Wednesday, May 7th 2014 - 23:07 UTC

Falkland Islands and Crimea the new cold war

In an article for Penguin News, distinguished political and scientific Bulgarian author Dr Lyubomir Ivanov (*) discusses the Crimean conflict and its parallel with the Falklands.The Argentine President Cristina Kirchner praised the recent Crimean status referendum as, “one of the famous referendums of self-determination.”

Dr. Ivanov says Cristina has chosen to acclaim President Putin’s action in Crimea, hoping in return support the Argentine Falklands' claim.

 She also drew a parallel with the 2013 Falklands sovereignty referendum complaining that, for the West, “the referendum for self-determination in Crimea is bad, but the referendum for self-determination for the Kelpers is good.” Indeed, there are some obvious differences between the two referendums.

To begin with, the Crimean one had no legal validity under the then applicable law in that territory (Ukrainian Law), while the Falklands one was held in compliance with the law applicable on the Islands (Falklands Law). Furthermore, the former took place along with a Russian military operation that subdued the Ukrainian armed forces dislocated in Crimea.

To cap it all, the application of self-determination principle to Crimea is questionable, given that international law would grant that right to a people which the Crimean Russian community – unlike the Falkland Islanders – is not.

Nevertheless, let us assume that in both cases the referendum results reflected the prevailing attitudes respectively in Crimea and the Falklands. Then where the two referendums differ further is in their follow-ups. In the former case, Russia referred to the referendum results in order to unilaterally change the status quo and annex a territory that until then had been administered by Ukraine and recognized by Russia as a sovereign Ukrainian territory by treaty. Britain did nothing of the sort. The essential parallel between the Falklands and Crimea lies in two aspects conveniently overlooked by President Cristina Kirchner.

First, both Argentina and Russia stand no chance if their pretensions were submitted to the International Court of Justice.

And second, while Russia had the ample military power to take over Crimea in disregard of international law, Argentina has no such capabilities as attested by the Falklands War.

So President Cristina Kirchner has chosen to acclaim President Putin’s action, hoping that Russia would return the favor and support the Argentine claim. However, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov has stated that Crimea means to Russia more than the Falklands do to Britain, effectively placing Russia in the position of Britain rather than that of Argentina. Indeed, when that mattered most back in 1982, Russia refrained from vetoing the UN Security Council Resolution 502 which demanded the removal of the Argentine troops from the Falklands.

The present Ukrainian crisis is widely perceived to be setting the stage for a replay of the Cold War, with possible hotter conflicts spilling out in the region. Looking at the possible outcome, there are those who foresee Russia gaining the upper hand this time, and emerging triumphant through the annexation of territories with significant Russian population in areas like eastern Ukraine or northern Kazakhstan.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that a protracted standoff between the West and Russia is not such a bad thing after all, that it would end up with the West victorious once again, prompting a regime change in Moscow and possible disintegration of the Russian Federation fuelled by ethnic and religious division.

However, in a world where both the West and Russia face a range of common challenges in the field of security, each of them has the leverage to turn the other party’s victory sour, with the collateral effect of enhancing the stature of third powers such as China. As for the possible breakup of Ukraine or Russia, that runs the risk of getting out of control and slipping into a Yugoslav style imbroglio of gigantic proportions rather than following the ‘civilized divorce’ example of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union.

Could these worrisome scenarios be mitigated, given that the territorial aspect is essential to the present crisis? The key lies in the Crimean issue which is far from
being settled. Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect that in the foreseeable future Ukraine might be prepared to relinquish her rights over Crimea, unless some substantial territorial compensations were made available. The question therefore is, might it be possible to resolve that issue by a negotiated exchange of Ukrainian and Russian territories?

And if Crimea were to be recognized as Russian in the process, then what might be the respective Russian territories suitable for a transfer to Ukraine?

Ceding to Ukraine some Russian districts adjacent to the common border won’t do, for these are populated mostly by ethnic Russians. Fortunately, however, the Russian Federation enjoys the possession of a variety of uninhabited or virtually so territories that might qualify. For instance, one could consider the polar archipelagos of Novaya Zemlya, Severnaya Zemlya and New Siberian Islands, or rather appropriate parts of them comparable in size to Crimea.

