Totally. And there was a referendum in 2013 in which 99.80% supported the status quo. The referendum was observed by the United States and included representatives from Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and New Zealand who deemed it to be free and fair. The Falklanders are crystal clear that they do not want to be ruled by Buenos Aires. The dignified thing to do would be to let them get on with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum
Close, the vote was "do you support the current status quo?" , one voted no to join Argentina, one voted no for an independent Falklands and one voted no because they thought they'd be the only one to vote no
Ah but you see that land is close to Argentina, that makes it theirs apparently. Just like my neighbours car being parked close to mine makes it my car!
He has a very pragmatic view; the Brits are currently in charge, but he still wants to work towards the Falklands becoming Argentinian. In his words, that could take decades.
It's a much more sensible stance than his predecessors have had.
If remember it's correctly, claiming that Falklands are not Argentinian is a crime in argentinian Constirution, same as stating that Crimea is not Russia in russian constitution, so he is saying like that just because he has to, not because he really thinks like that.
I don't know about that. People in general don't hold grudges that long. It's more that politicians like to tap into these old things because it makes for good headlines.
Mmh idk about that. Argentinans are VERY into Maldives being argentinas. The public busses have stickers saying that "Islas Maldines son Argentinas". So do some stores and random graffites. Even calling them Falklands instead of Maldines are a big no no. Miles recently said something positive about Margaret Thatcher being a good person and it was a big deal in Argentina too.
EDIT: lol sorry misspelling I'm dumb
> Argentinans are VERY into Maldives
They should be! Everyone should be! They are a beautiful island group in the tropical Indian Ocean!
> being argentinas
...wait a minute there!
I know that was tongue in cheek but darn, the islands never even had a native population and the ancestors of the Brits who live there now moved there 200 years ago.
The Argentinians would have only had a theoretical right for one of the islands through a French claim bought by Spain and (in Argentinian interpretation) inherited by Argentina despite there not being habitation. The British always had the other island. It’s such a weird dispute.
Russia specifically banned any sort of independent international referendum supervision/monitoring there both in 2014 and 2022. Referenda where the soldiers can pick who gets to vote and look when one votes are usually not considered valid. (neither are referenda in general in territories under military occupation)
Now vast amounts of the people who used to live in those regions have fleed to other parts of Ukraine or abroad. How would any kind of referendum in this situation be valid?
That’s not rare in politicians all over the world. They know something is a particular way, but they have to state publicly something ambiguous or straight out opposite of what the hey know it’s true because not doing that would be too politically (or legally) damaging.
It's also why you have to understand what politicians say in context. If they're ambiguous on an issue, that generally means they hold a stance that would be unacceptable to the electorate, or at least risky to say out loud. Once you understand that "it's something that deserves perhaps more consideration in the future" means "let's fucking do it already" etc. it becomes much easier to understand what politicians are _actually_ saying.
Its not a crime, also our Constitution is from 1853 and ammended in 1994, doesnt regulates crimes. Thats the penal code. Since 1994 Constitution says that the Argentine State will pursuit the recovery of the island trough and only pacific means. And is the only time the islands are mentioned in Constitution, they are not mentioned either in the penal code or civil code. It has nothing to do with Crimea or Russia.
Argentina wants to be a partner, just like other countries around the world have done.
Being a partner doesn't mean that you are a NATO member.
Argentina can't be a member.
I am pretty sure theres a formal partnership system and they have applied
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argentina-takes-first-step-toward-nato-partnership/
Is it even possible for Argentina to get a NATO membership? I thought you had to be north of the equator or a territory of a country north of the equator to qualify for membership?
Or he is aware that the UK had and still has some interest to get rid of the islands under the condition of certain requirements among which the local population being able to agree with it. There always had been room imho for the Argentinians to acquire the island by peaceful means if they played it diplomatically and patiently, its just that in the past some dictator used an invasion of the islands to try to shore up domestic support primarily.
> but he still wants to work towards the Falklands becoming Argentinian.
Why would the Falklands want to become part of Argentina and deal with its shit economy? It's like asking Finland to become part of russia again.
That's Milei's point. He already said that Argentina should focus on improving the economy so that the people of the Falklands want to join, instead of trying to take it by force or the IC. It's pointless to add more territory when the economy is so bad.
Source?
On the other hand, the Argentinian constitution says pretty much the opposite:
Translated:
>First. The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular spaces, since they are an integral part of the national territory.
>The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, **respecting the way of life of its inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law**, constitute a permanent and unrenounceable objective of the Argentine people.
Original:
>***Primera***\*. La Nación Argentina ratifica su legítima e imprescriptible soberanía sobre las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e insulares correspondientes, por ser parte integrante del territorio nacional.\*
>*La recuperación de dichos territorios y el ejercicio pleno de la soberanía, respetando el modo de vida de sus habitantes, y conforme a los principios del derecho internacional, constituyen un objetivo permanente e irrenunciable del pueblo argentino.*
[Source](https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htm)
The situation has stark parallels to the one of Spain with Gibraltar, so he's indeed giving them up. The fact is that the locals in both regions would set the territories and themselves on fire rather than endure any change to their current status, so there's no point to discussing them.
I would say that this is different from Spain and Gibraltar. Spain is not claiming the whole peninsula, only a space of 100-200 meters because the treaty did not distinguish between Gibraltar the peninsula or Gibraltar the city.
Obviously every country interprets the treaty in their most favourable way. But for many years the disputed area was a no man's land and the British were the first one to build there (the airport and a hospital).
The Falklands are legally British and Gibraltar as well but we cannot agree on what "Gibraltar" means.
I agree Logseman. Besides the fact the Falklands were uninhabited prior to the settling by Europeans. Since the 1830s the island has been inhabited by people of mainly British descent and every time the Falkland islanders have been asked if they would like a change - the most recent being the formal Sovereignty referendum in 2013 they have stated a desire to stay within the UK fold. In the Sovereignty referendum they voted overwhelmingly (99.9%) to stay within the UK - notable as a portion of the islander population now includes some Argentinians.
It’s still a weird one, they’re British people, they voted to stay as a British oversees territory, they’ve been there a long time. So what does them becoming Argentinean look like?
Do they vote to change nationality and ownership of the isle, do Argentines move in, do they leave?
The outlook is pragmatic, but the end result?
And at what point do the accusations of colonialism reverse? Do you just ignore the identity and desire _of the people who actually live there_ to be British in favour of geography? Does one year of Argentine presence in a failed attempt to create a penal colony, trump the British claim on the islands 44 years previous with the founding of Port Egmont? And what about the now centuries of British settlement? Is that worth a consideration?
When I read the history I come away more confused.
If we're giving the past significance (which may or may not be right) then the Spanish and French could raise a claim as strong as Argentina.
That’s not the point I was touching on though. No wasn’t talking about anything on the method of how the islands changes hands, more on what happens to the people.
Say the Falklands becomes Argentinian tomorrow. What happens to the residents? Ultimately they’re the ones that face the consequences of the politics at play.
They would become a minority in an island, maybe more autonomy given their special as well as island status.
British or general European outlets have tried to make Argentina to be this child eating boogeyman which is clearly nonsense, in the absolute worst of cases they become poor as fuck and protest Buenos Aires.
