Corbyn tells Argentinians he wants them to share joint control of Falklands with UK

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Yorkshire Post

Corbyn tells Argentinians he wants them to share joint control of Falklands with UK
Mark Casci
Published: 13:42 Sunday 24 January 2016

Jeremy Corbyn has told Argentinian diplomats he wants a Northern Ireland-style power-sharing deal for the Falkland Islands, according to reports.

Outgoing ambassador Alicia Castro said the Labour leader “shares our concerns” and “in short, he is one of ours”.

In an interview published on the Argentinian embassy’s website, she said Mr Corbyn had visited the Argentinian embassy in London and was “friendly and humorous”.

“He is saying that dialogue (is) possible and that attitudes are beginning to change, that what was achieved in Northern Ireland can be achieved also here,” she said.

Read more: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/corbyn-tells-argentinians-he-wants-them-to-share-joint-control-of-falklands-with-uk-1-7693127#ixzz3yCMjr6dV

[geek tragedy]

1. so he's willing to stab the people who live there in the back

He'll have to walk that back.

[Ghost Dog]

26. No, it's anti-Corbyn propaganda, and months old,

quoting only the Argentine embassy source.

And headline-writers again...

Please observe that the Northern Ireland power-sharing agreement referenced does not involve any power-sharing between UK and the Republic of Ireland; it agrees to share power between political parties within N.I.

Such a deal, in the Falklands, would have to look hard to find political parties outside the mainstream.

Talking to, and dealing with, generally, Argentina is of course always a very good plan...

[branford]

31. It's not "propaganda" if it's true.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/24/jeremy-corbyn-power-sharing-deal-falkland-islands-argentina

Corbyn made his statements in a televised interview, and it unsurprisingly hasn't gone over well with many within Labour.

No one has ever stated that the islanders shouldn't talk and maintain diplomatic relations with Argentina (and everyone else). However, Corbyn's comments go well beyond that, including not affirming the islanders self-determination, and the Labour Party appears to be engaged in damage control.

Cameron and the Tories simply cannot believe their incredible luck.

[geek tragedy]

45. 99.8% of Falklanders want to remain part of the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

There is no internal arrangement to be made--everyone there wants to remain part of the UK.

There is nothing to negotiate over. The people there want to remain part of the UK, Argentina doesn't have a viable legal claim, and they are not strong enough to begin a war, let alone win one.

Cornyn places a higher priority on sucking up to Argentina than he does in looking out for Britons and Britain. Lord knows if he saw ISIL's shadow he'd offer to impose sharia.

[happyslug]

79. But can BRITAIN afford to keep the Falklands? Is the REAL question

The British maintain a squadron of Fighter-bombers on the island to protect the island from any invasion from Argentina. Those jets cost MONEY, Money Britain no longer has. Most of the British Empire was given up when the costs to maintain that part of the Empire Exceeded to cost of holding it. What the locals wanted was NEVER a concern of Britain, until it affected that cost-benefit analysis. Thus Britain can claim it defeated all but one war for independence of its former colonies, but after defeating the locals in that war gave them Independence (Yes, the US War of Independence was the only successful war of Independence). Britain gave those countries their independence for that was seen as the most cost effective way to handle that colony.

In the Falklands, the nearest land is Argentina. The People of the Falklands is less then 3000 people (2012 census say 2,932). Even if every last one of them was a millionaire, they still would NOT be producing enough exports to Britain (or imports from Britain) to justify the cost of the Fighter Jets Maintained on the Island. A population of 3000 can NOT support anything but basic needs, once anything beyond basic medical care is needed, they have to go elsewhere, and the nearest population center is Buenos Aires.

Any heavy construction has to be brought in, and the nearest location is from Argentina. Any disaster help would have to use Argentina as a base for the same reason.

Thus the real question is can Britain AFFORD to keep the Falklands?, not what the locals want.

My favorite example of this is Alaska. If you would have asked the Majority of Alaskans if they wanted to join the US OR stay part of the Russian Empire in 1867, 99% of them would have stayed with Russia (and that included the First Americans in Alaska for they had been dealing with the Russians for generations by then). Why did the Russian turn it over to the US? The US was in a better position to defend Alaska from an attack by Britain (The US and Russia were close allies at that time period, during the US Civil War the Russian Fleet was in Boston and New York City Harbor with orders to go under US Navy Command if Britain intervened on part of the South during the Civil War, this freed all US Naval Ships for use against the South).

I bring up Alaska for it had a small population in 1867 and NO ONE asked the locals and NO ONE cared what the locals wanted. The same with the Falklands, no one really cares what the residents of the Falklands want. Both Britain and Argentina want to develop the oil fields believed to be between Argentina and the Falklands and that desire will over rule any desire by the residents of the Falklands. Both Countries have the ability to prevent the other from developing those fields (it takes a lot less effort to disrupt such efforts then to defend against such disruptions) and now it looks like some sort of deal is being made, and that is by the present CONSERVATIVE government not Labour. It is even possible that the business community will support Labour in the next election so that a deal could be made and this is just the first statement in that support, i.e. if elected Labour will make a deal in develop those fields even if that means the Falklands have to fly the Flag of Argentina. Getting that energy developed is more important to Britain then the Falklands themselves and right now what the people of the Falklands want is in the way of developing those oil fields. Thus the statement can be viewed as a Statement by Labour to the Business Community of Britain, support us, and you will get a chance at that energy around the Falklands, support the Conservatives and those fields will NEVER be open for development.