Taking into account the sensitivity of that particular region for Russia’s strategic defense on the one hand, and Ukraine’s possible EU and NATO membership on the other, the territory to be ceded to Ukraine could be demilitarized by treaty too.

Finally, the value of the swapped entities could be balanced by an appropriate delimitation of Crimea’s vast maritime exclusive economic zone rich in fish, gas and possibly oil. Once agreed, the overall package could be put on nationwide referendums in both Russia and Ukraine.

An agreed swap along these lines would be in perfect compliance with international law, arguably delivering a truly win-win solution benefiting all the parties involved, and curbing the Crimean conflict’s potential to boost irredentist and separatist agendas in Ukraine, elsewhere in Europe and indeed worldwide. Such a solution may well seem unrealistic but then, just few months ago, so seemed the idea of Russia annexing a sizable chunk of Ukrainian territory.

If this avenue of opportunity is to be explored, then probably the diplomatic initiative ought to come from Russia as all the territories in question are presently controlled by that country. If not, then President Putin’s pledge that “our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us” would sound rather hollow.

That recurrently repeated pledge, however, is indicative of the real vulnerability of Putin’s regime. It’s not the economic sanctions that would be but a convenient excuse for the pending troubles of Russia’s structurally deficient economy anyway, and it’s not the prospect of seeing Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.

It’s the fear that a success story of Ukraine’s accession to the European Union – like that of Poland for instance --, might appear attractive to the Russians as well. (Penguin News)

(*) Dr. Lyubomir Ivanov is a graduate of the St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia with MS degree (1977) and PhD (1980) in mathematics he has been an Associate Professor at the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences since 1988. Professor Ivanov was Parliamentary secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1991-92) and Member of Parliament and co-author of the new Bulgarian Constitution (1990-91).

He is also the founding president of the Manfred Wörner Foundation since 1994. Chairman of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria (2001-09), and proponent of a global role and enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance. Coordinator, Marshall Memorial Fellowship Program for Bulgaria of the German Marshall Fund–US (1997-2002). Participant in the National Round Table for Transition to Democracy (1990), member of the National Coordinating.

Council of the Union of Democratic Forces (1990-91). Principal sponsor of both the 1990 parliamentary decision for Bulgaria to join the European Union and the 1991 parliamentary decision for Bulgaria to participate in the Allied liberation of Kuwait.

Professor Ivanov is the author of scientific and popular books and papers on foreign and security policy, Falklands and Kosovo self-determination, history, immigration policy, mathematics, linguistics and Antarctic science.

54 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 HansNiesund (#) May 07th, 2014 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
Hold on a minute, I thought the whole world was supposed to support Argentina?
2 A_Voice (#) May 07th, 2014 - 11:30 pm Report abuse
Land Swap...?
Have you not been reading the new,s this is about Russian expansionism back to the old USSR boundaries that Putin longs for, it's not about people, when has Russia ever cared about Russians....apart from murdering them by the millions...
Russia has killed more Russians than anyone else ever....
3 British_Kirchnerist (#) May 07th, 2014 - 11:51 pm Report abuse
Cristinita was right about the Crimean referendum; the writer here, on the other hand, seems to be an absolutely rabid cold warrior, and its really quite dangerous that such views are taken seriously in parts of the west
4 Islas Malvinas (#) May 08th, 2014 - 01:21 am Report abuse
British Propaganda in top shape...

“With the law applicable on the Islands”.
A law internationaly questioned.

“The Crimea referendum took place along with a Russian military operation that subdued the Ukrainian armed forces dislocated in Crimea”
And the one in Malvinas took place after a British military operation expelled the Argentine authorities in 1833 and stayed in the islands to prevent their return.

“The application of self-determination principle to Crimea is questionable”
And in Malvinas too. Not only questioned but ignored even by the closest allied of Britain who only “took note” of it.

“Russia referred to the referendum results in order to unilaterally change the status quo and annex a territory”
And the UK reffered to the referendum results in order to unilaterally justify the status quo and maintain the occupation of the territory.

“Argentina and Russia stand no chance if their pretensions were submitted to the International Court of Justice.”
That`s why the UK has been insisting that much in taking the case to the Court to put a final end to this question and stop Argentina´s “bullying” and “blockades”. LOL

“Argentina has no such capabilities”
Nor willingness
5 Brit Bob (#) May 08th, 2014 - 03:32 am Report abuse
@4. You forgot to mention the 2-month illegal occupation in 1833; the 2 settlers from Uruguay and the 2 settlers from Brazil that 'chose' to leave with the illegal garrison; the Convention of Settlement 'Peace' treaty that settled ANY outstanding differences and Argentina's Conquest of the Desert?
6 Monkeymagic (#) May 08th, 2014 - 04:24 am Report abuse

Argie propaganda in full swing.

