Obama Administration And the Falkland Islands Dispute

[K. A. Pital]

I answered to Chaser above using the edit function. I'd like to note that many governments (Turkey and Germany) specifically rejected their own precursors (Ottoman Empire and the German Empire and later Third Reich) and only claim continuancy from a very early date in the XX century.

Therefore, they cannot lay any claims to the territories imperialistically conquered by their rejected precursors. End of story.

[Thanas]

Again, bad answer. Just because your nation happened to be imperialistic does not repudiate any claims to any territory. Because otherwise there is no legal claim to any territory.

[K. A. Pital]

"Territories imperialistically conquered" are obviously not "any territory", Thanas. There's a legal claim to the territory originally present when the nation was formed, perhaps. There can be legal claims to territories conquered by an empire, as well - a "legal" claim only means a claim supported by international law at some point. That's all.

However, my answer was that nations which rejected their precursor imperial government cannot lay claim to its territories. That's pretty much obvious and natural. If you revolt and crush the prior imperial government, and its conquered lands become free, you cannot reassert imperial dominion over them. That would not be legal; although it might be looked at as acceptable behaviour among empires (e.g. the British Empire officials had a more or less understanding attitude when Russia reconquered the lost territories of the Russian Empire). It does not make it a legal action.

If you are an empire continously, you can uphold the claims, but if there is a discontinuity and especially if you reject the prior government, there is no way you can take over its lands in a legal fashion.

[Thanas]

"Territories imperialistically conquered" are obviously not "any territory", Thanas. There's a legal claim to the territory originally present when the nation was formed, perhaps. There can be legal claims to territories conquered by an empire, as well - a "legal" claim only means a claim supported by international law at some point. That's all.

Of course they are. If say, Britain conquers the Congo tomorrow, what makes that action any different from the Saxons conquering Britain? There is no territory on this earth that was not conquered at one time or the other.

If you are an empire continously, you can uphold the claims, but if there is a discontinuity and especially if you reject the prior government, there is no way you can take over its lands in a legal fashion.

Sure, but only that. Otherwise Imperial territories like the Falklands legally and rightfully stay with the Empire.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course they are. If say, Britain conquers the Congo tomorrow, what makes that action any different from the Saxons conquering Britain? There is no territory on this earth that was not conquered at one time or the other.

Something called "continuity" and government or nation-state formation. There's no Saxon state or government any more. Britain and Congo exist. Same reason why all this bullshit about borders from 1000 AD is absolutely irrelevant - most governments are discontinous. The very few who are continous are imperialist entities, usually.

Also, voluntary joining matters. If a territory joins a region through a referenda, why would you want to forcibly separate it? If, on the other hand, it was taken by simple force, like Russian Empire took over Dalian from China... how is that claim not different from Bavaria and Germany voluntarily joining?

Ignoring important distinctions leads to stupid generalizations that "all borders can be redrawn".

Sure, but only that. Otherwise Imperial territories like the Falklands legally and rightfully stay with the Empire.

Legally, yes. Just like India could legally stay with the Empire. Legality does not make something right in any fashion other than the legal one.

[Thanas]

Something called "continuity" and government or nation-state formation. There's no Saxon state or government any more. Britain and Congo exist. Same reason why all this bullshit about borders from 1000 AD is absolutely irrelevant - most governments are discontinous. The very few who are continous are imperialist entities, usually.

Ah, so if a state manages to survive it is actually more at fault than a state which collapses?

I don't get this. I can clearly see why you would disavow a claim of Britain to Iraq, for example. But simply screaming "imperialism" is not a good argument as for why a nation has no claim to a territory that is only populated by its citizens, was developed solely by its citizens and has been their property for several hundred years.

If, on the other hand, it was taken by simple force, like Russian Empire took over Dalian from China... how is that claim not different from Bavaria and Germany voluntarily joining?

It definitely is different if it occurs in the same timeframe. But several hundred of years?

Legally, yes. Just like India could legally stay with the Empire. Legality does not make something right in any fashion other than the legal one.

Okay then - what is the moral argument for why Argentina should have the falklands, considering they are even more the product of imperialism than Britain is? What makes Argentina the morally better party here?

