Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory

[mr friendly guy]

Is your argument that land theft and population displacement becomes retroactively legitimate after the original population and its descendants die off?

No, but once the original population is dead and the people who did the stealing are dead, it's really daft to want to punish whoever happens to be living on the land several hundred years later for something they didn't do.

If land theft is not legitimate even if the original population, perpetrators & victims & their descendants have died off, then Argentina still has a claim according to your logic (provided they can show it was stolen in the first place) irregardless of whether its silly to "punish" whoever lives on the island. Unless you decide that the latter reason outweighs the former. In which case just outright say it without the word games.

Now I am not saying Argentina has a good claim per se (I need to see both sides arguments), but the way you replied to Losonti Tokash smacks of double speak where you want to have your metaphorical cake and at the same time want to eat it. Please clarify.

[Tiriol]

So what should we do with the inhabitants of the isles if we say that the British claim to the isles (centuries old by this point) is not a worthy one? Do we force them to leave, because they are unlawfully occupying an isle belonging to another nation? Do we say to them "You're Argentinians now, even though you have been raised to be British, you have British culture, you voted to stay British and you consider yourselves British"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is your argument that land theft and population displacement becomes retroactively legitimate after the original population and its descendants die off?

Legitimate? To know that, we have to know what legitimacy actually is, and what course of action we are obliged to take when such things are deemed illegitimate.

For example, how far back do historical land claims extend? Do we make the claim that the Welsh, who's people once controlled the whole of what we would now call England have a right to kick the Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Norse hodgepodge that is the majority of modern britain from the island on the basis of a 1500 year old land claim?

Unless we accept that historical land claims must end at SOME historical distance or another, no one has a claim to any land whatsoever, because inevitably, they took that land from someone else at some point.

[Sinewmire]

"Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has maintained that the Falkland islanders' wishes are not relevant in what is a territorial issue."

This I find hilarious. She kept demanding we put the nationality issue to a vote, so we did, and now the vote doesn't matter.
And according to The Times I read on the train yesterday, she said the referendum was an empty political gesture or somesuch.

She seems to believe that UK bussed these people in, so *of course* they want to stay British. She's right, in that sense, but yeah, the people actually living there should have their views at least taken into account.

Why does the British government even bother to give more than a perfunctory response to this?

Because we have very little army or navy resources, and the current government has tied us into aircraft carrier agreements with France, who sided against us in the last Falklands war. A referendum is a comparatively cheap way of drumming up nationalist support for a deeply unpopular government, that requires no real further action, and has the appearance of democracy about it, making it palatable to the international community.

That's my reading of it, anyway.

[Darth Tanner]

France, who sided against us in the last Falklands war

What! France not only let us use her ports when sending our fleet down to retake the islands, she placed an embargo on Argentina and helped cut her other arms supplies off as well - putting her own arms industry at some risk. Obviously it was French Exocets that hit our ships but that’s what happens when westerners sell arms to everyone with the cash, no one really knew the Argentinians would be so foolish as to start a war with a superior power.

[Sinewmire]

What! France not only let us use her ports when sending our fleet down to retake the islands, she placed an embargo on Argentina and helped cut her other arms supplies off as well - putting her own arms industry at some risk. Obviously it was French Exocets that hit our ships but that’s what happens when westerners sell arms to everyone with the cash, no one really knew the Argentinians would be so foolish as to start a war with a superior power.

Hm. Statement retracted, in that case. I don't know that much about the Falklands war, clearly my source for that nugget was faulty.

[Rogue 9]

Is your argument that land theft and population displacement becomes retroactively legitimate after the original population and its descendants die off?

No, but once the original population is dead and the people who did the stealing are dead, it's really daft to want to punish whoever happens to be living on the land several hundred years later for something they didn't do.

If land theft is not legitimate even if the original population, perpetrators & victims & their descendants have died off, then Argentina still has a claim according to your logic (provided they can show it was stolen in the first place) irregardless of whether its silly to "punish" whoever lives on the island. Unless you decide that the latter reason outweighs the former. In which case just outright say it without the word games.

Now I am not saying Argentina has a good claim per se (I need to see both sides arguments), but the way you replied to Losonti Tokash smacks of double speak where you want to have your metaphorical cake and at the same time want to eat it. Please clarify.

