- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This House would cede control of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands to Argentina.
This House would cede control of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands to Argentina.
This is a discussion on the Debatabase item titled: This House would cede control of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands to Argentina..Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
49 weeks 3 days ago
There has to be a point after which no amount of disputing sovereignty should matter. It really should make no difference that Argentina has disputed this the whole time (though wikipedia says this itself is disputed and there may be a sixty year gap from 1885). Ultimately this does nothing to solve the claim as simply disputing ownership does not provide any grounding for Argentina's own claim.
None the less this is a considerably better counterpoint to op point 3 'length of occupation' than we have at the moment I will see about adding it in, thanks.
49 weeks 2 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I dont understand why disputing a piece of land should make any difference. It should be up to the individuals on that piece of land to decide their own form of government. This should apply as much to the Falkland islanders as it did to the Argentine people when they broke away from Spain.
49 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I have now edited this into the debate. I notice you had also submitted an improvement for the debate for which I thank you, but unfortunately this function is not yet fully operating (when I accept it the improvement does not yet actually change the debate!) we hope to have it working in the next few weeks.
48 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
There are rather a large number of historical inaccuracies in the discussion as presented. The first Europeans to see the Falklands were almost undoubtedly the Portuguese who were familiar with that region before Magellan ever left Spain. Indeed there is evidence that Magellan was using Portuguese maps and was shown the entrance to his 'streight' by them.
Lord North's administration made no promises nor did it concede anything to the Spanish. The term 'Administration' is in itself wrong as Ministers at that time were largely independent, answering to the King. Lord North played almost no part in the negotiations which were led initially by Weymouth and then the very experienced Rochford. Lord North denied that he ever made any promise to evacuate the Falklands.
The British garrison was withdrawn in 1774 but again it is not accurate to say that the British left West Falkland. The Southern Whale Fishery grew up around that island and British (and American) whalers and sealers used the archipelago without interference from Spain. Interestingly Spain never attempted to raise a flag over West Falkland or establish a garrison.
Jewett was not sent by Buenos Aries to claim the islands in 1820. This is a nonsense. He was commissioned as a Privateer to pursue Spanish shipping, but became more Pirate by taking Portuguese and American ships. His claim to have an order from Buenos Aires has never been substantiated, nor any such order found. On his return to the United Provinces he submitted a 13 page report of his journey. No mention was made of his claim.
Vernet's first attempt to hunt the wild cattle on East Falkland was in 1824. This failed and he returned in 1826 with an enterprise that fell within the conditions of the commercial Treaty between Britain and Buenos Aires signed in 1825. His association with British diplomats and businessmen is currently the object of research. There is evidence that he wished the British to re-establish military control in order to protect what he tended to describe as 'his' colony.
The Lexington Raid certainly removed many of Vernet's settlers, most of them willingly as they were usually paid in worthless promissory notes. Some 26 remained however and they were there to meet the Clio when it arrived to oust the trespassing garrison from Buenos Aires in January 1833. Buenos Aires had been warned in a diplomatic note in 1829 not to presume any rights over the archipelago. They should have taken note.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103755318/Falklands-War-The-First-400-Years-PDF
31 weeks 2 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
First of all I will not make this introduction any longer; it is already considerably longer than any of our other introductions and is quite detailed enough - if people want to know more they can go and hunt for the references.
The portugese; since the debate puts the portugese as the first to sight it anyway you simply suggest it may be considerably earlier but without evidence there seems little point in changing it. We are afterall looking at documented sightings, if the sighting is not recorded presumably the land is not being claimed which is all that really matters for this debate.
Lord North etc.; I dont know about this, since the debate has references to Nicholas Tracy, ‘The Falkland Islands Crisis of 1770; Use of Naval Force’, EHR vol.90, no.354, Jan., 1975 and EHR is a pretty respectable historical journal I suspect this is something that would require checking the archives.
Jewett; I dare say the Argentinians claim he was sent to claim the islands and the British are rather more dubious unfortunately I doubt any of us have the ability to visit the relevant archives here to find out. I will think about how it can be rephrased to show it is disputed.
Vernet; how is hunting cattle relevant to the question of who owns the island? I have to admit I get a bit lost once we get to this point. The differences don’t seem to me to be particularly big.
31 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
One of the problems with both Spain and Portgual in that era was that they kept their finding secret whereas the British and Dutch published their discoveries. Subsequently it was difficult for Spain to prove that it found somewhere first.
There is no clear evidence that one ship of Magellan's expedition sighted the Falklands. Spain did not make this claim until 1767 and failed come up with supportive evidence. Their claim was considered 'convenient' at that time as the first Falklands dispute was under way.
But you are right in that it is not particularly important for the purposes of any claim. Even in internationally accepted norms of the time a mere sighting was insufficient. Just landing wasn't enough either although this honours does go to the British. The reality was that any claim needed to be followed up quickly by the imposition of an administration. In the case of West Falkland Island that was 1765. The French got to East Falkland Islands before that but their claim was only for that Island. They were pressured into leaving by the Spanish on the basis of the 'Family Compact' and that Spain were the owners under the Treaty of Tordessillas (unrecognised by Britain and most of the other European nations).
If you do not know about the intricacies of the debate in 1770 and 1771 then I am afraid that you know far too little about the Falklands sovereignty issue. I can recommend an article by Australian historian Geoffrey Rice ( Rice G. Great Britain, the Manila Ransom and the First Falkland Islands Dispute with Spain 1980) which covers the subject. Goebel's work in 1927 focused heavily on Lord North's involvement while Rice disputes his findings due to the true influence of Weymouth and Rochford.
As for checking the archives - I know a man who is Buenos Aires as I write this. He has Jewett's Report and is preparing a book on the subject. Peter is an expert on this particular part of the historical debate. cf. http://www.falklandshistory.org/
Luis Vernet is central to Argentina's argument. When Argentina talks about Britain usurping the Falklands and ejecting them from the Islands, it is Vernet's settlement that they are talking about. Vernet is however something of a double edged sword as there is clear evidence that he was playing both sides against the middle. He later claimed that he always preferred the idea of British ownership but when he didn't get the compensation that he thought he was entitled to he changed his mind again.
The sovereignty issue is closely tied up with the history. I can only suggest, in addition to Peter Pepper's work, mine own - http://www.scribd.com/doc/103643219/Falklands-History
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103755318/Falklands-War-The-First-400-Years-PDF
30 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Argentina is still needling the UK over the Falklands. President of Argentina Cristina Kirchner has taken the opportunity of the 180th anniversary of Argentina being "forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands" to publicly send a letter to Prime Minister Cameron through adverts in British newspapers such as the guardian. She takes the opportunity to remind the UK of the United Nations pledges of "bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations" which would include the Falklands. However she does not explain how replacing one colonial power with another would actually fulfill this.
Argentina has probably wasted its money on this; it is unlikely to persuade many people in Britain to ignore self determination and the British government is hardly likely to cave in as a result of it. All it does is remind people that we have a dispute.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/cristina-fernandez-kirchner-letter-cameron
19 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I see that the Sun (a british tabloid newspaper) has responded by placing a counter letter in an Argentinian newspaper giving the standard british response that the Falklands should remain British until the population decides otherwise; the principle of self determination.
19 weeks 4 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
In the Chamizal case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States on the ground that "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents".
Argentina has historically challenged British presence. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XI/309-347.pdf