[Simon_Jester]

I really think the acid test here should be the wishes of the people who live in the territory. Indians most certainly don't want to be a part of Britain, and as far as I can tell never did in any collective sense. I doubt the people of Dalian would want to be ruled by Russia and not China, simply because Russia had conquered the province.

But in the case of the Falklands, the Argentine population of the islands was dispossessed 150 years ago, and their descendants in all probability don't have any real desire to live on the Falklands. And the islands are now populated by people who want to be a part of Britain, even to the point of wanting to fight to defend the island against Argentinan landing forces during the Falklands War.

If we can dispossess the people now living on the Falklands and hand the islands back to Argentina after all this time... it becomes very difficult not to justify the creation of Israel along the same terms.

The (distant) ancestors of the 1947 Israelis were indisputably dispossessed of their homeland by imperial conquerors (Rome), and for all the time since then (about 1900 years) many of them wanted to return home but were unable to do so for political or economic reasons.

Is that a good enough reason to justify dispossessing the Palestinians who actually lived on the land in Israel in the early 20th century? It's certainly reasonable to say that the answer is "hell, no." But if so, when does it make sense to hand land back to people with an ancestral claim to it, over the objection of the people who now live there?

[ArmorPierce]

Wthin living memory probably makes sense as a upper limit.

[Rogue 9]

The next nearest RN bases are about 4000 miles to the north or east, or 5000 miles west, and even after Panama opened a very significant amount of shipping went around the Cape of Good Hope.

Cape Horn. The Cape of Good Hope is South Africa.

At any rate, Argentina can fuck right off. Until and unless the inhabitants of the Falklands want to join Argentina, or at least leave the rule of Britain, there's nothing to negotiate.

[Master of Ossus]

Something called "continuity" and government or nation-state formation. There's no Saxon state or government any more. Britain and Congo exist. Same reason why all this bullshit about borders from 1000 AD is absolutely irrelevant - most governments are discontinous. The very few who are continous are imperialist entities, usually.

How, precisely, are you defining continuity of governance, and why do you think that it matters for this purpose?

Also, voluntary joining matters. If a territory joins a region through a referenda, why would you want to forcibly separate it? If, on the other hand, it was taken by simple force, like Russian Empire took over Dalian from China... how is that claim not different from Bavaria and Germany voluntarily joining?

How can you possibly hold this position, while simultaneously arguing that:

Acknowledging this would mean another thing. It would mean that if someone successfully ethnically cleanses a territory and colonizes it (Israel, USA with the Natives, etc.) he can then say "yeah, look, now there's a bunch of White Folks living here and they love our nation, while these darkies here lost any and all claims to these lands".

Who do you think would vote on the referendum if not the people who lived there?

Legally, yes. Just like India could legally stay with the Empire. Legality does not make something right in any fashion other than the legal one.

But national borders are a legal construction. Legality is literally the only thing that is relevant to their construction.

[Zinegata]

And that they had genuinely expected the British to back down after their trip-wire forces surrendered. Turns out that an angry, dissatisfied British public was also in need of an outside enemy to unite support behind the government for a while.

It's not really comparable however. The Argentine's casus belli revolved entirely around "national pride". The British one revolved first and foremost around the principle of self-determination, and the defense of British subjects.

Yes, the Falklands victory was a huge boon to Thatcher. But ultimately the Brits had a proper cause to fight for beyond mere popularity points. The Argentines did not have one that wasn't simply invented to distract the disgruntled Argentinians who were starving and protesting in the streets.

[weemadando]

Yes, but there were a lot of domestic issues in Britain at the time. A nice little war to get ygd people to stop thinking about strikes and privatization for a few months was handy.

It was by no means as big a motivating factor as "The argies did WHAT?" but they certainly didn't play down the "strong nation behind a strong leader supporting our brave men as they fight to liberate our citizens from a brutish power."

[K. A. Pital]

How, precisely, are you defining continuity of governance, and why do you think that it matters for this purpose?

Continuity of governance is usually determined by the concept of legitimacy of the succeeding government flowing from the prior government (e.g. legitimacy of the parliament flowing from a Royal Decree when a constitutional monarchy is formed), as well as if the succeeding government honors the obligations of the preceding government (e.g. a case of extreme discontinuity - rejection of obligations of Tsarist debt and Russian Empire's claimed territorial posessions like Poland, Finland, etc. by the RSFSR government in the 1920s).