You really need to stop lying about this 1833's bad for your health and sanity.

I notice the change from “Argentine population” to “Argentine authorities” but that is also false.

The 55 people expelled were not “Argentine authorities”.

They were the crew of the SS Sarandi who had arrived 6 weeks earlier, had murdered their captain Esteban Mestevier in an act of mutiny, and proceeded to rape his wife in front of their children.

The civilian population in November 1832 was under the management of two British subjects, all of whom were given the choice to remain on the islands, which (all but two) did.

You talk of propaganda...then you spew propaganda....if your case is so strong, why lie??
7 LEPRecon (#) May 08th, 2014 - 05:41 am Report abuse

Why don't you take all your evidence to the International Court of Justice then? If your case is so solid, why don't you approach the ONLY international body in the world that can ORDER the UK to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands to you?

Go on, tell your government to put it's money where its mouth is, and take it to the ICJ? I mean you can even caveat your application how you usually do by stating that you won't acknowledge any judgement that isn't in your favour. So what do you have to lose?

Oh that's right. If you took it to the ICJ and lost, then the UN would tell you to STFU, and refuse to let you waste their time by constantly spouting your lies and delusions on the world stage.

And, of course, the people of Argentina would begin to understand that your case is a lie, your government lies, and your government continues to lie about 'the whole world' supporting Argentine.

Hardly anyone supports Argentina. They support a peaceful solution to the dispute. That means they want Argentina to STFU about it, and leave them alone to get on with their lives.

The only support Argentina gets is lip service. Even your good 'buddies' Venezuela haven't sent you one bit of military hardware, or don't more beyond say, “yeah we support you.”

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. No one supports Argentina. You are isolated. You are a joke. And your fellow South American countries are happy for you to be obsessed with the Falklands because it means that you keep your greedy eyes and thieving hands off their territory.
8 lsolde (#) May 08th, 2014 - 07:56 am Report abuse
Oh very, very well said, folks.
@4 lslas Mal-something-or-other,
Well why don't you do it, lslas?
lf you are so sure that you are right, take your case to the ICJ.
Or just shut your mouth.
We are all getting very tired of you stupid malvinistas & your lies.
9 La Patria (#) May 08th, 2014 - 09:25 am Report abuse
@3 kirchnerist
The author is from eastern Europe and appears to be sufficiently informed to give his opinion. Just because it differs from the ludricous propaganda from cfk and her deluded sycophants doesn't affect its credibility.
10 HansNiesund (#) May 08th, 2014 - 09:38 am Report abuse
@4 IslasMalvinas

You seem to be making progress, that's two admissions in one post. No civilians were expelled in 1833, and Argentina's case stands no chance at the ICJ.

Next thing you know, you'll be recognising that nearly two centuries have elapsed since 1833, and certain developments have taken place in the world.
11 Briton (#) May 08th, 2014 - 10:20 am Report abuse
No matter what we do, or what we say, we will always be in the wrong, according to the fantasy world of CFK and her immortal's..

for they are never ever wrong, only the world is wrong...
12 FI_Frost (#) May 08th, 2014 - 10:26 am Report abuse
KFC, Filmus and Timerman's flip flopping and general whoring of what dignity it has in the diplomatic world only makes Argentina look even more shallow and opportunistic.

Presumably Argentina now wholeheartedly supports China's annexation and treatment of Tibet and all other border disputes China has on both land and in the South China Sea - regardless of the rights or wrongs. They need to be reminded of this every time they bleat about the UK's supposed double standards over Honk Kong and Chagos Islanders.
13 GALlamosa (#) May 08th, 2014 - 11:08 am Report abuse
Interesting analysis from Lyubo who is indeed a distinguished academic. Always interesting to see what those from neutral backgrounds think. Exposes Argentine political arguments over Crimea as asinine.
14 The_Truth_shall_B_Trolld (#) May 08th, 2014 - 12:20 pm Report abuse

And that is how the UK appears to us. Regardless of right or wrongs, you are opportunistic and shallow.