This isn't difficult. The people who committed the crime are long since dead. They committed a crime, but they're not around to be punished for it, and tainted blood is a reprehensible concept, so what the hell do you do? The crime wasn't legitimate, but there is no one to punish, and displacing the people who currently live there to move in some other people who don't is the exact same crime you're trying to redress in the first place.

[K. A. Pital]

Which means no redress past a certain point.

I already underlined the problems with that type of thinking - it encourages:
1) invaders to be brutal and genocidal
2) occupiers to use ethnic cleansing and keep territories for as long as possible to reach the 100 year mark or so, and have a generation turnover

Any problems? Perpetrators are dead; sons don't answer for their father's sins.

[Rogue 9]

I am descended in part from slaveholders and Confederate soldiers. Should I be tried, convicted, and executed for slavetaking and treason, y/n? If not, what makes this different?

[K. A. Pital]

I am not talking about a tit-for-tat compensation (which is not even possible - you can't atone for decades of slavery with your death).

I am talking about the fact that once you admit that might makes right - but only if you're strong enough to hold the land for a century and/or slaugther everyone in it and replace them with loyalists/colonists - you are basically encouraging nations with territorial disputes to cleanse disputed territories. As if they didn't have enough encouragement already...

And I am not talking about individuals, but rather state entities which exist over generations.

[Guardsman Bass]

Which means no redress past a certain point.

I already underlined the problems with that type of thinking - it encourages:
1) invaders to be brutal and genocidal
2) occupiers to use ethnic cleansing and keep territories for as long as possible to reach the 100 year mark or so, and have a generation turnover

Any problems? Perpetrators are dead; sons don't answer for their father's sins.

The mere fact that it encourages that type of behavior doesn't mean that "distance of time and generations" is illegitimate when considering land claims. Ultimately everyone's land claim is considered legitimate just because they lived in that area for a long time.

[K. A. Pital]

I know. That's why I agreed with Simon when we had this discussion last time (it was also over Argentina and, IIRC, Northern Ireland); or so I recall.

There should be some cutoff point. But it is not an indisputable date. A possibility for dispute should also always exist.

[Alyeska]

Thats been defacto International Law since the dawn of time.

Congratulations on figuring out the obvious.

[K. A. Pital]

Obvious? Really? Just try asking British people whether they should pay reparations to India.

You will find that anything which one has not personally been involved in is counted as "past history".

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Which means no redress past a certain point.

I already underlined the problems with that type of thinking - it encourages:
1) invaders to be brutal and genocidal
2) occupiers to use ethnic cleansing and keep territories for as long as possible to reach the 100 year mark or so, and have a generation turnover

Any problems? Perpetrators are dead; sons don't answer for their father's sins.

Yeah, but anything can be abused by violent assholes. If we go by that logic, then minorities are in and of themselves bad and dangerous, because any twit could lay claim on your land to liberate their brethren*. So are you justified in driving them out or killing them off?

*Before you ask me to prove it can happen, Greece doubled in size from its 1832 borders using precisely this reasoning.

[Straha]

You didn't directly, but this isn't even an issue save in the minds of the Argentine government, while you made it out to be one and related it to cases of native displacement, which is absurd. The original permanent inhabitants (as distinct from posted military personnel) of the islands were British settlers. Even if they weren't, anyone the British colonization may have hypothetically displaced is long since dead along with their immediate descendants, so barring historical study who the hell cares? The central point is that the Argentine logic by extension asserts claim to the entire former Spanish colonial holdings by the same rationale.

A. It is clearly an issue in the minds of the British, the settlers, the rest of Latin America, and good chunks of the rest of the world. Moreover, read the referendum text, Argentina never comes up, it's a yes/no referendum on the sole question of is the UK's occupation of the island legitimate which begs the questions I, and others, are asking independently of the Argentinian claim. Even this weren't an issue outside 'the minds of the Argentine government' it is still a viable dispute under international law and the claim is a lot murkier than the pro-British camp makes it out to be (especially given pre-1982 treatment of the settlers of the Falklands.)

