Falklands oil revenue must help develop Argentina not boost UK coffers

Err, No it should not. argentina has absolutely zero legal right and even less moral right to ask anything from the Falkland Islanders. Besides, argentina still has vast amounts of land and sea which it can exploit if it so wishes. Besides, it is the Islander's government who gets to decide what happens to the oil, not the UK.

The Argentinian government did not invade the Falklands in 1982 for any economic reason (the main economic motor of the islands at the time was sheep products) but for internal political reasons; to provoke nationalist fervour to shore up a tottering dictatorship.

So the Islanders shoulld happily give most oftheir resources away to a people who gleefully supported their subjugation?

The outcome of the invasion has always piqued Argentina, but the discovery of oil has added fuel to the fire.

Then I suggest they grow the hell up and stop trying to violently bully a peaceful island community.

With an estimated 60bn barrels of oil to be found around the islands, and the oil price hovering around $100 per barrel, you can do the maths. If Argentina was able to take 25% of any oil sales, it could add up to $1.5 trillion to its coffers over the next few years.

All this should make the Islanders very rich indeed. But you still have yet to say why they should give a penny to argentina.

There are two reasons why it is important from a development perspective for Argentina to benefit from this money. First, poverty reduction. Although Argentina is by no means one of the world's poorest countries, and has fairly good human development statistics, its GDP per capita ($9,000) is still only a quarter of the UK's. And it has some worrying social statistics: 13% of Argentinian children (aged 7-14) are economically active, according to the latest figures (for 2004), while 8% are malnourished.

Then I suggest they elect a competent government, exploit their own vast natural resources, and stop obsessing with violent expansionist fantasies.

Moreover, the multiplier effect of Argentina's wealth would mean benefits for its regional neighbours as well, most of which are poorer.

Again, what has this to do with the islanders?

Second, anti-colonialism.

Aaaaand its at this point it becomes clear the author has no idea what he is talking about and is just trying to spout progressive sounding gibberish

Development is not just about money; it is also about shaking off the past and engaging in new and equal relations between countries.

Yeah, argentina, a nation entirely comprised of land violently stolen from the native inhabitants (more often than not through genocide, ethnic cleansing and horrifically violent suppression) demanding that their sickeningly racist and violently nationalistic fantasies about conquering more land be satisfied is truly the definition of "Anti Colonialism".

Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, in mid-April, the Argentinian foreign minister, Hector Timerman, said: "colonial aggression against one country is colonial aggression against all" and asked for solidarity with "the Argentinian decision to negotiate the return of the islands with the UK".

Yes, the man who repeatedly screams that the Falkland islanders are subhuman "kelpers" who have zero human rights of self determination, habitation, or over their resources, all because 200 years ago their ancestors immigrated to uninhabited Islands argentina vaguely wanted at the time, and were thus somehow "implanted" and thus (against all international laws pertaining to the subject) without any human rights 200 years later

Despite the fact that over 95% of argentines are the direct descendants of white Europeans brought in from Europe and intentionally implanted onto land recently stolen from the natives, they still feel the need to engage in self pitying whining about how "unfair" the fact the Islanders are given the same human rights they have.

All the 30 or so presidents at the hemispheric conference favour the Argentinian position, except the US and Canada.

Wheras not even Hugo Chavez has afforded argentina anything other than disinterested rhetoric, and argentina's neighbors are actively trading with the Islanders

If you had done any research you would know that none of the Falklands Oil revenue is due to come to the UK.

Perhaps you would also like to tell us how much of the Texas oil fields should go to Argentina and perhaps you should tell us how much of the shale gas in the North West shouldgo to Argentina.

Argentina is not a developingcountry issue it is a corruption issue. It has huge wealth in natural resources and 100 years ago was one of the 10 wealthiest nations in the world. It is the one of the few countries to go from being a first world nation to become a third world nation. It basically needs political reform and an attitude adjustment.

In 1995 the UK signed an agreement with Argentina to explore for oil and share all potential profits.

In 2007 the Argentinian government scrapped the deal because the UK wouldn't discuss the sovereignty of the Falklands.

This was their choice.

In Britain we have over 1.5million children in severe poverty. Millions of pensioners who can't afford to heat their home. Millions of unemployed.

Isn't it about time we started helping our own first.

Hi finthorpe - I would be interested in your view on my thought experiment i.e. that if Argentina was a much poorer country, would your views apply, or would you support the poorer country receiving the wealth. If so, the question is when a country is rich enough to no longer merit development priortisation of this kind - not an easy question to answer, but one worth pondering.

