Argentina withdraws from Falklands agreement.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/st...HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Argentine Foreign Minister:

Malvinas issue: Argentina announced the decision to put an end to the “Foradori-Duncan Pact” of 2016. I did so in a meeting with the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, James Cleverly, at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Summit in New Delhi, India.

The Argentine government has proposed to resume negotiations on the question of sovereignty and for this it is promoting a meeting at the headquarters of the UN in New York.

I proposed an agenda of issues that, at a minimum, should be part of the negotiation process that we promote in accordance with the provisions of UNGA resolution 2065. In this way, Argentina complies with the mandate of the General Assembly and the United Nations Committee on Decolonization.

We honor the commitment of the president Alferdez and our government to support the Malvinas Question as a State policy…..

[Ant T]

This topic has been discussed at length here before - some of the following is cut and pasted from my previous reply to a similar comment -

Tiger G
“It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina…”

Asturias56
“left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK”

The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here.

The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”

Historically, they were certainly referred to as a “Colony” (until 1983), but were never a colony in the sense of a minority ruling class governing an unwilling indigenous population. They had no human population at all when discovered by Europeans.

From 1983 to 2002 they were classed as a “British Dependent Territory”, and since then they have officially been a “British Overseas Territory”.

And the Islands are not “p!ss poor” by any definition. The GDP per capita (figures directly off google, and not checked by me, but seem reasonable) for UK is about £40,000, the Falklands about £58,000.
I do not know the detail of whether the Falklands were economically “dependent” on the UK in any way prior to the mid-1980s. Certainly, a lot of money flowed out of the Islands, to owners of Falklands farms and businesses who were in the UK and elsewhere - I do not know how much flowed into the Islands from the UK.
But since the mid 1980s (with the establishment of the fisheries licensing, and subsequently, the wildlife tourism industry), the islands have been economically self-sufficient in everything except (the very big exception of) defence.

Tiger G
“and I can fully understand why they want it back.”

As for “giving it back” to Argentina, what is your basis for the word “back”? Britain had a claim to the Falklands (disputed by France and then Spain) dating back to at least 1765; Argentina did not exist until after 1816, and did not extend more than 100 miles South of Buenos Aires (almost 1000 miles from the Falklands) until the 1870s, by which time Britain had had an effective administration for over 40 years. (And it is worth noting that Argentina only extended its territory southwards by 1000 miles in the 1870s by military conquest, deliberately hunting and killing many of the indigenous population in the “conquest of the desert”, commemorated until recently on their 20 peso banknote)

My wife’s family go back to at least the 1880s here. Many families can trace their ancestors right back to the mid-1840s. Why should their home be given “back” to Argentina?

Tiger G
“Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ??”

Imagine if the UK “owned” a small group of islands just off the coast of France…..what would the French be saying and doing?? - Not very much as far as I can see - the Channel Islands seem not to be causing too much diplomatic problems between France and UK (certainly not to the extent of going to war over them). And as for the “proximity” argument for ownership, France is exactly 0.00000 miles from Germany, so who should take over who?

[Ant T]

This topic has been discussed at length here before - some of the following is cut and pasted from my previous reply to a similar comment -

Tiger G
“It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina…”

Asturias56
“left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK”

The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here.

The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”

Historically, they were certainly referred to as a “Colony” (until 1983), but were never a colony in the sense of a minority ruling class governing an unwilling indigenous population. They had no human population at all when discovered by Europeans.

From 1983 to 2002 they were classed as a “British Dependent Territory”, and since then they have officially been a “British Overseas Territory”.

And the Islands are not “p!ss poor” by any definition. The GDP per capita (figures directly off google, and not checked by me, but seem reasonable) for UK is about £40,000, the Falklands about £58,000.
I do not know the detail of whether the Falklands were economically “dependent” on the UK in any way prior to the mid-1980s. Certainly, a lot of money flowed out of the Islands, to owners of Falklands farms and businesses who were in the UK and elsewhere - I do not know how much flowed into the Islands from the UK.
But since the mid 1980s (with the establishment of the fisheries licensing, and subsequently, the wildlife tourism industry), the islands have been economically self-sufficient in everything except (the very big exception of) defence.

Tiger G
“and I can fully understand why they want it back.”

As for “giving it back” to Argentina, what is your basis for the word “back”? Britain had a claim to the Falklands (disputed by France and then Spain) dating back to at least 1765; Argentina did not exist until after 1816, and did not extend more than 100 miles South of Buenos Aires (almost 1000 miles from the Falklands) until the 1870s, by which time Britain had had an effective administration for over 40 years. (And it is worth noting that Argentina only extended its territory southwards by 1000 miles in the 1870s by military conquest, deliberately hunting and killing many of the indigenous population in the “conquest of the desert”, commemorated until recently on their 20 peso banknote)

My wife’s family go back to at least the 1880s here. Many families can trace their ancestors right back to the mid-1840s. Why should their home be given “back” to Argentina?

Tiger G
“Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ??”

Imagine if the UK “owned” a small group of islands just off the coast of France…..what would the French be saying and doing?? - Not very much as far as I can see - the Channel Islands seem not to be causing too much diplomatic problems between France and UK (certainly not to the extent of going to war over them). And as for the “proximity” argument for ownership, France is exactly 0.00000 miles from Germany, so who should take over who?

[Asturias56]

Argentinean politics again - roll out the Malvinas whenever the economy is going down the tubes

[albatross]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Argentinean politics again - roll out the Malvinas whenever the economy is going down the tubes

My exact thoughts too.

The war started because the ruling military junta had tanked the economy and all those mothers wanted to know what had happened to their missing children.
https://www.history.com/news/mothers...-war-argentina

[Less Hair]

The Argies think they are theirs because they think they inherited the Spanish colonial empire? If the Spanish or the Dutch would claim it it might be more fun to debate about it but Argentina? How about China?