B. Your stance on "if someone else committed the crime it before we profited on it we're fine to do whatever we want with stolen goods" is fundamentally absurd and really disquieting. Gut check, in the world you're creating if someone steals things from your house and then gives the stolen items to an uninvolved friend of theirs the friend gets to keep the goods/profits from said goods. It goes beyond this too, your stance A. has no brightline for what situations deserve recompense (should Swiss banks have been/be allowed to keep stolen Jewish gold because the victims were/are long dead?) beyond vague and fuzzy guidelines and B. has absolutely no sympathy for the victims, in your world the Native American on a reservation inside the United States should shrug and take their existence because in your world they aren't a victim of systemic disregard for native populaces, outright racist legal doctrines, broken treaties, and genocide it's their parents that were, and their kids should learn to accept that and move on and see past all these inheritances from an uglier time. Your justice only has sympathy for the oppressors and none for the oppressed. That's no kind of justice I want to deal with.


C. Lest you miss the boat on all this, again, let me make one thing crystal clear. The logical conclusion from my stance is that Argentina is not a legitimate state, and this is a stance I embrace. Nothing I am saying in any way, shape, or form necessarily legitimates Argentina in anyway. I am also not necessarily disregarding the possibility of a British geopolitical claim to the Falklands/Maldives (though I disagree with this sort of sovereignty in general), my point is simply: The referendum does not legitimate the occupation, and claims that it would open a Pandora's Box of disturbing implications that we are all better off avoiding.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, you've carried on with this bullshit before. What solution would you have? I seem to recall you saying pretty much every nation on Earth is illegitimate because the ancestors of the inhabitants pushed someone out before, but don't remember actually hearing what this is supposed to mean. Do you wish to displace the billion or so inhabitants of the Americas who aren't descended from natives? If so what do you do with all those people now that you've committed that monstrous injustice against them? If not, then what the hell is your point? You get all self-righteous about how the present inhabitants' claims are illegitimate, evil, etc. etc. etc, but when it gets down to brass tacks, what is the solution?

[Straha]

Yes, you've carried on with this bullshit before. What solution would you have? I seem to recall you saying pretty much every nation on Earth is illegitimate because the ancestors of the inhabitants pushed someone out before, but don't remember actually hearing what this is supposed to mean. Do you wish to displace the billion or so inhabitants of the Americas who aren't descended from natives? If so what do you do with all those people now that you've committed that monstrous injustice against them? If not, then what the hell is your point? You get all self-righteous about how the present inhabitants' claims are illegitimate, evil, etc. etc. etc, but when it gets down to brass tacks, what is the solution?

Firstly, Rogue, whatever the solution is it isn't to get fucking huffy. Even if we're just engaging in an acknowledgement that there's a fucking major systemic problem underneath the question of the Falklands/Malvinas that needs to be addressed we're doing better than we were before, and if you give half a shit about these problems maybe you should be trying to work towards a solution as well, instead of demanding a solution be offered up to you on a silver platter a priori before you even consider the legitimacy of the grievance.


Secondly, if you want a discussion of 'a solution' we need to have a broad-based discussion that deals at length with questions of sovereignty, government, legitimacy, property, economics, to say nothing of the historical questions that need to be tackled (the middle passage and colonization, just to state two most obvious ones.) If you want to start that thread I will participate at length, as my thoughts on these questions are far more complex and wide-ranging than what would be productive for this thread.

That said, this thread does offer a unique vantage-point on these questions through two interesting channels: the original settlement of the Islands (Were the Malvinas/Falklands unoccupied?/ And if so is colonial settlement of an unoccupied island legitimate?), and the British expulsion of the Argentine settlers in the 1830s (When does a settled island become unoccupied? or Does a claim on land ever lapse due to absence from the land?). Both these questions need to be discussed to have a proper, and holistic, understanding of the broader issues afoot. By offering my stances on these issues I'm trying to work towards a solution of the problems I've outlined, and I am presenting multiple nuanced positions to try and facilitate a productive and insightful discussion about these broader questions that doesn't just boil down to a dick-measuring contest between Argentina and the U.K. You aren't, so don't try to get on a high horse when you haven't displayed basic reading comprehension throughout the entire thread. (It is intensely ironic, by the way, that you're accusing me of being self-righteous in this post when you're trying to dismiss me out of hand from this discussion.)

Thirdly, even if there is no solution to be offered, so the fuck what? You stance seems to be that without a solution to the problems I am outlining the discussion becomes uniquely invalid and unproductive. I don't a see a warrant or an internal link to tie those claims together. Try again.

