The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Very clever.

 

There are no such things.

Do you mean an apartment in Dongguan?

 

And from whom were the Falklands taken? Which ancient indigenous people? Not only are they no longer alive. They never existed. Unlike the "nations" of native Americans - which still do exist and whose citizens for a very long time indeed were denied citizenship of the USA.

 

How do you know they can't afford it? You have not proven this to be so. And given their current military needs they have no enemies that comprise an existential threat to their homeland, they could take their entire military spending and devote it entirely to the Falklands whilst dropping all other commitments if they have to, the USN even offers to patrol other nations' waters for free just for stuff like this.

 

Huh? Again, you are not grasping the logic. I'll try once more. The right of Brits to self-determination, by definition, applies to Brits in Britain. Similarly, the right of US citizens to self-determination, by definition, applies to US passport holders in America and the same applies to Argentinian's in Argentina and so on and so forth.

Conversely, for example, Israeli's, by definition, have no right to self-determination in Palestine only Israel and Falklander's have no right of self-determination in the Falklands only the UK.

Has the penny dropped yet?

 

Ya know, if you think the Falklands are messed up now, I've got an American president we can ship over to show you just how bad things can really be.

 

Your Alaskan/Russian analogy is hyothetical but the principle is the same. It may or may not be in the US national interest to negotiate with Russia. If the latter felt as strongly about Alaska as Argentina does about the Falklands, then it would be sensible for negotiations to be entered into with a view to a settlement that would hypothetically benefit both sides as it will in any negotiated settlement involving Argentina and the UK. In such a scenario both parties would benefit as a result of a satisfactory outcome. Every case must be judged on its individual merits in terms of the respective national interests of both parties.

 

Nope, I'm not missing the point at all. I repeat, in 1982 I was in favour of defending the Falklander's from a fascist regime. As UK citizens we had an obligation and duty to those people and it was incumbant upon the Thatcher government of the time to defend these people against a military assault upon the people whose rights of CITIZENSHIP and, more importantly, LIVES were being threatened. I will defend them again under similar circumstances however unlikely. But any war initiated by a democratic Argentina this time will be premised solely on the acquistion of TERRITORY, NOT an attack on the rights of the Brits to remain British. Part of the reason why I favour a negotiated settlement is because I want to avoid the potential for another war irrespective of the aims of the aggressors. Your concept of what constitutes self-determination is based on an inherent contradiction and you just cannot see it.

 

But as UK citizens in a post-colonial world where educated and civilized people rightly regard colonial outposts as anachronisms in the 21st century, their rights of self determination are, self-evidently, applicable to the UK not to a non nation-state 8,000 miles away. Why can't you grasp this logic? This is the nub of the matter. Are you drunk or stoned or something? How small does a population have to be for you to recognize that the interests of 65 million trump it? One, two, three?

 

The Argentines were evicted by the British in 1832. Land clearances, evictions, etc....the British are good at these things.

 

...to an apartment in Dongguan.

 

Clearly your notion of what constitutes a nation state, a sovereign state with citizens who are passportholders is not what the term is defined to be! Your definition abrogates the existance of all nations which don't have such a political entity of a state and with it their right to self determination. International law doesn't support such an assertion, on the contrary the right to self determination is based on a people as in ethnic group, nation, tribe etc. If different peoples, as in Bolivia, through their right to self determination, decide they want to belong to a plurinational political entity, then that is their right however it doesn't mean they have irrevocably transfered that right of self determination from their people to a sovereign state for all time. As has been mentioned the Scots are one example. There are also different degrees of autonomy even within a multinational state entity for its constituent nations. The Greenlanders are one nation within the Danish multinational state with a good degree of autonomy so that they are not EU citizens despite membership of the multinational state, as a result of their right to self determination.

If the UK didn't avail itself of this international right in the Falklands war against an invading foreign state, what right did it act under?

 

Unfortunately you weren't able to explain how this works for the people of another colonial outpost, St. Helena. However one can only conclude that according to you they have no right to the territory on which they have lived for generations and it must belong to the closest sovereign state which I think would be Angola or Nambia as soon as they are clear about it and make their claim!

I don't think an ethnic group with a population of one, two or three would be successful at gaining recognition as a people in international law however the Falklanders, even with a population down to a few thousand are a different matter. In either case its not the economic interests of other peoples which determine it but solely on they can be said to be a distinct seperate ethnic group.

 

Hence your idea would encourage all kinds of claims. for example Angola and Nambia claiming St. Helena to see what they can squeeze out of the UK.

 

As I've stated previously, the Scottish/Falklander's comparison is a false equivalent. Scotland is geographically an integral part of the UK. The Scots have UK passports (possibly Scottish passports pending independence) and their right to self determination is therefore applicable to Scots within either an independent Scotland or a United Kingdom whatever the case may be. If the Scots decide to vote for independence, they will be an independent sovereign state nation.

