Friday, February 26, 2010

Since someone asked...

...there's not much good to say about double-dealing agreement-breaking already-invaded-once Argentina in regard to the latest developments in the Falkland Islands.

...but there is far less good to say about the American government's stance on the issue. In fact, just to point out how *idiotic* the Obama administration (and in particular the State Department) is being, here's a "fun fact" for you:

The British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is a slightly *better* claim, as such things are considered, than the American sovereignty over the Florida Keys.

The only significant difference is that neither Cuba nor Spain chose to "reserve their claim" as a condition to joining the United Nations... Argentina expressly did so regarding the Falkland Islands, and any time an Argentine government makes a mess of things domestically, they haul out this old canard and pray for a nationalist frenzy to bail them out.

1 comment:

Roy said...

When the subject arose last week, I got curious and actually looked and read the history of the Falklands, specifically looking for the source of Argentina's "historical claim" on these islands. I was surprised to find that there is absolutely no legal justification whatsoever. As near as I can tell, their entire claim is based on:

1. They are close to Argentina (though well outside their maritime territorial limits).


2. They want them.

These islands are populated by English speaking, and culturally British people. They have no desire to be Argentine. Some told me that they actually held a referendum on the subject that was rejected by 100% of the population.

I agree that this is nothing more than a canard by the Argentine government to deflect attention from their own failings. Of course, there is that little matter of potentially rich oil deposits...

Previously, I had always assumed that there was some actual historic basis for the claim, however weak. But there isn't any at all.