[mr friendly guy]

This isn't difficult. The people who committed the crime are long since dead. They committed a crime, but they're not around to be punished for it, and tainted blood is a reprehensible concept, so what the hell do you do? The crime wasn't legitimate, but there is no one to punish, and displacing the people who currently live there to move in some other people who don't is the exact same crime you're trying to redress in the first place.

I am not arguing from the punishment perspective, but ownership. For example stolen art is returned to the original owners even if the thief is dead and no one to punish. Sure the current owner will be screwed, but its generally its still accepted to return to the original owner, eg WWII art treasures looted by the Nazi's. If I wasn't clear before, I hope I am now. However going on, there are two other points I want to make.

1. Since the theft is not legitimate, but trying to restore ownership will cause greater wrong, in your opinion if the country which steals compensates the country wronged (we can discuss how much the compensation should be later), will that be an adequate compromise. This way it resolves both the issue of illegitimate theft by compensation, without causing the wrong of displacing more people.
Please note I am speaking in general principles here, rather than specifically to the Falklands dispute. We can discuss whether this principle also applies to that dispute later.

2. This type of reasoning encourages a would be conqueror to ethnically cleanse the population. After all, if they can hold it for long enough, populate it with their supporters, then the status quo will be maintained because it becomes wrong to displace the new settlers. Do you agree with my claim that this is a weakness of how you judge sovereignty?

[Simon_Jester]

This isn't difficult. The people who committed the crime are long since dead. They committed a crime, but they're not around to be punished for it, and tainted blood is a reprehensible concept, so what the hell do you do? The crime wasn't legitimate, but there is no one to punish, and displacing the people who currently live there to move in some other people who don't is the exact same crime you're trying to redress in the first place.

I am not arguing from the punishment perspective, but ownership. For example stolen art is returned to the original owners even if the thief is dead and no one to punish. Sure the current owner will be screwed, but its generally its still accepted to return to the original owner, eg WWII art treasures looted by the Nazi's. If I wasn't clear before, I hope I am now. However going on, there are two other points I want to make.

1. Since the theft is not legitimate, but trying to restore ownership will cause greater wrong, in your opinion if the country which steals compensates the country wronged (we can discuss how much the compensation should be later), will that be an adequate compromise. This way it resolves both the issue of illegitimate theft by compensation, without causing the wrong of displacing more people.
Please note I am speaking in general principles here, rather than specifically to the Falklands dispute. We can discuss whether this principle also applies to that dispute later.

2. This type of reasoning encourages a would be conqueror to ethnically cleanse the population. After all, if they can hold it for long enough, populate it with their supporters, then the status quo will be maintained because it becomes wrong to displace the new settlers. Do you agree with my claim that this is a weakness of how you judge sovereignty?

In the modern world, trying to kill or drive off the population so you can colonize the land yourself raises its own problems, and normally gets punished long before anyone can seriously claim that the recolonization is now 'status quo.'

In premodern times (say, 1900 and earlier) this DID happen... but under conditions unlikely to be repeated. And we can only say "we still need to address that, there is no statute of limitations on dispossessing a native people of their land" if we actually have a plan for what to do about that.

In the case of the Falklands, if we decide the Argentines have some kind of native claim, then the obvious solution looks a lot like ethnic cleansing of the people who now live there, to replace them with Argentines, assuming any Argentines actually want to live on the islands. Or making the Falklanders pay for the privilege of living on an island they were born on, and which no Argentine is noticeably disadvantaged by not living on.

If neither of those is viable, then talking about the illegitimacy of the British claim turns into an exercise in puffery.

Plus, if we say "no statute of limitations" then we have to start thinking about an enormous complexity of legal issues involving a huge number of states throughout the world, and many of our conclusions are going to be mutually exclusive or tenuous.

At least sticking to 'sovereignty == current ownership unless there's an active native group to contest the ownership" has the advantage of not forcing half the human race to worry about being kicked out of their homes to satisfy an abstract principle.

[mr friendly guy]

In the modern world, trying to kill or drive off the population so you can colonize the land yourself raises its own problems, and normally gets punished long before anyone can seriously claim that the recolonization is now 'status quo.'