The UK is never wrong, it's always the world who is wrong.
15 zathras (#) May 08th, 2014 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
13 GALlamosa (#)
Quite right. A neutral, well respected academic with very significant and relevant experience has a view that is fair and balanced.
THEY don't like that do they.
16 M_of_FI (#) May 08th, 2014 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
@14 - “The UK is never wrong, it's always the world who is wrong”

Really? I think this is best to describe Argentina. I can raise issues like the Falklands, Argentina's debt, political corruption in Argentina, the erosion of democracy in Argentina, the capture of YPF, the falsifying of economic statistics, etc. etc. etc.. Argentina is the one that plays the victim/injustice card. That is their whole game plan over the Falklands. This mentality has created a deep rooted hatred of the west.

The west is not at fault for Argentina's problems. That is all of your own doing.
17 Monkeymagic (#) May 08th, 2014 - 01:12 pm Report abuse

Who is to say what is right or wrong?

There are very clear differences between what the UK and Argentina believes is right or wrong.

For example:

If the UK borrows money by means of government issued bonds, it has always, without fail, repaid that debt, IN FULL, EXACTLY ON THE DAY IT WAS DUE.

In the UK, that behaviour is deemed right...In Argentina there is a difference.

In Argentina, if the government borrows money, it has ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of paying it back in full and on time, it believes it is owed the money for some imagined slight, and refusal to repay is a “show of strength”, indeed you have claimed that Argentina is brave to stand alone against the world markets.

A simple example of there is no right or wrong, just a view point.

Another example is the Falkland islands:

The UK believe that the people of the islands should be allowed to form whatever type of government they choose, based on near 200 years of inhabitation, and that all meaningful society, business, commerce and industry existing on the islands has been built by them.

Argentinas government believes these peole have no right to govern themselves, that the islands should be handed to a foreign power against the will of the inhabitants, based on a fabricated set of myths 200 years old.

Again, no clear right or wrong...just opinion.

Of course it is easy to believe that the one is always “right” far as opportunistic and shallow is concerned, I would suggest you government and indeed yourself be better examples of this behaviour.
18 Conqueror (#) May 08th, 2014 - 01:22 pm Report abuse
@3 It's probably best if all Kirchner supporters, wherever they might be, are shot. I understand that BK may be in Dover. Residents of Dover: You know what to do!
@4 The law is only questioned in jerkoffland. And no state has the “right” to question the laws of another.
The Falklands sovereignty referendum took place 180 years after the re-establishment of British rule. 180 years during which the inhabitants were quite happy.
The application of the self-determination principle in the Falklands complies with the UN Charter. In Crimea it doesn't. In fact, it represents an action that the UN Charter specifically says is unacceptable.
It wasn't “unilaterally”. The self-governing Falkland Islands and Britain means that it was bilateral.
Yeah. Why doesn't argieland go to the ICJ?
And didn't PutridJelly say that argieland would invade again if the British garrison wasn' there? But it will be there for many years.
@14 But, at the end of the day, WE can stamp on YOU. And where will your lies, rewriting of history, non-compliance with treaties and international law get you then? Make no mistake. The majority of the British people are agreed. Try again and argieland will be carpet-bombed. There is NOTHING in argieland worth having that wouldn't be there after major bombing to wipe out every population centre.
@15 Of course they don't like it. It's honest and straightforward. It doesn't mention what Britain can do to argieland. They wouldn't want to appear frightened, would they? But let's look back. Starting 74 years back nazis killed thousands of Brits. But current British munitions are far better than what the nazis had. Do we think the RAF, RN and British Army aircraft could wipe out 90% of the argie population? Of course they could. Typhoons being flown in with airborne refueling. RN submarines ready to launch cruise missiles. More cruise missiles from the Typhoons. So much more “capable” than '82. And now we really HATE!
19 Brit Bob (#) May 08th, 2014 - 03:06 pm Report abuse
@14 Reference rights and wrongs, why don't you take a look at the Global Corruption Index and compare the UK and Argentina's scores. One country is in 14th position and the other is sandwiched in between Gabon and Niger down in 106th place. Lol
20 Pugol-H (#) May 08th, 2014 - 06:43 pm Report abuse
His talk of “land swaps” is pie in the sky, the Russians are not going to compensate anyone for what they see as theirs in the first place.