How can you possibly hold this position, while simultaneously arguing that:

Acknowledging this would mean another thing. It would mean that if someone successfully ethnically cleanses a territory and colonizes it (Israel, USA with the Natives, etc.) he can then say "yeah, look, now there's a bunch of White Folks living here and they love our nation, while these darkies here lost any and all claims to these lands".

Who do you think would vote on the referendum if not the people who lived there?

The fact of ethnic cleansing is by itself should be, ideally, depriving the nation to any claim to the territories ethnically cleansed. However, I was noting that voluntary joining matters with other indicators, not in and of itself. And yes, ethnic cleansing has been used to make conquered territories "voluntarily" remain in a certain empire. Voluntary joining is a necessary prerequisite, but it is not always enough. Lack of ethnic cleansing to "make" it look voluntary is also a requirement.

But national borders are a legal construction. Legality is literally the only thing that is relevant to their construction.

In this case any legalized violation is automatically right and nothing else is relevant. Britain legalized its world conquests. In the XX century their posessions remained legal. Legality alone is a very bad gouge. I mean, you could legalize murder (e.g. Congo Free State) or child labour (XIX century industrial nations) or whatever else you like. Legalism and legality is just one part of the complex issue of national borders. Isn't the redrawing of borders in Kosovo not based on legality alone (legally they belong to Serbia), but on post-facto legalization because they tried to break away from Serbia? It is clear even from that case alone that sometimes morality trumps legality.

Ah, so if a state manages to survive it is actually more at fault than a state which collapses?

As we are talking about who has more rights, the conqueror or the conquered, it would be akin to saying "Ah, so the murderer is actually more at fault than the person he murdered"? Or "Ah, so the torturer is actually more at fault than the person he tortured?" Yes, if a nation state actively engaged in destroying other nation-states and they collapsed for that reason, that nation-state is at greater fault than the collapsed state. The Irish state collapsed while the British state remained. Since British state destroyed the Irish state, clearly the British state is at fault even as it "managed to survive".

I don't get this. I can clearly see why you would disavow a claim of Britain to Iraq, for example. But simply screaming "imperialism" is not a good argument as for why a nation has no claim to a territory that is only populated by its citizens, was developed solely by its citizens and has been their property for several hundred years.

Imperialism, however, has no excuse. The post-facto condition can be excused by humanitarian reasons (suffering for the relocated citizens, etc.) but not by "We took over this place, nya-hahah!"

It definitely is different if it occurs in the same timeframe. But several hundred of years?

I said this before and I reiterate - the idea that imperialism can conserve its conquests by simply waiting and time will legalize the posession is dangerous. It would encourage imperialist entities to keep control of conquered lands for as long as possible, lest the conquered get a right to reclaim anything from their conquerors. Yes, at some point consequentialist argument prevails, like Simon said - sometimes the natives are genocided to hell and back and there's nothing left to be done. However, sometimes there is an opportunity to right a wrong. Always fortfeiting it in the name of law or sovereignity of an imperialist nation is not good.

Okay then - what is the moral argument for why Argentina should have the falklands, considering they are even more the product of imperialism than Britain is? What makes Argentina the morally better party here?

Nothing. Although one could say that if not for Spanish colonialism, a Latin American independent state would control the Falklands, naturally as them being close to South America. After all, only European imperialism and colonialism made it so that Europeans could manage to take over such paths of land so distant from Europe itself. Therefore, the Falklands are a creation of imperialism indeed. Perhaps no one could rightfully claim them, but clearly the British claim is worth more simply out of moral reasons (suffering of citizens if relocated upon Argentine's reassertion of control). I'm not even considering legality here, because like I said above, legality is not always a good gouge when it comes to borders created by imperialism.

[Simon_Jester]

How, precisely, are you defining continuity of governance, and why do you think that it matters for this purpose?

Continuity of governance is usually determined by the concept of legitimacy of the succeeding government flowing from the prior government (e.g. legitimacy of the parliament flowing from a Royal Decree when a constitutional monarchy is formed), as well as if the succeeding government honors the obligations of the preceding government (e.g. a case of extreme discontinuity - rejection of obligations of Tsarist debt and Russian Empire's claimed territorial posessions like Poland, Finland, etc. by the RSFSR government in the 1920s).