The Serbs in Kosovo might object to that claim. I also suspect the Georgians which were living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia might find your claim hollow. I won't even touch on Palestine so not to stir up the IvP stuff, even though that counts as "modern" under your criteria. The only thing your argument has going for it, is that with the exception of the last one, the other two might be able to claim sovereignty without ethnic cleansing because they have more people in the disputed territory. But then again if you didn't drive off the population in some parts of your claimed territory, you might not end up getting all that you claim, if for example the other group outnumbers you in a particular region of the claimed territory.

[Straha]

Don't forget the fiasco in Rwanda and the Congo. The modern era is no better at stopping ethnic cleansing or offering a better approach to 'colonization' than we have ever been, if anything has changed it's that more people die in a bloodier fashion now then ever before.

I think it's also worth exploring here how the claims never get settled in favor of, or by (in the case of Africa), the non-white groups. These issues always get settled in favor the European settlers and their descendants (or adjudicated by them) while the native groups have to deal with a legacy of directed genocide and institutionalized poverty for untold generations. We need a new system because this one is broken.

[Simon_Jester]

In the modern world, trying to kill or drive off the population so you can colonize the land yourself raises its own problems, and normally gets punished long before anyone can seriously claim that the recolonization is now 'status quo.'

The Serbs in Kosovo might object to that claim.

So might the Albanians in Kosovo. The problem in Kosovo is that a majority-Serb Serbia started persecuting its Albanian minority, which then split off with foreign support... and persecuted the Serbian minority within the newly detached province. The conflict can't easily be modeled in terms of "oppressor sweeps in and tries to wipe out minority so it can take their land," or if it is modeled thus, both sides are taking turns as oppressors. Which makes it much harder to address the issue, as any attempt means taking sides, and usually means having to accept an oversimplified discourse about who is the victim and who is the aggressor.

I also suspect the Georgians which were living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia might find your claim hollow.

It's not as if those territories have been out of Georgian hands long enough that anyone can seriously pretend the matter is permanently settled.

You seem to be mistaking "genocide gets addressed within living memory" for "everything gets fixed up quickly." They're not quite the same thing. My point is that when you're talking about historical wrongs that happened so long ago that we can neither punish the guilty nor really fix the situation at all, at some point we have to look at the realities- good luck holding Italy responsible for what Rome did to Carthage, to pick an extreme and obvious case.

I won't even touch on Palestine so not to stir up the IvP stuff, even though that counts as "modern" under your criteria.

Palestine is the single biggest weakness of my point- although there I must point out that the matter is not closed, and will not become so any time soon. Palestine continues to fight for rights, in both positive and negative ways, and has a real chance of making progress in the future. It's not over yet.

My original point is about 'dead and buried' historical crimes, acts that were wrong but which cannot be repaired and whose perpetrators are now dead. Crimes that you can't punish without doing more harm than good, because there's no one left to do good to. There is no realistic way to make right what happened to the Indian tribes of the Atlantic seaboard, for example, because they're pretty much all dead and gone or scattered and absorbed into other populations.

The only thing your argument has going for it, is that with the exception of the last one, the other two might be able to claim sovereignty without ethnic cleansing because they have more people in the disputed territory. But then again if you didn't drive off the population in some parts of your claimed territory, you might not end up getting all that you claim, if for example the other group outnumbers you in a particular region of the claimed territory.

Again, my argument is that in modern times the issue doesn't get settled by "wait until no one cares anymore." That worked in the 18th and 19th centuries because at the time no one really cared if one small group got dispossessed by a better-armed group. Today, these issues remain sticking points (as in Palestine) and attempts to ethnic-cleanse your way to control of a region hit very mixed and limited results.

But I suppose we could consider the incentive to still be unacceptable, and declare no statute of limitations on acts of aggression, territory-seizing, and ethnic cleansing. The problem then is how we even begin to figure out who has to move, who has to pay, and who receives what in which places.

[Simon_Jester]

Don't forget the fiasco in Rwanda and the Congo. The modern era is no better at stopping ethnic cleansing or offering a better approach to 'colonization' than we have ever been, if anything has changed it's that more people die in a bloodier fashion now then ever before.

The Congo is a mess partly because of an ongoing civil war- which is not quite the same as ethnic cleansing, even though it can become divided along ethnic lines. In Rwanda genocide was not stopped (which was not what I meant to claim happens), but the nation has made a great deal of progress in recovering and healing, and it's not as if the Hutus succeeded in killing or driving off the Tutsi ethnicity.

