The falklands islands

[Magpie]

Maybe but the point was we never gave up our claim despite vacating the island, and it is therefore incorrect to say we stole if from the Argies. I appreciate that supporting Britain in anything is an anathema to many people on here, but in this case it is difficult to argue that Britain's case for ownership is not the strongest.

Sure strategy comes into it (the only reason we gave up HK against local opinion was because we knew it could never be defended from the Chinese), but rumours around oil deposits are pretty recent, we went to war in 1981 to defend British Citizens from a facist regime, and it is an insult to the soldiers who died to say it was all about oil.

[Brendan]

I agree with you that Britain?s claim is probably the strongest mostly because of the national identity of the inhabitants. I just don?t agree with the general sentiment that the British claim is the strongest because it?s British.

I have no issue with supporting Britain in things it is just that as I am not British it is not my default ideological setting so I try to give credit where credit is due rather than seek virtue where it isn?t. (I do of course have my own default stances/prejudices on things that I am sometimes too quick to take without properly thinking about a subject)

I don?t know enough about ?81 to have any real comments suffice to say that accusing people of insulting dead soldiers when they disagree on a political point is a contemptible attempt to bully opposing opinion and has been used all too much recently by the right wing here and in America.

Wasn?t HK handed back in accordance to a contract?

[mockney piers]

"It is also worth noting that a country?s sovereignty or claim to territory does not rely on whether Britain recognises it or not."

Spot on.

"Although the cynic in me does suspects that any large country could very quickly forget about a few thousand islanders who want to be part of it if their islands weren?t of some strategically advantage"

Diego Garcia springs to mind. We didn't seem to be so keen to follow their interests as subjects of british protection. Indeed the government(s) have rebuffed their claims despite repeatedly having been found wrong in both international and domestic courts/tribunals.

And i don't think anyone has said it was all about oil. I think the implication has been that the goal posts have moved since the size of the oil deposits has been realised. it will however be very expensive oil to bring up. there will come a point where it's worth our while, and it can only be done with full cooperation from argentina.

If it had all been about hanging on to them because of the oil we wouldnt have been trying to perusade the islanders to accept changed sovereignty would we, which again rather undermnes the whole terrirtorial claims nonsense.

But the will of the inhabitants, not even in this case a majority but genuine unanimity, should be respected, and we were probably right to uphold their desires over those of a miltary junta; though the cynic in me would certainly say that it suited a political expediency agenda rather than upholding the rights of man, as the aforementioned Diego Garcia would certainly suggest.

[steveo]

Any geologists out there? Where did the oil come from? If it is from trees that were once on the Pangea land mass, why didn't it move with the separating plates? Were the Falklands once much bigger and covered with trees? Is there oil in the middle of the Atlantic/Pacific?

I'd go back to school if they'd let me.

[Huguenot]

IIRC Hong Kong Island remained the ownership of the UK in perpetuity (under the treaty of Nanking).

Similar set-up - in that no fecker lived there / wanted it until the Brits built a colony, and when it proved successful everyone wanted a piece.

However Kowloon and the New Territories were acquired separately (under the Convention of Peking) had to be handed back when the lease expired ('97?).

Since HK Island couldn't exist without the New Territories, the UK government had to either compromise or face controlling a substantial population that would eventually starve to death.

The compromise was HK's Semi-Autonomous Region status, and not a bad job at all. Good credit to Chris Patten regardless of the rest of his political convictions.

[Huguenot]

We are advised that the Falklands are a floating crustal fragment of Gondwana that broke off along with Antartica with the intrusion of volcanic dykes that are still seen in the mid-Atlantic ridge.

It subsequently floated off from Antartica and did a mini pirouette before dropping into a post-lunch snooze.

So geologically they're a right spodge. And nothing to do with South America.

Apparently.

[mockney piers]

"in that no fecker lived there / wanted it until the Brits built a colony"

talking of quislings?

The treaty of Nanking being the entirely imposed one on an enemy we defeated in an entirely illegal war (condemned in the house of commons once they finally got to hear about it) prosecuted to allow us to have an ideal spot to continue making an awful lot of money selling indian drugs to the chinese despite desperate implorations by the Chinese government that we stop heaping misery on them...that one?

I know you know that, so the drawing of parallels is all the worse for that.

[mockney piers]

But totally agree on the brilliance and pragmatism of the compromises by al those concerned regard the settlement of hong kong . Nothing is ideal but it's a bout as good anyone could have hoped for.

The portugese method with Macao was truly bizarre; just go and something pretty much has to happen as a result.

Oh, and magpie, cheap jibes about noone supporting britain smacks horribly of the 'they hate america' rhetoric amployed by the right against anyone who has something of a realistic and considered opinion rahter than fanatical jingoistic support.

As Modern Warfare keeps informing me every time I die, with it's in game philosophical quotes "Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles"

[Brendan]

To be fair I don?t think Magpie is actually fanatical or jingoistic.

[Magpie]

Mockney - Your comments that Britain had stolen something from the Argies kind of implies a default position, as does your interpretation of the situation in respect of HK. I could argue that your position in always criticising Britains role, on the basis of two posts, dangerously smacks of those on the left who have a bizarre alliance with islamic fanatics - eg Respect and SWP just because they both oppose America.

Brendan - where did I say the British case was strongest because it was British? The island was first discovered by the Brits, was first settled by the Brits, has been held since 1833 by the Brits, and the inhabitants want to remain British.

[Huguenot]

I like the real estate idea.