This should probably be a matter of degree. Sometimes a government will undergo a radical change but still regard itself as having some kind of continuity, or remaining a signatory to certain treaties, or not repudiate debts incurred by the previous regime... and yet still reasonably be viewed as something different from its predecessor. For example, I would not hold the present government of Spain responsible for abuses committed under Franco, and would find it hard to justify holding Spain in general responsible for abuses committed by the Spanish empire, because modern Spain has changed almost beyond recognition from the Spain of the conquistadores.

Whereas there is, I must say, a recognizable continuity of government with relatively few changes, aside form the opinions held by the parliamentarians and the relative power of the monarch, in Great Britain. And this stretches back at least to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, if not earlier.

It definitely is different if it occurs in the same timeframe. But several hundred of years?

I said this before and I reiterate - the idea that imperialism can conserve its conquests by simply waiting and time will legalize the posession is dangerous. It would encourage imperialist entities to keep control of conquered lands for as long as possible, lest the conquered get a right to reclaim anything from their conquerors. Yes, at some point consequentialist argument prevails, like Simon said - sometimes the natives are genocided to hell and back and there's nothing left to be done. However, sometimes there is an opportunity to right a wrong. Always fortfeiting it in the name of law or sovereignity of an imperialist nation is not good.

So do we try to apply this rule to cases where what originally happened really is ancient history in the eyes of all parties involved?

Again, this opens up an argument you probably won't like in favor of the existence of Israel, because if you go far enough back the ancient ancestors of the Israelites indisputably were fighting for their independence against a powerful empire, made a nuisance of themselves through guerilla tactics and refusal to submit to imperialism, and were scattered to the four winds by imperialist ethnic cleansing as a result.

The problem is that the ethnic cleansing happened 1900 years ago, the empire that did it ceased to exist either 1500, ~800, or 500 years ago depending on how you count and how you define "empire," and the people who lived in the region before Zionist Israelite-descendants started moving back in quantity had been there so long their own culture post-dated the entire affair by some centuries.

At some point you have to turn around and say "Wait, this is a farce, objectively and from a utilitarian perspective. We cannot reasonably dispossess people whose ancestors have lived here for 500 years for the sake of people whose ancestors lived here 2000 years ago." If we do not say this, then there is simply no end to the madness, as there is practically no place on Earth that cannot be disputed along these lines. Certainly there are no valuable patches of real estate that cannot be disputed that way.

If utilitarianian morals trump nationalism and legalities, then common sense tells us there will be cases where utilitarian morals prevent us from carrying out the grand scheme of giving all lands back to whoever we deem to be the most native occupants of the land, in that particular case.

And there are worse cases than the Israelis, too- how do we deal with migrations which occured in prehistoric times, and which we now understand only insofar as archaeologists have deduced the details? How could we possibly secure justice for the Khoi-San peoples, for instance?

Nothing. Although one could say that if not for Spanish colonialism, a Latin American independent state would control the Falklands, naturally as them being close to South America. After all, only European imperialism and colonialism made it so that Europeans could manage to take over such paths of land so distant from Europe itself. Therefore, the Falklands are a creation of imperialism indeed.

The Native Americans might not have claimed that island by now, or at least there is no reason to assume they would have, because they were uninhabited when Europeans first found the place- one of the very rare cases of genuine terra nullius in historic times, as far as I can tell.

There was a good deal of confusion about who would get to use the islands at the time. As you can see from a cursory look, the history of the islands is a bit muddled on the account of exactly who owned them and when.

[K. A. Pital]

This should probably be a matter of degree. Sometimes a government will undergo a radical change but still regard itself as having some kind of continuity, or remaining a signatory to certain treaties, or not repudiate debts incurred by the previous regime... and yet still reasonably be viewed as something different from its predecessor. For example, I would not hold the present government of Spain responsible for abuses committed under Franco, and would find it hard to justify holding Spain in general responsible for abuses committed by the Spanish empire, because modern Spain has changed almost beyond recognition from the Spain of the conquistadores. Whereas there is, I must say, a recognizable continuity of government with relatively few changes, aside form the opinions held by the parliamentarians and the relative power of the monarch, in Great Britain. And this stretches back at least to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, if not earlier.