I think it's also worth exploring here how the claims never get settled in favor of, or by (in the case of Africa), the non-white groups. These issues always get settled in favor the European settlers and their descendants (or adjudicated by them) while the native groups have to deal with a legacy of directed genocide and institutionalized poverty for untold generations. We need a new system because this one is broken.

What would this look like in the case of, for example, the Congo?

[mr friendly guy]

So might the Albanians in Kosovo.

I am still trying to work out how that actually WEAKENS my argument that ethnic cleansing still occurs in the modern era in an attempt to gain an advantage in territorial claims. If anything you have just given me another example to work with. My argument isn't to take sides between the Serbs/ Albanians, Georgians / South Ossetians etc, but to point out your counter claim that "deciding sovereignty by what the current inhabitants want DOESN'T encourage ethnic cleansing anymore because the modern era is different", is a dubious argument at best.

It's not as if those territories have been out of Georgian hands long enough that anyone can seriously pretend the matter is permanently settled.

No, but it is an attempt to gain an advantage in territorial claims. After all if we go by sovereignty by whoever holds the lands, there won't be many Georgians to argue. I fully accept your point that this tactic may not succeed, but my point is that judging sovereignty as how Rogue 9 wants to argue, ENCOURAGES this type of practice. Whether it will succeed remains to be seen, but under the criteria stated, as long as they can hold out until the original people involved died, they will have succeeded.

You seem to be mistaking "genocide gets addressed within living memory" for "everything gets fixed up quickly." They're not quite the same thing. My point is that when you're talking about historical wrongs that happened so long ago that we can neither punish the guilty nor really fix the situation at all, at some point we have to look at the realities- good luck holding Italy responsible for what Rome did to Carthage, to pick an extreme and obvious case.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. I am not sure if get what I am trying to argue. If anything, the tactic of waiting for the people you ethnically cleanse to die while you hold onto the land suggests that it clearly takes a generation at least for it to be resolved.

Palestine is the single biggest weakness of my point- although there I must point out that the matter is not closed, and will not become so any time soon. Palestine continues to fight for rights, in both positive and negative ways, and has a real chance of making progress in the future. It's not over yet.

However once those Palestinians who fled during the creation of Israel are dead of natural causes, arguably the policies which led to them fleeing "worked" in the sense the Palestinians remaining are not numerous enough for us to apply self determination arguments against the more numerous Jews.

My original point is about 'dead and buried' historical crimes, acts that were wrong but which cannot be repaired and whose perpetrators are now dead. Crimes that you can't punish without doing more harm than good, because there's no one left to do good to. There is no realistic way to make right what happened to the Indian tribes of the Atlantic seaboard, for example, because they're pretty much all dead and gone or scattered and absorbed into other populations.

Sure. However not all wrongs are like that. Some populations / countries still exist.

Again, my argument is that in modern times the issue doesn't get settled by "wait until no one cares anymore." That worked in the 18th and 19th centuries because at the time no one really cared if one small group got dispossessed by a better-armed group. Today, these issues remain sticking points (as in Palestine) and attempts to ethnic-cleanse your way to control of a region hit very mixed and limited results.

Yeah people do care. However caring is itself not enough to prevent it happening, and once again, if we argue by "after a while all the original people involve are dead, and lets not punish the people currently in that area", then ethnically cleansing does achieve that objective. Sure people may have cared while these guys were alive, but its less of an issue once they are long dead and buried. I am not saying I have the best solution, but it seems silly to pretend this type of weakness in your position doesn't exist, or downplaying it anyway.

But I suppose we could consider the incentive to still be unacceptable, and declare no statute of limitations on acts of aggression, territory-seizing, and ethnic cleansing. The problem then is how we even begin to figure out who has to move, who has to pay, and who receives what in which places.

This is not easy to resolve, and I am with Straha on this in the sense we need to look at the alternatives, openly admit the weaknesses in each idea. I don't have a 100% preferred method, but I am looking at the weaknesses in each. For your dilemma, I did suggest earlier perhaps compensation (say monetary) for the wronged groups. This is on the assumption that the groups still exist. So I don't really see Rome paying the descendants of Carthage for example.