Falklands

[Howard Webb]

I read a good peice by the British ambassador to Argentina, who basically recalls the situation being rather daft. One the one hand, the argentines used the fiasco to stoke nationalism, and does so every time the country is in economic woe because we are a cartoon villain. On the other hand, the UK government pretty much screwed up the diplomatic effort to avoid conflict and was engaged fairly heavily in selling ARG some hefty warships - which would have made the war alot more difficult. The falklands war is seen by many as a fairly big mistake.

It wont be repeated, and is now going to be used on both sides to stoke nationalism in times of economic woe.

And the role of the US in arming both sides in the conflict is no longer the case. They dont have an interest in toppling their enemies in South America.

 

[scaramanga]

I know they did, I've already said this in my post. Of course proximity has relevance, you don't want to sail half way around the world just to drop off the oil.

You seem to be letting your jingoism get in the way of interpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying to hand the Falklands over or give the Argentinians a share of the oil but to calm the ridiculous rhetoric on both sides so that we can sit down and talk. Not to 'reward' a failed military venture but for British self interest. Then, if it ever becomes viable, the oil remains the Falklanders' and is simply dropped off in Argentina to be refined/shipped off whatever, considering they have the nearest ports and are therefore likely to be the best economically.

The Falklands/British economy gets a boost. The Argentinian economy gets a boost. The two countries have good relations. And young men and women on both sides don't die because of the high games of politicians and generals. Great stuff.

I'd be very surprised if that would work. There would need to be a large market for oil at a massivly inflated price for it to be worth losing all the processing revenue. If we're to use the oil then it would need to be shipped over anyway, can't see why it couldn't be shipped over raw and refined here.

I don't see any need for there to be good relations with an almost entirely irrelevant country on the other side of the world - when was the last time you saw hand wringing from people over the need for good relations with Bolivia? We had our 'discussions', the outcome was decided. Any further attempts to change the outcome by Argentina (by any means) is at best irritating, at worst dangerous.

 

[Hootnow]

I'd be very surprised if that would work. There would need to be a large market for oil at a massivly inflated price for it to be worth losing all the processing revenue. If we're to use the oil then it would need to be shipped over anyway, can't see why it couldn't be shipped over raw and refined here.

I don't see any need for there to be good relations with an almost entirely irrelevant country on the other side of the world - when was the last time you saw hand wringing from people over the need for good relations with Bolivia? We had our 'discussions', the outcome was decided. Any further attempts to change the outcome by Argentina (by any means) is at best irritating, at worst dangerous.

Most sources have seemed to indicate that it would make more economic sense to do so in Argentina but I can't pretend to be an expert on the matter. Either way, the oil doesn't seem to be particularly viable at the moment anyway, so it is all much ado about nothing.

In the grand scheme of things, we're not really all that much more significant anymore, we don't hold the dominant position we once did in the International realm. The reason no-one gives a fudge about good relations with Bolivia is that Bolivia has a smaller GDP than Yemen and Kenya, bilateral trade between the two countries is 30 million quid and 1000 people didn't die because of 'poor relations' with Bolivia. As a comparison, bilateral trade between the UK and Argentina is ?ú1.4 billion.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The Falklanders voted pretty much unanimously to be British territory - proximity has no relevance at all whatsoever. Argentina can go fudge themselves, it's our oil.

The only reason this is ever debated is because they had the nerve/stupidity to attack British soil - they should not get any kind of gain from such an act of aggression.

One Typhoon could shoot down their hole irforce, I'm not even joking.

They have no more rights to the oil than say Uruguay!

 

[funster]

Most sources have seemed to indicate that it would make more economic sense to do so in Argentina but I can't pretend to be an expert on the matter. Either way, the oil doesn't seem to be particularly viable at the moment anyway, so it is all much ado about nothing.

In the grand scheme of things, we're not really all that much more significant anymore, we don't hold the dominant position we once did in the International realm. The reason no-one gives a fudge about good relations with Bolivia is that Bolivia has a smaller GDP than Yemen and Kenya, bilateral trade between the two countries is 30 million quid and 1000 people didn't die because of 'poor relations' with Bolivia. As a comparison, bilateral trade between the UK and Argentina is ?ú1.4 billion.

On this particular point I think you're quite wrong. Yes, there is a clear shift east (leaving aside Brazil for a minute), but frankly, the UK has a far more important position in global economics and politics than Argentina. In part because Kirchner is fudging things up royally by further screwing-up the Argentinian economy that is in turn screwing-up the political system there further.