You're quite right Piers, but essentially I perceive the nation state as a political rather than geographical entity.

Hence if there 'was no-one there' it means that the first settlers were entitled to the right to organise themselves, cultivate and develop the land.

The land becomes theirs by virtue of their right to reap the rewards of that investment rather than by its location.

The fact that they may exploit it to criminal ends doesn't negate their right to the land, but does entitle their neighbours to ostracise or persecute them. Hence the Brits were very naughty and deserved the slipper, but Hong Kong is still British.

That's what makes me so cross about Zionism - land of my fathers, entitlement, old book, some religions are more equal than others etc.

[Huguenot]

So far as we can tell Magpie, the Brits were third in the Falklands ;-)

They did make the greatest investment though.

[Brendan]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Brendan - where did you did I say the British case

> was strongest because it was British?

No you didn?t mean you specifically were saying so. Just that it seems to be implied in a lot of the conversations I hear people having about it.

[Magpie]

Well it depends who you believe - the official Island website claims that the rock was "discovered" by a British sailor prior to the Spanish, but then they would say that wouldn't they

[Brendan]

True. That essay says that the Dutch made the first ?documented discovery?.

[Huguenot]

That's genius - the Brits found it first, but didn't tell anyone and didn't write it down.

As they did, also, with the undocumented moon landing of 1854

[Magpie]

Well actually they did tell people - according to the essay posted by Brendan the first "recorded" sighting was 1594 by a British sailor which predates the Dutch who got there in 1600. The link posted by Brendan also states that some Argentinian servicemen claim that the Spanish got there first in 1520.

[mockney piers]

I don't think it's a default position, i think it's a rational position, though I admit that differing points of view can arise, and as in the case of the 1830s, prevail..

As for my interpretation of britain and Hong Kong, as much as anything one reads has to be taken at least a little on trust, from what I have read (and experienced as yes I've been there) I can't really see how there's any other interpretation other than we did a bit of nasty gunboat diplomacy to pursue immoral ends and forced a country to cede some land in order to more easily allow us to pursue said immoral policy.

Unless you think an open door policy to the drugs trade is a good thing? There's certainly an argument that we should allow that from Columbia, thus cutting out the nasty mexican smuggling middlemen and the scary columbial production cartels and just buy good product from the farmers, controlled by legal domestic distribution and taxed accordingly (apparently 1/5th of the government income in the 1850s derived from tax on opium sales to china), but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Huguenot]

I think you're off on a tangent there Mockers.

In order to cede land, HK island had to be "theirs" first. In order to be "theirs" (by my own pathetic definition of nation state) they needed to have occupied, invested and cultivated the land.

I don't hold that land could be theirs by geographical birthright.

I don't deny the nefarious and explicitly ugly activity of the British military industrial combine, I just think that wagging a finger at it doesn't negate territorial rights.

[mockney piers]

The fact that it was stipulated in a contract between two parties kind of suggests that both parties felt that it at least pertained to one. But now I guess I'm being pedantic.

I would certainly suggest that it would be more natural to consider that rock Chinese than British, but then the Chinese considered themselves the centre of all things and evryone else barbarians. It took them about a century and 40 million dead to learn the lessons that the wider context had a brutal reality on them.

The opium war was the first and in all fairness one of the least bloody of those lessons. Plus they do things like considering tibet a natural part of their birthrigt so can hardly hold their heads up high.

None of this detracts from the undeniable naughtiness of Britain's actions there, but we are certainly not alone in this behaviour. Neither the first nor the last.

[Huguenot]

The 'cedeing' saves face on all sides, regardless of propriety. At least a registered transaction appears to take place.

The acquistion of the Falklands for Argentina was made by an Amercian captain, on an American boat, for an Amercian company that needed free trade passage through the United Provinces of South America.

Nothing remotely local about it, just commercial convenience and tax avoidance.

[Santerme]

The Argentines do not have the ability to make a landing in force, so the idea of having to hand them back is moot, especially with ?480 billion lying beneath the surface.

I expect a Trafalgar class submarine is sailing South as we debate, with a load of Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles, it kind of tips the balance

[mockney piers]

"on the basis of two posts, dangerously smacks of those on the left who have a bizarre alliance with islamic fanatics"

wow. have just taken this in. Are you suggesting that Islamic fanatics have an issue and mayhap a vested interested with the opium war of the mid nineteenth century and/or the Falklands conflict, maybe OPEC trying to tie up oil supply? Otherwise not really getting your point.

[Huguenot]

I think Magpie's point, as Joseph McCarthy would have it, is that you are guilty of unBritish activity. ;-)

I'm not sure whether that involves thoughtcrime or whether it's satirical.

[mockney piers]

It is rather lovely. To point out truths is to side with our current (ever so slightly imaginary) enemies.

Tis unbritish to consider elizabeth's stirring words in defence of these isles and also walsingham's torturers. Cromwell's noble stand against tyrrany and also his religious fanticism and wholesale murder of civilians. To reflect on the bravery and chivalry of Agincourt and Crecy whilst pondering on the horrors meted out by English Brigandage. To claim how progressive the British Empire whilst remebering Irish famine and south African concetration camps.

These aren't liberal revionisms, they're just examples that the world is a bit nastier and more complex than the simple truths trotted out for us at school would have us believe.

My country* right or wrong is a bit pointless.

But I like the orwellian reference, in harsher times I doubtless would be up for reeducation to learn those truths a little bit better ;-)

*see also Lorca vs Alba etc.