Falkland Islands Claims

[Maister]

Did anyone see where Argentina re-asserted its’ claim to the Falkland Islands (Las Islas Malvinas)? They did so through diplomatic channels at the UN this time, as opposed to a military occupation like they did 25 years ago. From what I can gather, a number of countries could make a justifiable/valid claim to these islands but the UK invaded back in the early 1800’s and has governed ever since. I guess Right by Conquest is probably the most ancient and honored means of recognizing a claim to land.

I wonder why Argentina is so eager to acquire the islands and the UK is so eager to retain them? Fishing rights? Prime sheep pasture? Off-shore oil? Why was a war fought over these remote islands?

I think we even have a planner from the Falklands who used to post here about a year ago…. http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/member.php?u=6095 yes, here she is Kelper

[Planit]

Not really sure why both are extremely interested. Speculation tells me the Argetinians want them as national pride and the English want to keep it due to the nationals living there. It might have to due with military advantages for England having a base in that regional of the southern hemisphere.

Why has Gauteloupe (sp?) and Martinique wanted to stay a French Province? Or other similar interests in the Caribbean...I dunno?

[Maister]

Why has Gauteloupe (sp?) and Martinique wanted to stay a French Province? Or other similar interests in the Caribbean...I dunno?

This was my original idea behind the thread - why do colonial powers retain control of obscure island chains and other isolated scraps of land a century after the sun set on their empire? I imagine the answers vary depending on which 'scrap of land' we're talking about

[Whose Yur Planner]

First, didn't they have a dust up over that same issue 20+ years ago? Bloom County ran a series of strips that were hilarious. As for the second question, it boils down to a matter of national pride. We may not be much, but we do have a colony. In some ways it's a codependant relationship. The colonial power gets a bit of an ego boost while it drags on their economy. The colony get financial support and citizenship at the costs of not being a country.

[The One]

I think the US should just show up one day with four aircraft carrier groups and about 100,000 troops. Should bring back four of the old Battleships too..... Maybe April 1, 2008 would be a good invasion date. I'd do it just to see the expression on the Island Commanders face! Then when we took the place, everyone would yell APRIL FOOLs at the same time....have a good laugh and leave that forsaken place to the Brits And just call it a training exercise.....

[HarryFossettsHat]

My understanding of the conflict (i was 5y/o when it all kicked off) is that the failing Argentinian military junta that was in power looked to reclaim the Falklands in order to re-establish public support in the face of an economic crisis.

Margaret Thatcher (*spits on the floor*), who's own political power was a little wobbly then, dispatched a force to deal with the invasion as apparently the Falklanders were "of British tradition and stock", and they should be liberated from the invading Argentinians. If she hadn't have done this, she'd have been out on her ear at the next election, or even before.

I'm not sure of the strategic military value of the Falklands to the UK, but I imagine they're a decent staging post for the navy in that part of the world. I think they played a role in both World Wars. Similarly we still have a presence in/on Ascension Island in the middle of the Atlantic.

[biscuit]

One word: Puffins. Little known fact, but Puffins meat is a delicacy in both the UK and Argentina.

It seems to me that as the conquering nation, so to speak, that the British have the rightful claim to the islands. If Argentina's claim is based upon the fact that they once governed becasue everything that belonged to Spain now belongs to them, then what's to stop Spain once again laying claim? Or even the French who were the first to have a colony in the Falklands? It seems to me that with the new found value in the Falkland's fishing stock, and the prospect of off shore oil, that this has become a mater of economic advantage as much as a matter of national pride.

Also, with their other missions all over the world, is the UK militarily currently able hold on to the Falklands should Argentina get another nationalistic itch it feels the need to scratch?

[Seabishop]

From what I remember Falkland residents were mostly against Argentenian rule.

I often wonder if 90% of these issues are just about the leaders saving face, rather than any strategic objectives - especially the daddy of them all, Kashmir.

[SkeLeton]

The Argentinian interest of those islands is pretty understandable... the islands are right next to their territory and want to control them so nobody else can control them and risk their own security (if the brits wanted to invade Argentina, they'd have quite a good standing point on the islands)

Why does the UK want the Falkland Islands? Natural gas and oil reserves are nearby, there's some fishing and most importantly the geopolitical influence that they can do in the area...keep argentina on check, projection towards the Southern Sea and a standing point for their claim for Antartican land (UK, Argentina and Chile all claim, or want to claim the Antartican Peninsula as theirs)

[Planificador Urbano]

I wonder if the same could be said for.... Hawaii, Purto Rico, Guam...... Alaska..... Iowa? Or if its us it doesn't count? Just kidding about Iowa.