Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back'
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/falklands-sovereignty-not-up-for-discussion-britain-warns/Open linkView original on lemmy.world451
Comments317
There was a fight for them and they're still British. There was a referendum and the islanders overwhelmingly want to stay British.
The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Still couldn't find any citiation to your statement, but I did find this ...
https://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
I'm not sure that this link really helps your case, given these key points from the description:
The parts you quoted were about self-defense and stopping the fighting, not about the ownership of the islands.
I quote it because it also talks about negotiations that should be begun when it comes to the ownership of the islands, in lieu of continuing the fighting.
I'm already on record about stating that the fighting was wrong, though I don't know how long anyone would expect a nation to wait for a diplomatic solution.
This press release from the UN goes into more detail on the basic structure of what I'm arguing about: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
(I really shouldn't bother with attempting nuanced conversation on the Internet, it never ends well.)
Negotiations are great, but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands?
No, quite the opposite actually. I believe they have more of a claim to the islands than anyone else, via Spain's ownership of said lands that Argentina inherited when they gained their independence from Spain, as well as the proximity to Argentina, and finally to the fact that Great Britain was speaking with Argentina about turning them over, before the stupid war was started.
Now, having said that, IANAL, so don't know what the law would say about that. Really don't think we'll resolve the issue here on Lemmy.
It also talked about the starting negotiations to discuss the future of the Islands, aka return them (because I doubt they would have gone with a timeshare/co-op plan.
There's been other UN discussions on the matter as well: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
Why return or timeshare/coop, why not sovereignty under British support which is happening right now. And which the people staying there demand.
You keep saying this, I'm starting to question your ability to read or understand english.
That’s what you understood after reading the page you linked?
I should have been more precise in my language, and that say that the UN wanted them to negotiate a peaceful end to the war and ownership, but generally speaking, yes, based on follow up votes/press releases that the UN made on the subject (like this one).
'Get them back'. What does 'back' even mean in this statement? Of all the countries that have ever legitimately ruled the Falklands, Argentina was never one of them.
The penguins have a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina...
#FalklandPenguinRule2024
#PenguinEmpireRising
For The Emperor!
Penguin
You called?
I agree it's more British than Argentinian. But "Argentina never one of the rulers" isn't quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.
Yeah, Spanish. That's the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.
The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina's claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.
They inherited the islands from Spain (as per their claim) when they won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Those islands are allot closer to Argentina than Great Britain, and closer to Argentina than Hawaii is from the US.
That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.
Malvinas islans are legally and physically part of Argentina and this is accepted by a majority in the UN, they are also the symbol of the centrist liberals (imagine the island of the statue of liberty) so this new neonazi psycho (and elon fan redditor) wants to "eliminate" their symbols including the ministries, universal health care, education systems, social plans that support several million of poor and make their party illegal
The metric by which Argentina has a legal claim on the islands would also give the US a claim.
Argentina is making the case for being invaded by the US under the causus belli of defense from an invading force whenever they say they get to eat the Falklands because something something tordesillas
France too
That's not what I'm debating here, what I debating is that the new far right regime is willing to sacrifice sovereign land just to make a point, to "own the leberals"
IT IS NOT SOVEREIGN LAND THO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
Honestly, you think I would go through all of this if I had not read it? No reason to be a jerk about this.
If you have read it you have not understood it.
/sigh
If nothing else, you can see that I've been arguing from a position of some knowledge on the matter, bring up coherent facts to bolster my opinions.
You may not agree with my conclusions, but it doesn't mean that I haven't read what I've been citing as part of my argument in this discussion.
So please, stop attacking my intelligence. It doesn't make for a good discussion, and makes Lemmy more toxic.
dude, you are a rabid nationalist, and it's affecting your perception of reality.
you're posting the same comment again and again, which doesn't even support your case, and totally missing the points that everyone else is talking about.
go for a long walk in fresh air, and maybe consider that your hurt feelings about what flags fly where don't outweigh the virtually unanimous decision of the people who have actually lived on the islands for generations.
You know nothing about me, and are determined to 'Kill the Messenger'. If you still feel the need to be rude, carry on, Internet Warrior.
Hahahahaha
Noticed you didn't quote my next sentence...
If that's the best you got in way of debating, then that doesn't bode well for Lemmy going forward.
Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it's weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there's no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.
I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I think the people living there are technically indigenous.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren't any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
The modern nation of Argentina didn't exist in 1833. They were the "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
I mean, that's blatantly not true.
From the wiki article ...
A pop of 250 is not "some gauchos and soldiers". They were not even "(many of whom were British)".
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
What in tarnation
Dang nabbit!
They're not Aboriginal though.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina's objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
That's not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you're still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn't they technically belong to France by your logic?
Depends on when who vacated the island and who took it over after that, and if vacating even means giving up on ownership or not (IANAL).
The link I've been posting goes over the history, and nations have come and gone and come and gone and come and kicked out others, on that island. Its a mess.
I don't know what you're reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:
Bingo!
The United Nations says otherwise.
The Wiki page is really interesting reading on the ownership of that island, really jumps around over the centuries.