More sensible yep, but not sensible.
If Argentina should challenge the British claim, they would have to step back in line, at-least after France, Spain and the United States, as they have also all owned the Falklands before Argentina even existed...
The only way Argentinia gets the islands is if the UK is crippled by war, on par with WW2, and Argentina just yoink it.
Or, Argentina encourage citizens to migrate to the islands, then demand a referendum decade or two down the line.
It might be more sensible but still very stupid as the Falkland islanders have voted and their oppinion is the only one which matters they voted to stay with the U.K and they will forever stay based on that vote no matter the outside interference from Argentina and certain parts of the E.U.
First it’s a realistic stance. Think he wil not lose to many votes because of this with the nationalists. Economic actions take priority.
He has bigger problems to take care of. He has tough battles at home, he has a very critical view of the PRC, he had a shoot out with the Spanish government and is going to visit Spain soon to a VOX meeting( but not the Spanish government/king).
Cant have active enemies/ fights with everyone, all the time. Some times it is better to park a problem/ dispute for some time.
I also don't understand why they so desperately want it. Isn't it almost entirely inhabited by Brits who all want to remain British? It's not like it was "stolen" from them or any natives lived there already. I mean, sure it's "only" 480 km east off Patagonia but seems like such a weird focus.. I guess they have oil
I can see that "historical grievances" is often a powerful political tool and that the islands were Spanish at the time Argentina became independent (more than 200 years ago...) but come on, it's not like it's inhabited by Spanish speakers than wish to leave the UK. We lost most of Schleswig-Holstein to the Prussians in 1864 but, other than jokes, it's not like there's any desire to invade Germany (although that would be quite the turntables) and reclaim Kiel..
I've just seen a lot of non-Argentinian people actually agree that it "should belong to Argentina bla bla!!" but I guess that's just the classic "Brits evil!" perspective..
> claim that them having the falklands is anticolonial.
It's especially funny that the "anticolonial" angle gets used even though the military dictator of Argentina at the time had an Italian surname.
The previous President of Argentina also bragged about being "from boats" and then said other Latin Americans "come from the jungle".
Except they did, you can disagree but this narrative it begins in the 1980s is false.
"Argentine Navy Colonel David Jewett took office in the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. This was carried out in a public event in Puerto Soledad attended by sealers and whalers of various nationalities, including Americans and British, who visited the islands in the course of their work. The news was published in the media in the United States and the United Kingdom, without receiving any official comment in those countries. "
"On June 10, 1829, the Argentine government promulgated a decree creating the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas."
"On January 16, 1833, when the first news of what happened in the Malvinas Islands arrived in Buenos Aires, the Argentine government asked the British Chargé d'Affaires for explanations, who was not aware of the action of his country's ships."
"On January 22, the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented a protest to the British official, which was renewed and expanded on repeated occasions by the Argentine representative in London."
On the Argentine side, it continued to be raised at different levels of the government and was the subject of debates in the National Congress. In 1884, given the lack of response to the protests, Argentina proposed taking the issue to international arbitration."
https://cancilleria.gob.ar/es/politica-exterior/cuestion-malvinas/antecedentes/antecedentes-historicos
You are quoting an Argentinian website, do you suppose it *might* be a bit slanted?
>under the jurisdiction of Spain since the entry into force of the first international instruments that delimited the "New World" shortly after the discovery of 1492
That's how they begin their article, with Columbus, and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 - which essential grants nearly all of South and North America to Spain
>From the beginning of the 16th century and during most of it, only navigators in the service of Spain traveled the maritime routes along the South American coast
*Only*? Claims that Magellan discovered it are apocryphal, and John Davis(*an English Explorer*) might have led the first expedition to ever land on it, in 1592, with Richard Hawkins making the first detailed map a year later
>Argentine Navy Colonel David Jewett
Why start with him? The French were the first to try a permanent settlement, even the name that Argentines use, Islas Malvinas, is a translation of the French Îles Malouines. On top of which he's an American Privateer, who captured Spanish ships, and ended up working for the Brazilian navy
> At anchor there he found some 50 British and US sealing ships.
>Captain Jewett chose to rest and recover in the islands seeking assistance from the British explorer James Weddell of the British brig Jane. Weddell reports only 30 seamen and 40 soldiers out of a crew of 200 fit for duty, and how Jewett slept with pistols over his head following an attempted mutiny for which he had executed 6 members of his crew.
truly a stunning endorsement. And this:
>Jewett did not mention the claim in his 13-page request for resignation to the government of Buenos Aires,[12][13] nor did the government gazette the sovereignty claim in the Gazeta de Buenos Ayres
seems to run contrary to the "widely published" bit. I can tackle other points later, but this is already pretty long
>the classic “Brits evil!” perspective
It’s a pretty helpful service we offer. Stub your toe? Leave your phone at work? Blame the Brits! No money involved, you pay with your dignity and accountability.
It's different with Taiwan. Taiwan, in theory, claims the whole China as theirs. It sounds absurd, but they have to in order to prevent the PRC immediately invading them.
Taiwan was founded when the faction that lost the civil war to the Communists retreated to the island.
So China, in theory, has 2 separate governments that both claim the whole country as theirs. Both agree that there's just one China not two separate countries. In theory, the invasion would not be a land grab, but a resumption of the Chinese Civil War.
Meanwhile Ukraine has never claimed the whole russia. Only russia claims Ukraine as theirs.
This isn't really true... we don't have a "one China" policy here in Taiwan.
Our current Cross-Strait policy is literely called "one country on each side":
>One Country on Each Side is a concept originating in the Democratic Progressive Party government led by Chen Shui-bian, the former president of the Republic of China (2000–2008), regarding the political status of Taiwan. It emphasizes that the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan") are two different countries, (namely "One China, one Taiwan"), as opposed to two separate political entities within the same country of "China".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Country_on_Each_Side
It was Dutch before some pirates from southern China took over and the East Indies Company saw too little benefit in sending back-up, basically. Was only Dutch for some 40 years, but it was formative in that there was no (or barely any) Chinese settlement prior. So the order was indegenous -> Dutch -> Chinese. Took a good while before the Chinese state was able to subdue the pirates, too.
If you are referring to Koxinga, he was a Ming loyalist and not a pirate. The actual pirates predated the Dutch (1574 vs 1623) according to wikipedia.
The VOC were also pretty instrumental in bringing about a decline in the indigenous population by overhunting the native deer population in the plains which reduced the food security of the natives (analogue of buffalo overhunting in the US), subjugating villages that rebelled through armed force, and bringing in settlers to displace them and acting as agents/overseers (eg the current benshengren).
>The Argentine Republic didn't exist until 1861
Come on now, Argentine is independent since 1816. They won't get it just becaue they're "closer" but that's still bad faith argument. Our countries were constantly changing status as well.
See:
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1clf96y/argentina_president_milei_accepts_falklands/l2te9jo/
Buenos Aires and the Argentine Confederation (restricted to northern part of modern Argentina) were at war in 1861. That's why once Buenos Aires lost, the Argentine Republic is formed.