In case of Spain, it has definetely changed a lot from the times of the Conquista (Francoist Spain itself delegitimized the prior legitimate government, a clear break of continuity), but just throwing out Franco? In a way, the PSOE presided over a quiet revolution and there was a coup attempt by the military which failed (23F), indicating change. On the other hand, who are the victims of Francoist opression to go to? They can only claim compensation from the current government.

So do we try to apply this rule to cases where what originally happened really is ancient history in the eyes of all parties involved?

No, why? I already agreed that at some point the argument of time will prevail.

If utilitarianian morals trump nationalism and legalities, then common sense tells us there will be cases where utilitarian morals prevent us from carrying out the grand scheme of giving all lands back to whoever we deem to be the most native occupants of the land, in that particular case.

Of course. It is only utilitarian morals that would justify the infringement by Britain, France, USSR and USA on the sovereignity of Germany in World War II - not legalism (Germany declared war!) and certainly not nationalism (We defeated Germany so we can do whatever we want, hahah). Therefore, without a utilitarian justification, the possible violations and redrawing of borders lose moral support and become immoral acts (even if sometimes they are legal).

There was a good deal of confusion about who would get to use the islands at the time. As you can see from a cursory look, the history of the islands is a bit muddled on the account of exactly who owned them and when.

Heh. Hence why I said Argentine's claim has no greater weight than the British claim. And the British claim certainly is more moral, as of now. However, only that particular claim and not any other claim.

[Thanas]

As we are talking about who has more rights, the conqueror or the conquered, it would be akin to saying "Ah, so the murderer is actually more at fault than the person he murdered"? Or "Ah, so the torturer is actually more at fault than the person he tortured?" Yes, if a nation state actively engaged in destroying other nation-states and they collapsed for that reason, that nation-state is at greater fault than the collapsed state. The Irish state collapsed while the British state remained. Since British state destroyed the Irish state, clearly the British state is at fault even as it "managed to survive".

If we follow your argument to its conclusion, then that "collapsed state" had no valid claim in the first place, because Ireland also only existed by the "Irish people" being "imperialistic" and defeating/incorporating clans etc. So....?

I don't get this. I can clearly see why you would disavow a claim of Britain to Iraq, for example. But simply screaming "imperialism" is not a good argument as for why a nation has no claim to a territory that is only populated by its citizens, was developed solely by its citizens and has been their property for several hundred years.

Imperialism, however, has no excuse. The post-facto condition can be excused by humanitarian reasons (suffering for the relocated citizens, etc.) but not by "We took over this place, nya-hahah!"

...that does in no way answer my point.

I said this before and I reiterate - the idea that imperialism can conserve its conquests by simply waiting and time will legalize the posession is dangerous. It would encourage imperialist entities to keep control of conquered lands for as long as possible, lest the conquered get a right to reclaim anything from their conquerors. Yes, at some point consequentialist argument prevails, like Simon said - sometimes the natives are genocided to hell and back and there's nothing left to be done. However, sometimes there is an opportunity to right a wrong. Always fortfeiting it in the name of law or sovereignity of an imperialist nation is not good.

It is dangerous, yes, which is why the right of free determination also exists. The two go together.

Nothing. Although one could say that if not for Spanish colonialism, a Latin American independent state would control the Falklands, naturally as them being close to South America.

Which state? The only empires who would be capable of that would be the Incas and they were on the other side. The Falklands would simply be deserted land, as they were before. Maybe the Yaquahs, but that is about it.

[K. A. Pital]

If we follow your argument to its conclusion, then that "collapsed state" had no valid claim in the first place, because Ireland also only existed by the "Irish people" being "imperialistic" and defeating/incorporating clans etc. So....?

None of these clans even had sovereignity - you said it yourself, the concept of nation-state sovereignity only arrived in the XVI century. None of these clans has continuancy of government, and none of them desire to reclaim their land or power over a piece of land. If there were Irish clans that would so desire (like some Native Americans who desired to reclaim some of their land in the USA) - they would be within their rights. Especially if said land was taken in an involuntary fashion. Clear? So far I don't see the Irish being eager to break up their own nation - it seems they're voluntarily together. While clearly they weren't voluntarity under British rule, they were fucking conquered - about at the time when sovereignity was introduced as a concept. You're ignoring this, right?

...that does in no way answer my point.

