Other than for defence, they could.
For the same reason that every other British subject should.
Why shouldn’t they have self-determination should be the question. Its their basic human right guaranteed under the UN charter.
If Argentina feels it has such a good case for sovereignty, then they should take it to the ICJ for arbitration. That’s certainly one recognised means of solving sovereignty disputes. But they won’t as they know for certain that their case will fail. They certainly don’t have a good history for accepting judgements that go against them.
Since the Islanders were given the freedom to manage their own economy, it has boomed. They’re entirely self-sufficient in their own right. The only area in which they’re not self-sufficient is defence and that’s only because of their aggressive neighbour.
Your arguments about industrial decline are entirely fallacious, it isn’t the business of Government to prop up failing industry. The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite.
(I nicked the last bit from Wikipedia).
I would also argue that Argentina bears a great deal of responsibility for the current state of relations with the Islanders. Putting aside the invasion, Argentina consistently acts aggressively to try and damage the Islands’ economy in order to force them into negotiation. Awarding Argentina sovereignty in the current circumstances would be seen as rewarding aggression, not the best of precedents to set in the current circumstances.
The best way of working toward a solution would be for Argentina to set aside the sovereignty claim and work on rebuilding relations with the Islanders. Its only once stable relations are established that there is any chance of real progress. However, personally I suspect that the Falkland Islands are too useful a tool to divert attention from domestic political problems.
Is it in Britain’s economic interest? That’s a complex question. On one hand there may be a short-term economic expediency but its likely to cause other problems. For example Guatamala still claims Belize as part of its territory. I think we learned a long time ago that appeasement doesn’t work. On balance, I’d suggest its more in our interests to uphold the Islanders rights than to abrogate them for a short term gain.
There are many mixes of economic policies between the Laisser-Faire of Adam Smith, and that of a controlled economy of, say, North Korea.
Whether or not it is the place of government to support declining industries depends entirely on the economic policies of a particular government.
The modern economy provides not only goods but services, and does so through a monetary system. The economy is intricate, and simple solutions are rarely possible to complex problems. Many solutions are quite impracticable without government supervision for someone has to consider general public interest. Huge areas of economic activity come under the direct influence, and even control, of Ministries, who have supervisory powers. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry was charged with responsibility for industrial and commercial policy, the promotion of enterprise and competition, the protection of consumers and investors, industrial innovation, the problems of the inner cities and regional development problems, international trade policies, company law, insolvency and many other matters.
Where enterprises tend to be non profit making, in the interests of the nation they have, in the past, become socially owned enterprises. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this is a matter of personal choice, but it is not beyond governments for reasons of national interest to rescue failing industries rather than allow them to disappear permanently.
The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. (I nicked the last bit from Wikipedia).
Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the British government is obliged to maintain the status quo. If they wish to remain a part of Britain, then let them come to Britain. If they wish to remain in the Falklands, then let them reach an accomodation with Argentina. Why should the right of self-determination preclude any settlement between Britain and Argentina?
p.s. Where’s the falacy?
The fallacy is in your attempt at an inappropriate analogy. The right to self-determination has nothing to do with economics at all, but the right to choose either who to be ruled by, or self-rule.
If Scotland votes for independence, it will be exercising its right to self-determination. Equally, if it does not vote for independence, it will be voting for the status quo and equally exercising the same right . To extend your attempted analogy, and given how much money flows in a northerly direction over the border, Scots who wish to remain part of the UK should move to England, since the existence of Scotland as part of the union is at great cost to the English taxpayer. we could then cut the anchor chains and float the rest of Scotland out into the Arctic Ocean, where it would be independent and no more burden on the taxpayer.
In the interests of moving the argument forward, let’s just take it as given, that I disagree that my analogy is inappropriate.
Why does the right of self-determination preclude a British settlement with Argentina, and why, then, should the Falkands remain an economic burden on the British tax payer?
p.s. Economics - were politics is concerned - is everything!
They’re not
Because if the decision isn’t what the Islanders want, it’s not self-determination.
Argentina has absolutely no real claim on the Falklands other than some geographical coincidence. The people who live on them can trace their families back 150 or more years on them and should never be forced to leave or forced to accept a government against the will of the majority.
Of course they are - do you think that they are footing the bill for the defence of the islands?
Self-determination is regards whether or not they remain British. It is not to do with whether or not the islands remain British.
The islands are their land
Do you think that a company of infantry and a few fighters really cost that much?
They cost a lot - it’s called economies of scale!
All of the above was split from the Air Wars thread.
As for the above, yes it costs an awful lot. There are circa 2000 personnel on the Falklands.
Another thing to remember is that the Great Mrs Thatcher didnt give a fig about the Falklands before they were invaded. If they hadnt been invaded they would also no doubt belong to Argentina today.
Also, the much vaunted Mrs T had an integral hand in some of the most sweeping defence cuts to date after coming to power in 1979. A couple of months later and she would have sold off Invincible to the Aussies. The Vulcan’s were to be retired, in fact one of the Squadrons disbandment functions took place at the same time as Black buck 1 was being carried out.
The Falklanders main income right now is I believe from selling fishing rights to nations who basically come in and Hoover up the sea around the Islands.
Finally, believe it or not, I didn’t meet many Falklanders who were either very friendly or even interested in the Brits much other than what they could suck out of us.
If it were up to me I’d cut them loose with a UN guarantee of independence and pull out the whole UK military presence. We can be proud of what the UK military achieved 25 years ago and celebrate the feat, but we dont have to dwell on it forever and a day, after all places like New Zealand and Canada were worth far more to us and they are independent today, so Im sure the rich Falklanders can afford a defence system that would deter aggression without us having to foot the bill.
