UK committed to Falklands sovereignty, pledges Cameron

[Bernkastel]

From the Guardian.

David Cameron promised that Britain would never surrender sovereignty of the Falklands against the wishes of the islanders. In his Christmas message to the islands on Friday, the prime minister said he could not accept challenges by Argentina to their right to self-determination.

He condemned what he described as "unjustified and counterproductive" efforts by Buenos Aires to disrupt shipping links to the islands. His intervention comes after Argentina led a group of South American countries in banning ships flying the Falklands flag from their ports.

In his message, Cameron declared: "Whatever challenges we face in the UK, the British government's commitment to the security and prosperity of the overseas territories, including the Falklands, remains undiminished.

"So let me be absolutely clear. We will always maintain our commitment to you on any question of sovereignty. Your right to self-determination is the cornerstone of our policy. We will never negotiate on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless you, the Falkland islanders, so wish. No democracy could ever do otherwise."

The ban by the Mercosur bloc – which also includes Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – is the latest flare-up between Britain and Argentina over the islands. Buenos Aires – which has long claimed sovereignty over the territory it calls the Malvinas – reacted angrily last year when Britain allowed offshore drilling for oil in the islands' waters. The Argentinians were also irritated by the recent announcement of Prince William's forthcoming RAF posting to the islands.

Cameron said he wanted a "constructive relationship" with Argentina, but its attitude to the Falklands was unacceptable. "Argentina continues its unjustified and counterproductive efforts to disrupt shipping around the islands and to deter business from engaging in legitimate commerce," he said.

"Threats to cut communication links between the islands and your neighbours in South America only reflect badly on those who make them.

"I firmly believe that it is in our interests that we have a constructive relationship with Argentina. There is common ground to be found on issues like the global economy and climate change.

"We want to work with Argentina on those issues. But the Argentine government has continued to make statements which challenge your right to self-determination, and we can never accept that."

[Captain Seafort]

Not really news - UK PMs have been reiterating the same point every time the Argentines do or say something stupid, which is pretty frequently.

[The Flash]

Indeed. The falklands should be British until they decide otherwise.

[Zaune]

Indeed. The falklands should be British until they decide otherwise.

Couple more years of David Cameron ought to do the trick. The Scots are hanging by a thread already.

Seriously, however, what exactly do the Falklanders stand to lose by the transfer of sovereignty? It's not as though Argentina's still a brutal, bankrupt military oligarchy with a secret police that kills more of its own people in a month than the British armed forces did throughout the war.

[Slacker]

Ehhh, they're closer than you might think, their new president is a little too Chavezian for most people's tastes.

Besides the fact, they might just want to stay part of Great Britain because they're British citizens and they're loyal to the mother country?

[Alkaloid]

Seriously, however, what exactly do the Falklanders stand to lose by the transfer of sovereignty? It's not as though Argentina's still a brutal, bankrupt military oligarchy with a secret police that kills more of its own people in a month than the British armed forces did throughout the war.

Well what does Montana have to loose by a transfer of sovereignty to Canada? Not much, but it still won't happen. The people on the Falklands are British, they want to stay British and don't really care for Argentina telling them they aren't.

[Sea Skimmer]

Seriously, however, what exactly do the Falklanders stand to lose by the transfer of sovereignty? It's not as though Argentina's still a brutal, bankrupt military oligarchy with a secret police that kills more of its own people in a month than the British armed forces did throughout the war.

You don't seem to know much about post junta Argentina? The government effectively does not provide even a window dressing of equal protection for its own citizens. Government service is based on your vote to the point that political party leaders demand you photograph your ballot with a cellphone, then show it to them and only then will you get any help. Meanwhile its a different culture, different language, a persistent basket case economy and no gain what so ever for the Falklands. Argentina also happens to control non trivial amounts of land they took from Paraguay as part of a massive war at a considerably later point in history then when they claim the British stole the Falklands from them. They sure don't want to give that up, but the case for returning it is about a thousand fold stronger. In any case as has been said, the United Nations was founded on a basis of right to self-determination, and while it has not been equally applied, no reason exists to ignore it in this case, nor will it be. Hell, if disputed land claims that old matter, then Spain still has a completely valid claim to all of Argentina anyway. See how pointless this gets?

The only response to this should be the dispatch of a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and retaliatory punitive measures against Argentinian shipping.

[Zinegata]

Let's not respond to preposterous diplomatic sabre rattling with actual acts of aggression against defenseless Argentinian shipping .

Their navy is fair game though if they enter the territorial waters of the Falklands.

[Sea Skimmer]

Let's not respond to preposterous diplomatic sabre rattling with actual acts of aggression against defenseless Argentinian shipping .

Bans on shipping are not usually what falls under sabre rattling. Its an actual action rather then words and it has specific physical consequences.

Their navy is fair game though if they enter the territorial waters of the Falklands.

That would be an overt act of war. You seem to have an odd scale of things.

[Zinegata]

Bans on shipping are not usually what falls under sabre rattling. Its an actual action rather then words and it has specific physical consequences.