That is the real issue when it comes to the Falklands, how, when and who get to develop those oil fields. Argentina can NOT take the Falklands let alone hold the Falklands, but Argentina can disrupt any effort to develop those fields. Furthermore any base to support those oil fields have to come from an area with a decent size population and that is Buenos Aires NOT the Falklands. Again another reason for the Business Community to abandon the people of the Falklands for oil. Technically Britain could use South Africa as its base of operation, but South African is four time further away, the prevailing wind and tides is around the the Cape of Good Hope NOT to or from the Falklands thus an increase cost of support compared to Argentina (The Falklands were picked as coaling stop for ships going to the Pacific NOT the Indian Ocean for this reason) AND the present Government of South Africa supports Argentina when it comes to the Falklands (Which is easy once South Africa realized it was out of the running do to the currents anyway).

Just a comment that Britain will abandon the people of the Falklands sooner or later, the only real issue is when as oppose to why.

[geek tragedy]

80. Britain has an advanced economy, and the possibilities

for mineral wealth there could certainly pay for their presence there.

That said, there's room for a deal but only if the Argentines are willing to take a cut of the mineral rights as a replacement for giving up the dream of hoisting their flag over the Falklands.

[happyslug]

102. No, Britain perfer the oil to that rock

What I see happening is Britain agreeing to give the Falklands to Argentina, in exchange for freedom to develop the oil fields. Argentina has already propose leaving Engish be the language of the Falklands and to leave the Falklands to govern themselves, but want to say the Malvinas belongs to Argentina.

Britain could then use Argentina as its base to develop those oil fields. Everyone (except right wingers in Britain) but the people of the Falklands would be happy, for when it comes to oil, Britain will not care what the residents of the Falklands think, nor what its own right wing think.

[branford]

2. I guess Corbyn really wants to stay in the opposition indefinitely.

Maybe he should consult the actual people of the Falklands and inquire if they want to share power with Argentina. It's not like they didn't already have a democratic vote or anything where they overwhelming voted to remain British. Apparently, self-determination is not a high priority for Corbyn.

[EX500rider]

3. That's nice...

But since the Labour's defeat in the 2015 general election I doubt he can do anything about it.
I doubt David Cameron has any desire to sell the Falklanders down the river.

[iandhr]

4. The more I learn about Corbyn the more of a clown he seems.

[forest444]

7. For instance?

Besides his stance on the Falklands issue - which is a sideshow even in Argentina itself.

[iandhr]

9. He is pro terrorism for staters

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12035511/Jeremy-Corbyn-praised-magnificent-pro-Hamas-rally.html

[forest444]

10. The article makes it clear that calling him that was a stretch.

A rally of Palestinians - even if organized by a terrorists like Hamas - cannot be held against the participant s themselves when this is going on:

[iandhr]

13. Yes it can.

Because Hamas has fired more than 5,000 rockets at Israel and intentionally puts their missiles close to civilians so more of there own people die when Israel responds.

[forest444]

14. Like when they bombed the UN school - knowing full well that's what it was?

Not to mention the indiscriminate bombing - with depleted uranium ordnance - in one of the most densely populated districts on earth. Remember that terrorism is certainly a two-way street in that part of the world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-idUSKCN0UZ11P

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/6185-one-palestinian-child-has-been-killed-by-israel-every-3-days-for-the-past-13-years

[iandhr]

17. Hamas puts weapons near schools to insure that there own people die.

There agenda is to maximize. civilian suffering for the purpose of propaganda.



They want to kill all Jews.

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” – an infamous antisemitic libel – is a true account of a sinister Jewish plot to take over the world?


Hamas TV teaches children to Kill all Jews

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/hamas-charter-israeli-civilians-dying-ahmed-yousef

[Xolodno]

85. Israel helped create Hamas...

...they should own it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

...and Nut-in-yahoo is doing more to insure Palestinians are radicalized. 50 years from now, he is going to go down in history as Israel's worst....and it will be factual.

[iandhr]

87. I am not saying that nations don't take actions that are tactically counter productive.

Every country in the world has done it at certain points in their history. Israel is no different in this regard. Neither are we for that matter.

[Odin2005]

5. Epic Fail

[MowCowWhoHow III]

6. I doubt Corbyn will reach the next UK election as Labour leader

[Lithos]

8. You are correct

Despise Cameron, but Corbyn is an idiot and not worthy of being a leader. You don't piss on the flag and expect people to rally around you.

L-

[T_i_B]

66. Trouble is....

Have you considered the alternatives for Labour?

Corbyn's victory in the leadership contest had much to do with the uninspiring dross offered up by his opponents IMHO.

The moderate left in the UK is in a serious crisis right now.

[Lithos]

96. Agreed

I'm thinking Corbyn's role is to help create the internal debate and platform for the next generation of moderate left. Many are still stuck to the Blair Third Way.

In some ways I see an analogy with the US with an increasing rejection of Bill Clinton's 1990's style Third Way, though it falls apart when comparing Sanders and Corbyn.


L-

[T_i_B]

113. One big difference with UK politics....

....is that we didn't have an equivalent to Barack Obama. Instead Labour just carried on with Blairism until it all collapsed in May.

[Turborama]

62. Source, please. That "poll" is meaningless without any data. n/t

[MowCowWhoHow III]

68. "polling by YouGov"

Have at it.

[Turborama]

109. So, no link again? n/t

[MisterP]

11. and Denmark gets the Shetlands and France the Channel Islands

[Ghost Dog]

69. No, that would be Norway,

and the Duchy of Normandy. Oh, and Cornwall to Brittany while we're at it... But, who gets the Isle of Man?