Astounding change of position from CFK on this one.

To come out in favour of referenda is one thing, to come out in favour of referenda at the point of a gun is quite another.
21 GeoffWard2 (#) May 08th, 2014 - 07:05 pm Report abuse
Land Swaps.

It makes me laugh that the article recommends the swap of the Crimea with Novaya Zemlya ! .... This is like offering in exchange Bikini Atoll or downtown Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Anybody remember the half-life of the fission materials?
And it's no good offering the Chernobyl 'protected zone' - same issue applies.

All in all, the darstardly deed has been done, and trying to suggest sugar-coatings to the bitter pill reminds one of horses bolting and stable doors.
22 Yo (#) May 08th, 2014 - 08:25 pm Report abuse
The Malvinas referendum was not recognized by the UN so it is illegal.

The UN says the Malvinas´s issue is a case of colonialism and calls Argentina and UK to talk about it to solve the problem.

So insted of fighting we should work together to get a full solution that satisfies both countries.
23 Room101 (#) May 08th, 2014 - 08:28 pm Report abuse
24 José Malvinero (#) May 08th, 2014 - 08:42 pm Report abuse
Small Bulgarian, why you do not study what happened to the “referendum” made ​​by the occupants of Gibraltar? Null and void for the UN. The same happened to the “referendum” of okupas in Malvinas Argentinas Islands.
Doc you must study more.
25 jwolf (#) May 08th, 2014 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
How can a mythical place have a mythical illegal referendum? I remember the Falkland Islands having a duly constituted referendum with international observers overseeing it. And it came off without a hitch. Perhaps “Malvinas” can take a lesson from the Falkalnd Islanders and try to have a mythical legal referendum next time around......
26 Porto Margaret (#) May 08th, 2014 - 08:52 pm Report abuse

Dear Yo, have you just awoken from a coma that started in 1982?
27 Pete Bog (#) May 08th, 2014 - 09:25 pm Report abuse
@4 “Argentina has no such capabilities”


Nor willingness”

You could not be more wrong.

The only logical reason that Argentina is scared of the self defence forces defending the Falkland Islands, is that those forces can only be offensive to Argentina if attacked.

Therefore by being scared of self defence forces, Argentina must be planning to attack those self defence forces guarding the Falkland Islands.
28 Yo (#) May 08th, 2014 - 09:53 pm Report abuse
26 Porto Margaret, i just don´t think that agression could lead to a solution. If we don´t talk we are going to be the whole life fighting. The war is terrible and how you can see doesn´t end the problems but increase them.

So why don´t you give a chance to dialog?
29 lsolde (#) May 08th, 2014 - 10:02 pm Report abuse
But there is nothing to talk about, Yo.
You want our land,
We will not give it to you & you have nothing that we want.
lf we ever did talk it would go like this:-
1) Argentina--
“we want your lslands”
2) Falklands(not UK)--
Talks finished.
Had your dialog,
Happy now?
30 Yo (#) May 08th, 2014 - 10:37 pm Report abuse
lsolde. Have you voted for your new governor???

How can you say you are not a colony if your leaders are from UK and choosen by the UK?

I understand that now you have a better life quality that us and you don´t want to lose it. But i don´t believe that you are not interested in anything from us. There is a lot of things we could share and would make your life better than now.

In relation to dialog, for example i could accept that you became and independent country asociated with Argentina and under some rules. In that case you would not need UK troops anymore and life in the south atlantic would be more peaceful.

But if you don´t talk, everything will continue like now and worse.
31 jwolf (#) May 08th, 2014 - 11:04 pm Report abuse
@ 30
What exactly does Argentina have to offer the Falklanders that would make their life better?
32 Falkland Islands (#) May 08th, 2014 - 11:24 pm Report abuse
@30 Yo Mann, If Argentina gave me 1 million pounds tomorrow, I would stay in the falklands where I am and they could shove the money where the sun don't shine, that is how much i like Argentina. I would prefer to die than accept anything from Argentina.
33 Troy Tempest (#) May 09th, 2014 - 12:09 am Report abuse
28 Yo

“If we don´t talk we are going to be the whole life fighting.”

Why is that, Yo?

3 choices:

1) fight - militarily, propaganda
2) “dialog” - as Isolde says - stalemate
3) stop asking for what is not yours and just worry about Argentina - peace !