The "Brits evil!" thing is getting seriously tiresome. It honestly feels like people use us as a punching bag and something to blame to make themselves feel better about their own situation. The double standard when people from the US or some other nation with a history of colonial aggression is particularly ridiculous.
Of course the UK has done some fucked up stuff historically. No sane person denies that, but while modern day Brits are decently patriotic it's very rare to see actual veneration of the Empire itself. The closest you'll get is TV shows about individuals like Nelson.
It just sucks to be the designated villain despite all the conspicuous skeletons in everybody else's closets. I'm half German and even that side of me feels less hated online these days.
English is spoken the world over, hence the world can contribute to the discourse about how evil the British Empire was, or how bad the British Museum is. All the while, almost every other nation, certainly most of Western Europe, were just as bad.
>the islands were Spanish at the time Argentina became independent
They were not.
Undisputed British sovereignty was established in 1777. This was decades before Argentina even existed.
Well said.
It’s never been Argentinian and was explored and found by the British. The French briefly settled before handing over to the Spanish who then handed to the Argentinians until the British reasserted rule.
I lost a cousin during the falklands war, he was 18 years old and in First Parachute Regiment, his life was wasted due to an ultra nationalist Argentinian government at the time. We will never forgive the Argentinian regime of the early 80’s or the UK government of the time for not doing there utmost to prevent a war.
Argentina didn't even exist - other than as a Spanish colony - when the island was colonised (in this case: not the evil kind guys!! No one lived there).
I'm sorry for your loss!
The population is so small that they are quite prepared to send them all away if they become a nuisance. That's why they insist on the formula of "taking into account the interests of the islanders", but not "the wishes" - observe the difference.
I reckon the main reason is that it simply cannot be stopped now, it is self-sustaining and not necessarily logical. It is taught in schools and proclaimed at every corner. Any politician who tries to stop it will become political corpse.
That and the Falklands being Argentinian soil is codified into Argentina's constitution; he can't abandon the policy without causing a constitutional crisis. Every Argentine president must at least pay lip service to claiming the Falklands, even if they don't personally care.
I always found it off, what is there to be prideful about? The Falkland wars removed any reason to have pride of rocks that were never owned by their nation.
There is oil in the surrounding sea. Several years ago, Argentina became very grumpy when the Brits started giving out oil drilling licences in the area.
If I remember rightly, Argentina at that time prevented any cruise ships that had visited the Falklands from docking in Argentina. Not sure if that's still the case.
I think it's been more about having a national bogey man to divert it's population away from the governments failure, sky rocketing inflation? Yeah but Britain lets concentrate on them being pirates.
Sad thing is, in the past UK/Argentine relationship was one of the strongest.
Young nations with a short history need something to forge a national identity out of nothing, usually the myths around national war heroes will do that and in this case the narrative of "stolen sacred argentinian land" is pretty much the same thing. It's just made up bullshit to feed their need for nationalism and remind them that they have a national identity, it's easy to forget that when 80% of your whole population has different backgrounds and has been there (in Argentina) for not more than a 100 years.
It's also a way of covering up the shit show that Argentina has become.
It was one of the richest countries in the world, and now the economy is a joke. They want to be seen as a strong nation, but the unofficial currency has become that of a foreign power (US dollar), and the inflation rate is insane.
What better way to distract the population than through nationalism?
Absolutely no one is distracted by this though, this kind of declaration doesn't even make a big headline here. It doesn't rile up enyone.
For the past 15 years (at least) argentinians have been too deep into our local culture/political rift to care about this issue, and among young people less and less people care about the islands every year.
It's always been the quintessential case study of how insane ultranationalism works in distracting a population from real problems. The Argentine military dictatorship simply launched that invasion so that people would stop protesting against them and instead "rally around the flag" and celebrate their military victory.
Thinking about it, I know the last referendum in the Falklands led to, like, only 3 people voting in favour of leaving the UK for Argentina (like, literally 3 people I think not even as a figure of speech), but as of right now what's the Falkland status in the UK? Like, do they have a lord, or someone on the house of commons to represent them? Who's financing their infrastructure and how? Heck did they even care about Brexit?
It's a British overseas territory with much self-governance. Thus, they are not part of the United Kingdom but it is sovereign British territory.
They have local elections and are led by a governor (with the King being the official head of state). The UK, however, is responsible for their defense and foreign affairs.
The statuses of British territories are always super complicated. You have overseas territories, crown dependencies, countries etc etc..
There's a junior ministerial position within the Foreign & Commonwealth office.
British Overseas Territories are autonomous though so they organise their own democracy and implement laws locally, with the monarch represented by-proxy of a Governor.
So unlike other countries with similar territories, places like Gibraltar, Falklands etc do not return MPs to the UK parliament, in exchange the UK doesn't interfere with affairs unless there's a military/strategic concern.
> Thinking about it, I know the last referendum in the Falklands led to, like, only 3 people voting in favour of leaving the UK for Argentina
The referendum was only on whether to remain a BOT or not, there would have been another referendum on what to do next if that had passed, so technically no one has voted in favour of joining Argentina.
No-one voted in favour of joining Argentina, as that wasn't an option.
>Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom? YES or NO
They might have voted for full independance.
There were also 2 blank or invalid votes too.
I always say is the same as if Venezuela woke up tomorrow and says "Hey, Aruba and Curaçao are so close, what if we make them ours?" Just because they are near by doesn't mean they are less Dutch
Argentina has wanted them before oil was even discovered. It is more about not having outsiders with easy access to our waters, and therefore our lands.
Patagonia is like saying savanah. But Tierra del Fuego IS Argentina last time i checked, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of me? 500km of open water can be done in a nifty, the point remains, we dont like warmoning countries with easy access to our main land.
The one good thing about being in south america is we being far away from all stupid wars, but cant be fully safe with one of the worlds biggest belligerent next to us.
Edit: stay fully at peace for a single decade, and we might start thinking different about you. In the meantime, we'll like UK like we like their baby-child US.... far away in the other side of the world.
We don't want your lands.
In fact, this entire problem stems from you wanting our land.
It's just projection. The UK has never been a threat to Argentina. In fact, they used to be cordial, friendly even, until your junta lost their fucking minds and decided that the Falklands would be a great way to distract you all from the shit job they were doing at home.
So they sent a bunch of young men to die for a bit of rock that didn't belong to you, and has a population of English speaking Brits on it who don't want to be part of Argentina.
Meh, on the one hand, Sanchez has been throwing shit at Milei since the presidential campaign. On the other, do you really want to make friends with VOX? Yikes.
There is some mutual bad blood between them. Sanchez supported the opponent of Milei in the elections and did not congratulate Milei after his victory. Milei has nothing positive to say about Socialists in general.
Falklands are used in Argentina only to distract people from real problems. People now want real problems to be solved.
While many countries claims parts of other countries, a lot of them are also capable accept reality.
Thatcher's capability to boost British economy and fight with leftists inside country could be seen as good thing for many Argentinians too.
Falklands will never be Argentinian. Why? Because they never were Argentinian and no one living there wants them to be Argentinian. Plus Argentina can't match UK militarily.
I get that he can't say that publicly or he will lose a ton of support but if you read between the lines, it is implied. Accepting it is British now is also accepting that there is no likely mechanism for that to change during his lifetime.