Scotland wasn't appropriated as a colonial possession let alone by force. The Falklander's right to self-determination cannot be based on a non-existent nation state. Irrespective of any overwhelming support on the part of the Falklander's to be an independent nation state, it simply isn't going to happen.

So the argument as to their right of self-determination as Falklander's is a red-herring. They are UK passport holders and so their rights to self-determination is inextricably linked to the UK and will remain so until such a time as the Falklands becomes an independent nation state which is never.

 

To reiterate, the Falklander's right to self-determination either as UK citizens residing in the Falklands or, alternatively, as Falklander's residing in the Falklands is inherently contradictory:

"Britain is applying self-determination for a purpose opposite to to what they see as its original conception, that was preventing the continuation of colonialism throughout the world after World War II, and in this sense, they would be far from a truthful defense of a democratic principle as self-determination"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

 

Bollocks.....the Falkland have oil.......vast untapped oil and gas!

Rogues rule okay!

Regards
Highlander

 

Personal insults from you aside, you cannot see that a people who have been born and grown up in a certain place, and whose parents were born and grew up in that same place, whose parents also were born and grew up in that same place etc. are not entitled to determine how their islands are governed without the outside interference of an alien nation two hundred miles away? You think it is fine for people from outside their islands to negotiate their rights away?

The right to self determination applies to people who have lawfully conducted their lives for generations in a place where they wish to remain unmolested and with their rights and obligations unimpeded by jingoistic nationalists from Argentina. Self determination is not about their passports as you keep tediously expalining despite this point being rebutted over and over again. It is about choosing how they are governed. The Falklanders are entitled to determine how they are governed, unmolested by alien powers and subject to the protection of whomsoever they agree such an arrangement with. This is the central principle of anti-imperialism. To reject such a principle is to embrace tyranny and imperialism.

 

I believe the full and correct phrase is , loveable rogues .
Indispensable for a thriving economy !!

 

The national interests of both parties are largely determined by the military and economic might of both parties. In any territorial dispute NOT governed by the wishes of the territories inhabitants the outcome will be determined by who is the most powerful. This of course is a very illiberal approach which suits the totalitarian mindset that "might is right". In the case of Alaska, unless the wishes of the people are paramount and subject to international protection - something which does not seem to be the case at the moment - then its future will be determined by the relative strength of Russia and the USA.

It is interesting that you put "national interest" over "natural rights". I think this extreme right wing nationalist approach is disgusting, constantly subordinating peoples rights to who has the most power. There is apparently no room for international law, principles or anything. Just negotiate when anyone has a problem if your army is too small and you are forced to do so.

That is not the case with Britain and so the Falklands will be staying British, protecting their right to self determination.

 

The reason I mention passports is because they are an apt pointer. The rights to self determination are, self-evidentally, predicated on internationally recognized states from which these rights are anchored. The imperialist and colonial conquest of the Falklands and the claims for self determination therein are mutually contradictory notions. I understand this is a difficult logical line of reasoning for you to follow.

 

Self determination is about determining how you are ruled. Passports are secondary.

To you it's a colonial outpost. To the Falklanders it's their ancestral home.

But one final point. If the 65million agree that it's in their interests to protect the Falklands, against your advice, is that OK with you? And as we can't have a referendum on everything, will you to defer to the decision of the elected government of the UK who represent the 65million?

 

The wishes of people are frequently compromised. You want to live in a utopia - the way it ought to be in your own world rather than deal in the real world as it is. The logical end point culminating from your line of reasoning is that the residents of a village comprising 3,000 people in say Cornwall insist that THEIR interests which inform THEIR right to self determination as Cornish trump the interests of 65 million.

 

This of course is utter drivel. People who demand self determination nearly always do so from a position where they had none. They make a demand fir a nation state, or a particular form of rule, from a position where that does not exist. So Ireland for years demanded self determination when it was no more than a province ruled from Westminster under the British Crown. India demanded self determination but prior to the Empire India had never been a nation. Algeria was the same vis a vis France. Now former colonial powers recognize that it is NOT the national interest of the UK that dictates affairs but the will of people in former colonial territories. This is a principled stand that differentiates the UK from it's imperial self when only national interest determined policy.

How abandoning the Falklanders and ther natural rights to the demagogues and jingoists of Argentine nationalism can be seen to be "anti imperialist" is indeed beyond me. The tyrannical instinct on the Left to abandon individuals and their rights for ideological dogma or the "greater good" is clear. The Left learns nothing. It repeats it's disastrous twentieth century betrayals. The distinction between leftist collectivist tyranny and liberal individualism couldn't be more clearly exposed.

 

Answer the question. I'm asking you if you will allow the 65 million to determine what they think is in their interests, through their elected representatives. Or is it just you that gets to decide? The 65 million may agree with me. We have a democratic process. Is that OK?