34 Yo (#) May 09th, 2014 - 02:12 am Report abuse
I Can see you have a lot of hate to us, goverments some times do things wrong but it does not mean that all argentians are bad people.
to have a war you need 2, and the UK fought too. So no one was the good one, people died and that was terrible.

we have the chance to build something better than what they have done before. So what i am trying to say is that we need to get close to stop,fighting. When you know the other it is more difficult to reach to things like,war...

i hope some day we could live in peace.

the things we could give you are the same than before the war kept you alive and now you dont remember
food, fuel, medicines, medical atention, education on universities...etc...
35 La Patria (#) May 09th, 2014 - 03:11 am Report abuse
Hola Yo, Peace is obviously the best option but to get to positive dialogue, bullying behaviour and aggressive rhetoric from the Casa Rosada will need to stop.
Swapping Messi for Andy Carroll may also help:)
36 lsolde (#) May 09th, 2014 - 08:19 am Report abuse
@30 Yo,
l didn't say that we are or are not a colony, Yo.
Why do you want to know?
What business is it of yours or Argentina's what we do or are?
Believe me, Yo, there is nothing that we need from Argentina.
Life is peaceful here,
We will be independent when WE want it, NOT when Argentina wants it & we don't want to be in association with you.
You need to get into your head, that your country, Argentina has absolutely NO RIGHTS in the Falklands.
l know its hard, after all you've been taught at school, but you are a foreign country & have no more rights here than any other country.
We can have peace, we desire peace, but not as an Argentine colony.
So there you have it, Yo.
l do not want your country,Yo, why should you want mine?
37 GeoffWard2 (#) May 09th, 2014 - 09:08 am Report abuse
Land Swaps:

It is suggested that The Crimea be swapped acre for acre, hectare for hectare, with sparsely inhabited Siberia.

Well! As most of the Crimeans are already in Siberia - following the post-war genocidic relocations of the Crimean Cossacks to the Siberian gulags ('work-camps' = prison camps) - it would seem that this would be 'home for home'.

How on earth *Cossacks* are now 'pro-Russian' and are working alongside the Russians in Eastern Ukraine leaves me speechless!
I guess Russian indoctrination/brain-washing must be pretty good.

Yo (#34)
'to have a war you need 2, and the UK fought too. So no one was the good one.'

You fail to understand certain words in English:
'protect' and 'defend'.
These are good words for good deeds. To give one's life in a defensive war, for another in the defence of his/her freedoms, this is an ultimate act of sacrifice. Even the Bible professes this to be 'good'!

The alternative - where everybody gives their life and freedoms willingly when attacked by a belligerent nation (your suggestion) is what Hitler was hoping for; what Galtieri was hoping for.

In English this is 'not good'; in English the correct word is 'stupid'.
38 CKurze30k (#) May 09th, 2014 - 12:18 pm Report abuse

“to have a war you need 2, and the UK fought too. So no one was the good one, people died and that was terrible. ”

The UK may have fought too, but the fight would not have happened had Argentina first illegally invaded British territory, and then ignored a legally binding directive from the UN to remove their occupying forces.

Not to mention the fact that the junta's eventual intent was to murder the legitimate inhabitants of the Falklands (though most people prefer the slightly fluffier term of “ethnic cleansing”). So, yes there was a good one, and no, it wasn't Argentina.

The cuurent “civil” conflict is pushed again by Argentina. They fill their schools with the Malvinas lie, the lie that those islands were usurped by Britain. We've seen this affect discussions here - various users have slandered the legitimate inhabitants of the Falklands as “pirates” “okupas” and “squatters”, and some no longer here claimed they would happily murder them with nuclear weapons.

There are two ways that this dispute can be resolved peacefully and fairly. The first is for Argentina to take it to the ICJ, which is the only international group able to resolve such disputes.

The main problem is that Argentina in the past, has reneged on arbitration when it has ruled against them. If the ICJ is to be involved, Argentina *must* accept its ruling.

The other is obvious: as it has no legitimate claim (a fact known to *both* sides), Argentina willingly relinquishes its sovereignty claim, and it's blocking of the Falklands being removed from the Decolonisation list.