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

What's always amused me, how the Falklands are merely 300 miles off the Argentinian coast, yet almost 8,000 miles to the United Kingdom :-k

That's a bit of a stretch for the 'British soil!' line :lol:

 

[Leeds Spur]

Tell these daygo oiks to tinkle off. Born to rule!

 

[THFC]

Whilst I agree we would kick their Argie asses if they set foot, but all of this leads me to belive they may have the backing of other Latin American countries, if so then this could get messy, and not as straight forward as we might think.

Eventually Brazil will be a major world power, and who knows what side they will fall down on in support of the islands for example. Just imaging Britain v half of latin america, could be a tough fight with forces spread around the world on the fight against 'terror'

 

[Spursalot]

Whilst I agree we would kick their Argie asses if they set foot, but all of this leads me to belive they may have the backing of other Latin American countries, if so then this could get messy, and not as straight forward as we might think.

Eventually Brazil will be a major world power, and who knows what side they will fall down on in support of the islands for example. Just imaging Britain v half of latin america, could be a tough fight with forces spread around the world on the fight against 'terror'

The way i see it the whole issue is stupid anyway, the Falklanders have repeatedly come out and stated that they want to remain under british rule.


What would Argentina do with them if they did get it back? Deport them back to the UK or something? In my mind it would be about as crazy as the American Indians deciding they want America back and trying to deport Americans back to Uk/France/Spain...

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

Whilst I agree we would kick their Argie asses if they set foot, but all of this leads me to belive they may have the backing of other Latin American countries, if so then this could get messy, and not as straight forward as we might think.

Eventually Brazil will be a major world power, and who knows what side they will fall down on in support of the islands for example. Just imaging Britain v half of latin america, could be a tough fight with forces spread around the world on the fight against 'terror'

Brazil's strategic priorities is to establish herself as a regional power-broker. To what end would aligning herself with a regional rival serve to fulfil this goal; it wouldn't, it would be entirely counter-productive.

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

The way i see it the whole issue is stupid anyway, the Falklanders have repeatedly come out and stated that they want to remain under british rule.


What would Argentina do with them if they did get it back? Deport them back to the UK or something? In my mind it would be about as crazy as the American Indians deciding they want America back and trying to deport Americans back to Uk/France/Spain...

That would depend on your interpretation of how much value Argentina places on the people who actually live on the island. Argentina don't give a fudge about the people - neither does the United Kingdom; it is what's beneath the islands which holds value. The people themselves are merely just pawns; human shields if you will.

 

[THFC]

Brazil's strategic priorities is to establish herself as a regional power-broker. To what end would aligning herself with a regional rival serve to fulfil this goal; it wouldn't, it would be entirely counter-productive.

We are talking here about Brazil in the present day. Priorities change, Brazil may well be trying to establish that position, there is no guarantee as to what side they will come down on in the future.

 

[Hootnow]

On this particular point I think you're quite wrong. Yes, there is a clear shift east (leaving aside Brazil for a minute), but frankly, the UK has a far more important position in global economics and politics than Argentina. In part because Kirchner is fudging things up royally by further screwing-up the Argentinian economy that is in turn screwing-up the political system there further.

Obviously I was being a bit facetious, the UK has significantly more power in every field than Argentina. I mean that the UK no longer holds the powerful position it once did and both are subject to the powers of certain other countries.

The way i see it the whole issue is stupid anyway, the Falklanders have repeatedly come out and stated that they want to remain under british rule.


What would Argentina do with them if they did get it back? Deport them back to the UK or something? In my mind it would be about as crazy as the American Indians deciding they want America back and trying to deport Americans back to Uk/France/Spain...

:lol:

The politicians and generals on both sides don't give a fudge about the Falklanders. What they care about is what's potentially underneath them and now, after the first war, stoking nationalistic tendencies against the other side.

Or...as crazy as the British deporting 1600 Diego Garcians so they and the Americans could build a military base on the Island? Its hardly the most shocking or unique of events.

 

[Hootnow]

Whilst I agree we would kick their Argie asses if they set foot, but all of this leads me to belive they may have the backing of other Latin American countries, if so then this could get messy, and not as straight forward as we might think.

Eventually Brazil will be a major world power, and who knows what side they will fall down on in support of the islands for example. Just imaging Britain v half of latin america, could be a tough fight with forces spread around the world on the fight against 'terror'

Latin America is behind Argentina. To a point. That point is sabre rattling, a strong word here and there every so often, an indignant comment at the UN. There is no way they will want to stand behind Argentina on a larger level through, either in terms of economic measures against Britain or especially military action. There would be absolutely no benefit for them.