Imagine you go to an uninhabited place and put your colonists there. In a while you see this territory is a part of someone else's land (e.g. Native Americans). You put them into human zoos and make them die out, migrate, in essence, do anything to cleanse the bloody hell out of them. Then you develop the land for centuries (the prior owner couldn't even multiply enough to control this land - he was annihilated before he became populous to control some spots). Yeah, it's not the case with Falklands. But your idea that "people of X live here = this is property of X" is just crap.

It is dangerous, yes, which is why the right of free determination also exists. The two go together.

The "right" of free determination violates sovereignity. There's no way round it. One right violates the other. There's a conflict of rights here. You're asking me to consider only one type of right.

Which state? The only empires who would be capable of that would be the Incas and they were on the other side. The Falklands would simply be deserted land, as they were before. Maybe the Yaquahs, but that is about it.

*laughs* Yeah, well, if Europeans weren't so adept at killing natives all over the world, who knows how the native sovereign states would've developed? Warred among themselves, built up cities and possibly navies, discover the islands and settle them? History does not know alternatives; and yet, it is blindly obvious that the history of India, Asia, Latin America is shaped as it is now by European colonialism and no one knows how it would look without this phenomenon.

[Thanas]

If we follow your argument to its conclusion, then that "collapsed state" had no valid claim in the first place, because Ireland also only existed by the "Irish people" being "imperialistic" and defeating/incorporating clans etc. So....?

None of these clans even had sovereignity - you said it yourself, the concept of nation-state sovereignity only arrived in the XVI century. None of these clans has continuancy of government, and none of them desire to reclaim their land or power over a piece of land. If there were Irish clans that would so desire (like some Native Americans who desired to reclaim some of their land in the USA) - they would be within their rights. Especially if said land was taken in an involuntary fashion. Clear? So far I don't see the Irish being eager to break up their own nation - it seems they're voluntarily together. While clearly they weren't voluntarity under British rule, they were fucking conquered - about at the time when sovereignity was introduced as a concept. You're ignoring this, right?

No, you do not get it. How did the clans get the power in the first place? By conquering. So what makes that conquering any more valid than the British conquering?

The danger is if you go by "conquest = invalidation" then that opens up a huge can of worms.

Imagine you go to an uninhabited place and put your colonists there. In a while you see this territory is a part of someone else's land (e.g. Native Americans). You put them into human zoos and make them die out, migrate, in essence, do anything to cleanse the bloody hell out of them. Then you develop the land for centuries (the prior owner couldn't even multiply enough to control this land - he was annihilated before he became populous to control some spots). Yeah, it's not the case with Falklands. But your idea that "people of X live here = this is property of X" is just crap.

Well, what would you logically say when, hypothetically, 300 years after that genocide, others come and try to invade that land? If the idea of "possession=legality after several generations" is crap, then by what right do you deny the invaders to take the illegal land? You do realise that if we continue this to its logical conclusion, no people at all on the earth have any right to the land?

The "right" of free determination violates sovereignity. There's no way round it. One right violates the other. There's a conflict of rights here. You're asking me to consider only one type of right.

Why? A conflict has to be resolved, according to the specific situation. For example: "Palestinians right for free determination should violate Israeli sovereignty" is pretty clear cut to me. "Chechen rights for free determination should violate Russian sovereignty" is a much more muddle issue on the other hand.

*laughs* Yeah, well, if Europeans weren't so adept at killing natives all over the world, who knows how the native sovereign states would've developed? Warred among themselves, built up cities and possibly navies, discover the islands and settle them? History does not know alternatives; and yet, it is blindly obvious that the history of India, Asia, Latin America is shaped as it is now by European colonialism and no one knows how it would look without this phenomenon.

Of course the history of the world is shaped by the events of European supremacy and I do not think anybody will dispute that.

I'd just dispute that it is in some way logical for the Incas to make a leap of several hundred years of technological advance in a tenth of that time on non-existent industrial bases as your post implied.

[K. A. Pital]

No, you do not get it. How did the clans get the power in the first place? By conquering. So what makes that conquering any more valid than the British conquering? The danger is if you go by "conquest = invalidation" then that opens up a huge can of worms.