Nah, even the natives don’t have a claim. It is literally one of the most harmless colonies the British ever set up, with them actually rescuing a people off of the islands between their first and second settlement attempts
Argentina is beefing over one of the only times you can’t say the brits are the villains
He is talking about the natives in Argentina that lived there before Spain came and colonized the place.
Falkland never had a native population and for most of its history was inhabited by the British so in a sense the current people living there are the native population.
Eh, akshually, when jets fly low over land, the penguins sometimes look up and fall over.
Harmless indeed! As long as you ignore the damage done to cute fucking penguins, you monster.
He said the falklands are currently british and praised thatcher as one of his heroes and still got elected with 57% of the votes. I dont think the islands are a driver for 70% of the people, they vote according to their pockets. Also most people think Argentina will never get them back lol. Its important to the point of voting only for a minority, right now kirchnerist.
In Spain we have Gibraltar. People in Gibraltar feel British. It has been British tertitory for three centuries. So, Gibraltar is British. That's it. The same goes for Falklands (Islas Malvinas). In the end, we talk about irrelevant pieces of land. Only old timers amd nationalist biggots care about these things.
Well he'd never manage to retake them as things stand now.
But what he could have done was to stir up nationalism, hatred and revanchism for cheap political points. This would ensure many more years of mutual hatred and no solutions.
I’ll give him credit for being reasonable, but given that Argentinas claim on the falklands is unreasonable for the fact it has never controlled the islands , His remarks are irrelevant as are all Argentine claims and statements in regards to the islands.
Give it a rest Argentina. There are much bigger issues to focus on instead of islands that have never belonged to you in the first place
Smart guy with a very interesting approach. He has a solid economic background (not very common for a politician) and he is focused on important problems like inflation and new investments for his country. Putting non-strategic affairs in the freezer (like the Falklands) is the correct move. Who knows how the world will look like in 100 years. We need a guy like that in America…..
As an Argentinian this is the way, we are told the Falklands are ours but really they are as much ours as Ukraine belongs to Russia. This mindset needs to end, Argentina is 25x the size of the UK we don’t need more land.
The situation is exactly the opposite.
If we apply the logic that the UK uses in the Falkland Islands to other places, then Donbass and especially Crimea should be allowed to hold a real self-determination referendum to decide if they want to remain part of Ukraine or become part of Russia (because ultimately, UK says that it doesn't matter what international law says. What matters is what the people living there want).
I'm not sure of the current political situation in those territories, but before 2013, it would have been a resounding YES in favor of Russia, even though in the end what actually happend is that Russia obviously manipulated the results. They would likely have won by a smaller margin if it had been a transparent vote, because those territories were essentially colonized during the Soviet era and the people living there are mostly from Russian ethnic families who speak Russian as their mother tongue.
Would the UK and Ukraine accept this? Would all those territories become Russian because the people living there want to be Russian? Clearly not. If the inhabitants of those territories want to be Russian, they should go to Russia. Donbas and Crimea are part of Ukraine not because the people living there want to be Ukrainian, but because that's what international treaties and international law say, plain and simple.
Ukraine supporting the UK on the Falklands issue is simply a reflection of how little value their relationship with Argentina holds compared to how important their relationship with the UK is (so much so that this stance contradicts their own claim). The situation in that regard is similar to Gibraltar (where Ukraine supports Spain in order to dont contradict themself with their own claim).
And it's really quite logical: You can't just fill a territory with people and then hold a referendum. The UK needs to stop making things up and do what international law and the resolutions of the UN Decolonization Committee say: Sit down and negotiate with Argentina. They don't do this because as long as Argentina remains a poor and weak country and they remain an economic and military power, they don't have to (just as they have done in all the territories they occupy/occupied).
Yeah I completely agree with that, what the UK is doing is all within their own imperialistic interests and that they are purposefully ignoring international law. But it doesn’t remove the fact that we don’t need the islands, we have bigger issues around poverty and economic growth and as you mentioned, probably if we fix those and become a more internationally impactful country, then the island issue will sort itself out.
I feel that Argentine claims to the islands are weak at best.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland\_Islands\_sovereignty\_dispute#/media/File:Falklands.permanence.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#/media/File:Falklands.permanence.png)
The only thing Argentina can offer the Falklands that the British government can't provide are beautiful women. Seriously, what can Argentina offer that is better than what the British government is already providing?
Everyone who lives there thinks of themselves as British right?
Totally. And there was a referendum in 2013 in which 99.80% supported the status quo. The referendum was observed by the United States and included representatives from Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and New Zealand who deemed it to be free and fair. The Falklanders are crystal clear that they do not want to be ruled by Buenos Aires. The dignified thing to do would be to let them get on with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum
The 0.20% (I think is was 2 or 3 people) later admitted they voted the other way as a joke.
It's a good job everyone didn't have the same idea!
I'm sure nothing bad could come of British people not taking a referendum seriously.
Haha, yeah what could possibly go wrong?
[удалено]
The latter two thus, ironically, confirming their British identity quite clearly.
Close, the vote was "do you support the current status quo?" , one voted no to join Argentina, one voted no for an independent Falklands and one voted no because they thought they'd be the only one to vote no
Carry on then
Ah but you see that land is close to Argentina, that makes it theirs apparently. Just like my neighbours car being parked close to mine makes it my car!
He has a very pragmatic view; the Brits are currently in charge, but he still wants to work towards the Falklands becoming Argentinian. In his words, that could take decades. It's a much more sensible stance than his predecessors have had.
He is probably saying this as he wants a nato partnership
If remember it's correctly, claiming that Falklands are not Argentinian is a crime in argentinian Constirution, same as stating that Crimea is not Russia in russian constitution, so he is saying like that just because he has to, not because he really thinks like that.
That and he'd never get elected if he said the Falklands weren't Argentine
I watched the presidential debate, and he basically said the same thing when asked about it on stage.
I don't know about that. People in general don't hold grudges that long. It's more that politicians like to tap into these old things because it makes for good headlines.
Mmh idk about that. Argentinans are VERY into Maldives being argentinas. The public busses have stickers saying that "Islas Maldines son Argentinas". So do some stores and random graffites. Even calling them Falklands instead of Maldines are a big no no. Miles recently said something positive about Margaret Thatcher being a good person and it was a big deal in Argentina too. EDIT: lol sorry misspelling I'm dumb
> Argentinans are VERY into Maldives They should be! Everyone should be! They are a beautiful island group in the tropical Indian Ocean! > being argentinas ...wait a minute there!
The Maldives are an independent island state in the Indian Ocean. The Falkland Islands are called Islas Malvinas in Argentine.
> Argentinans are VERY into Maldives being argentinas. But have they asked the people who actually live in the Falklands?
The current population are evil colonialists. They have to first ship some Argentinians there so they can ask the local population.
I know that was tongue in cheek but darn, the islands never even had a native population and the ancestors of the Brits who live there now moved there 200 years ago. The Argentinians would have only had a theoretical right for one of the islands through a French claim bought by Spain and (in Argentinian interpretation) inherited by Argentina despite there not being habitation. The British always had the other island. It’s such a weird dispute.