This one part of the article really jumps out at me...
How do you know this? Honestly curious.
Any link to a source?
Heh, getting tired of copy/pasting this link, but so many bad takes are being stated as fact on this topic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Maybe you should read what you're posting instead and realize you're on the wrong side of this?
Why, because you say so? There are some good facts documented in that link. The issue is not clear cut.
I met an Argentinian, and she is still upset about the Falklands. It made an impression on me that Argentines are still not over it. Don't get me wrong, she is a nice lady, but I'm guessing that nationalism is Argentina's past time instead of fixing their own more critical domestic issues. Tribalism is a time tested tool used to distract and manipulate people, anyhow.
Argentinian leaders use nationalism as a distraction for their economic woes – it's why the Falkland war started in the first place, the president wanted something to make citizens focus on other than the declining state of the country, and grabbing some land from a greater power to get a bunch of glory seemed like a great option, especially considering they didn't think the UK would actually retaliate or even care. The reason they went for it is they thought the British didn't give a damn about the Falklands, seeing as how they constantly denied giving the island economic support. Oh boy, were they wrong.
Because of the war, Argentinians now see not having the Falkland islands as a detriment to their national pride, they think it's soveirgn Argentinian territory... even though everyone living on the island has always been and still is almost entirely Anglo-Franco-descendent, and not once did Argentina actually have claim to the islands until recently in history...
Tale as old as time...
Yeah, it has been over 40 years since the end of Falklands War and many Argentines are still bitter about it. Maybe not all of them but a huge portion are.
And as far as I could remember, Argentina has been suffering from economic woes. They are in similar situation with Japan in having a stagnant economy. Not growing but not contracting either. The Argentines should focus on their domestic issues first than picking fights and beating a dead horse.
That's not true. They feel that they inherited the islands fair and square from Spain when they won their independence from Spain, who were on the islands before anyone else. The UN agrees, and officially asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Another reply here covers this well..
"The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.
The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.
Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK's offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.
Instead they choose to START a war over it.
Just stop already. For some reason this topic is a brain worm for Argentinians. You all go batshit over it and lose all reason and perspective."
The Spanards lay a claim before that, and Argentina claims them based on inheriting them when they won their independence from Spain.
Has nothing to do with the rights of the countries. Russia took over land from Ukraine, put people in there, and then held an election where the people stated they want to be with Russia. Doesn't make that vote right or legal.
[Citation Required]
Also, the UN has made a declaration that Great Britain should negotiate return the islands to Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
I ain't defending this one, it was done for Argentinian political b.s. reasons. But it doesn't mean that the clain is b.s., just the stupid war they started.
But having said that, how long would any nation on this Earth wait to get land back that they believed are theirs? If China took Hawaii or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, would the US just wait indefinately to resolve the issue diplomatically?
Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it
I do, and as I've already stated, I was against the fighting.
Having said that, stopping a fight vote is not the same thing as voting on who owns a piece of land.
That same article talks about negotiations that should be had instead...
Yes, it was a "fuck off and then we'll talk" demand. As Argentina had to be kicked out by force they didn't get to negotiate.
Ask an American southerner about the civil war sometimes.
Shitheads are gonna shithead no matter how far removed they are from the supposed inciting incident
Your statement assumes that they don't actually have a real right to the islands, and that they are doing what they are doing just for other 'human failings' reasons.
Why would they, they're not indigenous to the area either. It's all bullshit. Nobody has a great claim, but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
Kind of agree with you on this actually. I think their stronger claim has to do with the fact that Spain owned it, and Argentina inherited those islands when they won their independence from Spain. That, and the closeness of the islands to Argentina (350ish miles as the crow flies).
And the people in the taken over places in Ukraine that voted that they want to be part of Russia, should that allow Russia to claim those Ukranian lands?
We should strive for the win-win and people being happy, true, but when it comes to scarce resources like oil, it never ends up being that easy. As you put it, "It's all bullshit".
I guess that's a small part of a larger country so it complicates things. Maybe, I don't particularly care, would be my personal answer.
Spain "owning" it doesn't sound like an especially strong claim either.
Don't think it fair to put double quotes around owning. Spain had/has a legitimate claim.
So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?
You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine, are you feeling alright?
I never said that. Just that a vote is not the only criteria on what is legal ownership or not.
When you say that one vote makes ownership legit/right, then another vote in another place (Ukraine) should too, which it doesn't, because obviously one country invading another can't be legally/ethically handwaved away by a region population vote.
That bolsters my point, that voting alone does not make an ownership.
No need to be rude, and try and kill the messenger.
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground, the people there want this to continue, and Argentina lacks the capability to force this to change.
I am not being deliberately obtuse but its hard when its clear you have no clue what you are talking about. This thread is full of people telling you this but you just keep repeating the same nonsense.
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn't make it legally so.
Argentina lost and people living in the Falklands voted to remain with UK numerous times. Making comparisons with voting in occupied Ukraine is not the same because those living in occupied territories of Ukraine were coerced. Local Falklanders voted numerous times under a free and fair election. Get over it. That's like Spain still trying to claim Puerto Rico, Cuba and Philippines after they lost them to the Americans in 1890s.