Only if you call proto-state organizations like clans equal to nation-states and sovereignity existing earlier than 1600 AD. And even then the "can of worms" would be only as massive as the conquests commited and not more than that. You conquered others? Tough luck buddy, your nation can get screwed up. You didn't - all the better. Non-conquering and non-agressive nations are better than conquering and agressive ones, nes pa?

And this is more or less what happens, actually. Nations which saw little forays and conquests don't blow up like baloons. Colonial empires and conqering agressive nations do. They lose their colonies, they can lose their territories which they conquered quite a while ago (Britain lost Ireland, tadam). This suggests that doing lots of conquering does not save you from the day of reckoning when your fat imperialist construct will just blow up and fall apart.

You said even British Isles were conquered by force. Look at the Scottish nationalists. Why do they even win? They've been a part of Britain for ages! And yet, a referenda on independence from Britain is on the table - not too likely, but neither completely impossible.

If you don't want to open a can of worms, don't put worms in the can by conquest and imperialism. If you do - get ready for the consequences.

Well, what would you logically say when, hypothetically, 300 years after that genocide, others come and try to invade that land? If the idea of "possession=legality after several generations" is crap, then by what right do you deny the invaders to take the illegal land? You do realise that if we continue this to its logical conclusion, no people at all on the earth have any right to the land?

Because one invasion doesn't justify another invasion? *eyes suspiciously* Because someone else took over that land and killed the natives, that doesn't give you a right to take this land. At best, it deprives the ethnic cleansing fans of their right to that land.

Why? A conflict has to be resolved, according to the specific situation. For example: "Palestinians right for free determination should violate Israeli sovereignty" is pretty clear cut to me. "Chechen rights for free determination should violate Russian sovereignty" is a much more muddle issue on the other hand.

So you agree that you can arbitrarily violate sovereignity if you think the situation demands it - like in Palestine? How is your position at all different from mine? Saying "conflict should be resolved according to the situation" is tantamount to saying "the right of sovereignity has to be upheld only in certain situations but not in others". Which is - TADAM! - what I've been saying all along.

Of course the history of the world is shaped by the events of European supremacy and I do not think anybody will dispute that. I'd just dispute that it is in some way logical for the Incas to make a leap of several hundred years of technological advance in a tenth of that time on non-existent industrial bases as your post implied.

As far as I know, Europeans started colonizing the Americas a good half-thousand years ago. Half a thousand years is a big time. Some nations developed from "agrarian tiny nation which doesn't matter" to "massive Empire whose forces can invade enormous tracts of landmass and killerize dozens of millions" in less than 500 years. Britain and Japan, for example. Especially Japan. They were like, nowhere in terms of war power at the same time as the British Empire's territory was growing supermassive in the XVII-XVIII centuries. But in a very short term, around 100 years, they armed, invaded lots of places in Asia and took over quite remote points from their home nation. Making a leap fo "hundred years of technical advance" is possible.

[Thanas]

Only if you call proto-state organizations like clans equal to nation-states and sovereignity existing earlier than 1600 AD. And even then the "can of worms" would be only as massive as the conquests commited and not more than that. You conquered others? Tough luck buddy, your nation can get screwed up. You didn't - all the better. Non-conquering and non-agressive nations are better than conquering and agressive ones, nes pa?

And this is more or less what happens, actually. Nations which saw little forays and conquests don't blow up like baloons. Colonial empires and conqering agressive nations do. They lose their colonies, they can lose their territories which they conquered quite a while ago (Britain lost Ireland, tadam). This suggests that doing lots of conquering does not save you from the day of reckoning when your fat imperialist construct will just blow up and fall apart.

You said even British Isles were conquered by force. Look at the Scottish nationalists. Why do they even win? They've been a part of Britain for ages! And yet, a referenda on independence from Britain is on the table - not too likely, but neither completely impossible.

If you don't want to open a can of worms, don't put worms in the can by conquest and imperialism. If you do - get ready for the consequences.

Yes, Britain can lose territories etc. I fail to see how that process has anything to do with the argument regarding sovereignty - after all, Britain is no less sovereign if it has released Ireland, for example.

Because one invasion doesn't justify another invasion? *eyes suspiciously* Because someone else took over that land and killed the natives, that doesn't give you a right to take this land. At best, it deprives the ethnic cleansing fans of their right to that land.

I just find it quite idiotic to say "conquest never legitimizes things, no matter how many hundreds of years have passed" because it completely destroys any claim to legitimacy of any state.