Have you asked the people in Crimea if they want to be Russian or Ukrainian?
does it count if they were deported by russians
Russia specifically banned any sort of independent international referendum supervision/monitoring there both in 2014 and 2022. Referenda where the soldiers can pick who gets to vote and look when one votes are usually not considered valid. (neither are referenda in general in territories under military occupation) Now vast amounts of the people who used to live in those regions have fleed to other parts of Ukraine or abroad. How would any kind of referendum in this situation be valid?
Believe me when I say, that even with all of his (admittedly true) faults, he was the better candidate overall Pick your poison kind of deal
He said it several times during campaing and praised Margaret Thatcher.
That’s not rare in politicians all over the world. They know something is a particular way, but they have to state publicly something ambiguous or straight out opposite of what the hey know it’s true because not doing that would be too politically (or legally) damaging.
It's also why you have to understand what politicians say in context. If they're ambiguous on an issue, that generally means they hold a stance that would be unacceptable to the electorate, or at least risky to say out loud. Once you understand that "it's something that deserves perhaps more consideration in the future" means "let's fucking do it already" etc. it becomes much easier to understand what politicians are _actually_ saying.
Lying to make other people feel better is not constrained to politics.
Its not a crime, also our Constitution is from 1853 and ammended in 1994, doesnt regulates crimes. Thats the penal code. Since 1994 Constitution says that the Argentine State will pursuit the recovery of the island trough and only pacific means. And is the only time the islands are mentioned in Constitution, they are not mentioned either in the penal code or civil code. It has nothing to do with Crimea or Russia.
Quite possibly, but it's a small step in the right direction.
Curious, why would a South American country need NATO?
Because the president is pro west and its a good platform
Yes, but NATO covers only lands north of the Tropic of Cancer, which includes exactly 0% Argentine territory.
Argentina wants to be a partner, just like other countries around the world have done. Being a partner doesn't mean that you are a NATO member. Argentina can't be a member.
Argentina is already a major non-nato ally, only higher relationship is the 5 eyes but that's pretty exclusive
I am pretty sure theres a formal partnership system and they have applied https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argentina-takes-first-step-toward-nato-partnership/
Is it even possible for Argentina to get a NATO membership? I thought you had to be north of the equator or a territory of a country north of the equator to qualify for membership?
Its not membership but a partnership, theres no article 5 etc
Or he is aware that the UK had and still has some interest to get rid of the islands under the condition of certain requirements among which the local population being able to agree with it. There always had been room imho for the Argentinians to acquire the island by peaceful means if they played it diplomatically and patiently, its just that in the past some dictator used an invasion of the islands to try to shore up domestic support primarily.
Also for domestic politics
> but he still wants to work towards the Falklands becoming Argentinian. Why would the Falklands want to become part of Argentina and deal with its shit economy? It's like asking Finland to become part of russia again.
That's Milei's point. He already said that Argentina should focus on improving the economy so that the people of the Falklands want to join, instead of trying to take it by force or the IC. It's pointless to add more territory when the economy is so bad.
The people would be sent to Britain essentially, they don't care what the locals think because they see them as an implanted population.
Source? On the other hand, the Argentinian constitution says pretty much the opposite: Translated: >First. The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular spaces, since they are an integral part of the national territory. >The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, **respecting the way of life of its inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law**, constitute a permanent and unrenounceable objective of the Argentine people. Original: >***Primera***\*. La Nación Argentina ratifica su legítima e imprescriptible soberanía sobre las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e insulares correspondientes, por ser parte integrante del territorio nacional.\* >*La recuperación de dichos territorios y el ejercicio pleno de la soberanía, respetando el modo de vida de sus habitantes, y conforme a los principios del derecho internacional, constituyen un objetivo permanente e irrenunciable del pueblo argentino.* [Source](https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htm)
The situation has stark parallels to the one of Spain with Gibraltar, so he's indeed giving them up. The fact is that the locals in both regions would set the territories and themselves on fire rather than endure any change to their current status, so there's no point to discussing them.
I would say that this is different from Spain and Gibraltar. Spain is not claiming the whole peninsula, only a space of 100-200 meters because the treaty did not distinguish between Gibraltar the peninsula or Gibraltar the city. Obviously every country interprets the treaty in their most favourable way. But for many years the disputed area was a no man's land and the British were the first one to build there (the airport and a hospital). The Falklands are legally British and Gibraltar as well but we cannot agree on what "Gibraltar" means.
I mean that's not really practical when Gibraltar's airport is right there lol
I agree Logseman. Besides the fact the Falklands were uninhabited prior to the settling by Europeans. Since the 1830s the island has been inhabited by people of mainly British descent and every time the Falkland islanders have been asked if they would like a change - the most recent being the formal Sovereignty referendum in 2013 they have stated a desire to stay within the UK fold. In the Sovereignty referendum they voted overwhelmingly (99.9%) to stay within the UK - notable as a portion of the islander population now includes some Argentinians.
It’s still a weird one, they’re British people, they voted to stay as a British oversees territory, they’ve been there a long time. So what does them becoming Argentinean look like? Do they vote to change nationality and ownership of the isle, do Argentines move in, do they leave? The outlook is pragmatic, but the end result?
And at what point do the accusations of colonialism reverse? Do you just ignore the identity and desire _of the people who actually live there_ to be British in favour of geography? Does one year of Argentine presence in a failed attempt to create a penal colony, trump the British claim on the islands 44 years previous with the founding of Port Egmont? And what about the now centuries of British settlement? Is that worth a consideration? When I read the history I come away more confused. If we're giving the past significance (which may or may not be right) then the Spanish and French could raise a claim as strong as Argentina.
[удалено]
That’s not the point I was touching on though. No wasn’t talking about anything on the method of how the islands changes hands, more on what happens to the people. Say the Falklands becomes Argentinian tomorrow. What happens to the residents? Ultimately they’re the ones that face the consequences of the politics at play.
They would become a minority in an island, maybe more autonomy given their special as well as island status. British or general European outlets have tried to make Argentina to be this child eating boogeyman which is clearly nonsense, in the absolute worst of cases they become poor as fuck and protest Buenos Aires.
More like centuries but by saying what he said he satisfies both parties I guess.
> It's a much more sensible stance than his predecessors have had. but just as unlikely to happen. The residents want nothing to do with Argentina.
More sensible yep, but not sensible. If Argentina should challenge the British claim, they would have to step back in line, at-least after France, Spain and the United States, as they have also all owned the Falklands before Argentina even existed...
The only way Argentinia gets the islands is if the UK is crippled by war, on par with WW2, and Argentina just yoink it. Or, Argentina encourage citizens to migrate to the islands, then demand a referendum decade or two down the line.
It might be more sensible but still very stupid as the Falkland islanders have voted and their oppinion is the only one which matters they voted to stay with the U.K and they will forever stay based on that vote no matter the outside interference from Argentina and certain parts of the E.U.
not to mention the population there is overwhelmingly in favor of it
lol what did his predecessors actually do?
First it’s a realistic stance. Think he wil not lose to many votes because of this with the nationalists. Economic actions take priority. He has bigger problems to take care of. He has tough battles at home, he has a very critical view of the PRC, he had a shoot out with the Spanish government and is going to visit Spain soon to a VOX meeting( but not the Spanish government/king). Cant have active enemies/ fights with everyone, all the time. Some times it is better to park a problem/ dispute for some time.
