbids any negotiations over the Falkland Island's so how can the UK negotiate with a country that forbids negotiation?
6. The people of the Falkland Island's have voted many times to remain British with a complete majority and have no wish to engage in discussions with Argentina.

You referred to Argentina taking the Islands by force or causing them to become too expensive to defend. Argentina simply cannot match the UK forces and even if they spent the same amount on defense (which they can't afford to do) they would still be 20 years behind in technology development and assets. Realistically Argentina would have to double the UK's budget so spend over $120billion a year and in about 10 years could be somewhere approaching UK force strength. As for being too expensive to defend the Islands are about to become free for the UK to defend since the Falkland's government has said it will pay the bill for defense from oil profits.

So how is the UK supposed to negotiate with Argentina? - This is a serious question.
81 Brit Bob (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
@61 Conqueror

Top dog mate!
82 Steve-32-uk (#) Apr 05th, 2012 - 10:40 pm Report abuse
axel arg, Troneas

Please refer to the below article to further your understanding on this issue ...
83 stakeholder (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 01:00 am Report abuse
@63 Britain did not send any colonists in 1833. They arrived in 1840. So for 7-odd years there was no one in the islands except a British garrison, is that right?

Who are you to decide how many people make a country? Vatican City?

The problem with your Cook Islands analogy is that you wouldn't live 180 years. To begin with, your “Republic of Troneas” might be viewed badly by the international community. As time went by it would gain credibility. Don't go on about the world falling into anarchy if nations decided to take land in this way, because that is EXACTLY what virtually all nations HAVE done, ever since the completely artificial concept of a “nation” was dreamed up. What is a “nation”? Is it still the same nation if it changes from a republic to a dictatorship and back to a republic again, with its borders moving beyond recognition and it's population and ethnicity changing through immigration and genocide along the way? The only thing that is real and solid is the land and who lives on it and for how long. For example, I support an independent Quebec, IF a clear majority of those who live there vote for this, not based on history or the wants of the artificial entity that is Canada.

Your arguments are a vengeful desire to regress to the very same age and methods of land acquisition that you so strongly protest about today. Why can't you let go of it? The only people who would see any change would be the islanders. I know you see us islanders as no different from the UK population, but I guess if you have no interest in coming here you will never see the difference for yourself and will continue to conveniently ignore the truth.

@76 Axel, the difference between compensation for indians and compensation for Argentines is that it is highly disputed whether the UK did steal the islands.
84 Faulconbridge (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 03:55 am Report abuse
Tromas @17:
'I will try and ignore the “throwing people out of the backs of planes” because I think you are clever enough to realise Argentina has had a before and after the military government. Not only that but the times and circumstances have changed. '

...and can change again. Argentina has had a long record of military and civilian dictatorships. It is going to be a long time before the Falkland Islanders will trust Argentinian claims of benevolence, unfortunately. It actually looks as if Argentine governments find isolation from the Falklands and rhetoric about historic injustice more useful than any practical relationship.
85 STRATEGICUS (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 12:56 pm Report abuse
I have just been reading some comments by Argie posters in La Nacion on the transfer of sovereignty of 'Las Malvinas' and the nearest analogy for the British /Falkland position I can see is that of an exasperated parent who has to keep on telling his overexcited 6 year old that he cannot gorge himself on all the sweets in a sweet shop. Getting through to the Argies is like banging your head on a brick wall.
86 axel arg (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 01:37 pm Report abuse
I dont have any mysterious document in my investigation, in fact if any of you wants to read it, i can give my i mail adress, and after you send me an i mail, and i will send you my work, i didn't publish my survey on line, and i won't do it eather.
Regarding the article that steve recommended me to read, i already did it, and i'm going to publish an opinion in a couple of minutes.
87 rule_britannia (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 03:26 pm Report abuse
@83 Interesting that you should mention Vatican City . Vatican City State has an area of approximately 44 hectares (110 acres), and a population of just over 800. This makes Vatican City the smallest independent state in the world by both area and population. Since the Catholic clergy is celibate, each generation of the Vatican's population is, by definition, “immigrant”.
88 reality check (#) Apr 06th, 2012 - 08:56 pm Report abuse
The survey is wrong. There would perhaps bea solution if the Argentines would be prepared to talk to the Falkland Islanders, without any preconditions on the desk. Otherwise, it's a 100% right.
89 axel arg (#) Apr 07th, 2012 - 01:31 pm Report abuse
My survey is just an opinion which is based in the academic knowledge of argentina and british professors of int. right, anyone can agree or not with my conclusions, because nobody is the owner of the truth, you can't say that the survey is wrong, because you didn't read it.
On the other hand, i agree that our government should talk to the islanders, and find a peaceful and fair solution for both people, but the conversations must include the sovereignty, which is the main problem, it's not imposible to find a fair solution for both.
90 row82 (#) Apr 07th, 2012 - 06:36 pm Report abuse
Please join and press the LIKE button, we would like to expand to over 20,000 members on all three lists...

1. Keep the Falklands British -

2. Falklands Forever British

3. We Will Never Surrender the Falklands

Join the growing cause to protect the Falklands from Argentine aggression!

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!