Chile Forum

john wrote:I support Argentina's sovereignty claim to Las Malvinas.

Really? On what basis? As I understand it, the Falklands have never really belonged to Argentina.

James.

James,

My understanding of the history is as follows:

The French were the original settlers (i.e., colonizers) of Las Malvinas ... this occurred on 5 April, 1764 when the French navigator Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement which he named Port St. Louis. On 25 February 1767, the French claim was formally transferred to Spain (in return for an agreed indemnity) at which time the islands were placed under the jurisdiction of the Buenos Aires colonial administration (Audienca of Buenos Aires under the Viceroyalty). Subsequently, in 1820, Argentina acquired sovereignty over Las Malvinas as heirs to the Spanish possessions. Ironically, in 1910, the British Foreign Office openly expressed doubts about the grounds for Britain's historic claim to Las Malvinas.

john wrote: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".

Oh it is not latent at all. That is why we are called the Chile forum.

I also support the return of Southern part of Argentina including the oil fields to Chile that Argentina stole by taking advantage of the war with Peru.

In general we just like to poke good natured fun at the banana factor of the neighbors. We could be just as easily picking on Bolvia or Peru. Chavez is no fun. He is just too easy a target.

On the serious side of things however, Argentina ( Peru and Bolivia for that matter ) switching in to gear to threaten neighbors is something we keep a close eye on in Chile because they have in fact started more than a few armed conflicts with Chile to deflect internal political problems. It is a first red flag of just how unstable the neighbors are internally at any given moment. Argentina, in spite of various ups and downs economically in the last decade or so, has been relatively stable politically. That they are now making military moves of any sort, is a serious sign to watch out for a potential complete collapse on the horizon both economically and politically. My predication is that by the end of this year they will give up poking at the British, and instead they will turn to poking at Chile in an aggressive manner. Thus, why it is illegal for Argentineans to own property within 20 miles of the boarder or near military bases. It is not a law because Chile is picking on the Argentinans. It is a law because the Argentineans have a long history of creeping in to take land where they can, and not giving it back.

I might site the dispute in the 80's that was settled by the pope. My wife's uncle was in the diplomatic core during that time working on the negotiations. He came home one day for lunch and told the entire family to pack a single bag and be ready to leave the country on moments notice if he called. Chile and Argentina where that close to full open war.

A good film where that really really close to conflict is the backdrop for the very human plot is:

"Mi mejor enemigo"

IMDB.com plot summary wrote:During the almost war between Chile and Argentina during the 70's, a Chilean patrol is lost in the limit whit Argentina. Soon they find that an Argentinean patrol is near them in the same situation, so the enemies soon start to act more friendly between them.

Has a sad and "Gracia' de Chile" ending. This movie suprisingly received the cooperation of the Chilean Army.

Find it on the torrents. You can also find the English subtitles to add to it on the net.

john wrote:The French were the original settlers (i.e., colonizers) of Las Malvinas ... this occurred on 5 April, 1764 when the French navigator Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement which he named Port St. Louis. On 25 February 1767, the French claim was formally transferred to Spain (in return for an agreed indemnity) at which time the islands were placed under the jurisdiction of the Buenos Aires colonial administration (Audienca of Buenos Aires under the Viceroyalty). Subsequently, in 1820, Argentina acquired sovereignty over Las Malvinas as heirs to the Spanish possessions. Ironically, in 1910, the British Foreign Office openly expressed doubts about the grounds for Britain's historic claim to Las Malvinas.

I prefer greg~judy's account of what happened:

greg~judy wrote: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

But neither account deals with the 250 years prior to 1764. Neither account really makes me think "wow, the Falklands should really belong to the Argentinians". Plus there is more to the history of these Islands than a few factoids. It doesn't make any difference, there is a settlement on the Islands and they should have their right to determine their future. World borders are as they are and we're in an era where it's rather difficult and impractical to start to redraw boundaries. I think that these days military invasion is clearly the worst move by any country wanting to (re?)assert sovereignty (or wanting anything else even if they get away with it).

Unfortunately British<->Argentinian resentment has festered over the years. And it's not just the Falklands. Is "Maradona y la mano de dios" a household phrase for those with a North American background. Some in the UK consider this far more important than the Falklands question.

Today, you will find a British government and since the war in the 80s, the population is up a third to 3,000. The UK tells us the islanders want to be British and maybe that's true. And maybe not, there is no poll that I know of. I'm guessing that added 1000 people in the population would be mostly british immigrants. Seems like it would be a british poll anyway.

But the original settlers were largely gauchos. “ 25 Gauchos and 5 Indians, 2 Dutch Families, 2 or 3 Englishmen, a German family, the remainder were Spaniards and Portuguese, pretending to follow some trade, but doing little or nothing. The Gauchos he said were Buenos Ayreans and their Capataz a Frenchman."

And this is seen in some circles as a "bridge" to Antarctica for the UK so it gets more complicated. Chile and Argentina each assert claims that the UK also claims so it seems there might be a reason for them to be allies this time.

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nstc96rp/images/figii1.gif

[[[.....The French were the original settlers (i.e., colonizers) of Las Malvinas ...]]]]

Oh alrighty, then. The islands clearly belong to the USA. They were included in the Lousiana Purchase. I'm sure of it.

None of that history stuff matters. The Brits claim the islands and they've been able to enforce their claims, so the islands are British. They are very unlikely to back down from Argentina.

I can't imagine Argentina actually attacking Britain (and by quick progression, the USA). I think it is saber rattling to distract the Argentine citizens from their economic crisis.

Speaking of economic crisis, nothing makes the crisis in the USA look mild like comparing it to the economy of Argentina. I sure as shootin' am not willing to trade them presidents.

Here is my conspiracy theory / factoid :

The U.S. was so in the whole, and looked so bad, that they hired the Greeks, the Spanish (all PIGS in the ring for that matter), and when really in trouble Argentina to make it certain that they were O.k.. That is because nothing makes you look good politically and economically (don't forget, economics is all relative) like someone else in a worse shape. The Argentinians are THE Pros of default, so when your country is really on the verge of bankruptcy, default, and credit rating downgrade you call in AR for financial problems like you call in the Marines for military problems.

Otherwise, you know you are seriously screwed when AR looks like a good place to invest.


This is so serious I had to call in old 80 (a.k.a. the forum monster). Old timers will know who old Mr. 80 is.

Oh alrighty, then. The islands clearly belong to the USA. They were included in the Lousiana Purchase. I'm sure of it.

As an unreconstructed imperialist, I agree.

Zenth wrote:Is Chile going forward with construction of the Liquified Natural Gas terminal so gas can be purchased from Indonesia?

This is up and running: http://www.gnlquintero.com/

El Mercurio wrote, about countries of origin: "El combustible llega desde Qatar, Egipto, Guinea Ecuatorial y Trinidad y Tobago."

I was just wondering how Canada could make a claim for the Falklands. Perhaps we could trade for Quebec??

@snowman, LMAO!! You know, we don't even need the Falklands, maybe we could just donate Quebec to Argentina? I'm not even saying we have to donate all of it, just the part populated by the people who want to separate but still use our money