Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ieltsinsider]

"The Argentines had the islands for quite a while actually."
Argentina became independent in 1816. The Argentines left the islands in 1833. So, even if you acccept Argentina's claim to the islands, and remember that at least four countries laid claim to them between 1816 and 1833, they were still only there for 17 years. Britain first arrived on the islands in 1690 and is still there - 316 years. Slightly longer than 17, I'd say.

You argue that the islanders are a colony. So what? There never were any indigenous people on the islands. Therefore, if Argentina (or any other country) sent people there, they too would be colonists. Given that there is an extremely good chance that Flying Pig and Manuel are descended from colonists, what's the problem? Actually, I'm descended from colonists too! Should we all go back to our original homes? (I'd suggest starting a new thread for that question, since proposing that about 6 billion people 'move house' is something of interest to the whole world.)

As for geographical proximity, it's a very weak argument, especially since the indigenous South Americans didn't even know the islands were there. Can you justify claiming an area when you don't know what's there? Under international law, no.

"Gosh, you didn't read the thing at ALL, insider."
Actually, I did. It's just that the posts were full of incorrect info.

[flying_pig319]

Looks like you DID read the info well- I apologise.

You could argue that the islands were still Argentina's before their independence, since the islands were definitely used by the Argentines a lot more than they were by the British (I imagine, since Britain was so far away). Even if the islands weren't technically owned by Argentina at this point, it's important to remember that they were still a probably thought of this way. Yeah?

Your thoughts about it being a colony are interesting...
You don't think that, if the US found some little island off of Florida (I live in the US, sorry if this example means nothing to you), but it was suddently stolen by Turkey, and we both had people living there, that the island would be theirs more than ours? Maybe politically, but Turkey stole the islands, and they really make much more sense in our hands. Yeah, you could say that the Floridians moving to the islands are settlers just as much as the Turks are, but it wouldn't quite be true. The islands probably play a bigger part in the lives of Floridians (mainland Floridians) than they do the Turks. Yeah?

[ieltsinsider]

It's debatable as to who used the islands most pre-1833 - and that's where the problem lies.
With your Florida example, my argument would be 'let the people on the island decide'. (My bet is that even the Turks there would vote to be American!)

[flying_pig319]

Heh, yes.
I guess that is the root of the problem, huh?
However, many of the people on the islands (as said in the first post) were Englishmen (and women) who were sent over from Britain. Clearly, they would say the land should be British, but we might not ought to give them a say, since [maybe] they shouldn't be on that island in the first place!!
Lol

[ieltsinsider]

Let's assume that your last argument is correct. I disagree with it, but ...

How would having Argentine (or Spanish) people on the Falklands be any different from having British people on the Falklands? As I said before, the Falklands has no indigenous people, so anyone there is 'a colonist', regardless of nationality.

To put it another way, in your last post change 'Britain' to 'Argentina', 'British' to 'Argentinian' and 'English' to 'Argentine'. Leave all other words as they are. Now tell me the difference in principle.

To be a little pedantic - 'send' is the wrong verb. It wasn't like Australia - people went voluntarily.

Off topic - Glad we agree re Middle East situation. I'm not going to post anything there since your last post summed everything up nicely!

[flying_pig319]

I guess you're right about them both being colonists, but it seems like (as I said in my Florida example) that since Argentina is so much closer, the Argentines there are...
LESS of colonists? (???)

I'm not sure.

But yeah, I'm glad we agreed on the Middle East thing (though that "Israel wants to help Palestine?" board is really getting to me...

[Manuel]

You cannot be considered a colonist if you are living in your own country territory. The Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas are inside the same continental platform than Argentina, and in a distance which is much closer than any other country in the world. This two points were clarified during the Geneve Convention and rule over all the countries who take part in the UN. If Argentina had people living in Falklands, it wouldn�t be a colony, because, as international laws say, it is a part of Argentina, as any other Argentine province. As a matter of fact, they belong to the Tierra del Fuego, Ant�rtida e Islas del Atl�ntico Sur province.
And let me remember you again that argentina didn�t "leave the islands", as you say. Argentina was forced to do it.
England is not hearing the opinion of the International Community as she does commonly.
On my next post, I�ll give you more evidence that supports my opinion. LOTS of evidence.