Just a thought…
Okay, Chaps. I don’t think anyone is convincing me that I’m wrong in this argument.
It hasn’t been easy for me, putting these arguments accross, as a former soldier, it goes very much against the grain - but that’s me being emotive.
Personaly, I feel that we, the British nation, have a moral duty and responsibility to protect the islands and the islanders. However, not all the Great British public necessarily feels the same. One of the ways of reminding them of their duty is by having remembrance parades etc. much the same as we have been witnessing over the past week or so.
Sooner or later, there needs to be a solution found. In fifty years or so people wont care much about what happened twenty five years ago, and if the public are not screaming for the monies spent on the slands to be used at home, some politician or other will be loking to be making cuts through the back door, much the same as was happening prior to the events of 1982.
As I see it, there are three options:
-
The islanders opt to remain British and return to the British mainland and abandon the islands;
-
An accomodation is reached with the Argentinians which allows the islands to remain under British control but they accept some form of sovereignty;
-
The Islanders become independent of Britain, but Britain guarantees their neutrality.
I prefer option (3). As I previously mentioned, when those two super-carriers come on line it would be a very silly country indeed that would choose to try to invade the islands. Also, I think that the Union Jack flying over the islands is a ‘red rag to a bull’ as far as the Argentine psyche is concerned. By becoming independent, the Falklanders could fly their ‘sheep-flag’ (lets not go any further with that one, R.S.) over Port Stanley.
Whatever the choices may, or may not, be the current status quo cannot continue in perpetuity.
From my understanding other than defence, they’re pretty close to 3) at the moment.
- and 2) essentially involve caving in to Argentine pressure. A policy of appeasement in the face of aggression does not have the best of histories.
Until Argentina backs off from its overt policy of applying pressure to the Islands 2) is a non-starter. The Islanders have been far more conciliatory than the Argentines have. Again what is to be gained by rewarding the aggressor.
- involves Britain forcing the Islanders to abandon their homes, you’re seriously suggesting thats an acceptable solution in a democracy?
How about option 4). Britain and Argentina agree to binding arbitration at the ICJ. Probably a non-starter as Argentina knows they’d lose.
No, I’m not suggesting Britain forces the islanders to abandon their homes, those are your words.
Argentine aggression recieved its reply a quarter of a century ago, those comments just smack of political rhetoric, and are somewhat wasted on me.
Let’s have some constructive comments here, I get board by the standard cliches which come from someone’s gungho, poltical, speach-making think-tank - I’m far too long in the tooth for it.
No you dressed it up as the Islanders opt to remain British and abandon the Islands. Implying that its a rational choice when in fact it isn’t. Really I’m fascinated, how does this work. We give the Islands to Argentina and the Islanders get the choice of whether or not to stay?
Were that the end of Argentine aggression perhaps you’d be right but it hasn’t been the end of it. Argentina has continued to pursue an aggressive diplomatic and public relations campaign to annex the Islands. They lobby hard at the UN, most recently at the OAS. Scientific and conservations meetings are shamelessly used; serious debate on scientific and conversation matters are hijacked to put pressure on the Islanders. Argentina currently pursues several measures to damage the economy of the islands, including the ban on overflight of charter flights, punitive measures on fisherman using Falkland waters; incidentally sanctions which are against the UN Charter or the principle of the WTO. And it was Argentina that recently pulled out of the 1995 joint declaration.
If the Argentines are serious about moving forward peacefully on the sovereignty question, why all this macho posturing and overt pressure on the islanders?
Argentina also refuses to recognise the UN policy on deconolisation, that the people of the colony or territory should determine their own future. It puts forward long winded legalese nonesense as to why the principles of self-determination shouldn’t apply to the Islanders. You can certainly understand the Islanders reluctance to negotiate with the Argentines, when they continue to refuse to recognise their rights.
In return, the Islands’ Government maintains a policy of seeking co-operation on practical issues under the sovereignty umbrella. Now feel free to check this out for yourself but I think you’ll find I’m right.
So caving in to such pressure could well be seen as appeasement.
Gung ho, no, I could never be described as gung ho. LMAO at the thought of it.
As to the rest of it, mmm, political speech making think-tank? No, personal opinion, arrived at by considering what I’ve learnt. Interesting change of tack though, resorting to a personal insult, usually the first indication of a losing argument.
Since you refer to constructive comments, what about my option 4)? BTW name calling is hardly constructive.
32B,
Since you ignored it last time, I will repeat it: your argument can equally be applied to Scotland remaining part of the union, since their exercise of self-determination in this manner is a huge burden to the British (read English) taxpayer. Should we not therefore force independence on them, and all those who wish to remain part of the (reduced) union can relocate south of the border?
Apologies - I wasn’t avoiding or evading your question, I just considered it a rhetorical comment which wasn’t worth much consideration. After all, you had reduced my description of a historical fact to a mere analogy, as opposed to a reality, and named it inappopriate. Your comments regarding Scotland were merely, as I saw them, spurious.
If you want to discuss socio/political and economic reality, then I have no problem with that.
Scotland is a part of mainland Britain. I’m sure the SNP would argue that we are nicking their oil, and that that more than compensates for any economic injection the Brtish government might make. There are other constitutional issues regarding Scotland which I consider far more worthy of an argument.
As I previously stated, it’s about economes of scale and what lies in the nation’s interest.
“The nation’s interest”. Interesting. I thought the nation existed to serve interests of the citizens (or, in this case, subjects), and not the other way around.
Unless, of course, you view the nation state in the collectivist-fascist (technical terms, not insults) manner, in that the state exists as a sort of entity in its own right, with a disembodied superior “personality” having needs and wants and requirements, and if these interests conflict with the interests of the citizens, then sod the citizens.
Further: I believe that net flow of cash is northwards.