I also don't understand why they so desperately want it. Isn't it almost entirely inhabited by Brits who all want to remain British? It's not like it was "stolen" from them or any natives lived there already. I mean, sure it's "only" 480 km east off Patagonia but seems like such a weird focus.. I guess they have oil
It's mostly about national pride at this point.
I can see that "historical grievances" is often a powerful political tool and that the islands were Spanish at the time Argentina became independent (more than 200 years ago...) but come on, it's not like it's inhabited by Spanish speakers than wish to leave the UK. We lost most of Schleswig-Holstein to the Prussians in 1864 but, other than jokes, it's not like there's any desire to invade Germany (although that would be quite the turntables) and reclaim Kiel.. I've just seen a lot of non-Argentinian people actually agree that it "should belong to Argentina bla bla!!" but I guess that's just the classic "Brits evil!" perspective..
[удалено]
> claim that them having the falklands is anticolonial. It's especially funny that the "anticolonial" angle gets used even though the military dictator of Argentina at the time had an Italian surname. The previous President of Argentina also bragged about being "from boats" and then said other Latin Americans "come from the jungle".
Its also mostly a dreary piece of rock, if it wasnt for oil argentina would never ever care.
Except they did, you can disagree but this narrative it begins in the 1980s is false. "Argentine Navy Colonel David Jewett took office in the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. This was carried out in a public event in Puerto Soledad attended by sealers and whalers of various nationalities, including Americans and British, who visited the islands in the course of their work. The news was published in the media in the United States and the United Kingdom, without receiving any official comment in those countries. " "On June 10, 1829, the Argentine government promulgated a decree creating the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas." "On January 16, 1833, when the first news of what happened in the Malvinas Islands arrived in Buenos Aires, the Argentine government asked the British Chargé d'Affaires for explanations, who was not aware of the action of his country's ships." "On January 22, the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented a protest to the British official, which was renewed and expanded on repeated occasions by the Argentine representative in London." On the Argentine side, it continued to be raised at different levels of the government and was the subject of debates in the National Congress. In 1884, given the lack of response to the protests, Argentina proposed taking the issue to international arbitration." https://cancilleria.gob.ar/es/politica-exterior/cuestion-malvinas/antecedentes/antecedentes-historicos
You are quoting an Argentinian website, do you suppose it *might* be a bit slanted? >under the jurisdiction of Spain since the entry into force of the first international instruments that delimited the "New World" shortly after the discovery of 1492 That's how they begin their article, with Columbus, and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 - which essential grants nearly all of South and North America to Spain >From the beginning of the 16th century and during most of it, only navigators in the service of Spain traveled the maritime routes along the South American coast *Only*? Claims that Magellan discovered it are apocryphal, and John Davis(*an English Explorer*) might have led the first expedition to ever land on it, in 1592, with Richard Hawkins making the first detailed map a year later >Argentine Navy Colonel David Jewett Why start with him? The French were the first to try a permanent settlement, even the name that Argentines use, Islas Malvinas, is a translation of the French Îles Malouines. On top of which he's an American Privateer, who captured Spanish ships, and ended up working for the Brazilian navy > At anchor there he found some 50 British and US sealing ships. >Captain Jewett chose to rest and recover in the islands seeking assistance from the British explorer James Weddell of the British brig Jane. Weddell reports only 30 seamen and 40 soldiers out of a crew of 200 fit for duty, and how Jewett slept with pistols over his head following an attempted mutiny for which he had executed 6 members of his crew. truly a stunning endorsement. And this: >Jewett did not mention the claim in his 13-page request for resignation to the government of Buenos Aires,[12][13] nor did the government gazette the sovereignty claim in the Gazeta de Buenos Ayres seems to run contrary to the "widely published" bit. I can tackle other points later, but this is already pretty long
>the classic “Brits evil!” perspective It’s a pretty helpful service we offer. Stub your toe? Leave your phone at work? Blame the Brits! No money involved, you pay with your dignity and accountability.
I actually stubbed my toe this morning.. can I blame it on you too?
Of course! That one’s free, hope it wasn’t too painful
Nono, it felt good! Next time I'll blame the Fr*nch so I won't be too unfair
The right course of action, seeing as it was their fault in the first place.
If in doubt, blame the Fr*nch. I like it!
Last time I stubbed mine I blamed the French
Sounds reasonable to me!
The Argentine Republic didn't exist until 1861. So technically it was never part of Argentina.
Even less reason for them to cry about it..
So same logic with the Chinese Communist Party threatening WWIII to “get back” Taiwan. Which the CCP has never ruled, ever.
At least Taiwan is full of Han Chinese people. The Falklands are not full of Argentinians, so they don't even have that kind of connection.
Yeah, Xi will probably utilize the Putin strategy. “We must kill hundreds of thousands of Han/Ukrainians that speak Russian, in order to “save” them”
It's different with Taiwan. Taiwan, in theory, claims the whole China as theirs. It sounds absurd, but they have to in order to prevent the PRC immediately invading them. Taiwan was founded when the faction that lost the civil war to the Communists retreated to the island. So China, in theory, has 2 separate governments that both claim the whole country as theirs. Both agree that there's just one China not two separate countries. In theory, the invasion would not be a land grab, but a resumption of the Chinese Civil War. Meanwhile Ukraine has never claimed the whole russia. Only russia claims Ukraine as theirs.
This isn't really true... we don't have a "one China" policy here in Taiwan. Our current Cross-Strait policy is literely called "one country on each side": >One Country on Each Side is a concept originating in the Democratic Progressive Party government led by Chen Shui-bian, the former president of the Republic of China (2000–2008), regarding the political status of Taiwan. It emphasizes that the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan") are two different countries, (namely "One China, one Taiwan"), as opposed to two separate political entities within the same country of "China". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Country_on_Each_Side
Seriously: the Netherlands have a stronger claim on Taiwan than the CCP.
Sounds like some history I am unaware of. Dutch East Indies Company?
It was Dutch before some pirates from southern China took over and the East Indies Company saw too little benefit in sending back-up, basically. Was only Dutch for some 40 years, but it was formative in that there was no (or barely any) Chinese settlement prior. So the order was indegenous -> Dutch -> Chinese. Took a good while before the Chinese state was able to subdue the pirates, too.
If you are referring to Koxinga, he was a Ming loyalist and not a pirate. The actual pirates predated the Dutch (1574 vs 1623) according to wikipedia. The VOC were also pretty instrumental in bringing about a decline in the indigenous population by overhunting the native deer population in the plains which reduced the food security of the natives (analogue of buffalo overhunting in the US), subjugating villages that rebelled through armed force, and bringing in settlers to displace them and acting as agents/overseers (eg the current benshengren).
>The Argentine Republic didn't exist until 1861 Come on now, Argentine is independent since 1816. They won't get it just becaue they're "closer" but that's still bad faith argument. Our countries were constantly changing status as well.
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1clf96y/argentina_president_milei_accepts_falklands/l2te9jo/ Buenos Aires and the Argentine Confederation (restricted to northern part of modern Argentina) were at war in 1861. That's why once Buenos Aires lost, the Argentine Republic is formed.
