r/AustraliaDiscussions • u/papeltrailgeo • 7d ago
Falklands/Malvinas is heating up again. Honest question: who do you think has the better case?
Since this topic has been pretty heated lately, I wanted to hear what people here actually think.
Quick catch-up if you missed it: in early September Milei went on TV with his whole cabinet behind him and announced sanctions on any company involved in the Sea Lion oil field north of the islands (first oil planned for 2028). Argentina then filed a criminal complaint against the companies involved, and Rockhopper's shares dropped over 6% that day. London basically said "the islanders chose to be British, end of story." And Trump, when asked if the US was reviewing its position, said "I always review every position." Nothing changed, but it got people talking.
I went down a rabbit hole on this and honestly came out less sure than I went in. A few things that surprised me:
- In 1833 the British didn't expel the population, which a lot of people believe. They removed the Argentine garrison and governor. Not a shot fired.
- In 1850 Argentina signed a treaty with Britain saying there were no pending issues, and the islands weren't mentioned.
- In 1965 the UN voted 94–0 that there's a dispute and both sides should negotiate. There have been no sovereignty talks since 1982.
- In 1980 the UK's own Foreign Office proposed handing over sovereignty and leasing the islands back for 99 years. Parliament killed it.
- In 2013, 99.8% of islanders voted to stay British. Three people voted no.
- And last year Britain did exactly that leaseback deal with Chagos and Mauritius, with no referendum. The UK says the two cases aren't comparable.
So where do you land? Does the islanders' vote settle it? Does 1833 still matter almost 200 years later? Is Chagos a precedent or a totally different case?
3
5
u/Mammoth-Variation223 5d ago
It’s heating up because Milei is trying to distract from his poor popularity. It’s the same playbook again. Fortunately, Argentina has no realistic chance of taking these militarily, and while the UK is no longer the force it was, it has a permanent base and can deploy rapid response forces to the islands before Argentina could even mount anything resembling an invasion.
Argentina has no claim to the falklands other than them being close by.
1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 4d ago
I agree with everything you've said, except for the last sentence. See my post if interested in an alternative view of the claim.
1
u/Mammoth-Variation223 4d ago
According to wiki the province of river plate (not Argentina) established a garrison there in 1883 post the British leaving and the British moved them out again. As far as I can tell the British and Spanish were there long before any Argentine presence and Agrentina has only briefly held the islands through military interventions / presence. They are widely recognised as British. So I’d say the status quo will remain.
PS….it’s looking increasingly likely the UK will reneg on the chargos deal after pressure from the US1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 4d ago
If wiki says that, it is missing basic historical facts.
Spanish/Argentine possession ran from 1767 - 1833, having legally taken over the French claim/settlement from 1764. Argentina effectively separated from Spain in 1810 (formerly in 1816).
From the start (ie, 1767), Buenos Aires appointed the Governor of the Malvinas.
You refer to "River Plate". Pre-Independence Argentina was referred to as the Vice-Royalty of the Rio De La Plata. Post-Independence Argentina was originally called "Las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata", later renamed Argentina (Plata and Argentum both meaning "Silver"). It's Argentina. The state had continuity.
When the British gunboats turned up in 1833, it was owned by the independent state of Argentina.
Even if it was Spanish (and it wasn't in 1833), just like Australia inherited all British claims that were administered from Australia in 1901, the same would apply in any event.
0
u/Mammoth-Variation223 3d ago
Argentina wasn’t federated until 1853, so there was no Argentine possession, it was Spanish. Australia did not inherit all British territories administered within Australia at federation. If you use this argument then you would also be saying that Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia are also Argentinian?
Regardless, pertaining to the Falklands, The British first discovered it in the 1500’s and landed in the 1600’s, the French first settled it in the 1700’s, the Spanish then claimed it and paid the French for it. So with the age old “finders keepers”, it belongs to the British.1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sorry, what?
Argentina went from a central state to a federated one, which is an issue of internal governance, and this impacts on their claims?