[asterix]

No - actually they didn't.
The English landed there first. They established a naval garrison there in 1833 and English people have lived there ever since.
Argentina has only been independent since 1816, so any claim that Argentina might think they have is based on what? "Oh, it's nearer us than anyone else."
By that standard, Chile also has a claim.
However the people who live there prefer to be administered from England.
I realize that this is inconvenient, Manuel, but a democratic principle is at stake here.

[Manuel]

Check History.
Argentina had people living on the islands until 1833 (don�t you think that it would be very stupid to support a fake idea? I wouldn�t be here if I didn�t know what I�m talking about). It seems that you are going to explain Argentine History to an Argentinian.
What you say like "Oh, its nearer us than anyone else" and sounds so ridiculous is an international law supported by the G�neve Convention.
Chile cannot claim the islands because Chile is on the PACIFIC COAST. Check geography too.
And you keep talking about the opinion of the people on the island. They are British, of course the will love to remain British and drink 5 o�clock tea everyday. But that land is from Argentina.
And PLEASE, if you are not going to read all the text before posting, then don�t waste your time expressing your opinion.
Sorry is this last post sounds agressive, but it tires me off to explain things over and over again.

[flying_pig319]

I've got to agree with Manuel, here.

[ieltsinsider]

Referring to the Geneva convention doesn't apply here because you can't apply it retrospectively. If you do, you'll have to pick a date, as I mentioned before, and move billions of people who have moved since that date. Flying Pig - note that this will include most Americans. Manuel - note that this could include most Latin Americans. You cannot apply the principle ONLY to the Falklands - otherwise it isn't a principle.

The 'closer to Argentina' argument similarly makes no sense. Where is your starting point? The only logical answer is where humans first developed - Africa. Following your logic, every place in the world is closer to Africa than any other place where humans evolved (since humans didn't evolve anywhere else). Therefore, every place in the world belongs to one of the Central or East African countries, like Congo or Uganda.

Continental shelf arguments are similarly crazy. Under that principle, the whole world will change. Japan belongs to Korea, the UK and Ireland belong to France, Sri Lanka belongs to India, Singapore belongs to Malaysia, which also takes over Indonesia and East Timor. Cuba belongs to the USA. Trinidad and Tobago belong to Venezuela. Oh, and under the continental shelf argument, Chile DOES have a claim, since they have a (very small) Atlantic coast.

[flying_pig319]

Ok: CLEARLY, the issue here is "how far back do you want to go?"
Is the issue transitive, or not?
We could go back to when Spain owned the islands (or, as just mentioned, we all came from Africa).
Done.

[ieltsinsider]

FP - Precisely. As I said before, give me a date. If you don't (can't) give a date (which would have to apply to the whole world!), then you have to accept the decision of the people currently living there. The Falklands are British.
Manuel - We're still waiting for your answer on whether almost all Latin Americans should go back to Spain and Portugal. They're colonists too!

[Manuel]

Interesting argument. So British Islands belong to France.
Talking seriously (what you obviously haven�t been doing), if we are talking about the implementation of the Convention, you can apply it today, if you want, to every settled and independent STATE.
About moving thousands of people because of this law, it wouldn�t be necesary. Falklanders would be allowed to stay in our territory, in the same way than Argentina has received thousands of inmigrants very kindly. There�s no doubt that Argentina would feel concern about the islanders, because Argentina feels interest about them and the islands, and they have a significance to us, very different from the way that England feels about them, keeping them only for interest and pride.
About nearness, Chile has a small Atlantic coast situated more than 310 miles away. Argentina has a nearer coast at 216 miles. There have been many conventions about the Chile-Argentina boarder, and they are already cleared. Atlantic section belongs to Argentina. About Chile, you have given me a good idea about nearness. Have you ever heard about Easter Island? Well, one of the main points which gave Chile the possesion of the island was its nearness.
The English goverment had never felt interested about the islands until 1982. In that moment, many English people didn�t know were the Malvinas were.
On my next post, I�ll give you the moments when England denied having possesion of the islands.

[ieltsinsider]

We're clearly not getting anywhere here. As has been pointed out, the Argentines are colonists as much as the Falkland Islanders are. Regarding proximity, (having now checked the laws for myself!) there are actually two laws, which often contradict each other. One is based on the continental shelf principle, as Manuel mentioned. The other is based on the idea of who claimed a territory first (and held it!). These laws sometimes produce two different outcomes. My principle is simply to follow what the islanders want. They've been there longer than anyone.