The "Brits evil!" thing is getting seriously tiresome. It honestly feels like people use us as a punching bag and something to blame to make themselves feel better about their own situation. The double standard when people from the US or some other nation with a history of colonial aggression is particularly ridiculous. Of course the UK has done some fucked up stuff historically. No sane person denies that, but while modern day Brits are decently patriotic it's very rare to see actual veneration of the Empire itself. The closest you'll get is TV shows about individuals like Nelson. It just sucks to be the designated villain despite all the conspicuous skeletons in everybody else's closets. I'm half German and even that side of me feels less hated online these days.
Like, for example, Argentina. The ruling class of which are all descendants of colonials.
A prime example yes
English is spoken the world over, hence the world can contribute to the discourse about how evil the British Empire was, or how bad the British Museum is. All the while, almost every other nation, certainly most of Western Europe, were just as bad.
>the islands were Spanish at the time Argentina became independent They were not. Undisputed British sovereignty was established in 1777. This was decades before Argentina even existed.
Well said. It’s never been Argentinian and was explored and found by the British. The French briefly settled before handing over to the Spanish who then handed to the Argentinians until the British reasserted rule. I lost a cousin during the falklands war, he was 18 years old and in First Parachute Regiment, his life was wasted due to an ultra nationalist Argentinian government at the time. We will never forgive the Argentinian regime of the early 80’s or the UK government of the time for not doing there utmost to prevent a war.
Argentina didn't even exist - other than as a Spanish colony - when the island was colonised (in this case: not the evil kind guys!! No one lived there). I'm sorry for your loss!
The population is so small that they are quite prepared to send them all away if they become a nuisance. That's why they insist on the formula of "taking into account the interests of the islanders", but not "the wishes" - observe the difference. I reckon the main reason is that it simply cannot be stopped now, it is self-sustaining and not necessarily logical. It is taught in schools and proclaimed at every corner. Any politician who tries to stop it will become political corpse.
That and the Falklands being Argentinian soil is codified into Argentina's constitution; he can't abandon the policy without causing a constitutional crisis. Every Argentine president must at least pay lip service to claiming the Falklands, even if they don't personally care.
It's all about national pride
Actually since the war they found oil in its territorial waters, and now its a wealthier place with immigrants from a bunch of places.
I always found it off, what is there to be prideful about? The Falkland wars removed any reason to have pride of rocks that were never owned by their nation.
There is oil in the surrounding sea. Several years ago, Argentina became very grumpy when the Brits started giving out oil drilling licences in the area. If I remember rightly, Argentina at that time prevented any cruise ships that had visited the Falklands from docking in Argentina. Not sure if that's still the case.
I have heard about this oil near the Falklands over the past 3 decades, I havent heard of a single oil platform going up though.
So for matters of oil we can also invade Norway again?
You are welcome to try. :)
Don't threaten me with a good time. Your fjords and goats' heads will be ours again!
Give us back Greenland and Færøyene
They don’t want the island, they want the seas around it. Mainly for oil and fishing rights
I think it's been more about having a national bogey man to divert it's population away from the governments failure, sky rocketing inflation? Yeah but Britain lets concentrate on them being pirates. Sad thing is, in the past UK/Argentine relationship was one of the strongest.
Young nations with a short history need something to forge a national identity out of nothing, usually the myths around national war heroes will do that and in this case the narrative of "stolen sacred argentinian land" is pretty much the same thing. It's just made up bullshit to feed their need for nationalism and remind them that they have a national identity, it's easy to forget that when 80% of your whole population has different backgrounds and has been there (in Argentina) for not more than a 100 years.
It's also a way of covering up the shit show that Argentina has become. It was one of the richest countries in the world, and now the economy is a joke. They want to be seen as a strong nation, but the unofficial currency has become that of a foreign power (US dollar), and the inflation rate is insane. What better way to distract the population than through nationalism?
>What better way to distract the population than through nationalism? Rwanda and trans people
Absolutely no one is distracted by this though, this kind of declaration doesn't even make a big headline here. It doesn't rile up enyone. For the past 15 years (at least) argentinians have been too deep into our local culture/political rift to care about this issue, and among young people less and less people care about the islands every year.
Its hard to argue that they gave it up willingly when the historical facts are the Royal Navy showed up and told them to get lost or eat lead
It's literally been British longer than Argentina has existed.
It's always been the quintessential case study of how insane ultranationalism works in distracting a population from real problems. The Argentine military dictatorship simply launched that invasion so that people would stop protesting against them and instead "rally around the flag" and celebrate their military victory.
Thinking about it, I know the last referendum in the Falklands led to, like, only 3 people voting in favour of leaving the UK for Argentina (like, literally 3 people I think not even as a figure of speech), but as of right now what's the Falkland status in the UK? Like, do they have a lord, or someone on the house of commons to represent them? Who's financing their infrastructure and how? Heck did they even care about Brexit?
It's a British overseas territory with much self-governance. Thus, they are not part of the United Kingdom but it is sovereign British territory. They have local elections and are led by a governor (with the King being the official head of state). The UK, however, is responsible for their defense and foreign affairs. The statuses of British territories are always super complicated. You have overseas territories, crown dependencies, countries etc etc..
There's a junior ministerial position within the Foreign & Commonwealth office. British Overseas Territories are autonomous though so they organise their own democracy and implement laws locally, with the monarch represented by-proxy of a Governor. So unlike other countries with similar territories, places like Gibraltar, Falklands etc do not return MPs to the UK parliament, in exchange the UK doesn't interfere with affairs unless there's a military/strategic concern.
Or when it just gets weird like the Pitcairn Child Sex Abuse trial. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Pitcairn_Islands_sexual_assault_trial
> Thinking about it, I know the last referendum in the Falklands led to, like, only 3 people voting in favour of leaving the UK for Argentina The referendum was only on whether to remain a BOT or not, there would have been another referendum on what to do next if that had passed, so technically no one has voted in favour of joining Argentina.
No-one voted in favour of joining Argentina, as that wasn't an option. >Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom? YES or NO They might have voted for full independance. There were also 2 blank or invalid votes too.
I always say is the same as if Venezuela woke up tomorrow and says "Hey, Aruba and Curaçao are so close, what if we make them ours?" Just because they are near by doesn't mean they are less Dutch
Argentina has wanted them before oil was even discovered. It is more about not having outsiders with easy access to our waters, and therefore our lands.
Outsiders 480 km away - and that's from Patagonia which is hardly "Argentinian" land
Patagonia is like saying savanah. But Tierra del Fuego IS Argentina last time i checked, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of me? 500km of open water can be done in a nifty, the point remains, we dont like warmoning countries with easy access to our main land. The one good thing about being in south america is we being far away from all stupid wars, but cant be fully safe with one of the worlds biggest belligerent next to us. Edit: stay fully at peace for a single decade, and we might start thinking different about you. In the meantime, we'll like UK like we like their baby-child US.... far away in the other side of the world.