Argentines should focus on fixing their country first instead of crying sour grapes over a territory they have no viable claim to begin with, and lost a war over it. Philippines have a similar case with North Sabah, which is administered by Malaysia; yet Filipinos did not and would not think of going to war with Malaysia because they have their plates full instead of wasting time with blind nationalism. Argentines are being manipulated by their leaders to ignore economic woes.
The point is, is it one of coercion or not though. Your attempt at using the coersion angle is just not to look at the truth of the situation and have to make a decision about it. It's an easy hand waving away of the problem.
My point is that if a population that's different in citizenship than the population that owns the land is controlling the land. And that point remains and is a valid one, in multiple situations on this planet currently/sadly.
Those in occupied territories in Ukraine casted their ballots under duress, the Falklanders were not.
But Argentina nor Spain never had any settlers there before. The French came first then finally settled by the British.
And like I said, the Argentines should get over Falklands. They lost. They should focus on fixing their domestic issues first than starting another war whose population will never recognise the Argentinian government.
Literal Spanish boots on the ground, sure, but they did own them. And the French had given them back to the Spain, who owned them by treaty.
From the wiki ...
Basically Spain owned the islands, found out later that the French and English were land squatting and had moved in on their islands, and had something to say about the matter. The French gave their land back to Spain, the English did not.
There's allot of history and conflict over the CENTURIES there to unpack. Its a nuanced conversation.
By that logic, Italy should have rightful claim to most of Europe since their predecessor, the Roman Empire, once owned half the continent.
As other users pointed out, you make it as though right to self-determination doesn't matter. Majority of Falklanders identify as British. What are the Argentines going to do about that? By your same logic, Spain should still have rightfully claim Argentina despite being defeated and evicted, and Argentines do not identify with Spain? Argentina obsessing over Falklands is getting tiring and no longer cute.
Did it for Hong Kong?
As an American from Argentinian parents, let me put it to you this way.
Would the US get over China taking Hawaii away from them? Especially if it's just so they can control the oil rights in that area.
When exactly did Argentina ever control the Falklands though?
The wiki page goes into detail. However, besides having their own people on the island at some points, they claim ownership via inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain, and the Spanards had been on the island before anyone else.
The U.N. actually agreed with Argentina, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to them.
Actually they make a claim based on the fact that it used to belong to Spain as well, and they inherited it when they won their independence from Spain.
And? Russia took over part of Ukraine and those citizens in the captured areas voted to stay with Russia.
(I'm not saying that's what happened with the Malvinas, just that voting alone does not make ownship right or wrong.)
[Citation Required]
Agree with you on this one. Conflict was done for political reasons, and lives were lost.
However, if one nation held land that another nation believed was there, how long would they wait while they seeked a diplocatic solution, before they tried another route?
Honestly, it seems like British get more triggered when honest debate on this issue happens.
And you can't honestly see how a nation would want islands that are 350ish miles away from them, and that they feel belongs to them for centuries, back? Truly?
But you're not being honest, mate. You're making up crazy comparisons to Ukraine, which have absolutely no foundation.
I'm being absolutely honest about this. I can't prove a negative, but I'm debating honestly here.
/picardfacepalm
Its not about any particular country (those are just examples). Its about if nation A can have its people on nation B's land and then claim that land belongs to nation A. That's all.
British did own the island before Spanish according to the wiki article you shared.
Or perhaps fortunately for the Falkland islanders, who have consistently voted to remain part of Britain?
If the people of Hawaii repeatedly voted to be Chinese, I'd say maybe we should at least pay attention to what they want.
Considering Hawaii's history, that's one hell of a statement you just made. You might want to revisit it, after knowing more of the history.
What does their history have to do with what they want today?
Are you saying Hawaiians should be denied democracy?
I'm not going to give you an education here about it, there's plenty you can read about the history of the Hawaiian nation and the US.
Lets just say that the wishes of the Hawaiian people in the past were not honored very well.
No, not at all. You really should read up on the history before continuing to assume that I'm saying things that I'm not saying.
Unless you can explain what the history of Hawaii would have to do with a democratic vote on whether to be American or Chinese, you can weave and bob all you want, but you have no point.
If Hawaii was given the democratic choice of "be American" or "be Chinese," the only people their history should matter to is the voters themselves.
And I'm guessing you're not Hawaiian, so it seems a bit paternalistic to speak on their behalf.
You REALLY should read up on it at least a little, before you continue to berate me about the subject.
Its not my job to educate you, but here's one link to get you started.
As I mentioned before...
As an American, yes we would. US would completely eviscerate any country that took over Hawaii.
Yep, true that. And the Falklands/Malvinas Islands are allot closer to Argentina than Hawaii is to the U.S.
Distance means fuck all. By your logic Canada should own Alaska, or Britain shoulf own The Faroe islands. Distance is irrelevent to culture, and guess fucken what the Falklands is largely populated by people of British, French, and Nordic descent not Argentine. Also theyve voted numerous times to stay under Britain so Argentina can fuck itself.