[ChrisVJ]

Probably encouraged by recent reports that the UK forces are deficient in material and manpower and couldn't defend a toy fort in Little Edgington.

[uxb99]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

The Argies think they are theirs because they think they inherited the Spanish colonial empire? If the Spanish or the Dutch would claim it it might be more fun to debate about it but Argentina? How about China?

It's the complete lack of self-awareness that makes me laugh - Spanish speaking ancestors of Spanish conquistadors complaining of colonialism and imperialism because they don't have a group of South American islands that they say the Spanish Empire bequeathed to them.

[Less Hair]

And no more Vulcans. But Lady Thatcher had earmarked everything for retirement back then already.
P.S. Where is Jeremy Clarkson when you need him?

[Tartiflette Fan]

Originally Posted by uxb99

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Invaded with what ? Your question soars beyond the bounds of hypothetical.

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by uxb99

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

And Margaret Thatcher is not PM.

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

It's the complete lack of self-awareness that makes me laugh - Spanish speaking ancestors of Spanish conquistadors complaining of colonialism and imperialism because they don't have a group of South American islands that they say the Spanish Empire bequeathed to them.

Just curious, who "bequeathed them" to the United Kingdom?

[Spunky Monkey]

Originally Posted by uxb99

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Probably cobble something together, just like the Argies would, only this time we would see the build up and be able to base a couple of subs inside another exclusion zone and that would effectively stop anything serious but airborne forces getting in.
They have about 6 C130s a couple of Fokker 28s and less than a dozen Skyhawk variants.
Can't see that being much of a problem.

[unmanned_droid]

In my opinion this is cropping up now as a combination of distraction at home in Argentina, and, the recent negative reports of UK defence status in light of aid to Ukraine and the economic situation. I would also expect this situation to be deliberately exacerbated by russia.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

And Margaret Thatcher is not PM.

True. What’s needed is a lawyer who knows how to draft a threatening letter, telling them how their policies are wrong, but without coming up with a policy of his own.

Keir who?

[albatross]

Originally Posted by uxb99

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Would not NATO rush to help? Just asking.

[meleagertoo]

Extraordinary to hear that anyone thinks the Spanish "bequeathed" the Falklands - as they never owned them in the first place!
Neither did Argentina, at any time in the distant past, make a territorial claim to the Islands.
Britain undoubtably made the first documented landing and (much later) filed the first territorial claim as is universally agreed by historians some hundred years before anywhere called Argentina even existed. In any case France had established an outpost there at much the same time as we did and before the Spanish so if mere 'first footing' were to be the deciding factor France has a better claim to them than Spain. The fact that Argentina may or may not have subsequently used the place as a dumping ground for convicts (while failing to file or publish a claim of ownership) gives them no right to any sort of title, as is universally rcognised by international law.

[Baldeep Inminj]

I suspect that this is entirely for the domestic consumption of the Argentine population, and will become tomorrows fish wrapper. In any event, here a few thoughts...
Reasons that Nations want stability in the FI:
- Several nations (certainly S Korea when I was at MPA in the 90's) pay the Falklands Island Governement (Called FICO when I was there, not sure if it still is?), millions per year for the right to fish the Falklands waters, particularly for Squid. They will not want this trade disrupted.
- The Falklands is potentially an oil rich area. When I was there we met many 'oil people' who basically told us that all of the science indicated that there was a ton of oil there, but they were having trouble finding it. Did they?
- There is now a lucrative tourism/cruise liner industry there and the Falklanders don't want this jeopardized.

Other points:
- It is a British Overseas Territory, so people born there are automatically UK citizens. Question: Does this mean NATO Article 5 would apply if Argentina attacked?
- Whilst I weep at the pathetic shell of it's former self that the UK Military has become, I am pretty confident it is more than a match for whatever inept and ill equipped task force the Argentinians could muster. This then begs the obvious question - would they have allies prepared to provide forces? I don't know the answer to that...but who, and for what purpose?

I was based in Cyprus many years ago, and had the absolute pleasure of working and flying with the UN peacekeeping detachment out of UNPA Nicosia. The nation providing the service was Argentina. I (and my crew!) spent considerable time with the Argentinian pilots (MD500 - think 'Magnum PI' for those of a certain age). We flew, planned, operated and also socialized with them many times and I bet you can guess what I will say next...they were simply superb guys., every one of them. They were aircrew mates in the truest sense - friendly, helpful and genuine. Trust me, they had nothing against us whatsoever, it is their corrupt and failing Government that is the issue.

I have not met many Argentinians, but those that I did were as nice as any people I have ever encountered. As an aside, as I have mentioned before, my wife is Russian and I can say exactly the same about them. Beautiful people - demonically evil leaders.

[mikeoneflying]

I wonder what China are offering Argentina to take this stance.

I am sure China would be quite happy to kick start their economy and get on track all the stagnating investments they have made in Argentina.

Maybe even extended credit for or even give some nice new Chinese military equipment in exchange for a slice of the Falkland and its natural resources.

We live in interesting times.

[Buster Hyman]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

What’s needed is a lawyer person with an understanding of legal statutes who knows or is capable of how to drafting a non threatening but inclusive letter, telling asking them how their policies different ideologies are wrong may not be correct, but without coming up with a policy different ideology of his their (non binary) own.

Fixed it. That'll show they!

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Baldeep Inminj

Other points:
- It is a British Overseas Territory, so people born there are automatically UK citizens. Question: Does this mean NATO Article 5 would apply if Argentina attacked?

No.


Article 6 provides clarity to the conditions that Article 5 refers to, and that rules out the Falklands by lattitude.
Article 5

Spoiler

 

 

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6

Spoiler

 

 

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.