[Xolodno]

86. B..but...but who gets Rockall?

Link for those who don't know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

[Ghost Dog]

100. Rockall is a matter of great concern.

”Matters of’ great concern should be treated lightly.” Master lttei commented, “Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.” -http://judoinfo.com/pdf/hagakure.pdf

[MisterP]

90. *snaps fingers*

[Blue_Tires]

12. Alternative headline:

"Corbyn denies the Falklands the right to determine their own fate"

[forest444]

16. Article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The British occupation of the Falklands has, of course, involved both.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Which happened in the century before the Geneva Conventions came into existence

The USA forcibly took over about half its area after the British moved into the Falklands. Plus, of course, the British found them in the first place, with no inhabitants. The Argentinian connection with them is that the Spanish colonial power bought the claim the French colonial power had made off them, and then the Spanish in Argentina who rebelled against the Spanish crown decided they'd like the Falklands too.

The inhabitants in the Falklands of British descent have a better right to be there than the inhabitants in Argentina of Spanish descent have to be there. After all, they didn't push any indigenous people aside.

[forest444]

20. "After all, they didn't push any indigenous people aside."

Those who lived in Britain's many colonies would probably beg to differ (including President Obama's grandfather, who, like 150,000 of his fellow Kenyans, was tortured in 'Britain's Gulag').

And as it happens, they did expel an Argentine settlement (Port Louis) by force from what's now the Falklands in 1833.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. This thread is about the Falklands

The Argentinian settlement had been there a couple of years. As I said, the Spanish who declared independence in Argentina decided they wanted the Falklands too, so they decide it was theirs. But there was no indigenous Falklands population at all.

Corbyn is going to sink his leadership if he doesn't back down from things like these. He's telling the inhabitants of the Falklands that he doesn't care about their rights or desires. Labour shouldn't be about denying people their rights.

[forest444]

27. Well, you brought up the displacement of indigenous peoples by Argentina.

Bringing up the atrocities of the British Empire was certainly fair then - and the example of Britain's Gulag in Kenya was, as you know, just the tip of the iceberg.

That said, I agree with your second point. Whatever the merits of his argument, Corbyn is doing himself - and the Labour Party - no favors at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. But this isn't about the rights of the British empire to the islands; it's about the inhabitants

who have been there for nearly 200 years, and overwhelmingly want to remain a British dependency. They were the people I said hadn't displaced any indigenous inhabitants.

[EX500rider]

19. You aren't a "occupying power" is the place was uninhabited...

.....except by British citizens. The only "occupying power" was Argentina in 1982.

[forest444]

21. The Britsh had to expel an Argentine settlement (Port Louis) to take over the Falklands in 1833.

Such that it wasn't 'uninhabited' as many have been led to believe, Afterwards, as you know, they populated the islands with their own citizens.

[EX500rider]

22. Argentina's war's of independance & civil wars weren't over till 1861.

Are you saying Spain owns the islands?

The first recorded landing on the islands is attributed to English captain John Strong.
The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville, and the 1766 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by British captain John MacBride.

[forest444]

24. That's a little like saying the U.S. didn't "exist" until the end of our own Civil War in 1865.

And in Argentina's case, the conflict was of an intermittent nature and far more limited than the U.S. Civil War.

It's also worth mentioning that the U.S. itself recognized Argentina in 1822.

[Beacool]

36. That's not exactly true.

Argentina was one of the first Latin American countries to become independent. On May 25, 1810 a treaty was signed whereby the governor of Buenos Aires had to be a "criollo" (a son of Spaniards born in what was then known as the Vice Royalty of the Rio de la Plata). This came about after the residents of the city felt that the Spaniards did not do enough to repel the two British invasions of Buenos Aires that took place in 1806 and 1807. These invasions failed due mostly to the citizens themselves.

Argentina obtained full independence a mere 40 years after the U.S., on July 9, 1816.

In 1910, the British government gifted Argentina with a tower to commemorate the two failed British invasions.

Here's an image of the tower and a painting of British General Beresford giving his sword to General Liniers, after being defeated by the latter.





The Argentines established a government on the islands in June 1829, although they had occupied them since 1820 (as inheritors of the former Spanish possessions). The British wanted a stronghold in the South Atlantic to replenish and refuel their ships before attempting the treacherous crossing through the Straights of Magellan, at the time it was the only way to go around to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the British invaded the islands in 1833. They forced Lt. Colonel Pinedo to lower the Argentine flag and raise the British flag and gave the occupants of the garrison 24 hrs. to leave the islands.

[forest444]

42. That's it exactly. And all this really is a shame, because the two countries share a lot of history.

Besides being the principal investors in Argentina in the late 19th and early 20th century (one third of all British Empire investments in Latin America were in Argentina) and building 15,000 miles of railways, Britain left an indelible imprint on Argentina that can still be seen today.

The clock tower above is one famous example, as is football (ironically!). Cities named Banfield, Brown, Claypole, Fisherton, Fotheringham, Glew, Hurlingham, Madryn, Morris, Rawson, Temperley, Trelew, White, and Wilde dot Argentina, and most large cities still have "English" neighborhoods where a sizable expat community once lived.

[Beacool]

48. Yes, they do share a history.

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I find it ironic that no one ever mentions that the British invaded what is now Argentina twice and failed both times. Residents of Buenos Aires defended themselves with everything they had, including throwing hot oil at the British troops from the roofs of their homes. It's also worthy of note that when Argentina declared its independence they decreed that all children of slaves born in Argentina were from then on free. Within a short few years there was no slavery in the country. BTW, Argentines are accustomed to having high tea like the British.