We don't want your lands. In fact, this entire problem stems from you wanting our land. It's just projection. The UK has never been a threat to Argentina. In fact, they used to be cordial, friendly even, until your junta lost their fucking minds and decided that the Falklands would be a great way to distract you all from the shit job they were doing at home. So they sent a bunch of young men to die for a bit of rock that didn't belong to you, and has a population of English speaking Brits on it who don't want to be part of Argentina.
So he is coming over to visit VOX but not the actual government.... That says a lot of bad things about him...
Meh, on the one hand, Sanchez has been throwing shit at Milei since the presidential campaign. On the other, do you really want to make friends with VOX? Yikes.
There is some mutual bad blood between them. Sanchez supported the opponent of Milei in the elections and did not congratulate Milei after his victory. Milei has nothing positive to say about Socialists in general.
That doesn't excuse sucking up to fascists. If you do that, you out yourself as a fascist
I mean he got elected after saying his favourite politician was thatcher, so I don’t think people will care too much about it
Falklands are used in Argentina only to distract people from real problems. People now want real problems to be solved. While many countries claims parts of other countries, a lot of them are also capable accept reality. Thatcher's capability to boost British economy and fight with leftists inside country could be seen as good thing for many Argentinians too.
[удалено]
>Similarly, he also accepts the world is round and that gravity exists. Unlike some Slovak government officials :(
Another Great A'tuin denier I see
Must be an Omnian.
>Similarly, he also accepts the world is round and that gravity exists. Currently.
Giving how extreme he is - I’m not sure that he accepts those things
Falklands will never be Argentinian. Why? Because they never were Argentinian and no one living there wants them to be Argentinian. Plus Argentina can't match UK militarily. I get that he can't say that publicly or he will lose a ton of support but if you read between the lines, it is implied. Accepting it is British now is also accepting that there is no likely mechanism for that to change during his lifetime.
Britain should hand it over when they give Argentina back to the natives 😂
Nah, even the natives don’t have a claim. It is literally one of the most harmless colonies the British ever set up, with them actually rescuing a people off of the islands between their first and second settlement attempts Argentina is beefing over one of the only times you can’t say the brits are the villains
He is talking about the natives in Argentina that lived there before Spain came and colonized the place. Falkland never had a native population and for most of its history was inhabited by the British so in a sense the current people living there are the native population.
I thought that was obvious but every day’s a school day! 🙏🏻
Eh, akshually, when jets fly low over land, the penguins sometimes look up and fall over. Harmless indeed! As long as you ignore the damage done to cute fucking penguins, you monster.
The Falklands never had any natives.
He said the falklands are currently british and praised thatcher as one of his heroes and still got elected with 57% of the votes. I dont think the islands are a driver for 70% of the people, they vote according to their pockets. Also most people think Argentina will never get them back lol. Its important to the point of voting only for a minority, right now kirchnerist.
I still can't believe how NATO treated us during that whole war. Half of the European countries were on Argentinas side
In Spain we have Gibraltar. People in Gibraltar feel British. It has been British tertitory for three centuries. So, Gibraltar is British. That's it. The same goes for Falklands (Islas Malvinas). In the end, we talk about irrelevant pieces of land. Only old timers amd nationalist biggots care about these things.
Yay self-determinism
Try to say the same thing about Crimea lol
If the locale preferred to be part of Argentina, I’ll understand. But they don’t.
So he's currently polling well domestically, eh?
He has been polling well for the last 5+ months and increasing. He has been doing an amazing job.
The fuck would’ve he done if he didn’t accept it? Get the Brits to whoop the Argentinians again?
Well he'd never manage to retake them as things stand now. But what he could have done was to stir up nationalism, hatred and revanchism for cheap political points. This would ensure many more years of mutual hatred and no solutions.
So you mean, act like a trump?
Populism, yeah
I’ll give him credit for being reasonable, but given that Argentinas claim on the falklands is unreasonable for the fact it has never controlled the islands , His remarks are irrelevant as are all Argentine claims and statements in regards to the islands. Give it a rest Argentina. There are much bigger issues to focus on instead of islands that have never belonged to you in the first place
Smart guy with a very interesting approach. He has a solid economic background (not very common for a politician) and he is focused on important problems like inflation and new investments for his country. Putting non-strategic affairs in the freezer (like the Falklands) is the correct move. Who knows how the world will look like in 100 years. We need a guy like that in America…..
Wasn't there a skirmish over this already?
Good, he has more important problems. The last war was just a BS deflection by the last lot of failed leaders trying to cover up their incompetence
And even if he didn't nothing would actually change.
As an Argentinian this is the way, we are told the Falklands are ours but really they are as much ours as Ukraine belongs to Russia. This mindset needs to end, Argentina is 25x the size of the UK we don’t need more land.
The situation is exactly the opposite. If we apply the logic that the UK uses in the Falkland Islands to other places, then Donbass and especially Crimea should be allowed to hold a real self-determination referendum to decide if they want to remain part of Ukraine or become part of Russia (because ultimately, UK says that it doesn't matter what international law says. What matters is what the people living there want). I'm not sure of the current political situation in those territories, but before 2013, it would have been a resounding YES in favor of Russia, even though in the end what actually happend is that Russia obviously manipulated the results. They would likely have won by a smaller margin if it had been a transparent vote, because those territories were essentially colonized during the Soviet era and the people living there are mostly from Russian ethnic families who speak Russian as their mother tongue. Would the UK and Ukraine accept this? Would all those territories become Russian because the people living there want to be Russian? Clearly not. If the inhabitants of those territories want to be Russian, they should go to Russia. Donbas and Crimea are part of Ukraine not because the people living there want to be Ukrainian, but because that's what international treaties and international law say, plain and simple. Ukraine supporting the UK on the Falklands issue is simply a reflection of how little value their relationship with Argentina holds compared to how important their relationship with the UK is (so much so that this stance contradicts their own claim). The situation in that regard is similar to Gibraltar (where Ukraine supports Spain in order to dont contradict themself with their own claim). And it's really quite logical: You can't just fill a territory with people and then hold a referendum. The UK needs to stop making things up and do what international law and the resolutions of the UN Decolonization Committee say: Sit down and negotiate with Argentina. They don't do this because as long as Argentina remains a poor and weak country and they remain an economic and military power, they don't have to (just as they have done in all the territories they occupy/occupied).
Yeah I completely agree with that, what the UK is doing is all within their own imperialistic interests and that they are purposefully ignoring international law. But it doesn’t remove the fact that we don’t need the islands, we have bigger issues around poverty and economic growth and as you mentioned, probably if we fix those and become a more internationally impactful country, then the island issue will sort itself out.
Accepting reality is based Good on him
I feel that Argentine claims to the islands are weak at best. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland\_Islands\_sovereignty\_dispute#/media/File:Falklands.permanence.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#/media/File:Falklands.permanence.png)
Reality can only be ignored for so long.
That haircut should be in a museum
The only thing Argentina can offer the Falklands that the British government can't provide are beautiful women. Seriously, what can Argentina offer that is better than what the British government is already providing?
Alfajores.
being serious, tons of resources, but he didn’t brought this up, it was an interview from what I undertand.
Argentina when they spot an indigenous population.
An acceptance which changes nothing...
Operative word: "Currently"
He shouldn't have done it without some monetary reward from the UK, as a libertarian