Brazil is a growing power for sure but it isn't going to want to annoy some of the established powers quite so soon. Especially when its foreign policy under Lula (what a guy) and then Rousseff has not been one of overt confrontation. Not to mention that Argentina's call for a nuclear free South America flies in the face of Brazil wanting to build some nuclear powered subs.

In the future, if (when) Brazil becomes a world power, I'm sure they justifiably won't like Brtitain having the capability of projecting their power down there. Can't see them doing anything about it though, the modern world is about trade and it would suit neither the UK, nor Brazil if they were both top 10/20 GDP countries to fight a war over the Falklands.

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

We are talking here about Brazil in the present day. Priorities change, Brazil may well be trying to establish that position, there is no guarantee as to what side they will come down on in the future.

If there are "no guarantees" about the future, then why worry about it? Brazil has always played the political game; prima facie it wishes to display a unified region, yet it also has a strategic objective to align itself with wider global power blocks. Without any question, relations with the United Kingdom have to be maintained, if they are to sit at the top table. Brazil voiced implied support for Argentina prior to the Falklands war, yet realised it's wider objectives would be compromised if it took too keen a stance on the issue; therein, Argentina was left to fight its own battles. Until such time as Brazil no longer needs to worry about wider global priorities, this flaky support will remain.

 

[THFC]

If there are "no guarantees" about the future, then why worry about it? Brazil has always played the political game; prima facie it wishes to display a unified region, yet it also has a strategic objective to align itself with wider global power blocks. Without any question, relations with the United Kingdom have to be maintained, if they are to sit at the top table. Brazil voiced implied support for Argentina prior to the Falklands war, yet realised it's wider objectives would be compromised if it took too keen a stance on the issue; therein, Argentina was left to fight its own battles. Until such time as Brazil no longer needs to worry about wider global priorities, this flaky support will remain.

Latin America is behind Argentina. To a point. That point is sabre rattling, a strong word here and there every so often, an indignant comment at the UN. There is no way they will want to stand behind Argentina on a larger level through, either in terms of economic measures against Britain or especially military action. There would be absolutely no benefit for them.

Brazil is a growing power for sure but it isn't going to want to annoy some of the established powers quite so soon. Especially when its foreign policy under Lula (what a guy) and then Rousseff has not been one of overt confrontation. Not to mention that Argentina's call for a nuclear free South America flies in the face of Brazil wanting to build some nuclear powered subs.

In the future, if (when) Brazil becomes a world power, I'm sure they justifiably won't like Brtitain having the capability of projecting their power down there. Can't see them doing anything about it though, the modern world is about trade and it would suit neither the UK, nor Brazil if they were both top 10/20 GDP countries to fight a war over the Falklands.

Brazil has always played the political game, this is becasue it had never been in the position it now finds itself in today, 7th worlds largest economy. You have indeed answered my point right at the end Sheikh, of which my initial point was ventured in that Brazil would be in a position to use its power to influence in its favour. A vast oil reserve could, legitimately, see the traditionally social-political views of the region uniting under the power of Brazil. All speculation of course, but who are we to say it would, or wouldn't happen in these times.

I am certain there are factors suggesting it wouldn't occur, as some suggesting it will. My view is partly based on the fact that Brazil and China are rapidly growing whilst the current 'established' powers are clearly at maturity stage in terms of their life cycle meaning less scope for growth.

The fact they are still rapidly growing and are 2nd and 7th largest indicates they will hold even larger influence than they already do. and as hootnow rightly said, it is all about trade, so that bodes well for those two based on the overall trend and traditional expectations.

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

I don't see the point in worrying about the never, never though? You can waste an awful lot of time doing that, and still - ultimately - achieve nothing. Growth always tempers itself, but the premise behind your view, is that such growth will continue. It doesn't really work like that. As your economy grows, obviously you bring influence on that level, but the real influence is political - and Brazil don't have that yet; they're still seen as outsiders, as is China.

The United Kingdom has an extremely strong global stance, both economically and politically - sitting at the top table on both frontiers, and maintaining strong relationships with key global allies and influencers. A century and more of key foreign policy and collaboration has brought that about. Brazil's mid-term growth is dependent on its ability to align itself strategically with established 'blue-chip' operators like the United Kingdom - not act to work against them. Brazil's regional wealth will of course be respected, but whether it'll be welcomed is another matter entirely; merely having money won't be enough to open the doors which Brazil would want.

