How legitimate is the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands?

[antaeus]

This week the Rio Group made an interesting statement at their summit in Mexico...

The heads of state of the 23 south and central American nations have firmly brought the Falklands dispute back to the top of the international list of important issues with the following official statement: "the heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain''

Our friend Hugo Chavez was particularly damning and announced at the confrence that if there was another war, that Venezuela would not allow Argentina to stand alone... while his comment is obviously at the extreme edge of opinions at the meeting, it is certainly worth taking note of the fact that larger nations like Brazil and Mexico also backed the official statement, along with 3 commonwealth nations (Jamaica, Belize and Guyana)

The official statement reflects feelings that have been floating beneath the surface for many years, but seems to have come to a head with the recent announcement a deal between the Falklands administration and a British oil company to begin exploration on the edge of the continental shelf off the Falklands.

The British government is unlikely to consider any change of sovereignty in the future, and have reaffirmed their commitment to the Falklands, so the Rio Group statement will likely go no further than where it's at now...

So, in this era of historical revisionism... how legitimate is Argentina's historic claim on the Falklands?

[Pious Agnost]

Hold on a second, do you mean that Brazil, Mexico e.t.c. supported the statement that Argentina wouldn't stand alone??

[antaeus]

Hold on a second, do you mean that Brazil, Mexico e.t.c. supported the statement that Argentina wouldn't stand alone??

i'll clarify that part eh?

[Pious Agnost]

Ok, I was getting worried for a bit there lol.

On the topic itself, Argentina has no claim other than proximity, whereas the UK has historical, ethnic and democratic claim to it.

[Ishoss]

They have less claim to the Falklands than Norway do to Shetland. The Shetlands is closer to Norway and was historically inhabited by norwegians, but today, which is the day and age we live in, Brits live there thus it is rightfully Great Britains island. The same applies for the Falklands.

[DeMolay]

Well , considering the islands are british since the early 19th century and that the inhabitants of Malvinas/Falklands are for staying under british sovereignity (when they have been polled ) , i think it is fair to say that the UK has a more legitimate claim on the island

Initially , it was first conqueered by French navigators in 1764 (Bougainville expedition ) from the city of St Malo in Bretagne (hence the name "Malouines" , from "St Malo" , Malvinas in Spanish ) . But after some time , as Spain was allies of France , it was ceded to Spain for 600.000 livres

But then the British also invaded it a few years later not knowin that the french had set foot on it at first . Later in the 1770's , there were naval confrontations between Spanish and British fleet around the islands , both British and Spanish (who bought it ) were claiming the ownership of the island . But in 1790 , the British agreed to stop harrassing Spanish possessions in the region .

Then in 1810 , Argentina becomes independant and claim the Malvinas like their Spanish predecessors and settle a few colons there . However in 1833 , the British invade it and settle their own colons as well in greater numbers . Since then it had always been British .


Now , it's a political consideration , but i agree the geographical proximity justifies Argentina's claim , however to be honest , the most important opinion to consider is the opinion of the islanders themselves , from my point of view only them can choose but i respect people's opinion that might differ .

[Tiberios]

Ok, I was getting worried for a bit there lol.

On the topic itself, Argentina has no claim other than proximity, whereas the UK has historical, ethnic and democratic claim to it.

this.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I think they're about as legitimate as the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. But each part of the empire chooses to be part of Great Britian so I think the legitimacy of their claims is weak at best.

[Juvenal]

Here are the highlights:

• The French and British initially discovered and claimed different parts of the Falklands in 1764/1765, unaware of each others existence (there are almost 800 islands in the archipelago).
• The French sold their colony to Spain in 1766.
• The British withdrew from their colony in 1776 due to demands of the American War of Independence (but continued to claim sovereignty).
• The Spanish withdrew in 1811 (but also continued to claim sovereignty).
• The United Provinces of the River Plate founded a penal colony in 1828, which was destroyed by the USA when it seized US whalers.
• The British reasserted their sovereignty in 1833 and have been there ever since.

I believe Argentina's claim mostly rests on their belief that all Spanish possessions in the region are theirs owing to their victory in the war of independence of 1810. Of course using that logic, they also own Uruguay and a chunk of southern Brazil.

The ironic thing is that the British Government was trying to find a way to transfer sovereignty to Argentina in the 1970's (against the wishes of the islanders). Of course the invasion of 1982 put an end to this idea.

Here is some more detail from Wikipedia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Since their discovery, the Falkland Islands have had a complex history. France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina have all claimed possession at some time, and have established and abandoned settlements on the islands. The Falklands Crisis of 1770 was nearly the cause of a war between a Franco-Spanish Alliance and Britain. Argentina took over and continued the Spanish government's claim after its declaration of independence in 1816 and the independence war in 1817. The American sloop USS Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement at Port Louis on 28 December 1831, and the United Kingdom returned to the islands in 1833. Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and in 1982 a military junta used the dispute as a pretext to invade and briefly occupy the islands. A United Kingdom task force defeated the occupying troops and returned the islands to British control in the two-month-long Falklands War.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was in 1764. It was named Port St. Louis and was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.

In January 1765, the British captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence, explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont. He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty.[19]

As a result of economic pressures resulting from the forthcoming American Revolutionary War, the United Kingdom decided to withdraw unilaterally from many of her overseas settlements, including Port Egmont, in 1774.[20][21] Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims. From 1776 until 1811 Spain maintained a settlement administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On leaving in 1811, Spain also left behind a plaque asserting her claims.