These are the only two fair ways to resolve this dispute: agree to ICJ arbitration or drop the whole thing, including the “Malvinas lie”.
39 Yo (#) May 09th, 2014 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
For us we are defending our territory occupied in 1833. Due to the years have past i believe that people living on the islands must be respected as their inhabitants but i dont recognize UK sovereignty over them and less over the waters surrounding them which were stolen after the war. ( remember that before the war UK did not claim for any water arround the islands). I think that we need to know each other a bit more and we will see that cooperation will be better for all of us. About the meaning of the words i understand what you want to say. Take note that this is not my language and it is difficult to me to say all what i want to say correctly. I am doing my best talk to you, if i write in spanish ussualy you get angry.
40 FI_Frost (#) May 09th, 2014 - 01:28 pm Report abuse
@ 39 yo

1066 is rather a long time ago, I don't believe we have any living participants in the events to confirm your side of the events. BTW, Argentina didn't really exist at the time either; with your Gaucho chappy (know criminal of Austrian descent) arriving from River Plate, 1000+ miles away!

And how about decades later Argentina invaded Patagonia and conquered the desert in and unprovoked act of aggression - you OK with that?

I presume your still school age and haven't yet started your history classes: tip, try wikki and other neutral sources on-line for truth and facts rather than your somewhat fiction based textbooks.

So they we have it, history is something that happened a long time ago. Sadly you cannot pick and choose bits and bobs you like from the past and then place them out of context to win arguments - that’s rather immature. Finally, when you start an unprovoked war and loose, you don’t then win it later claiming its unfair, and that you didn’t really mean, and that we were bigger than you, and they had better stuff. Think of it as a game of conkers; when your nut gets smashed by a tougher one its game over. End of game :(
41 Yo (#) May 09th, 2014 - 02:00 pm Report abuse
I would appreciate you to respect me and not to attack me with things like me age (you do not know it) and my education. If a have to guide myself for what a have learned at school the islands are argentinians. As a have said before i accept you to be and independient country with some rules. That is my own way if thinking,and nobody has put,it on my mind Just like you believe.

unfortunately this is not a game and the people from both sides who died at war were real Just like the problems we still have. Almost 200 years have past since the start of the conflic, we have the chance to finish it if we relate.
42 FI_Frost (#) May 09th, 2014 - 02:47 pm Report abuse

Apologies - no offence intended.

The fundamental problem here is a difference of view regarding events 200 years ago. However we can't change that, impossible. Too much water under the bridge; what would the world look like if we all started playing that game.

Yes, its good to talk, provided you stop saying the people of the Falklands have no rights, (squatters, usurpers and other such nonsense) and leave them in peace to decide their own future and who they wish to associate with. At present they wish to be a British Overseas Territory - similar to the last 200 years.
43 Yo (#) May 09th, 2014 - 04:23 pm Report abuse

Apologies accepted... Have a nice day
44 Pugol-H (#) May 09th, 2014 - 04:57 pm Report abuse
@ Yo
The UN position, is that discussions to settle any alleged sovereignty disputes are completely irrelevant to the decolonisation process, and the C24 committee.

Territories (people/populations) on the list have the right to self-determination irrespective of any alleged sovereignty claims.

The solution is for Argentina to accept the truth about the history of the region, and recognise the rights of the Islanders.

Then there might be something to discuss. We are not holding our breath.

We have been fighting for our entire history and this is a cause we believe in.

A Governor is not a “leader” he is a Governor, their leaders they elect themselves. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and about a dozen other countries still have governors.

Few people in the world are going to believe you that they are all still colonies.

The belligerent and frankly offensive attitude of this Arg gov, is such that fighting is far more likely and discussions of any kind are not even a possibility.
Change that attitude if you want to live in peace, otherwise stay your side of the line, or it will be war.

That’s what I mean about the “truth about the history of the region”, in 1833 the British recovered their territory from Arg occupation. British territory long before Arg ever existed

Don’t worry about your English, you’re doing better than many of us could in Spanish.

@ 37 GeoffWard2
Cossacks in western Ukraine, they are mostly ethnic Russians in the east.
45 reality check (#) May 09th, 2014 - 06:50 pm Report abuse
Argentinas problem is that they are entering into a game that the UK has played for centuries, that's not a boast, it's just a fact.