Argentina is a nation of immigrants because it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world until WWII. They received more European immigrants than any other nation, except the U.S. The vast amount of immigrants doubled the country's population several times over from the late 19th century until around 1950. Topping the list were immigrants from Italy (mostly from Southern Italy). The second largest contingent came form Northern Spain, particularly Galicia. Then the rest of Europe. Argentina also has the second largest Jewish population in the Western Hemisphere, after the U.S. Vast numbers of Jews came from Russia and Poland due to the tsarist anti-Jewish pogroms.

I know a fair amount about Argentina because I attended high school in Buenos Aires. I love the city and its culture. It's called the Paris of the South and the moniker is well deserved.

[Ghost Dog]

82. Yes, we should be the best of friends,

and are, actually, in many ways...

Look more deeply. At issue, I think, is not so much the sovereignty over the islands as such, more about how to exploit undersea resources in the large exclusive economic zones declared (which in the case of possible petroleum/natural gas deposits should of course be left where they might lie, for very sound reasons).

ie:



and wider context:

[jberryhill]

43. Thanks for that

I've been to two conferences in Buenos Aires in the Sheraton that overlooks that thing, and finding out why it is called the "Torre de los Ingleses" was on my "list of crap I forgot to look up.

I couldn't for the life of me figure out why they had a tower dedicated to the English.

I got lost one night and kept asking for directions to the "Torre de los Iglesias" by mistake, and kept being sent to random churches.

[Beacool]

51. Yes, I know that hotel.

It's downtown and it does overlook Retiro train station and the "Torre de los Ingleses". Did you walk around Florida Street and go to Plaza de Mayo to look at the Casa Rosada? Right off Plaza de Mayo is one of the oldest tea shops in Buenos Aires. It's called Café Tortoni. I love to go there for tea every time I visit Bs. As. Did you like the food? I don't eat that much beef here, but I'm in beef heaven when I go there. They have some of the best beef in the world, grass fed. The gauchos were doing "free range" before the term was ever coined. I also love their wine, pastas and pizza. The pastries are delicious too. Man, I wish was there right now eating a steak with fries, washing it all with a glass of malbec. For dessert I would be having crepes with dulce de leche.

[jberryhill]

53. Oh yeah

Didn't know about the tea, but it's mind-boggling how good the beef is at any of the asada joints, and how well it pairs with malbec. I gave herba mate a good couple of tries, but it still tastes like wet straw.

Sunset from the top floor conference room:



...you can just make out the tower in the dark below.

[Beacool]

55. Yeah, the food is great.

I'm not into mate as some of the people drink it in a gourd with the "bombilla", but I like "mate cocido". It's the yerba mate in bags like tea. I like to have it at night, instead of regular tea, because it has less caffeine. I'm not too far from a neighborhood that is primordially Hispanic. There is an international supermarket that carries items from all over Latin America. I go there once in a while to buy boxes of mate cocido bags, dulce de leche, polenta and other yummy stuff.

Did you take the photo from the Sheraton?



Well, off to watch the news and have a cup of mate cocido.


Here are some images of the Café Tortoni. It was established in 1858 by a French immigrant.





They also have cabaret space where at night one can hear tango. I love the place.

[Blue_Tires]

32. Maybe the Argies should focus on

effectively governing the land they already have instead of taking on more...

Either way, this isn't Corbyn's call to make, and his nuttiness is going to kill his party at some point...

[forest444]

34. Many of Cameron's countrymen feel the same way about their country right now.

So that's hardly an argument (aside from the fact this thread refers to Corbyn's declarations, not of someone from Argentina).

That said, I agree with your second point. As I pointed out earlier, he's not doing himself or the Labour Party any favors with this.

[Beacool]

38. Argies???

Is this the Daily Mail or another British site. Let's face it, the British invaded every piece of land they could get their hands on. They were as bad as the Spaniards and other colonialist nations. They also treated people horribly, Ireland and India being a prime example.

[Blue_Tires]

77. Oh, well maybe the Argies should go to war then...

If they feel that strongly about it...

[Beacool]

93. Offensive and colonialist.

Not the kind of argument that one usually sees on DM. It's more appropriate for a RW site.

[Blue_Tires]

97. Hearing that from you, I'm flattered

my point still stands, though

[Nye Bevan]

15. Part of his argument is that the Falklands are "just off" Argentina.

They are in fact 300 miles away from the coast. Cuba is 92 miles offshore from the US, so there's an interesting implication there.

David Cameron simply cannot believe his luck.

[frizzled]

25. Extremely reasonable but most Brits won't like it out of irrational patriotism

There's no good reason for Britain to hold on to islands thousands of miles away in the first place. Imagine if Argentina had colonized the Isle of Wight.

[branford]

29. There's no good reason?

Are you kidding? How about the express wishes of the near unanimous population of the Island, all of whom are British citizens, have been so for nearly two centuries and wish to remain as so, and when such wish was expressed in a democratic referendum. Self-determination of the islanders is paramount even when you don't like their allegiance. The islands could be on the moon, and it wouldn't change this indisputable fact.

Of course, that's all without the added consideration of the fact that Argentina tried to annex the islands by military force within living memory, and the Argentina doesn't exactly have the best long-term reputation for democracy and human rights.

[frizzled]

30. They don't have a right of self-determination.

Otherwise any village of 2000 people could vote to secede from the UK and have their wishes respected, and I don't think that would happen. It's entirely self-serving for the UK's imperial interests.