Seriously this reaks of the same bullshit that the South does with the Confederacy but somehow even more pathetic.
Do you believe China would be happy with Great Britain owning Hong Kong indefinitely, being right next to China?
Do you believe that if China owned the Catalina Islands off the coast of California that the US would be okay with that, indefinitely?
Do you believe that what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now has nothing to do with the land around Russia?
If there's one constant in world politics, it's that a nation's always considers the ground around their nation as theirs as well, or at the very least in their 'Spear of influence', and hence their's to control.
I suspect a lot of Hong Kongers would prefer to have stayed under Britain I don't give a fuck what china thinks.
If China had colonized the Catilina and still somehow owned it to this day and the people of said island still voted in free and fair elections then id say allow it.
And Russia can burn in nuclear fire for all I fucking care.
Hong Kong was leased from China on a 99 year lease. The UK was required by law to return it to China, which they did.
Unlike the Falklands!
I'm aware of the lease versus not situation. That is not what's being discussed.
Whats similar in both though are the citizens situation and which nationality they wish to be, which country they wish to belong to. That's what's being discussed.
Your comment is days later, and I'm just repeating myself at this point, as I've already stated what I just stated above before. I think we've all said everything we can't say to each other.
Because “getting them back” worked so well for the (not for long) ruling regime of Argentina last time around. Lol.
Just for who didn't know the story: in order to distract the population from a 120% inflation, the ruling far right dictator decided to take back the islands, (sounds similar?) thinking that the us would support them and that the UK wouldn't fight back.
Anyway the UK is very far and it would take months to send reinforcements, right? And the US loves us, just because we're not communists like other neighbors. We gonna just take them back with a special military operation, no war declaration needed.
While for a short time it worked as the local media was ecstatic about getting back the Malvinas islands and didn't talk anymore about the rampant inflation, it eventually backfired spectacularly and the fascist regime was overturned.
That government was put in power after a US-backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected Isabel Perón. Henry Kissinger was instrumental in orchestrating the coup.
Kissinger has done a supernatural amount of damage to the world.
And he's somehow still alive, thus proving that there is no God.
Yes his existence singlehandedly disproves the fair/just world hypothesis as well.
Turns out that what goes around doesn't come around after all.
He is truly an evil motherfucker. Every once in a while I still come across some fresh new horror he was involved in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
Just started this book. It's a great read but I'm super depressed for it.
Looks good, but I don't think I could! Kissinger depressed me for years. I'm old enough to remember some of his antics when they happened.
I thought Isabel Peron was just in the line of succession when Juan Peron died, and was herself prone to pursue anti-leftist policies?
She was the vice president and took over when Perón died. And yes, by that time they were pretty anti leftist.
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
Oh God. Pls no. 🇩🇪
Gotta get people reading more history textbooks and visiting more 20th-century museums. Some, like the Holocaust Museum in DC, are about as pleasant as getting a fishhook caught in your open eye. Which is some of the most compelling arguments for peace I've ever seen. The pictures are etched into my mind decades later, and I still remember the smell of all the leather shoes in there.
I'd like to visit France and Belgum and Italy soon to see the WW1 sites. We've done Normandy and WW2 across Europe and the Pacific. It's also incredibly somber arguments for peace.
When it comes to humans, it's been my experience that if you don't resolve issues they come back to bite you in the ass, at some point.
Lol I was wondering just yesterday how long it would take this guy to bring up the Falklands after getting elected.
Normally right-wingers in the UK would be pleased to see someone like him elected, but because of the Argentina-Falklands connection, they're going to hate him lmao
I mean the Falklands war did Thatcher no harm.
I think they're going to love him.
If I remember it correctly the whole Falklands affair worked wonders for Thatcher's popularity.
Mind you, these types have been gutting everything in Britain including the military, so who knows what the outcome would be in a Falklands War v2.
Argentina has esentially no navy to speak of, and what it can field would be conpletely smashed by the typhoons stationed on the islands.
Milei is a lot less focused on the Falklands than the presidents before him. Every Argentinian politician says "we have to get the Falklands back". It's literally in their constitution. Milei says that Thatcher legit kicked their asses and they should try diplomatic means, and maybe try not having 140% inflation so that the islanders would be less opposed to becoming Argentinian.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.
On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.
Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.
Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.
It's about the territorial waters that come with them
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.
Don't mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.
Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.
OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.
Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.
Either a 100km or 200km radius around land, if I'm not mistaken. Leads to some very.... "interesting" situations in Greece/Turkey.
Oh everybody knows that
But they never say it in public, if they can help it.
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.
It's actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It's just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.
Don't mean to be rude (in case you're not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a factor.
Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember "no blood for oil" protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
As I've mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.
As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.
Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).
Nationalist Kvetch entirely, those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders who've lived there almost since anyone knew the islands were there to begin with.
When polled they overwhelmingly voted in favor of remaining with the UK
Falklands are as British as black pudding and the royal corgis. Argentina just keeps pressing the claim because it makes a good nationalist distraction whenever right wing nutcases inevitably prove to be completely incompetent.
