Ok my last post.
It is rich for a colony to scream and cry about colonialism, but it is not rich for a country that colonised countries to scream and cry about another country wanting to colonise a close by archipelago?
So in brief, you are telling me that Britain's claim over the island is "We found it first, its ours" kind of thing...
Well to be fair, the fact the Europeans wanted all the world to be theirs for the taking and tried to take most countries by force is really not an excuse and that is why countries fought for independence.
I can see how discovering a new land in the past would have meant claiming it as yours, but I cannot see how most of you will agree that Britain has a right to claim a land so far away as theirs now, considering that from what Ive read, the place saw a rise in inhabitants only in the late 1800s (correct me if Im wrong)
Britains claim over the island indeed comes down to “we found it first” mixed with the fact that there are 3000 people living there. The fact that the rise in inhabitants only came about in the 1800s is irrelevant, the people have lived there for generations and should therefore have the right to decide who they are governed by. Remember that the islands were uninhabited
before the rise in immigration. Are you saying that there is a time limit over how long people can decide who they are governed by? If the people had moved there in the 1700s, the 1500’s or the 900’s, would you support their right to self determination?
We have a right to claim a land so far away because the people living on that land want us to claim them. If they wanted to be governed by Argentina, or there was a significant split in opinion, then I might be swayed towards allowing Argentina to have some say in the matter. As it stands, Argentina have no rights at all.
Europeans might have wanted to own the world (that sort of desire is not limited just to Europeans though) and might have conquered huge stretches of land across the world, but that only means we have to deal with the world we have been left with. If we want to undo all colonialism, then we need to start by moving the vast majority of people out of North and South America and handing that land back solely to the natives. And even then, Britain will own the Falklands as the inhabitants there now are the natives
due to nobody living there before.
I understand your point of view perfectly now.
I am still of the opinion that the fact that Argentina have a better claim because of territory since the land was pretty much uninhabited until the past 200 years... and immigration to the falklands in my eyes could have been just strategic to have a humanitarian approach to claiming it as british territory.
I still believe that the country closest to the source should be the country that "harvests its fruits" The fact that Argentina were themselves a colony for me (for me) is what makes them think, hey if maybe we had the independence to make our won decisions we would not have let this happen... or something like that.
Still I appreciate your time in discussing this politely (as of course this subject might be more sensitive to you than to me) although I still have my own viewpoint and I disagree with the way you and the forum in general sees this.
Proximity doesn't necessarily imply ownership. See, for example, Greek islands off the coast of Turkey, Socotra off the coast of Somalia or many South Okinawan islands, but a short distance from Taiwan. There are countless other examples. There is, obviously, a burden upon claimant states to provide proof of ownership or effective occupation in such cases and many cases, like that of the Falklands, are far from simple.
Self determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
) is a strong factor in many disputes, particularly in the case of the Falklands. Whilst self determination is a somewhat ill-defined legal precedent, and a 'group' does not simply have the right to determine self-sovereignty (for example, I couldn't claim that my house was its own sovereign state under the principle of self-determination) there is a strong leaning in the UN, the ICG, and the general international community towards the maintenance of territorial integrity, and this is very apparent in the case of the Falklands. I realise that some of you might well say that, according to such logic, decolonisation would never have happened - and that's a valid argument - however I would argue that demographics are the key in this instance; namely the fact that the population of the Falklands are overwhelmingly British and wish to remain so, much like the population of, say, Libya or Chad were overwhelmingly Libyan/Chadian, and no longer wished to belong to the colonial order.
In general, resolution of territorial disputes have displayed a trend towards: Treaties>>>Effective Occupation/Administration>>>Historical Title/Discovery.
I'm getting a bit tired and can't really be bothered going into more detail on the matter, but its worth reading up on the principles of effectivité
)#Principle_of_Effectivity) and uti possidetis
). Whilst its perfectly reasonable to cite these principles on both sides of the argument, in my opinion, the British claims trump those of the Argentinians. Let's not forget, Britain tried to take the matter of sovereignty over the islands to international arbitration in 1947 and Argentina declined, as well as stating that they would not respect the rulings of the ICJ with regards to Argentine encroachments in the area in the 50s. Put simply, whilst the Argentines do have a valid claim to the islands (as do the UK), if the case ever went to international arbitration (which it won't) I believe the court would rule in favour of the UK.
That being said, I'm not some neo-colonialist, nor am I a nationalist. The sovereignty of the islands means strawberry float all to me.