Britain didn't respect the self-determination right of the Chagos Islanders when it forcibly deported them all to make room for an air base, and still won't let them return.

Settle British people on an island and of course they'll want to remain British. That doesn't give them a permanent veto over a more sensible foreign policy, or force Britain to spend far more than they're worth on defense. Having 2000 people force 60 million to have bad relations with the entire Latin world is preposterous. Just cut them loose and have done with it.

Argentina doesn't exactly have the best long-term reputation for democracy and human rights.

And neither does Britain.

[branford]

33. Are you really suggesting that the contemporary records on human rights

between Argentina and Britain are remotely comparable. Need I remind you that it was a military junta that invaded the Falklands in 1982.

That doesn't give them a permanent veto over a more sensible foreign policy, or force Britain to spend far more than they're worth on defense.

The democratically expressed wishes of the British people don't agree with you. Apparently they are generally satisfied with Britain's position concerning both the Falklands and Argentina, including the costs of military dispositions. In fact, the OP and my cited article in the Guardian demonstrate just how outside the mainstream (and Labour's official position) Corbyn's comments appear to much of the British electorate.

[frizzled]

40. No, not at all. Britain invaded Iraq. Argentina never did anything remotely as evil.

Britain is by any fair reckoning the most evil country in the history of the world.

It's actually pretty hard to think of international political problems that aren't the fault of the British in one way or another.

The democratically expressed wishes of the British people don't agree with you.

Yeah, well the democratically expressed wish of the British people was to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I think we can safely discount anything the British people want from being ethically sound.

[branford]

41. So, democracy only matters when people vote for the people and issues you approve?

In any event, the Falklands is not a particularly controversial issue in Britain no matter your or my feelings on the matter, Corbyn's comments departed from the official Labour position concerning the Islands, Labour is engaging in damage control, and if Corbyn continues as he is, he'll either guarantee that Labour remains in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future, or more likely, he'll soon be replaced. Further, the British and Islander positions are unlikely to change any time soon, Argentina will not make the mistake of invading again or anything similarly foolish, and Argentina will need to engage in far softer diplomacy if it wishes to ever share in the relatively recently discovered oil and mineral wealth surrounding the Falklands, the real source of all this politicking.

[EX500rider]

56. "Britain is by any fair reckoning the most evil country in the history of the world" lol

Really.....worse then Imperial Rome or Nazi Germany or Mao's China or the Mongol invasions or Tamerlane etc ad nauseum

[frizzled]

67. Yes, absolutely

Everyone thinks the Holocaust was the gold standard of human evil, but I'd put up a strong case for the Irish Potato Famine.

[Nye Bevan]

78. You really do need to read up on the Holocaust. (nt)

[frizzled]

84. How about you read Late Victorian Holocausts?

Amazing book.

[LanternWaste]

101. You limited perspective is illustrated by your sentiment.

You limited perspective is illustrated by your sentiment.

[EX500rider]

103. Please, even little Belgium tops the UK in evil treatment of locals..

...with King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo.

[frizzled]

112. HAH! Britain did that too. Look up the Bengal Famine - 10M dead.

The Brits didn't even hate the locals. They just found it more profitable to export all their food from right under their noses.

And who do you think invented the concentration camp? Britain again, for the Boers.

[EX500rider]

116. Except the South African camps had no gas showers or incinerators running full time..

[frizzled]

117. No, just lots and lots of typhoid and 10's of thousands dead

The end effect was pretty similar though.

Technically the German ones didn't either; they were death camps as compared to concentration camps.

[forest444]

37. Well said, frizzled.

I'm amazed how some would use as an argument the fact that most British voters support (or are said to support) spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the Falklands. By that same reasoning, the Iraq War was justified because "most U.S. voters supported it at the time."

I haven't seen any from the pro-occupation crowd offer up anything resembling a refutation of any of your points, and that alone speaks volumes.

[geek tragedy]

50. "Pro-occupation crowd" is a patently dishonest label to use towards those

who--UNLIKE YOU--respect the right of self-determination of the people who live in the Falklands.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

It is the Argentines and their apologists who want Argentina to occupy that land against the wishes of their inhabitants.

Go sit next to Binyamin Netanyahu.

[geek tragedy]

46. "They don't have the right to self-determination"

Anyone who knows anything about human rights says you're wrong. Unless you think the US has a right to invade Cuba.

They have the same right as Palestinians and Tibetans do.

The issue is settled for everyone other than Latin American demagogues and people bitter because their side lost the Cold War.

[frizzled]

70. Nope. They have the same right Israeli Settlers do.

nt

[geek tragedy]

72. If there were no Palestinians you would be making an intelligent

point. As there are zero--and have always been zero--Argentinians permanently residing in the Falklands, and since the people living there are causing the oppression of no one, your argument is a stupid nationalistic one.

[forest444]

35. "doesn't exactly have the best long-term reputation for democracy and human rights"?

Perhaps you've never heard of the British Empire.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

[branford]

39. I'll say this again:

Agrentina - military junta - invaded Falklands in 1982. It's commitment to democracy and the impartial rule of law hasn't exactly been too great since.

Britain, even with the vast abuses of it's imperial era, in the modern era is still the legal and cultural source of, and one of the greatest guarantors of, freedom and democracy on the planet. You may abhor Britain's foreign or domestic policy choices, but there's no question about it's first world, democratic credentials.

It's precisely your sense of cultural relativism that ensures the islanders would never want to align themselves with, no less give-up their sovereignty to, a country like Argentina, and that other British citizens overwhelming support that choice.