With the islands secure, Argentine ineptitude, the whole question is relegated to the bottom of the dispatch box or any other questions.
46 lsolde (#) May 09th, 2014 - 09:25 pm Report abuse
@39 Yo,
“For us we are defending our territory occupied in 1833”--you said.
Thats the problem, Yo, it was not your territory.
We claimed it in 1765.
47 Yo (#) May 09th, 2014 - 10:14 pm Report abuse
That is a part of the history, then the uk signed and agreement with spain where the recognized spanish sovereingty and left the islands. But i think that now it does not realy matter we need to work on the present to make a better future and not to be another 200 years still fighting for the same.
48 Troy Tempest (#) May 09th, 2014 - 11:45 pm Report abuse
A “better future ” would be assured if you stopped harassing and blockading the Islands, and drop your false claims/demands for sovereignty.

That would ensure peace, as there is NO AGGRESSION on the part of the UK or FI
49 GeoffWard2 (#) May 10th, 2014 - 10:19 am Report abuse
Pugol #44
Thanks , I get mixed up with all the ethnic genocides and 're-locations' out of - and sometimes back to - Eastern Europe, etc before and after WWII.

Not just the Cossacks but also the Poles, Romanians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Volga Germans, Ingrian Finns, Karelian Finns, Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks, Caucasus Greeks, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Karapapaks, Far East Koreans, Chechens and Ingushs. Not to mention White Russians, Jews, prisoners of war, 'gypsies' and the educationally sub-normal.

[It could be argued that Russia has much more to answer for than Nazi Germany.]
50 Islander1 (#) May 10th, 2014 - 11:11 am Report abuse
Yo- you do seem a lot more reasonable and progressive than many form your side on here- welcome. One day I agree there will be a solution - and it will be decided from negotiations between the democratically elected representatives of the Govt of the people of the Falklands and those of Argentina.
The British Govt,s role would merely be that perhaps of “chair” of such negotiations and providers of technical and legal advice to the Falklands.
You will find that the UK has said for many many years that they will always respect the wishes of the people of the Islands. If we voted(as we did) to stay a British Overseas territory for the current time - then they respect and accept it and will defend our rights.
Nest time we have a referendum - if we vote to become Argentine then Britain would respect it and withdraw. It is as simple as that.
If we voted to become Independent then the same - except we know that the Argentine Govt would not accept and would invade and occupy us again, as UK would not be responsible for defending us if we became Independent.
Offshore the Economic Zone is not Britain,s nor was it declared by and nor is it controlled by Britain. It was declared by the Falklands Govt and is controlled 100% by the Falklands Govt and 100% of any tax income etc and licence fees comes to the Falklands Govt. It has British support yes - simply because that zone is ours and Britian supports what is ours.
We are not greedy and have a boundary limit on the Argentine side based on the norms of international law in where country maritime boundaries should be.
in the 1990s your Govts worked with ours and we had a growing number of sensible agreements that were heading to increase friendship and trust between us - whilst respecting also the 2 sovereignty positions.
51 golfcronie (#) May 10th, 2014 - 02:05 pm Report abuse
I have asked many times on this forum to Argentines, ” What could Argentina offer the FALKLANDERS that they do not already have? Please , you seem to be sensible
52 Pugol-H (#) May 10th, 2014 - 02:33 pm Report abuse
@ 47 Yo
Sorry, but that is completely untrue.

The Anglo Spanish agreement of 1771, if that is what you are referring to, does not say any such thing.

The agreement was a humiliation for the Spanish, you don’t have to believe me, google it.

The agreement of 1771 proves three things beyond any doubt.

1. That the British claim to the Falklands is much older than Argentina is.

2. That the British always rejected the Spanish claim.

3. That the Spanish had to accept this.

The only thing Argentina can claim to have inherited from Spain, is an argument that the Spanish had already lost.

I’ll say it again, that’s what I mean about the “Argentina accepting the truth about the history of the region”.
53 Yo (#) May 12th, 2014 - 02:33 pm Report abuse
it is hard to accept it but right now Argentina can not give you a better quality of life.

It does not mean that i do not believe the islands are our, but we have to work to much in the continent to be in condition of negotiate.
54 lsolde (#) May 12th, 2014 - 10:04 pm Report abuse
Unfortunately, Yo, there is nothing to negotiate.
We reject that Argentina has any “rights” in the Falklands & you have nothing that we want.
All we want is good neighbours, without becoming ruled by them.
And we don't want to rule you.

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!