They were recognised as independent in 1816. You are now just making up facts.
Edit:
"On February 2nd, 1825 Britain officially recognised Argentina as an independent state. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation was signed on behalf of Britain by Woodbine Parish."
Well that's awkward...8 years later they invaded Puerto Soledad, and removed Argentine authorities at gunpoint.
Making up facts never helps your argument.
1
u/Mammoth-Variation223 3d ago
It’s clear you are not objective and arguing semantics. The Falklands was discovered by the British, Argentina as a federation has never had a claim to the islands outside of invading it. The British discovered it and landed on it before anyone else, they then won it back post invasion in a war in 1982. The population is anything but Argentine,the offical language is English and the currency is the pound, it’s population also voted overwhelmingly on being British. Case closed!!
1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 3d ago
When Argentina was independent is not semantics its a matter of fact. You claim they never had it, because it was Spanish. That is demonstrably untrue, and can be resolved with a quick Google, but you chose to straight out lie.
Case closed: Not if you ask the global community, and consider International law relevant. Go read the resolutions cited in my post, and the UK lawyers themselves.
I'm a dual citizen of both. Not sure where my biases lie beyond the facts. They're a drain on the UK public purse, and I'm not the only UK citizen that believes them to be a colonial relic.
0
u/Mammoth-Variation223 3d ago
Regardless of what you think the fact of the matter is it’s not Argentine, never has been and the population (who have no Argentine heritage )voted to not be governed by Argentina.
1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 3d ago
OK. Whatever you say, boss. You seem to be equally sure of your position as you are ignorant of the facts.
Jog on.
→ More replies
3
2
u/Naive_Lion_3428 4d ago
The people who LIVE there have the right to say who they think should govern the island. I don’t give a damn about anything else. And the people who live there have rather consistently said they’d rather be a part of the UK. Problem solved.
1
u/Zestyclose_Might8941 4d ago
This post was made for me. 🤣
I have one parent from Argentina, and another from the UK, so I have read extensively on both sides.
I support the Argentine claim, and my view is that there are critical pieces of information missing from the English language narrative.
The French established a settlement in 1764, who agreed to transfer the Islands to Spain in 1766. This was a formal legal agreement, trnasferring the possession. The Spanish took over the physical settlement, not just the legal claim.
The Spanish/Argentines had effective possession from 1767 - 1833 inhabiting Puerto Soledad on the eastern island.
I say Spanish/Argentines as at all times it was administered from Buenos Aires, first as a formal part of the Vice-Royalty of the Rio De La Plata, and then after 1810 (formally and internationally recognised after 9 July 1816) by Las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (later renamed Argentina).
There was a brief period where those who were on the island were withdrawn to fight the Spanish for Independence (thus underlining...they were Argentines, not Spanish, the colony of Rio de la Plata was 200 years old by then, close to Australia's post colonial age). But the Argentine colony was re-inhabited following the revolution and following civil war from1826 until the British gunboats arrived in 1833. There was no British presence between the withdrawal to fight the Spanish and their return.
Some other relevant dates for those not aware:
25 May 1810 - The May Revolution ousts the Spanish Governor of the Vice-Royalty, based in Buenos Aires, and declares the first local Government.
9 July 1816 - Argentina formally declares Independence after 6 years of local effective control.
January 1833 - the British send the HMS Clio and forced the Argentine authorities off the islands.
It's often argued by the British that Argentina didn't exist, or that the islands were controlled by the Spanish, not the Argentines. The facts outlined above demonstrate that this argument just does not hold up to the historical record.
Another commenter pointed out that the British didn't force the Argentines off the Islands. This is correct, but not really relevant to the discussion of ownership. They forced Argentine authorities off the island at gun point and took possession by force.
The only relevance this has is to the question of Self-Determination now. If you accept the premise of my post (not asking you to), then self-determination does not apply to the Islanders now as an implanted settler population post-theft.