Of course, you are free to try to peacefully convince both islanders and other British citizens of the vast benefits of Argentinian rule over the Falklands, or even suggest Argentina again attempt to annex the islands by force of arms. Good luck with that.

[forest444]

44. Never suggested that Argentina should "again attempt to annex the islands"

And neither has the Argentine government, in fact.

Keep in mind the 1982 invasion was perpetrated by an unelected regime - a U.S. supported dictatorship in fact. Argentina since then, for example, has become the only nation in the world to systematically prosecute those involved in past abuses (rather than just a few top brass, as was the case in Nürnberg).

Some of the rest sounds like bigotry on your part, rather as if I had used the existence of massive money laundering in The City, the many allegations of wrongdoing on the part of royals and nobility (and of whitewashing by a corrupt judiciary), endemic child molestation, Cameron's raffling of Peerage titles to campaign contributors and sales of chemical agents to Syria, and of course the Blair government's role in the Iraq invasion, to claim that the rule of law in Britain is at best sketchy.

All countries have dirty laundry, and Argentina and Britain both have theirs. But both have also been examples to the rest of the world when they're at their best; both are also known for their inclusiveness and their press freedoms (and they put much of the U.S. media to shame). We should concentrate on that.

[branford]

52. We will need to agree to disagree about the current political state of Argentina.

However, emphasizing the fact that the Falklands were indeed invaded by an Argentine military junta as recently as 1982 doesn't exactly help their territorial claims, legally or diplomatically, nor convince the Islanders or other Britons of the benefits of Argentine rule.

In any event, as I indicated in Post #41 in response to another poster, regardless of your or my opinion on this matter, Corbyn's comments were accurately reported and recently affirmed, do not represent official Labour policy nor the the opinions of an overwhelming majority of the British electorate, and do nothing but damage the political prospects of Labour.

This is not Corbyn's first foray into advocating positions at odds with many Labour voters and most Britons, and unless and until he changes tact, he will ensure Labour remains an opposition party and/or that he will be deposed sooner rather than later. Corbyn is a gift that keeps on giving to the Tories.

[forest444]

54. And as I mentioned in post 27 and elsewhere, I agree with your assessment of Corbyn's remarks.

You might be surprised that I'd agree; but I do. Whatever the merits of his arguments, he's doing his political chances a real disservice and handing Cameron a cudgel to use in the future against both him and the Labour Party. He's simply forgetting the big picture.

As for the political state of both countries, again: both have had their shortcomings, their scandals (real and trumped-up), and their moments of greatness. The same, of course, can certainly be said for the U.S.

[Little Tich]

47. At least this will give Corbyn brownie points with Argentinian hardliners,

but this will not go down well with the British people, especially the Falklanders.

I'm getting really wary of Corbyn.

[geek tragedy]

49. Hey three people voted to become part of Argentina in 2013.

Corbyn must be chasing those three votes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

[FairWinds]

57. Wow, ya Limey Colonel Blimp types . .

seem terrified at the prospect that peace might break out.

How'd that empire thing workin' out for ya?

Veterans For Peace

[branford]

58. Huh?

Last I checked, there's no war or anything or anyone remotely threatening armed hostilities between Argentina and Britain / Falkland Islands, and the countries actually maintain fairly cordial diplomatic and economic relations except on this one issue. I guess peace largely broke out and you just missed it.

Since the British people are nearly unanimous in their support for the Falkland's democratically expressed self-determination, including the official position of the Labour Party, and there's nothing particularly pressing about the Falkland dispute, the comments by Corbyn would more correctly be characterized by the lack of democracy satirized by Colonel Blimp, not his critics.

[Nye Bevan]

59. I'm pretty sure that peace "broke out" about 34 years ago in the Falklands.

Or was there some fighting in the meantime that I missed somehow?

[FairWinds]

65. Veterans For Peace . .

now has chapters in the UK.

I would be very interested in their take on this issue.

Col. Blimp's take - not so much.

And I do not mean to imply in any way that Gringo-Landia's empire is a whit better.

[Nye Bevan]

60. I love it when the Argentine president denounces the "implanted population" of the Falklands,

while speaking in Spanish.

[mwooldri]

61. Oh God not another 5 years of Tory government :(

I'm sorry but Corbyn would get sliced and diced in a general election. He's got some great ideas and a good general message but his Republican leanings and now views like this is what will spell defeat again for Labour. I wish Tim Farron was a bit more prominent pushing the LibDem message, which looks more like 80's SDP to me (and it's a good one).

Falklanders determine whether they're part of Britain or Argentina. If it's split then talk power sharing. Right now the overwhelming majority of Falkland Islanders want to be British. Jeremy needs to respect their wishes.

[Turborama]

63. As a Brit I fully support this position.

And Jeremy Corbyn as the next Prime Minister.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Well he's certainly picked an election-winning issue here.

The Tories are quaking in their boots.

[Peace Patriot]

64. I don't think the British 0.01% give a crap about anybody's "rights,"

not the 2,000 or so British colonists in the Falklands, nor anybody else, including their own people in England. That was amply demonstrated when EIGHTY PERCENT of the British people opposed invading Iraq, and Blair did it anyway, mostly for the 1%ers to have a finger in the stolen oil, and also to have military bragging rights among the Lords of the Earth.

It was the U.K., in cahoots with the CIA, who toppled the first democratically elected government of Iran, back in 1953. All about the oil. Nothing about peoples' "rights." The first president of Iran intended to nationalize the oil, for the benefit of the people--as Norway, Mexico and many other countries have done. Out he went! And THAT imperialist interference resonates to this day. One consequence could even be nuclear war that will end the story of human civilization on earth.

