Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
I doubt whether in today's socio-politicl-economic climate that any UK leader would be willing pull another 'Maggie' and chances are that if a comprehensive petition is made by the nations of South America, Britain will probably yield 'something' to the Argies.
Just goes to prove that though few Argentinians have lived on the Falklands, the outcrops still seem to be of some importance to them!
Although a UN referendum on self-determination (one of, it not the, key underpinning principle(s) of these things, don't forget) would be interesting.
Govt says 'right, UN chaps - free and fair referendum, conducted under your auspices to see what the islanders want as per Article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'.
Referendum held - Falklanders vote to remain British. As the thing is UN-run, the Argentines have no chance of claiming that the vote has been rigged - what do they do then? Ignore self-determination principle and try to invade? Sanctions against the UK on the grounds of... what, exactly? Upholding self-determination?
It would be a potentially useful mechanism to wrong-foot the Argentines (perhaps coupled with rumours that a couple of SSNs are in the area, just in case).
And it'd save us multiple threads on here about how a carrier is the one and only way of protecting the Falklands (Pprune, passim)...
Archimedes I like your approach but I think that all this will do is buy time.
The Argies will reject such a referendum based on their belief that Falkland Islanders do not have the right to determine their destiny as they are on borrowed ground - in much the same way as the Palestenians view the Israelis.
The communications I've read point towards USAN contesting the UK's claim to the Falklands using all kinds of cultural, political and geographical arguments to support this. Technicalities currently in favour of the UK are viewed as part of the UK's colonial influence which is as wrong as the 'occupation' of the Falklands itself!
Given that regional oilex has so far been negative I wonder whether resources are the motivation?
The Falklands have no indigenous people, they were uninhabited prior to their discovery & colonization, first by the British, then the Argentinians (who themselves were colonists from Spain) & then by the British who kicked the Argies out (for the first time) for settling in their land. To make the Falklands the Malvinas would simply be replacing one colonial power with another.
Therefore the only solution is to allow the right to self determination of the inhabitants, and we all know where that will go which is why the Argentinians won't allow it.
Anyway, we won the war fair & square so the islands must be ours!
There is no more need for a UN referendum in the Falklands than there is for one on the Isle of Wight. The legal ownership of the Islands is not in any doubt as the Argentine claim is utterly without merit. None whatever, and it's a tragedy and a shame that some British people here seem bizarely to take an opposite view and rant on about the "evils" of "colonialism", whatever they are. The evils of success I suppose.
The Argentine claim is based on a spell of just a few years of settelment and based on the universally derided and spurious basis of "first settlement", so by their own argument the Islands are actually French! (Colonial brutes!) They have been British continuously since 1833, just 60 years less than the USA has been independant, or, by the Argentine argument, illegaly stolen from Britain. Apart from Florida and Louisiana which ar French of course. Or does it all belong to the Red Indians? Or the Clovis people? Or...
Germany has about as much lawful claim over the Channel Islands, which by Argie "logic" should be handed back to the French anyway- a far stronger claim. But then we'd get most of Northern France and Burgundy...and as to central Europe that "logic" would probably produce the longest war in human history as everyone fights everyone for everywhere.
We can either acknowledge these idiotic arguments and dismantle the world sociopolitically by handing it back to the "first nations" or we can let the revisionist troublemakers know that they've come to the wrong shop for adventurous "I was there first several hundred years ago" landgrabs and get on with the important things in global politics.
Which way is progress, and which the greatest self imposed humanitarian chaos ever?
The Brazilians aren't daft, whilst they may be willing to make noises about South American brotherhood and deny the odd port visit they are not going to risk a trade war with the UK and by extension the EU about some windswept rocks they couldn't give a damn about!
The biggest casualty here will be the loss of Jacks favorite run ashore