Also, any attempt to link it with some overarching notion of decolonization is complete bunk, the islands were uninhabited before they were discovered it's only colonialism if you think the very concept of an exclave is colonialist because that's in effect what they are, a very far removed exclave.
So it's a Scotland in the southern hemisphere.
Bagpipes, anyone?
Someone jam some oats in a sheep's stomach. I'm fucking starving.
Wonderful example. What happened to Hong Kong is something that no place in the world really wants to experience.
Yeah the reason HK went the way it did was because China could credibly say "Give it to us or we take it". Argentina already tried the take it by force way, when their military was in a much better state than it is now, and there was effectively no military garrison on the islands. Argentina have pretty much zero leverage here.
last I heard, the people on falkland don't want to be argentinian either.
Which should be the biggest, and loudest, reason to oppose Argentinian demands for the island.
Majority of people in Hong Kong at the time didn't want to be part of China either, a lot of them left China already for a reason.
Okay?
Hong Kong was a completely different situation as the British signed a specific lease for Hong Kong with a set end date that was known all along. Nothing like that happened with the Falklands.
That's a common misconception, the 99 year lease was on the New Territories, rural areas in the north of HK. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the heavily urban bits you think of when you think Hong Kong) were under no such lease, they had been permanently ceded to Britain when it was just a fishing village on the coast.
I fear he was looking at it from China's side.
Being effectively conquered twice before being made to scede some of their land for a century while a foreign power floods the country with drugs?
I think he meant lying when signing the handover treaty and not giving Hong Kongers the rights they agreed to for the time they agreed to.
Exactly this. Otherwise, nobody should expect me to defend the British Empire of all things.
For all the bad things they did, at least they left HK as a democracy including some freedom of the press and expression.
This happens every couple of years, as a populist move in Argentina to avoid tackling the real issues.
The UK will have a nice chuckle, will make some empty threats about protecting its people if needed, and we'll all move on.
What worries me is that this seems to improve the opinion of those in power, and last time the Falklands came up Theresa May loved every second of it because she could act out her Thatcher cosplay fantasies.
Soooo trouble in Middle East is back from standby and Argentina is making demands about the Falklands. How about we just stop there and let other famous Conflicts in pease. * sweats in german *
Argentina: we will retake Las Malvinas!
Royal Navy: Oh really? Try it. We'd really like a chance to demonstrate the combat effectiveness of our QE2 Class Carriers. And Bob here hasn't shot his destroyer's deck guns since '82 and he's bored!
RAF: (Rapidly dusting off the Vulcans and Nimrods)
Royal Marines: (Lights up a Benson & Hedges cigarette)... Right... (Slaps knees and stands up)... Grab yer Bergens and Bayonets lads!
I really hope Argentina doesn't hand the UK's faltering Conservative government a nice patriotic war just before the next election. If they hadn't done that in 1982 we might have seen the back of Thatcher before the worst damage was done.
I mean, the Brits might be chomping at the bit for it. I mean with Brexit and all, I'm pretty sure it's been greyer than usual in the UK. Nothing like completely mopping up some country trying to invade your land to put on a slightly brighter disposition.
That said, I think Milei has mostly been talking about attempting to get them back diplomatically. Which I'm highly doubtful anyone remotely responsible for making that kind of decision in the UK is vaguely affable towards entertaining. Just a hunch.
I'm aware the Vulcans have been scrapped, I was just memeing.
I saw the Vulcan's last flight as Cosford Airshow about 10 years ago. The sheer size of that aircraft flying overhead at under 100ft, the rumble and roar of the engines will stay with me for a lifetime. It was an awesome aircraft.
Oh you lucky sod. The only old plane I got to look inside was the Lancaster based at RAF Scampton they use for memorial flights, still a another good aircraft but it's no Vulcan.
Also, good to meet a fellow former ATC Cadet in the wilds of the internet.
OK, so maybe you can explain this, many things all over western Canada are naned for "Mount Pleasant", a cemetery in Swift Current, a neighborhood in Vancouver, it pops up all over, and no one seems to know why, what or anything about the term, from old timers to Google.
Plural? Huh, TIL they've got more than one of them.
(I always found it kind of crazy and hilarious that the US has like 10 CATOBAR nuclear-powered carriers and then also a bunch of STOVL diesel-powered ones that we don't even bother counting as "carriers," when every other country has maybe one or a few at best, and most of those are STOVL or worse. I guess the last time I counted was before 2017, though.)
During world War II, the United States had over 150 aircraft carriers which would be the equivalent of a wasp class amphibious assault ship/helicopter carrier.
Well, if another curbstomping by Britain is what it takes to run this addle-brained right wing moron out of office in short order, then perhaps that's a silver lining.
Uh, last I checked, Britannia rules the waves, not the Falklands. Checkmate, Margaret.
If more people actually read instead of knee-jerk reacting to click-bait headlines they might have a better understanding of what is going on around them.
British people lose all sense of logic anytime falklands get mentioned.