Margaret Thatcher's war with Argentina was ALSO about the oil (which is mostly in Argentine waters), AND about establishing a full-blown British military outpost way down near the Antarctic, off the coast of Argentina, thousands of miles from England, to coordinate with the U.S. "Southern Command" (the Pentagon's hubristic umbrella for its "big board" plans for the Western Hemisphere).

It is virtually unanimous, among Latin American countries, that the Falkland Islands--which they call the Malvinas--belong to Argentina. Great Britain's installation of a few sheep farmers there, after the British Navy evicted the small Argentine population, who were loyal to Argentina's fledgling independent government on the mainland (newly independent from Spain), back in 1833, does not entitle Great Britain to the Malvinas. Its British population is too small to be considered a nation, or probably too small (about 200 families, at this point). There are arguments pro and con about that. I think that those British people do belong "at the table" in any negotiation about governance and sovereignty, but certain things should be borne in mind (from the point of view of international law):

1) They are not sovereign now--their foreign policy is entirely dictated in London;
2) They have no say about British military operations launched from the islands;
3) They have no say about British Petroleum taking oil from Argentina's coastal waters (though a few might be profiting from it); and
4) They and/or the royalists in England have prevented a more diverse, multicultural population from developing in the Falklands.

I don't know how #4 got accomplished--probably with immigration restrictions--but it has resulted in islands right off of southern South America--a continent that is mostly brown--being almost entirely white and culturally hostile to South America. This may be the biggest problem of all, and, in my opinion, it may be the core problem that Jeremy Corbyn is attempting to address. As long as these islands are an outpost of white England, and a military outpost for U.K. military adventures, there will always be a threat of war, from one side or the other. A joint, cooperative government--the U.K., Argentina and the current population of the islands--could help to avert another war, whether instigated by some future Margaret Thatcher-like war monger, or by the fascist elements in Argentina if they ever gain junta power again (and who started the last war by invading the Falklands).

A joint governance might help allay the fears of the islanders, may help diversify the population, may help in integrating the economy with the mainland, for the benefit of all, may prevent the "little hostilities" that are continually occurring and may--and very likely would--help prevent another war.

I think Corbyn's proposal makes a lot of sense. I applaud him for trying to find a long term solution to this problem. And I think that the British people--who, as I pointed out above, were overwhelmingly against the war on Iraq--may come round on this or some similar proposal, that stresses diplomacy and peace, rather than hatred, hostility and patriotic jingoism.

It's likely, too, that this proposal has been distorted and misrepresented by the corporate media, and by Cameron & co. It seems to me a creative effort to solve a long term situation that could lead to war. We have need, in the U.S. and the U.K., of creative solutions to many kinds of problems. Why condemn this one, out of hand, because it might be unpopular in the short term? It could well be the best solution in the long term, for everybody (except the oil war profiteers).

[Nye Bevan]

73. It was not a "small Argentine population" that was evicted in 1833, it was a military garrison,

that had been there less than 3 months, in violation of Britain's claim to the islands going back to 1765 (before Argentina even existed as a country).

And the islands are not "right off of" South America, they are 300 miles away, much further away than Cuba is from the US.

There is much more of a case for kicking the Spanish descendants out of Argentina and handing Argentina back to its natives than for giving the Falklands to Argentina despite the almost unanimous wishes of its population.

[Ghost Dog]

83. ^^ This ^^

[MisterP]

91. Argentina's been the one trying to whiten itself since the late 19th century

Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2016, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

they'd rather pretend they killed off all the Patagonians rather than admit a single gota of Native blood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

[Beacool]

94. That's because they are mostly Caucasian. It's not "trying to whiten itself".

They are a nation of immigrants.

"The ethnography of Argentina makes this country, along with other areas of relatively modern settlement like Canada or Australia, a crisol de razas (race crucible), or a melting pot of different peoples. In fact, immigration to Argentina was so strong that it eventually became the country with the second highest number of immigrants, with 6.6 million, second only to the USA with 27 million, and ahead of such other immigratory receptors such as Canada, Brazil and Australia.

Thus, most Argentines are descendants of these 19th and 20th century immigrants, with about 97% of the population being of European or partial European descent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Argentina

[forest444]

98. Keep in mind that most Argentines today are descendants of European immigrants who arrived recently

(1880 to 1930), and who were for the most part city dwellers completely uninvolved in the offensives on native lands (which had mostly ended by 1880). Such sentiments against indigenous peoples might describe some right-wing Argentines; but not Argentines in general.

Today, Argentine society is stratified more by social class than by race. While it's not uncommon to find white racists among the upper and upper-middle class (again, with many exceptions), integration is very much the norm in lower-middle class and working class areas (which are the majority). Natives peoples are even included as a census category (900,000), whereas caucasians are not.

It's also important to note that unlike Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, or Mexico, what today is Argentina didn't have a very large indigenous population to begin with: 300,000 when the Spanish arrived, and 180,000 by the time Argentina declared independence in 1816. The other countries mentioned had - and lost - millions.

They didn't do anything we didn't do ourselves in the 19th century - and in fact less of it.

Historians agree that anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 indigenous people were killed in Argentina during the 19th century (mostly from 1830 to 1880); it should be noted that a similar number of white civilians were also killed by indigenous counteroffensives.

Estimates for the number of Native Americans killed in the U.S. range from 100,000 to 4 million during a similar time frame, with 1 million being the most widely accepted estimate.