Brazil will need to re-establish itself geopolitically. The status quo, was that the Latin Americas stood as an implicit entity. As we are now, that 'bond' to the region would be counter-productive to where Brazil wishes to see itself; it has to see itself as a global player, not merely a regional one or, indeed, representative of a region, ie: Latin America. They'll have to lose regional friends, but the global ones they'll gain will be worth more to them going forward. But the political dialog which brings them to that fore is what Brazil has not yet finessed.

 

[mick cooper]

That would depend on your interpretation of how much value Argentina places on the people who actually live on the island. Argentina don't give a fudge about the people - neither does the United Kingdom; it is what's beneath the islands which holds value. The people themselves are merely just pawns; human shields if you will.

There was no evidence of any geological bounty when Britain decided to defend the rights of the Falkland islanders to determine their own right to govern their futures in 82, so that argument holds no water. Your jaundiced views on British rights are well documented, but you will have to understand that the ethos behind which any government of Britain stands is the right to democratically decide on the government of any country, the fact that the Falklands is a crown colony simply made it more personal.

This outlook is currently being exercised in Afghanistan, where there is nothing but justice to fight for.

Unless I'm much mistaken, there still remains great doubt about the economic viability of extracting anything from the waters surrounding the Falklands. To go to war over such a massive uncertainty would be the act of a desperate government, or in this case - yet another desperate Argentine government.

No one would emigrate to the "Malvinas" from Argentina, so the sovereignty issue is specious to say the least, having wasted part of my life there, I can say that in all honesty we should let them have it, just to teach them a lesson - were it not for the fact that the Island is a British acquisition and territory and the people who live there have the right to choose and determine their own future. If there was a vote to align to Argentina, the British government would dump the misbeggotten lump of crud like a hot brick.

 

[WookieD]

I wrote this in the "Americans" thread

The Spanish have a better claim to the Falklands than the Argentinean do. Their position is nothing short of colonialism themselves.

Look at this way:

1690 - 1774 - French, British and Spainish all laid claim at times = 84 years
1774- 1820 - Spanish = 46 years
1820 - 1833 - Argentinean = 13 years
1833 - 2012 - English = 179 years

Almost every single islander considers themselves British and want to remain so, despite Argentina making their lives very difficult in remaining to do so. Britain actually wanted to give up the islands in the 70s but a leaseback option to the Argentineans was roundly rejected by the islanders.

When the Argentinean's came to liberate their Falklands brothers, they were surprised to find that they were overwhelmingly told to fudge off an leave them alone.

Rightly, our stance on the islands has been that it is up to the people who live there on whether they wish to be a part of Britain, Argentina or anywhere else. And the answer is Britain.

If oil reserves were not being found in Falklands waters, the Argentineans would have no interest and no sabre rattling would be going on right now. As always, it's a battle over resources.

So, the Argentineans had a 13 year claim to the islands, during which they were mostly disinterested. Nearly nobody on the island speaks Spanish as their first language, carrys an Argentinean passport or considers themselves to have any affinity with Argentina. Nearly nobody on the island wants to be governed by Argentina. The Falklands are 290 miles away from Argentina... In Europoean terms, that could be at least 3 sovreign borders, so it isn't exactly close.

The Argies can go fudging do one on this issue.

 

[Sheikh Ma Nuggets]

There was no evidence of any geological bounty when Britain decided to defend the rights of the Falkland islanders to determine their own right to govern their futures in 82, so that argument holds no water. Your jaundiced views on British rights are well documented, but you will have to understand that the ethos behind which any government of Britain stands is the right to democratically decide on the government of any country, the fact that the Falklands is a crown colony simply made it more personal.

This outlook is currently being exercised in Afghanistan, where there is nothing but justice to fight for.

Unless I'm much mistaken, there still remains great doubt about the economic viability of extracting anything from the waters surrounding the Falklands. To go to war over such a massive uncertainty would be the act of a desperate government, or in this case - yet another desperate Argentine government.

No one would emigrate to the "Malvinas" from Argentina, so the sovereignty issue is specious to say the least, having wasted part of my life there, I can say that in all honesty we should let them have it, just to teach them a lesson - were it not for the fact that the Island is a British acquisition and territory and the people who live there have the right to choose and determine their own future. If there was a vote to align to Argentina, the British government would dump the misbeggotten lump of crud like a hot brick.

Mick, I always take your view mindful of the fact you've spent time in the British Army; would be remiss of me to ignore the context.