They need them for strategic sheep reserves
Yeah, since New Zeeland became an indepent nation there really hasn't been any proper fallback if anything happens to Wales...
Not really, I spend time in English and argentinian communities and I see more British nationalists going apeshit anytime the subject gets brought up, i mean, look at your comment. They also project wild opinions and have baseless assumptions on the general argentian populations opinion on the war. Its kinda nuts. Argentinians have really negative feelings as it relates to their country any time the topic gets brought up and don't really think about the falklands the same way British nationalists think they do.
I'll take back what I said if you can link me three of these comments that this thread is full of.
Gotta hang on to colonialism because: English.
There was nobody living there before the British arrived, but after the British arrived British people moved there. It seems to me that the only country with a good claim, is Britain
Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.
The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They've otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.
I'm English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.
According to Wikipedia, The French and English colonized two separate islands within months of each other, though the French are credited with being there first. Historians apparently disagree on whether or not the two settlements knew the other was there for the first year.
The English have the longest claim that was never relinquished, since the French gave their settlement to Spain years after the French and English set up the original two colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Why do you keep posting this link? It's not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it's presumptuous of you to assume people haven't read it, and it doesn't back up a number statements you've made ("The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused." for instance).
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.
That's not true.
Why does this falsehood keep getting repeated over and over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Not true, it was sparcely populated and in 1831 an American warship raided the area dissolved the government and rolled back out. 1833 the English come back and claimed the island and the dispute keeps on.
The government, was literally 1 German man who the argentines said “yeah your the government now go live there”
There's another rock sticking out of the ocean further south that Great Britain claims ownership over, and its just got a plaque on it to state ownership, no people live there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
That's a population, though sparce.
It’s a singular person, that doesn’t give them much of a claim
Yeah because it would be such a great Idea just to straight up say :"I'm going to attack you. But please don't prepare or anything. Just act surprise."
He'll fart in their general direction. That'll show them!
He'll send an army of dog ghosts.
Yeah, Argentina is about to explode into civil war. That place is going to be real dangerous in the next few months.
Oh so THIS is how ww3 starts
I wouldn’t call the Falkland Islands War 2: Electric Boogaloo “WW3”. More like a police action, to be honest. The Argentine Navy and Air Force these days is frankly laughable in comparison to their military strength before the first FI war, let alone the strength of the RN and RAF today.
Who knows, maybe some friends will lend a nuke or two
Not gonna happen
It'd be kinda funny if Putin gave them a "nuke" only for it to be a dud because of lack of maintenance
Why on earth would nukes be given over some islands with a population of only a few thousand?
It's a question of principle
No, it's just nonsense.
Argentina wouldn't last a day against a modern military.
They'd last a day against the Royal Navy because it would take longer than a day to get there.
There are 1500 troops stationed in the Falklands and a sizable force at Royal Air Force Station Ascension.
Oh, I’d expect a British ship or two to hang out very near the Falklands for as long as he’s in power.
At the moment the patrol is a single River class whose largest armament is a 30mm cannon. In the past there tended to be either a frigate or a destroyer in the area, but while the Argentine navy is much diminished they can probably overpower or outmanoeuvre that defence.
I think this one is just populist sabre rattling.
Maybe we'll have a nice Article 5 party this time.
Step 1: dissolve central bank
Step 2: piss off capitalists
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit
There are so many of those things, I say everyone gets to keep an emotional support island
Ok compromise. Argentina gets them back but the British museum gets whatever they want from them first.
The thing is, Argentina has never had the Falkland Islands. The British discovered them first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
So Britain has claimed ownership of the islands longer than Argentina has existed?
Argentina used to belong to Spain, then won their sovereignty. They claim they inherited the islands from Spain when they became a nation.
Cool, so Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina, and the argentinian claim on the falklands is as strong as their claim on Madrid.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn't mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
The US used to belong to England too, doesn't mean that England can ask for it back. I mean, technically, the US was literally stolen by former British citizens from England by force, legally. At least Canada did their country birth and land title/ownership thing the legal way (AFAIK). That's one hell of a rabbit hole you could go down.
No that's another completely different rabbit hole. That's not the same argument or logic at all. Spain isn't asking for Argentina back. That's the only comparable situation to what you're suggesting.
The comparable logic to what you're saying would be for America to say that because they won their independence from the British they should now also own Bermuda. That's the logic you're using in Argentina claiming the Falklands. Argentina has no claim to the Falklands at all. Neither based on past ownership nor based on citizenship. It's simply another unrelated territory. Argentina might as well claim they should get Chile by the same logic.
The Falklands were empty until fairly recently in archeological time, so there isn't really anything interesting there.
Inb4 the British core sample the entire island and cart it off in dirt barges
그리고 독도는 한국 땅!
.z .,-,-..**x Z **********
The guy might be a nutjob but I don't think he's talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don't know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
[insert obama awarding obama meme here]
I mean the UK won't return Gilbraltar to Spain who were in the EU with them they won't obviously return the falklands.
