Chile Forum

greg~judy wrote:I have appreciated the chance to look deeper into the muddled and diverse history of this issue...
Thanks to other posters for encouraging this
Interesting stuff!

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was in 1764... founded by the French. A British settlement was built... in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked... ending the British presence there in 1770.... a peace treaty allowed the British to return in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty. Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims. From 1776 until 1811 Spain maintained a settlement administered from Buenos Aires... On leaving in 1811, Spain also left behind a plaque asserting her claims. In 1828 the Argentines founded a settlement... United States warships destroyed this settlement in 1831... In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor. In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty


So... Might makes Right... the story of the ages.
Its called Gunboat Diplomacy...
If that doesn't define imperialism and hegemony, than what does?

The people of the Falklands have been there well over 100 years and they want to be British


The global naval power and domination by the Brits pre-WWI set the stage for large scale colonization, hence, the existing population today = 61.3% Falkland Islander...29.0% British...2.6% Spaniard...0.6% Japanese...6.5% Chilean
If I were a current resident, that's what I'd want, too - although self-rule might be the optimal, eventual solution?

Doesn't change the history, though?

I'm not sure what your solution would be? After Britain hands the Islands back to the French, Spanish, Argentines or penguins should Argentina expel all European descendants and hand their land back to the native inhabitants? Should Chile do the same? In comparison to other colonial activities, the history of the Falklands is quite tame. No lives were lost when Britain claimed the Islands back in 1833, even under the then Argentine supposed short rule, there were more British inhabitants on the Islands.

The aim of devolution of powers for the Falklands is to be self sufficient in all aspects except defence.

murf wrote:I stand to be corrected but was it not the bold Maggie that cosyied up to Pinochet, the same dude that was later endicted by another English government.
A very respectable lady indeed.

The other English government determined that he was too ill to face prosecution. He flew back to Chile and promptly stood up the picture of health. The point I was making about Maggie Thatch, is that at least her motivation might not have been oil, unlike other leaders of today. She did indeed give Pinochet a lot of support as he gave us during the 1982 conflict.

I would suggest that Pinochet and Thatch are similar in the sense that they tended to polarise opinion.

ingrambr wrote:Margaret Thatcher deserves more respect than she gets, she entered a war without knowing that there was oil there up for grabs.

Nowadays a war not for oil equals a just war Sad times...
Well, after all, Richard the Lionheart did not know either whether there was oil for grabs in the Holy Land.

This is complicated. It has to do with the surrounding water dispute and off shore oil as well. The Island dispute is one thing and then the water is something different, I think. The relationships have something to do with privatization(favored by Pinochet, Jose Pinera implemented under him, and Margaret Thatcher who supported it and Pinochet, the US at that time of course) I think. Chile has been a huge experiment in privatization, everyone can look and see whether they think it worked. My opinion is (not surprisingly) that these are things that only could have been "legislated" under a dictatorship(privatized pensions, water, education etc) and people eventually forget things were any other way.

After Chile was largely privatized, many countries were. And the oil. And the US and the UK are not so different. Privatization in all those areas. It doesn't make government smaller, it means the government pays private industry which adds to GDP. Chile did temper it with some Socialism but it's tough to do without changing Pinochet's constitution and that would never do.

Argentina's government and policies have changed a lot since 2003. for instance, President Kirchner announced his intention of liquidating all the remaining debt to the IMF, in a single payment of $9.810 billion USD. you can find many articles saying what a bad idea this was but the Central Bank's reserves "surpassed their pre-payment levels on 27 September 2006. As a result of its aggressive buying strategy, the exchange rate increased 8% in one year, reaching 3.12 pesos per dollar." Argentina has changed. We'll see if they have found a balance.

I can see why Argentina is standing up to the water dispute. I'd like to see them win but imperialism and gunboat diplomacy usually does. By the way, Antartica is part of this in a way and both Chile and Argentina dispute the UK claim....

[[[[[.......Surely Chile would be able to buy directly from the UK; much better than getting wrangled up in another natural gas-type debacle....]]]]]

Did Argentina promise natural gas to Chile, too? Uruguay had a contract to purchase natural gas from Argentina. Uruguay built a nice expensive gas pipeline to the border, where it sits unused because Argentina never delivered so much as one puff of natural gas.

It looks like Uruguay might have their own extensive oil field. If they are smart (they don't seem to be, ie giving their pulp industry away) they will develop it themselves instead of leasing it out to a foreign oil company.

Near the peak of the first phase of the commodity boom, Argentina cut and reduced natural gas deliveries due to the needs of Argentina First damn any agreements.

This resulted in higher energy prices, more inflation, more Santiago air pollution due to the switchover to other petroleum products for power generation and on a personal note, is the indirect reason for my boycott of Turbus (written about in previous threads) . The Bachlet gov made an impromptu change to DST for that energy crisis year which resulted in a scheduling screwup that Turbus should have refunded me 100% but didn't.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:The Bachlet gov made an impromptu change to DST for that energy crisis year which resulted in a scheduling screwup that Turbus should have refunded me 100% but didn't.

Oh the injustice! Can you file a claim at the Hague?

Just knowing they have lost maybe half a million lukas to Pullman and Andesmar is enough revenge for me IMO.

As I recall, Pullman owns Turbus. They get you coming and going.

Proof? El P has said this many times but I still have not seen any confirmation.

I am surprised by the latent anti-Argentina sentiment expressed by forum members. Why such hostility?
As a former Brit (is there such a thing?), I support Argentina's sovereignty claim to Las Malvinas. In my view, it's akin to the sovereignty claim to Gibralter by Spain. The U.K. government has been trying to hand back Gibralter to Spain for the past 20 years or so but, so far, has been stymied by the inrtransigence of the "more English than the English" Gibralterians who like the subsidized welfare state provided by the Crown.
As previously commented on, it's really all about the remnants of British colonialism/gunboat diplomacy and, of course, a new opportunity for the explotation of Las Malvinas natural resources. In the immortal words of John Cleese: "It always comes down to bottoms".

...the intransigence of the "more English than the English" Gibralterians who like the subsidized welfare state provided by the Crown

Excellent point john...
Just as the English in the Malvinas have, and will expect the same economic subsidization and defense infrastructure (against the Argentinean "aggressors") - ad infinitum - even if self-rule might ever come to pass.
The UK is as broke as Am'urka (mayhaps broker?)
How long would the UK want to support such free-loaders in the "worst of times"?
Not very...???
UNLESS.... there are mega oil/gas field on the horizon (aka ocean floor)...
Might be now, Jolly Aulde might want to "subsidize" and "protect" their "colony" for quite some time to come... as the North Sea deposits are winding down.

Britain raising 'specter of war' over Falklands: Argentina

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100218/world/argentina_britain_falklands_diplomacy_trade_oil
Here we go again...
Hey... whatever... I could care less either way.
I'm not Argentinian, or British.
But it's gonna get VERY interesting to watch from the sidelines?

Slightly off the subject as usual:
Is Chile going forward with construction of the Liquified Natural Gas terminal so gas can be purchased from Indonesia?