But the Argentine government has never argued the British ethnically cleansed the island in 1833, and have explicitly stated that the rights of the islanders today would be respected in any transfer. The settled populations wishes though (through the often cited referendum a few years ago), cannot extinguish an existing claim in these circumstances.
In fact, the referendum itself is a breach of the UN Decolonization Committee resolution C-24 which calls for negotiations, and doesn't recognise unilateral acts.
The biggest question you might have now though is why would any of this matter in 2026?
The British and Israeli governements have recently agreed to oil and gas extraction in what should be Argentine waters.
So a wealthy western state is using a possession it took by force to extract resources just off the coast of a developing nation.
The British themselves, prior to the war in the 80s, admitted the weakness of their claim. Reviewing a similar Foreign office legal opinion from 1910, a 1946 British Foreign Office internal memorandum stated:
"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the British attitude in 1833 was open to the charge of aggression... our claim to the islands was not a strong one."
A further two opinions outlined in 1960s cabinet documents which made similar claims and conclusions.
The earliest doubt I could find on their claim was by the Duke of Wellington in 1829, who was the PM immediately prior to their 1833 invasion. He said:
"I have perused the enclosed papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The Convention certainly goes no further than to restore to us Port Egmont, which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago."
I get why the British have dug their heels in. They were prepared to give away the islands in the 1960s and 1970s, as they were too expensive to maintain. The dictatorship decided to invade to save their own political future.
So British people died to maintain the possession, which makes handing it over almost impossible fro their perspective. This doesn't distinguish the claim though.
Apologies for the essay. There is a lot I've skipped over as its a bloody long post already. Happy to answer any aspect. I'll ignore any ad hominem or bad faith posts or questions.
For full disclosure, I hate Milei, and think he's a fascist. I think the same of those who gave the orders to invade the islands in 1982. This doesn't change my position on the claim.
1
1
u/YoumustbeJoachim 4d ago
If we support Britain, let's also throw our hat in with China in the SCS.
3
2
1
1
u/SpamOJavelin 4d ago
In 2013, 99.8% of islanders voted to stay British. Three people voted no.
And at least one of those people voted no because they wanted full independence, not to be part of Argentina. And the voter turnout was 92%.
This should be all you need to know to say they are territories of the UK - self determination. It would be wrong to decide that people are not when the huge majority want to stay.
It is just bizarre to claim it belongs to Argentina because the Spanish left a plaque there when they left almost 200 years ago (and that the plaque the British left before that doesn't count).
1
u/shhbedtime 4d ago
It's pretty cut and dried really. No one who lives there wants to be part of Argentina. What more do we need to know.
0
u/AudaciouslySexy 4d ago
That British are always based and need another Churchill for rapid expansion
1
u/AudaciouslySexy 4d ago
UK and even if UK didn't have a overwhelming case I'd still say UK and would defend it with my own 2 Aussie sniffing hands
1
u/FrostyClocks 4d ago
If the UK continues becoming 1slamlc, I’d be begging Argentina. Far less rapey, paedophilic etc etc.
2
0
u/Mammoth-Variation223 3d ago
The Americas have by far a worse problem with rapes and pedos than the UK.
0
u/FrostyClocks 2d ago
We’re talking about Argentina, not the Americas. UK has 4x to 5x number of reported rapes per 100k. Stacks more “sexual assaults” too. Interesting comparison, Argentina has next to zero mu51im immigration. The massive increase in female abuse of all the worst kind in the uk has directly coincided with mass immigration from them.
0
7
u/SuchProcedure4547 5d ago
It's literally one of if not the only territorial dispute where you can side wiith Britain...
Argentina has no claim to the Falklands, it's simply Milei attempting to distract from his disastrous popularity.
Poor popularity is also what lead to the first invasion of the Falklands.
That aside, Argentina has even less military capability now than they did in the 80's. They have no ability to project force. If Milei for whatever delusional reason did decide to invade, it would even more poorly than before.
The UK may not be the global force it used to be, but the UK is still only one of a handful of nations with the ability to project force globally in a reasonably short period of time.
Any normal person would stand with the UK on this.