I'd like to see the UK also defending the "vote of the people" if Ireland voted to leave the UK
To who, the French?! They're the only ones who settled there before the British (beating them by a whopping 1 year), and they left again two years after they showed up. (And I say "settled there," by the way, because if we went by who discovered it then the only people the British could return it to would be themselves.)
They claim ownership via Spain's ownership, when Argentina won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
"Return the Falklands"
... do you know the history of the Falklands? At all?
Ireland literally did, almost a hundred years ago. North Ireland voted to stay. There was a legally binding Scottish referendum on independence a few years back that the UK pledged to abide by. Are you shitting me?
You talk like it's a done deal and recent talks about a referendum to revisit never existed.
I... what?
No, I talk about it like it was literally a "vote of the people" which the UK pledged to abide by, which is what is being discussed.
He literally did not do that
Scotland had a vote, a legitimate one. Ireland, as in the Republic, isn't part of the UK.
How can the Falklands be returned? Stop talking about this as if you know anything.
They literally did. Ireland became its own country 100 years ago. NI wanted to stay with the UK
Well the all island vote wasn't the source of change, a war unfortunately had to follow.
And point of clarification - Ireland didn't "leave the UK" - the British were forced to withdraw from 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland.
"NI" was carved out of the island by Britain holding on to as much industrialised land as they could, with as big a majority of British settlers vs native Irish.
... what?
do you want a cookie?
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
That's why I was careful to choose the word "colonialism" (which is what the comment I replied to was implying) instead of just "colony."
My point was the original commenter never said it was an example of colonialism.
The original commenter wrote:
If you can't see how that heavily implies colonialism, I don't know what more to tell you.
Okay but these days when someone says colonialism, they typically mean the colonisation of already inhabited lands and the subjugation of natives. It's a pretty loaded word these days.
The original commenter has slightly missed the point that there were no previous inhabitants, in my opinion.
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
Wait, can we give Sarah Palin to Canada? Seems like a fair trade to me.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don't want them. I'm sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
I'm pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute .
Even if your bullshit wasn't bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn't a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that's not the point I'm trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by "first rights", and not "might makes right", is what I'm speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you're wrong.
Agreed about owning colonies. But that's not what this is.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Say what you will. I find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it's quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
Something like Hawai is a more difficult case since it's in the middle of ocean. Maybe it should just be a sovereign nation.
EDIT: Though since most people living there are native born Falkland islanders that speak English and voted to stay as a part of the UK then it's perhaps something we should leave be as it is. Kind of similar case as with Israel to be honest.
By similar to Israel I mean that non-optimal decisions were made in the past but it's done now and trying to undo it would just cause further pointless harm to people.
Denmark isn't going to be happy about having to give Greenland to Canada but I guess it is what it is.
I'm not advocating for UK to give Falklands to Argentina. It's too late now. Otherwise yes, makes no sense for Denmark to have Greenland either.
If we're going by proximity, there's some Caribbean nations that are even closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina, would you argue that we should annex Cuba or the Bahamas?
And from what I understand, the people of the Falklands overwhelming want to be a British territory. I think that's probably the more important consideration.
It is wild that it came to be the way it is. It certainly doesn't make sense to me in the world before modern air travel, the internet, etc. that they'd be ruled by a country so far away, but in this modern era where just about anywhere in the world is only about a day's travel time, or available on-demand 24/7 by phone or computer, it makes every bit as much sense to me that they be a UK territory as it does that Alaska is a US state.
Hawaii is actually a pretty interesting comparison to make, because most Hawaiians did not want to become a US territory at the time, but that's really begging a whole 'nother discussion with lots of complex talking points about imperialism/colonialism, indigenous rights, etc. but I'm frankly just not going to go into that right now. Suffice it to say that it's similar in the sense of it being a small island territory located far from the colonial power that laid claim to it, but the attitudes of the people living there were very different.
I'm no historian or anything of the sort, so take my thoughts on this for what it's worth (and I am certainly biased being an American, don't exactly get a whole lot of Argentinian history books to study, and most of the Spanish I know is food-related, so if someone wants to enlighten me more on the Argentinian side of things, I welcome the education.) But in general my understanding is that the British were the first people to land there, didn't really do much with it at that time, and pretty much just said "finders keepers"
Maybe worth noting, there were no indigenous inhabitants there, so that's probably about as ethical as colonization can get.
Then France showed up and set up shop since the British weren't doing anything with it. Britain came back and also set up shop, and it's not totally clear if either of them even knew the other was there. France eventually decided to fuck off, and let Spain have their bit of the Falklands.
Spain and Britain coexisted for a while, had some scuffles, but more or less worked things out. Eventually Britain pulled out to focus on other things but still considered their "finders keepors" claim to be valid.
Spain eventually pulled out as well, so for a little while no one was really doing much of anything with it officially.
