Britain has said the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for negotiation, after Argentina’s newly-elected president promised to “get them back”.
Javier Milei, who won a resounding victory in Argentina’s presidential election on Sunday, said Buenos Aires had “non-negotiable” sovereignty over the Falklands, the archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean which is known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina.
Mr Milei said during a TV debate in the run-up to the election that “we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels”.
On Tuesday a spokesperson for prime minister Rishi Sunak said: “The UK has no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and indeed South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
“The UK government will continue to proactively defend the Falkland islanders’ right to self determination.”
I mean yeah, but I can kinda see why Argentina would be miffed about having a big chunk of resources off their coast under another country’s control.
The Falklands are 300 miles “off the coast” of Argentina.
By that logic, France, let’s say, has much greater rights to Britain’s resources which is only 25 miles away, and Canada will no doubt be laying claim to Greenland very soon on account of it being only 10 miles off their coast.
You jest, but territorial disputes between Canada and Russia over the Arctic are a thing, and there was an active territorial dispute between Canada and Greenland over Hans Island that wasn’t resolved until last year.
Obviously I don’t mean to suggest that any of the stuff you mentioned could reasonably come true, just that it’s less removed from reality than you probably realized.
If the islands were uninhabited there might actually be a good point, but they’re not uninhabited. The land is already under the sovereignty of another country and countries don’t get to annex land just because that land is nearby, how would that work?
Sorry my friend, you’re the second person that’s come to that conclusion from my comment, so I’ve obviously written it like a muppet.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, it wouldn’t work and any form of annexation would be unwise to say the least.
My point is that having an island sat that close to your own borders under the ownership of another country sat on a large prospect of oil would always prove to be a lightning rod for nationalists or rabble-rousers, which is what the Argentine (Argentinian? I’m not sure) government has been seemingly using to deflect from their own failings for years.
It’s not “just off the coast of Argentina” it’s nowhere near Argentina, it’s like Australia claiming they own New Zealand.
There are lots of islands out there. Shound countries go around seizing control of any islands near them?
No?
Sorry, I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this is all.
My viewpoint will naturally be heavily skewed being British, but it’s globally recognised as British territory as has been earlier noted, and the last two referenda on the topic to my knowledge have overwhelmingly resulted in the residents wishing to remain effectively British - so no I wouldn’t support Argentine (or anyone’s) efforts to retake it.
My point is - if I may make a haphazard analogy - that if the Irish Sea was believed to be rich in some valuable resource and Argentina had ownership of the Isle of Man, then I can see how the Brits would be frustrated at potentially losing out over all the money that’s on their doorstep, even though it didnt belong to them.