So you agree that you can arbitrarily violate sovereignity if you think the situation demands it - like in Palestine? How is your position at all different from mine? Saying "conflict should be resolved according to the situation" is tantamount to saying "the right of sovereignity has to be upheld only in certain situations but not in others". Which is - TADAM! - what I've been saying all along.

No, you have an absolutist position like "conquest=no right at all". This is different from mine. I think in certain situations conquest can legitimize a claim to the land.

As far as I know, Europeans started colonizing the Americas a good half-thousand years ago. Half a thousand years is a big time. Some nations developed from "agrarian tiny nation which doesn't matter" to "massive Empire whose forces can invade enormous tracts of landmass and killerize dozens of millions" in less than 500 years. Britain and Japan, for example. Especially Japan. They were like, nowhere in terms of war power at the same time as the British Empire's territory was growing supermassive in the XVII-XVIII centuries. But in a very short term, around 100 years, they armed, invaded lots of places in Asia and took over quite remote points from their home nation. Making a leap fo "hundred years of technical advance" is possible.

Not on their own, no nation can do that.

[Bakustra]

It's a bit disingenuous to assume that any non-imperialistic relationships between American Indians and Europeans would have been ones of mutual avoidance. Historically, people in close contact with European civilizations learned how to repair and maintain firearms and other metal tools quickly, and without the depredations of various epidemics, would have had population bases in the denser areas (the Mississippi valley, the Valley of Mexico, the Yucatan, and the Inca) to develop industrial bases of their own and spread them to their neighbors. That scenario is not likely to be physically possible, but if we somehow remove the plagues from the equation, I suspect that the various American civilizations would have rapidly adapted to metal tools and draft animals and the other developments of the Old World that they lacked, as they did historically though constrained by their lack of population after the plagues. Without the plagues, it would also be centuries before Europeans could hope to conquer most of the Americas, in which time the natives would also be developing and undergoing various revolutions of thought.

[K. A. Pital]

No, you have an absolutist position like "conquest=no right at all". This is different from mine. I think in certain situations conquest can legitimize a claim to the land.

So how do you determine when conquest legitimizes "a claim to the land"? By passage of time alone? Referenda (which can be postponed until the opressor assimilates the conquered)? My position isn't absolutist, but it is consistently anti-conqistadorial, if you will. The fact that something can't be changed only show that this happened. It does not make it right, rightful, legal or anything at all.

[Thanas]

So how do you determine when conquest legitimizes "a claim to the land"? By passage of time alone? Referenda (which can be postponed until the opressor assimilates the conquered)? My position isn't absolutist, but it is consistently anti-conqistadorial, if you will. The fact that something can't be changed only show that this happened. It does not make it right, rightful, legal or anything at all.

Passage of time is pretty much my strongest indication. If you held a land for several hundred of centuries..... That said, referenda are IMO only a valid indication if they are held free by a neutral party (and absolutely non-valid in cases of ethnic cleansing)...but to be honest, I do not have a set of criteria that can be ticked off like a box. It pretty much depends on the situation at hand.

[K. A. Pital]

Passage of time is pretty much my strongest indication. If you held a land for several hundred of centuries..... That said, referenda are IMO only a valid indication if they are held free by a neutral party (and absolutely non-valid in cases of ethnic cleansing)...but to be honest, I do not have a set of criteria that can be ticked off like a box. It pretty much depends on the situation at hand.

*smiles* You will excuse my idealism then. After all, it is only the idealism of a rather cynical young man. Perhaps it is not well enough defined to be a rigid system of logical knowledge, completely void of belief and ideals ungrounded in practical usefulness and maybe not even utilitarian. I have not thought about this, but now I will think about it more. Definetely.

[Faqa]

Stas, your position on denying self-determination is that you wish to avoid setting a precedent that encourages such behavior, correct?

I ask - under what set of circumstance will a nation consult legal precedent on the matter of ethnic cleansing? By definition, a nation wishing to undertake such actions is voluntarily isolating itself in the international community. It does not wish to be bound by international law, which I'm pretty sure is going to forbid ethnic cleansing in any modern incarnation. Why, therefore, would it care about the legality of it's ownership of territories in the eyes of said law?

What behavior do you think such a precedent would avoid?