[Beacool]

95. In other words, they stole them from Argentina.

"It is virtually unanimous, among Latin American countries, that the Falkland Islands--which they call the Malvinas--belong to Argentina. Great Britain's installation of a few sheep farmers there, after the British Navy evicted the small Argentine population, who were loyal to Argentina's fledgling independent government on the mainland (newly independent from Spain), back in 1833, does not entitle Great Britain to the Malvinas."

Argentina had been independent since 1816. Britain, like the other colonialist European countries, took by force any land they could. They were not benign conquerors either, suffice it to look at Ireland and India.

[Nye Bevan]

99. Again, it was not a "small Argentine population", it was a military garrison,

that had been there for less than 3 months. If some country sent a small military garrison to an uninhabited island that was US territory, should we hand over the island to that country?

Britain's claim to the Falklands pre-dates Argentina existing as a country.

[EX500rider]

108. "Margaret Thatcher's war with Argentina was ALSO about the oil"

Well that's totally wrong.....the war was entirely about a Argentinian invasion of UK soil.

[Nye Bevan]

110. +1. Pretty sure back then nobody even had any idea if there was any oil there (nt)

[Judi Lynn]

114. Exceptionally decent comments, very needed, as well as the civilized tone. So appreciated.

I just read that Argentina never intended to take over the British occupants, insist they speak Spanish, change their ways.

People of Argentina do believe that their country owns the ISLANDS. Not the people, of course.

Thanks for your thoughts, and facts.

[MisterP]

118. puhlease, this is the equivalent of saying Pinochet may've been a bit harsh, but at

least he saved Chile from starving under Communism

[T_i_B]

71. When it comes to military matters

I think people are increasingly viewing Corbyn's views on defence in the same light as the Tories on Europe:

The main public reaction is "Really? *This* is what you want to talk about?"

[Nye Bevan]

75. What's the process for Labour removing Corbyn as leader?

How soon can there be a leadership challenge so that he can be replaced by somebody who actually wants to win the next election?

[T_i_B]

76. That can't be considered...

Until the moderate wing of the Labour party can work out how to make themselves more appealing to the party's grassroots supporters. Otherwise Corbyn will just see off a leadership challenge with ease

At the moment the prospects of the moderate left getting their act together are not looking good.

[geek tragedy]

81. If they can't bring the Scots back into fold, is a merger with

the Liberal Dems at all in the cards?

[T_i_B]

88. Lib Dems are still too busy defending their coalition with the Tories

The Lib Dems would never merge with a Corbynite Labour party, and to be honest, there are many on all wings of Labour who loathe the Lib Dems with a passion. Usually due to their slippery local campaigning.

[geek tragedy]

89. I guess Cameron will be getting fairly comfortable then nt

[Nye Bevan]

92. The scariest thing about this is how utterly unelectable Corbyn is making the Labour Party.

A UK government with an overall parliamentary majority already has too much power. When the opposition is a self-destructing joke it's even worse.

[happyslug]

104. As I mentioned above, the business community may want this.

In the 1980s Britain was a net oil exporter, since 1999 Britain has been a net oil importer, the North Sea wells oil production had fallen that much.

One area of potential oil is in the area between the Falklands and Argentina. Argentina has enough military ability to prevent development of that area, as does Britain. Thus both sides have been looking at a deal for at least five years.

The deal looks like it will be Britain who turns over the Falklands to Argentina, and Argentina agrees that the citizens on that island will be able to govern themselves and use English. The only real change would be flying the Argentinan Flag not the Union Jack.

Britain will also get the right to develop the area between Argentina and the Falklands with the right to use the River Plate as its base of operations. That is what Britain oil industry wants right now, and the present Conservative Government can NOT give it to them for they are hung up on retaining those rocks where less than 3000 people live. Labour is saying it will agree to those terms, terms more then acceptable to the British Oil Industry and I suspect the British people.

[Nye Bevan]

105. Anyone who thinks that the Argentine flag flying over the Falklands would be remotely "acceptable"

to the British people is utterly deluded, regardless of any deals involving oil drilling. It's telling that even Corbyn's closest colleagues are disavowing his statements.

[happyslug]

107. When it comes to oil, everything is secondary.

There was Poll about ten to fifteen years ago where most Britons would have taken up the option presented to the residents of the Falklands by Argentina. Argentina offered each resident of the Falklands something like $ 50,000 to accept Argentinean rule, in a poll most Britons reported they would have taken up that option.

My point is money talks and oil is money. Your statement is NOT supported by anything then your opinion and there is strong evidence that opinion is wrong. Remember the old saying. money talks, bullshit walks, and your statement that the British people will turn down oil to retain the Falklands is bullshit.

The oil industry wants that oil, and that group is more important from an election point of view then what people think who rules those 3000 people in the South Atlantic.

[happyslug]

106. I would compared it to the 2002 Pennsylvania Governor Race.

The money elite wanted gambling, but they was no way a Republican candidate who supported gambling to win the Republican nomination, so the money elite just did not give the GOP candidate any money, but a lot to the pro gambling Democratic Candidate. Last two weeks of the campaign you heard nothing from the GOP candidate. Why? He had no money to buy ANY air time. People went unto the voting booth hearing Rendall's name all time, but never heard his opponent's name do to that lack of money.


The same can happen to the Conservatives in Britain, if the money elite decide oil is more important than anything else. Labour may be counting on this, thus this statement about talking to Argentina about the status of the Falklands, it is more a statement that Labour supports the oil industry then giving up the British Empire.

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. This is what happens when someone from the far left becomes leader of a mainstream political party