Yes, but I really doubt the Argentines are really readying for something bigger. It's probably gonna end like that air travel ban a couple of years ago where the Argentines get some paper concessions, get to declare victory to their people, but nothing really changes.

Their navy is fair game though if they enter the territorial waters of the Falklands.

That would be an overt act of war. You seem to have an odd scale of things.

Sinking defenseless shipping - even in International waters - as a response against an illegal blockade still tends to be seen as an "act of war" by many people (and allows the Argentines to play the victim card). So I'd wait for the Argentines to do something really monumentally stupid like this before sinking a couple of their merchant ships.

Recall the stupid outcry over the General Belgrano despite the fact the Conqueror was only doing its job by sinking an enemy warship in wartime.

[Rogue 9]

Sinking defenseless shipping - even in International waters - as a response against an illegal blockade still tends to be seen as an "act of war" by many people (and allows the Argentines to play the victim card).

...

Wow, learn to read. He said a ban on Argentine shipping to mirror the ban on Falklands shipping the Argentines have imposed, not to sink the Argentine merchant marine.

[Captain Seafort]

Wow, learn to read. He said a ban on Argentine shipping to mirror the ban on Falklands shipping the Argentines have imposed, not to sink the Argentine merchant marine.

No he didn't - he was talking about establishing a TEZ and sinking Argentine naval vessels within it.

Whether or not any Argentine naval vessels would survive the roaring forties long enough to reach any such TEZ is another matter.

[DoomSquid]

Seriously, however, what exactly do the Falklanders stand to lose by the transfer of sovereignty? It's not as though Argentina's still a brutal, bankrupt military oligarchy with a secret police that kills more of its own people in a month than the British armed forces did throughout the war.

You don't seem to know much about post junta Argentina? The government effectively does not provide even a window dressing of equal protection for its own citizens. Government service is based on your vote to the point that political party leaders demand you photograph your ballot with a cellphone, then show it to them and only then will you get any help. Meanwhile its a different culture, different language, a persistent basket case economy and no gain what so ever for the Falklands. Argentina also happens to control non trivial amounts of land they took from Paraguay as part of a massive war at a considerably later point in history then when they claim the British stole the Falklands from them. They sure don't want to give that up, but the case for returning it is about a thousand fold stronger. In any case as has been said, the United Nations was founded on a basis of right to self-determination, and while it has not been equally applied, no reason exists to ignore it in this case, nor will it be. Hell, if disputed land claims that old matter, then Spain still has a completely valid claim to all of Argentina anyway. See how pointless this gets?

The only response to this should be the dispatch of a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and retaliatory punitive measures against Argentinian shipping.

It's actually the Spainish claims in South America that form the basis of Argentina's claim to the islands. The argument is that Spain ceded its control over the whole of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata to the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina), and that the Falklands were 'administered' from Spain as part of that Viceroyalty. Therefore, Spain ceded its claims to the Falklands to Argentina.

That would only allow Argentina joint sovereignty of the islands, though, because Britain and Spain enjoyed joint sovereignty. There's an argument that Britain didn't have a colony on the islands at the time, so therefore that claim is invalid, but Spain hadn't had a colony there for even longer, and there was a period of about twenty five years where there was a British colony but not a Spanish one (the British colony was dismantled because of the Napoleonic Wars), so if that argument holds water, Spain didn't have a claim for the Argentinians to inherit in the first place.

So, Argentina has a reasonable case to claim that both they and Britain own the islands at the same time (which is not what they're doing), but they don't have grounds to claim exclusive ownership of the islands, because the territorial claim they're basing their wailing on wasn't exclusive in the first place.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's actually the Spainish claims in South America that form the basis of Argentina's claim to the islands. The argument is that Spain ceded its control over the whole of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata to the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina), and that the Falklands were 'administered' from Spain as part of that Viceroyalty. Therefore, Spain ceded its claims to the Falklands to Argentina.

No Argentina had a colony on the island until 1833 when a British warship kicked them off. The British had earlier made claims to the island, but had fully abandon it in the 1770s, and did not continuously occupy it until after 1833, a very long gap. Argentina declared independence in 1816. I don't think it matters, land claims that old are just not valid considering how much things changed, but the claim is much stronger then 'Spain held it once' as is commonly said. The islands had settlements flying the Argentinan flag which the British removed.

[CJvR]

No Argentina didn't have a colony there until 1833.

The Spanish governor left in 1806 and old colony was disbanded in 1811 because war made it unsupportable and the Islands were abandoned (no permanent residents) until 1828 when Vernet set up a new colony (as a private enterprise) - with British permission. The problem starts when Vernet is unilaterally declared governor by the UP of RdlP over the British objections and is not recognized by any other goverment. This lead to a violent confronation with the USN in 31 and in 32 the new governor was murdered in a muteny and this anarchy is what finally triggered the British decission to press their claim to the islands, somewhat ironically the gaucho gang who's criminal activities against the Argentinian authority helped trigger the British intervention is hailed as a hero in Argentina.

http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html

[Zinegata]

Sinking defenseless shipping - even in International waters - as a response against an illegal blockade still tends to be seen as an "act of war" by many people (and allows the Argentines to play the victim card).

