Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Argentinian Dreams ...

I see the Argentine Foreign Minister is in London, and whining about the "Malvinas" again. Funny how this rears its head everytime they manage to crash their economy. I suppose it makes a convenient distraction for their population. Its an old ploy, focus people on an 'external enemy' and distract them from the morons ruining the country from within.

The Argentinian government claims the people living in the Falkland Islands were all "transfered there." It is, he says, an issue of "territorial colonialism." According to this drip, 'not a single country in the world recognises Britain's colonial seizure" of the islands. It seems to have escaped his notice that the people living in the Falklands are, after 180 years now fifth generation "natives" of the islands which were uninhabited when their forebears settled there. If the islands "belong" to anyone it is the people who live there, not a bunch of political pygmies in Buenos Aires or London. Nor is it any business of that utterly worthless organisation based in New York which seems to exist to promote the interests of dictators and propagandists for some of the world's worst terror organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is no business of anyone but the Falkland Islanders, only their opinion counts - and they are adamant they wish to remain British.

Whether Buenos Aires 'recognises' the outcome of the referendum the Islanders are holding or not is immaterial. Not least because more recent research shows that the Argentinian cliams are bogus anyway. If anyone has a "territorial" claim, it is Uruguay, not the territorially ambitious Argentinians. However, given that the Islanders have been there for 180 years, I'd say the matter is settled. The islands are theirs. Handing them to a neighbouring state simply because of mythical "history" and geography opens the gates to some more interesting land transfers for the future.

How about Mexico's much more legitimate claims to the territories now called California, New Mexico or Texas? Perhaps we should include Florida? Yes, I can certainly see the US handing those 'back' to Mexico just because the Mexicans want them. After all, they've not been "American" for as long as the Falklands have been British. If one looked closely at present world national boundaries, they've all changed significantly in the last 200 years, so what does the Argentinan whinging suggest about that? Should the Czech Republic give back the Sudeten Province to Germany? Poland hand back West Prussia? Russia give back East Prussia? Albania give back the territory it has been 'given' by the international community in the last 30 years?

None of that is going to happen, so why should the Argentinians have a special case? They don't, this must be treated for what it is, a simple case of making a grab for territory that was not theirs, is not theirs and will never be theirs. It is a distraction to divert their own people from the collapse of their economy and the civil unrest now sweeping their country.

We should not even give their whinging a hearing and we should make it clear to everyone that another little "military adventure" will meet with the same response as it did in 1982. Only the Falkland Islanders have the right to decide who rules them and who controls their islands. No one else.


  1. Here here. Well said. Let the Falkland Islanders decide.

  2. Pretty sad that some people simply refuse to learn from history.

    But my question would be: would the present UK government be as aggressive in defending the islands as Margaret Thatcher was back in 1982? Just being a curious American.

  3. David, quite possibly they'd wish to, but thanks the Blair government's slashing of Defence budgets, plus the current showers further reductions of the capability of the Fleet and reductions to the RAF and the Army, I doubt we could actually mount another assault. Fortunately the Argentinians seem to have the same problem.