The Falklands - A New Crisis?

In December 2011, Argentina persuaded neighbouring countries, including Brazilo, Uruguay and Chile - Britain's one, crucial ally in the region during the 1982 Falklands War - to ban civilian ships flying the Falklands flag from entering their ports. Now Argentina appears to be planning to prevent Chilean-owned airline LAN from continuing its weekly flight between Punta Arenas and Port Stanley, the Falklands' only commercial air link with South America, thereby imposing an economic blockade of the civilian population of the Falklands.

As Argentina orchestrates this economic blockade, the British government is sending HMS Dauntless, an ultra-modern Type 45 destroyer, to replace frigate HMS Montrose in the region.

And today it was announced that Prince William is en route to the Falklands for a tour of duty as an RAF search and rescue pilot. His deployment has been branded a "provocative act" by Argentina, whose foreign ministry expressed regret that an heir to the throne would arrive wearing "the uniform of a conqueror".

As the 30th anniversary of the 1982 invasion by Argentina approaches (2 April), is a new crisis brewing in the South Atlantic?

Hi Pen,
I would say yes.. We need another diversion from our own economic crisis?
Margaret.

@pendragon

There seems to be a lot of sabre rattling going on about something that should be a marginal issue for both countries concerned. Cameron and his sidekick clegg would no doubt jump at the chance to repeat thatchers pointless and tragic 1982 war (memorably described by the writer jorge luis borges as being as pointless as two bald men fighting over a comb), which was also conducted by an unpopular rightwing government pushing through radical neo-liberal reforms during a period of economic troubles that they had at least in part created.

Well said S Wood.
Regards
Margaret

The fact that the Argentinians are, rather ridiculously, trying to get on their high horses about it, is hopefully an indication that this is all hot air - or at least, that they are not going to resort to military force. In 1982 they shot first and pontificated later.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Oh dear, indeed. No issue provokes more irrelevant arguments than this one. The motives of Thatcher's govt are neither here nor there; what Argentina did was wrong and if, per impossibile, a British govt acted like that we'd condemn it quickly enough.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Neither of those things, in your wildest conspiratorial dreams, are an attempt to take over foreign territory and claim it for Britain. Are they?

I'm naive enough to think that, on the contrary, Britain's stance is intended to help those countries achieve genuine self-determination.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Well, if it's economically beneficial now, it wasn't in '82. The criticism then was that 'only sheep lived there'. Apart from the people, obviously...

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Gille,
So it had nothing to do with Oil then?

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/

Read my last post! If the British govt defends its territory without an economic incentive, it is wrong. If it defends it for an economic reason it is also wrong. And if it promotes national self-determination in other countries it is, needless to say, still more wrong.

But actually, all these things are completely irrelevant (I mean that it's irrelevant whether they come into the govt's thinking). It is right to defend the Falklands from Argentina, if necessary, because the islanders *want* to be British. That is what all peoples have a right to expect from their govt, and what all govts have an overriding duty to provide.

I can't really conduct a discussion of international affairs on the basis that, a) Britain is always wrong, b) nothing is ever what it appears to be - however popular these beliefs may be in certain circles.

"Where men are men and sheep are nervous"

That'll be your home in the Valleys you're thinking of. ;)

What strikes me about all of this is the hypocrisy. I need to delve into my archives, to get the dates right, but if my memory serves me right, then Argentina, a country that was founded by Spanish Colonials, gained it's independence in the early 19th century. Around 1810-20. The Falklands were Colonised by the British in the 1840s I believe. Prior to that, with the exception of a boat-full of Spanish and French colonists, who didn't like the cold, the islands were uninhabited.
So we have country founded by colonials accusing the British of colonialism. A country that was still in it's nappies when the British colonised the islands.
At the end of the day, generations of Falkland islanders consider themselves British. It should stay that way.
If the Argentinians think that the Falkland islanders should return to Britain, then they should be eating Paella, watching bullfights and throwing donkeys off towers back in Spain, and leave the Falklands to the Penguins.

Gill: Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. =)

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

One example does not mean that everyone wants to be Agrentinian either.
Every person I have met from the Falkland Islands has classed themselves as British and want things to remain that way.

Clutching at straws with that one. The clue might be in the phrase 'first to choose...'. If they all have the option of choosing it, and no-one else has, I'd say that's as conclusive as you can get. You could probably also find someone who wants Martian citizenship if you looked hard enough.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Argentinians or Martians?

I suppose time will tell. But at the moment it's the only one of one.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

If anything the Islands should belong to the French - being the first colonisers and all.
What a way that'd be to end the Anglo-Argentine dispute lol

Oh and 0.03% of the population is hardly indicitive of a mass exodus to Argentine citizenship.