On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina) at Port Louis. Jewett was an American sailor and privateer in the employment of Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch to captain his ship, the frigate Heroína (Lynch had obtained a corsair licence from the Buenos Aires Supreme Director Jose Rondeau). Jewett had put into the islands the previous month, following a disastrous eight month voyage with most of his crew disabled by scurvy and disease. After resting in the islands and repairing his ship he returned to Buenos Aires.

In 1828 the Argentines founded a settlement and a penal colony. United States warships destroyed this settlement in 1831 after the Argentine governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized US seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. Escaped prisoners and pirates were left behind. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny.

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty. The existing settlers were allowed to remain, with an Irish member of Vernet's settlement, William Dickson, appointed as the Islands' governor. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year and was informed that the British had no objections to the continuation of Vernet's business ventures provided there was no interference with British control.[22][23][24][25]

[Lonck]

as legitimate as "kosovo is serbia", yeah I went there. Don't hijack the thread though. Once your people become the majority or the only ones, its pretty much yours. I mean what they gonna do? march into the town and kill civilians who stand in their way? Reason why we have pop exchanges. I once thought Argentina had a legit cause to claim the island(s) but once I saw the pop census I supported the brits. Same with Gibraltar.

[Spartacus the Irish]

To my knowledge, a US ship destroyed the original Argentine penal settlement/colony (after a US sealing ship was captured and its cargo confisticated) and the British colonised the thus empty islands in 1833.

Argentina perhaps have decent claim to the land (although so does every country to have had settlement on the islands at one time or another), but the British have claim to the people. I would believe that is enough.

[conon394]

how legitimate is Argentina's historic claim on the Falklands?

Well of course absolutely zero - you can point to all the legalities and niceties in the world (which tend to favor the British anyway) but the simple fact is the British won the last contest of force and the vast majority of the rest of the world recognizes that result or does not comment on it. It's not like the Islanders themselves are chaffing at the bit to become Argentine anyway.

[CiviC]

I understand the historical and geographical reasons for Argentinian claims, but I can't ignore there is a British population there, and the British are actually the first to populate the islands, so the population has the right to self detemination and so far they want to remain British.

The most elegant solution would be a condominium. This would open new opportunities for locals of Malvines in South America.

[conon394]

I understand the historical and geographical reasons for Argentinian claims

I really don't. So big deal it close to Argentina? Does this mean The US should tun over Michigan to the Canada after all it closer to the Canadian capital than the US one and the UK did briefly reassert sovereignty in 1812.

The most elegant solution would be a condominium

For what to experience Argentine monetary stability - right now the locals get access to the both the UK and the EC - I'm sorry a rational person would pick that any day over South America.

edit: I appreciate Argentina has done a good job recovering from the issues circa 2000, but I have a difficult time thinking anyone in the Falklands could rationally trade being British and EC for a more nebulous Argentine/British situation. Just consider you are an Islander and say they do find significant oil offshore - do you want the British alone (one of the least corrupt nations in the world according to Transparency International at #17) or Britain and Argentina (# 106) administering that windfall?

[Azog 150]

Short answer, its not really legitimate. The only thing going for it is proximity. But if that is how all territorial disputes were settled, then the world would look pretty different.

[Bleda]

how legitimate is Argentina's historic claim on the Falklands?

Legally or historically, not very much claim. In terms of proximity, sure there is some claim there, in the sense that a 13th century warlord would claim nearby territory.

[CiviC]

The conflict is not new :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklan...sis_%281770%29

In fact it's very similar with Falkland War : the usual supects being involved including France.

Also historically Argentine has a good claim on the islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei...lkland_Islands

But of course there is also the will of the population that lives for long on the islands and it's British.

A condominium would be reciprocal advantageous and open for Falklands new opportunities in South America.

[Lysimachus]

Also historically Argentine has a good claim on the islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei...lkland_Islands

And from the same article:

"Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833"

So what good claim would this be? Proximity?

[CiviC]

And from the same article:

"Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833"

So what good claim would this be? Proximity?

You quoted only parts convinient to you or you red only the first phrases.

"French claim

France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland, in 1764. The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250. The Islands were named after the Breton port of St. Malo as the Îles Malouines, (which remains the French name for the islands). In 1766, France agreed to leave the islands to Spain, with Spain reimbursing France for the cost of the settlement.[4]


Spanish claim

Spain claimed the Falkland Islands under provisions in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which settled the limits of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. When Spain discovered the British and French colonies on the Islands, a diplomatic row broke out between the claimants. In 1766, Spain and France, who were allies at the time, agreed that France would hand over Port Saint Louis, and Spain would repay the cost of the settlement. Spain and Great Britain enjoyed uneasy relations at the time, and no corresponding agreement was reached.[4]
The Spanish took control of Port Saint Louis and renamed it Puerto Soledad in 1767. On 10 June 1770, a Spanish expedition expelled the British colony at Port Egmont, and Spain took total control of the Islands. Spain and Great Britain came close to war over the issue, but instead, concluded a treaty on 22 January 1771, allowing the British to return to Port Egmont with neither side relinquishing sovereignty claims.[5]
The British returned in 1771 but for economic reasons decided to leave the Islands in 1774. The British withdrawal was completed in 1776,[4] with a plaque asserting British sovereignty left behind, leaving Spain in total control. From 1774 to 1811, the islands were ruled from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Spanish governor was withdrawn in 1806, and the islands abandoned by the Spanish settlers by a 8 January 1811 decree of the Governor of Montevideo, in turn leaving a plaque asserting Spanish sovereignty.[4][6]

[Lysimachus]

Okay, okay 1774-1811. But let me raise two points:

1. England has ruled it far longer than that (over a century).

2. The population wants to remain part of England and the majority is of said nationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other[1]