Argentina (technically Buenos Aires at the time if we want to split hairs, I'm going to just use Argentina and Britain to keep the sides easy to follow) comes along, and decides it's theirs, and this is pretty much the root of the dispute. While Britain still held their claim of "finders keepers" Argentina countered with "losers weepers"
Argentina gave some German dude permission to set up a colony for them there to fish and hunt feral cows. Eventually he gets into a fight with an American navy captain over fishing and hunting rights, Captain America kicks their ass a bit and declares the colonial government disolved, and pretty much continues on his merry way. Argentina tries to get things there started back up again but never quite gets their shit back together in the Falklands. A little while later the Brits come back around, still claiming finders keepers, and take charge of everything again, and this time the colonies stick and continue to grow. Argentina spends the next hundred years or so muttering "this is bullshit" to themselves.
Around the 1960s, Britain starts talking about decolonizing, and Argentina gets excited thinking they're going to finally get the Falklands. Britain even quietly floats the idea of giving them the islands, figuring the Islanders would just kind of accept that decision if it was made, and running these islands from halfway around the world was getting kind of expensive. Turns out though that pretty much everyone on the Falklands is pretty damn happy to be British subjects and don't really want to be part of Argentina, which made things a bit complicated.
Argentina gets kind of impatient with all of this, and eventually decided "fuck it, we'll just take them ourselves," Britain cannot abide Argentina's inability to wait patiently in the queue and was starting to really wrap their heads around the idea that the Falklands would rather stay part of Britain and so we get the Falklands war.
Britain wins, Argentina goes back to muttering to themselves, and that pretty much brings us up to the present day.
Great comment! Accurate and entertaining to read. Well done! Was giving up hope, after reading so many bad factual takes on the ownership situation on this topic.
I've been posting the wiki link about the conflict all over this topic. If people ended up not reading that link, I would hope that they read your comment at least.
One minor quibble, and to be fair, Argentina is claiming based on the fact that Spain owned the islands, and when Argentina won their independence from Spain, they also got the islands.
British owned it before Spain came into picture. They have a older claim than Spain and therfore Argentinian.
People lived on Hawaii since time immemorial. They had a proper Kingdom and everything with the US meddling with putsches and coups, then they had a Republic, then the US annexed the whole thing, very much not with consent of the Hawaiians. That was 1898, statehood was granted in 1959. The Falklands were uninhabited, settled first by the French in 1764. They also enjoy autonomy in everything but foreign relations and defence and if they wanted to they would readily be granted independence, the situation couldn't be more different. Practically speaking the relation of the Falklands to the UK is much more similar than that of Greenland to Denmark than that of, say, Indiana to the US federal government, which is the exact relationship Hawaii has with the federal government.
Also it's not by far the largest European overseas territory, that'd be French Guyana. Who btw overwhelmingly voted against becoming an overseas collectivity, they kept their status as "just another department" with no more autonomy than the departments in Europe. European colonialism died pretty much exactly with Algerian independence, what's left are a flurry of overseas territories which we couldn't get rid of if we wanted because they want to stay, politically, part of Europe.
Hawaii used to be a sovereign nation.
That's not really accurate.
If you look at the map on the above link, that distance is not straight East to West, its to the center of Argentina, SE to NW. I checked a couple of web sites, and they all measure a longer, diagonal distance, that gives a false impression of longer distances.
If you use the Google Maps measuring tool, and you measure from the West coast of the islands to the East coast of Argentina, going directly East to West, you get this answer ...
The Malvinas are allot closer than Hawaii is to the US.
The distance West to East is a little over 350 miles. That's pretty damn close.
Are you even aware of the history? That link I've been plastering all over this topic, talks about this.
Also, The Great Britain laid claim to another chuck of rock sticking out of the ocean further South, and all they have there is a plaque designating it as their property.
Most nations defend out to 200-300 miles.
Never said it was, just that it bolsters their claim of ownership.
Having said that, would any nation wait indefinitely on a diplomatic solution for another nation to return land that they believe belongs to them?
If the British refused to give Hong Kong back to China, what would the Chinese have done?
If the Chinese had taken over Hawaii or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, what would the US have done?
That's not correct. If you read over the link that I've posted way too many times in this thread, you'll see that. Also, their claim is based on the fact that Spain owned the islands, and they inherited them when they won their independence from Spain, so its not just about if Argentinian boots were on the ground there (though there WERE boots at one point as well).
The UN agrees with you, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Not quite.
Source
I was speaking more about this, but that's an interesting read as well.
The link you shared shows UN resolution 502 which states:
Nowhere does it mention telling British to return the island to Argentina.
The actual verbage of the third bullet item you listed is as follows ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
I'm assuming thats meant to say negatiate the return of the islands, because there sure as shit nothing else that would be discussed to resolve the diplomatic solution, unless they went for some funky kind of co-op/timeshare solution. They can't state the return blatently because the UK would not agree to that in an initial resolution.
https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
The purposes and principles of UN which is described in chapter 1, says the member nations will not use force to threaten territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
It also states that nations should respect principles of equal rights and self determination.
Argentina is guilty of both of using force to threaten political independence of island and disrespect of self determination of the islanders
It wouldn't, or else it would never get passef by vote because the UK would vote against it. You need to understand how diplomats state things publicly, especially when they have to vote on them.
When the terminology of 'negotiation' is used, that's what is meant, because there's no other issue to negotiate about, than the return of the islands.