...

Wow, learn to read. He said a ban on Argentine shipping to mirror the ban on Falklands shipping the Argentines have imposed, not to sink the Argentine merchant marine.

Ahem:

The only response to this should be the dispatch of a nuclear submarine to the Falklands and retaliatory punitive measures against Argentinian shipping.

Skimmer advocated sending a nuclear submarine to take "punitive measures" against shipping. That is NOT the same as a simple "ban on Argentine shipping".

It is the Britain's Admiral Fisher himself who pointed out back in the 1900s that a submarine can only impose a blockade in one way: And that is by sinking enemy merchant ships. So when a military expert puts those two phrases in the same sentence, it's pretty damn clear he's implying that the Brits should sink Argentine merchantmen in retaliation for an illegal blockade. Notably, note that Skimmer didn't even contest the idea of sinking Argentine shipping, he instead pointed out that Argentina's actions went beyond sabre-rattling and thus could be construed as an actual act of aggression.

I'm just pointing out that while such retaliatory action is probably legal, world opinion is retarded about this issue. Really, how else can the Brits be criticized over issues like the General Belgrano? They sank an enemy warship in wartime. Even the Argentines admit it's a legitimate target. But the world press seems determined to call the Royal Navy pirates whenever they use their torpedoes for the purpose they were created for .

[Keevan_Colton]

Zing, you've misread it. Nuclear sub AND punitive measures, not nuclear sub TO TAKE punitive measures.

[Zinegata]

Zing, you've misread it. Nuclear sub AND punitive measures, not nuclear sub TO TAKE punitive measures.

Oh, if that's what Skimmer meant, then never mind then. I thought those two were meant to go together. Instrument (nuclear submarine) and action (punitive measures).

[Juubi Karakuchi]

A technologically-competitive nuclear submarine with a well-trained crew has the potential to cause a remarkable amount of trouble. Just one would be a substantial deterrent if Argentina is seriously considering trying anything.

I should say that outright violence seems unlikely in this case, if for no other reason than Argentina has little hope of victory, despite what it suits the Daily Mail to claim. If for the sake of argument such a thing were to happen, the British would only need to keep the Mount Pleasant air base active in order to give the Argentine forces a thoroughly miserable time. The current garrison is 1x battalion (approx 500x personnel) and four Eurofighter Typhoons, the latter probably being enough to fight off the entire Argentine air force in its current state (approx 37x fixed-wing aircraft, none of which are fighters or multirole) with well-trained pilots and sufficient supply of fuel, parts, and ammunition. The air base (also the Falklands' international airport) can handle heavy transport aircraft (well, Hercules at least), meaning that it can be easily supplied and reinforced so long as a flight path can be kept open. One sub on station would be more than enough to wreak havoc on any Argentine warships trying to maintain a cordon.

Under such circumstances, for what saying it is worth, Argentina is highly unlikely to try anything so monumentally stupid.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Correction to previous post. 37x aircraft figure applies to Argentine navy only. Argentine air force also contains 15x fighters and 26x ground-attack aircraft. Point remains unchanged.

[ChaserGrey]

I believe Britain has used the dispatch of an SSN to the area before as a sort of understated saber rattling. No overt threat as such, just a friendly reminder that a single British attack boat could probably derail a second invasion singlehandedly.

[cosmicalstorm]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

[Chirios]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

They did last time.

[Omega18]

I should say that outright violence seems unlikely in this case, if for no other reason than Argentina has little hope of victory, despite what it suits the Daily Mail to claim. If for the sake of argument such a thing were to happen, the British would only need to keep the Mount Pleasant air base active in order to give the Argentine forces a thoroughly miserable time. The current garrison is 1x battalion (approx 500x personnel) and four Eurofighter Typhoons, the latter probably being enough to fight off the entire Argentine air force in its current state (approx 37x fixed-wing aircraft, none of which are fighters or multirole) with well-trained pilots and sufficient supply of fuel, parts, and ammunition. The air base (also the Falklands' international airport) can handle heavy transport aircraft (well, Hercules at least), meaning that it can be easily supplied and reinforced so long as a flight path can be kept open. One sub on station would be more than enough to wreak havoc on any Argentine warships trying to maintain a cordon.

Under such circumstances, for what saying it is worth, Argentina is highly unlikely to try anything so monumentally stupid.

Actually you understated the number of military personnel which is around 1,000+ once you factor in the Air Force personnel and the like, and it should be noted that at this point a significant portion of the force are combat veterans of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, while Argentine troops would lack comparable combat experience. You can also throw in 50+ members of the Falklands Islands Self Defense Force in addition to this, which is trained and equipped like a British light infantry company, and would have intimate knowledge of the terrain since they are locals.

[The Flash]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

They did last time.

They held negotiations.