HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Latin America (Group) » South American bloc to ba... » Reply #10

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:23 PM

10. In reply to points above, I think the dispute is mostly about the oil...

...between the islands and the Argentine coast.

--

"In October 2007 a British spokeswoman confirmed that Britain intended to submit a claim[61] to the UN to extend seabed territory around the Falklands and South Georgia, in advance of the expiry of the deadline[62] for territorial claims following Britain's ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.[63] This claim would enable Britain to control activities such as fishing within the zone, in areas not conflicting with the Antarctic Treaty.[64] Argentina has indicated it will challenge any British claim to Antarctic territory and the area around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia.[65] Argentina made a similar claim in 2009,[66] and the United Kingdom quickly protested against these claims.[67]

In 2009, when delegates from the Falkland Islands were invited to the World Summit on Fishing Sustainability, the Argentine delegation protested and walked out of the conference.[44] In February 2010, the Argentine government announced that ships traversing Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would require a permit, as part of a dispute over British oil exploration near the Falklands. The British and Falkland governments stated that Falklands-controlled waters were unaffected.[68]

The islands are a British Overseas Territory which, under the 2009 Constitution, enjoys a large degree of internal self government with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.[69][70]"


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

--

The Falklanders have dubious claim to being self-determining, since the British government--and thus entities like BP and world banksters--control foreign policy and "defense." They are tied, without choice, to horrors like the war on Iraq. They are a COLONY! They are also thus an outpost for U.S./U.K. trouble-making in the region. The U.K. doesn't seem to have an independent foreign policy any more--Blair saw to that. So, if the U.S. corporate rulers and war profiteers finally instigate their second oil war (or, given Libya, third oil war)--in Latin America--Falklanders will have no choice but to be a launching pad.

Reading the history of the Falklands--which Latin Americans call Islas Malvinas--the islands were a disputed territory from the beginning of the Colonial period, with mostly Spain and Great Britain fighting over domination of the islands. Great Britain's having won this colonial dispute doesn't, in my opinion, settle the matter of who should govern the islands. The islanders do NOT have full self-determination, cannot control their own foreign policy and cannot defend themselves as an independent country. Also, I don't know the history of elections and opinion polls that have presumably determined what the people of the Malvinas want. Is it like England, where 80% of the people opposed the war on Iraq and got dragged into any way? I.e., ruled by an hereditary elite that has financial/military interest in remaining loyal to the Queen?

The British government seems to have violated agreements made in the 1970s-1980s respecting Argentina's ocean and coastal rights, and, of course, given today's realities, this is much more about oil than it is about fishing. So there are two questions not one: 1) Self-determination of the people of the Falklands (who are mostly English speaking and British); and 2) Argentines' right to control sovereign resources. As to the latter, currently it appears that Falklanders--or at least the Falklander elite--are benefiting from British military power as to bullying Argentina out of its resources. And, as to the former, should they have the "right" to do that--to depend on a Colonial power to enrich them with Argentine resources?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Judi Lynn Dec 2011 OP
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #1
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #2
Judi Lynn Dec 2011 #3
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #4
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #33
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #36
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #37
CJvR Dec 2011 #41
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #44
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #42
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #43
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #46
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #47
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #51
CJvR Dec 2011 #40
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #5
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #6
CJvR Dec 2011 #8
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #9
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #12
CJvR Dec 2011 #16
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #20
CJvR Dec 2011 #22
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #23
CJvR Dec 2011 #25
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #26
CJvR Dec 2011 #27
ocpagu Dec 2011 #28
CJvR Dec 2011 #29
bemildred Dec 2011 #30
CJvR Dec 2011 #32
bemildred Dec 2011 #45
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #31
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #34
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #35
CJvR Dec 2011 #39
ChangoLoa Dec 2011 #14
ChangoLoa Dec 2011 #15
CJvR Dec 2011 #7
LineReply In reply to points above, I think the dispute is mostly about the oil...
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #10
Bacchus4.0 Dec 2011 #11
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #18
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #38
bemildred Dec 2011 #48
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #49
bemildred Dec 2011 #50
naaman fletcher Dec 2011 #13
CJvR Dec 2011 #17
Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #19
CJvR Dec 2011 #24
bemildred Dec 2011 #21
Please login to view edit histories.