Argentina formally lays claim to vast extension of sea boundaries, to include Falkland

Argentina formally lays claim to vast extension of sea boundaries, to include Falkland

The last time they tried this they got their butts handed to them by the Brits. The U.K. will not give up the Falklands easily…

The Falkland Islands(Islas Malvinas) were taken by force from Argentina by the powerful british fleet in 1833. They should be returned to the rightful owners,since it is a vestige
of anachronistic colonialism. It’s the tipical story of the stronger robbing the weaker
for the sake of having an strategic geographic location and suspected rich oil deposits.
Las Malvinas are thousands of miles away from Great Britain, and are at the foot of Argentina.

This seems to be the area claimed by Argentina:

http://mercopress.com/images/uploads/c4a689b9a4d61bcabfca49603df73c6d.jpg

Are the original owners still around? As opposed to the vestige of anachronistic colonialism that is Argentina itself, I mean. Did the Incas get that far?

I understand that Argentina thoroughout the years has put diplomatic and war efforts to recover them.

Some countries are trying to recoup.land that they say belonged to them in biblical times.:wink:

Could you explain this comment. Hopefully it is not what I think it means.

Aside from people trying to recover land that was given to them by God Himself, we also have the Spanish, who fought the Moslems for 700 years to regain their land, and the Irish, who fought for centuries against the English takeover of *their *land.

OTOH, I don’t see how the Argentine government can claim so much of Antarctica!

Which doesn’t answer the question as to whether Argentina, itself, is an imperial anachronism.

Some countries are trying to recoup.land that they say belonged to them in biblical times.:wink:

Look at my location.

Your location says Europe…

Hey, look at her religion!!!

Anyway, the point is moot as other situations have been provided.

Indeed.

Hey, look at her religion!!!

Obviously, he had.

Anyway, the point is moot as other situations have been provided.

Analogous to the question about Argentina and the Falklands?

As weak as the UK has gotten since then, I’m not sure I blame the Argentines for giving this a shot.

Our country gave an example by returning the Panama Canal to the full control of the Panamenians, I believe President Jimmy Carter negociated the return.
But unless the UN intercedes, I doubt the United Kingdom will ever give the Islands back.

I heard that the statue of limitations for getting them back expired around when the Faulkands war took place,being that one of the reasons for it to happen when it happened,
after years of peaceful negociations ended up in failure. The war was another failure .
Our country gave logistic support to the UK, and the UK threatened to bomb Buenos Aires, the beautiful Argentina capital.That undermined the determination of many.
Argentinians love their European style city,called the Paris of the South, full of art and wonderful architecture.
Sorry for this little bit of history but I own some books on the subject.:slight_smile:

The UK seems to be developing a claim similar to Argentina’s:

According to an update from the Foreign Office the UK is currently researching its submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, CLCS, in respect of those areas around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Data has been collected but plans for the submission have not been finalized, “and we are considering our approach in view of the May 2009 deadline”.

Also in May 2008, the UK notified the CLCS that it is not making a submission with full supporting data to define an area of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast of British Antarctic Territory, but that it reserves the right to do so in the future.

Regarding Antarctica, the right to an extended continental shelf under the UN Law of the Sea has to be considered against the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, which put all territorial claims in abeyance.

Apparently the UK tried to work with Argentina at a joint continental shelf claim both countries could live with, but talks broke down and Argentina was unwilling to meet again.
en.mercopress.com/2009/04/09/uk-considering-approach-to-falklands-continental-shelf-and-may-deadline

All that live there are some sheep farmers. It isn’t exactly a prime piece of real estate. The people living there are nothing but sheep farmers and they are not wealthy…the climate is very inhospitable

The Brits have been there for a very very long time…Initially America was responsible for what happened to it, so I have been told, and then the Brits settled there

Don’t ask me how it happened ,it was during the Falklands war, and I have forgotten …I doubt that Argentina really wants it enough to create a squawk again, unless there are mineral rights that would be lucrative, and if there were Britian would fight to keep it

Redrosetea,(I like the name you picked),
America never owned the Faukland Islands.
When Argentina owned them though, there was a conflict with America regarding the latter
fishing around those waters.And I think America bombed the islands, but never owned them. Then in 1833 the Brits took them since they were near Cape Horn,an strategic place.

The climate maybe cold there,but think of this:Would America give away Alaska because it’s cold there.?
What is important to mention is that in the past,before the Faulkland war, the inhabitants of the islands relied on the support of inland Argentina, for many needs.
Now, I believe, the Chileans help them.

The Brits returned Hong Kong to the Chinese a few years agoI guess they are more afraid of them than of the Argentinians.They also returned other countries of the British Empire.

In what sense had Argentina ever been in possession of the Falklands? In what sense is its claim less an ‘imperial anachronism’ than that of the UK?

How many Argentinians ever lived on the Falklands?

The Brits returned Hong Kong to the Chinese a few years agoI guess they are more afraid of them than of the Argentinians.They also returned other countries of the British Empire.

The Brits never owned Hong Kong, it was leased from China. The lease ran out.

Actually, both Hong Kong island and the Kowloon peninsula were owned by the UK. It was only the New Territories that were leased. However, without the New Territories survival of a rump Hong Kong would be untenable in the face of Chinese opposition. As a result, the Brits under Thatcher had no choice but to give up all of Hong Kong when the lease of the New Territories expired in 1997.

Grazie mille!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.