MummyLongLegs - same to you really. But also, remember that the scandalous number of poor people we have is a result of inequlaity not lack of money, and is not new, but something that has been building for decades. We need radical transformation at home, but bringing in more money from oil won't change inequality of this nature.

Paul Sussex - yes I was aware of the claim that all revenue will go to the islands but a) I find that hard to comprehend, the revenues will be vast and I would be v surprised if the UK doesn't benefit from them and b) the UK jurisidiction means UK companies and investors are more likely to benefit than other countries.

Jonathan

The reason the Malvinas issue is felt so keenly across Latin America is that it is a reminder of Britain's history of economic imperialism in the region. The role Britain played in extracting resources and wealth from Latin America over the past two centuries, with little benefit to the local population, is well known, even if it is the Spanish who are most associated with colonialism.

Wheras argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay. and in fact every post independence south american nation has a long history of engaging in actual imperialism, of violently extracting land, resources and wealth from the native inhabitants of territory they wanted, which was almost always accompanied by genocide and ethnic cleansing when any dared resist. This would make any whining about Britain making money off these nations rather amusing.

However, you once again seem to be unable to understand basic reality. What actual support has been given to argentina bar disinterested nodding of heads and recycled nationalist rhetoric? no one in south america gives a damn about argentina's delusions, they just want argentina on side when they need to get vaguely important things decided so it's easier just to give their delusions verbal support.

As Timerman puts it: "We have 21st-century challenges, and Argentina is still fighting against a 19th-century power." Of course, British people have next to no knowledge of this, just as they know little of their imperial history in general.

To most, the idea of some spineless politician demanding thousands of innocents be disenfranchised of their rights, land, resources and culture (and ethnically cleansed if they resist) for the sake of stroking a bloated nationalist ego would be utterly sickening.

The fact you celebrate this speaks volumes of your character and/or intelligence

But these are precisely the bold decisions required to present a new kind of attitude to the world – one founded on solidarity, not on the remnants of an often violently won empire.

Stop weeping about the empire and grow a spine. Every nation on earth was an empire, or an active participant of an empire at the same time we were building our empire. Most of them were orders of magnitude more violent and ruthless than Britain's empire, and many have left almost unimaginable consequences for the modern world.

Also every nation in the Americas was built by violently stealing land from natives or the neighbors after getting independence from Europe. Thus they have zero moral right to whine about any other nation's history, as their history is just as bloody.

If argentina is sincere about "removing traces of imperialism" as it claims, i suggest it evacuates it's overwhelmingly white population from the nation and relocates them back to europe, but not before granting sole sovereignty to the few surviving aboriginal argentines.

The political identity of the islanders is a crucial issue; they should pertain to whichever state they choose, and they are clear that they want to be British. They are also a thoroughly decent group of people (some of whom I have met) and deserve a share of the oil profits.

But you still demand they cede the vast majority of their resources in perpetuity to a nation which despises them.

It is not beyond the ken of post-modern bureaucrats to draw up an accord whereby the islanders remain British and benefit from the oil surrounding their home, without denying a developing country the majority of the wealth that rightfully belongs to it.

Why don't you take a look at the past 60 years of argentina's conduct to the Islanders?

Since the 1950s, argentina has demanded the islanders be forcibly stripped of their basic human rights, self determination, habitation, and resources, all because the Islanders (like argentines) are the descendants of European immigrants.

During the past 60 years argentina has bullied, blackmailed, harassed, and finally initate a violent invasion of their homes, aimed at subjugating them and removing these rights (and also planned to ethnically cleanse them during this time). All of which were gleefully supported by the argentine population until they backfired.

For the past 30 years since the war, they have done nothing but continue these abuses in trying to make life hell for the islanders, all because the islanders ask to be treated with the same human dignity argentines demand for themselves.

argentina has zero legal or moral right to anything in or around the Falklands. Hell, by the standards it demands be applied to the Falklands, argentina has no moral right to any of it's own territory.

Your idiotic attempt to pretend the oil is "rightfully theirs" is about as valid as an american neoconservative apologist demanding 90% of Canada's oil because "its rightfully America's"

Hi finthorpe - I would be interested in your view on my thought experiment i.e. that if Argentina was a much poorer country, would your views apply, or would you support the poorer country receiving the wealth. If so, the question is when a country is rich enough to no longer merit development priortisation of this kind - not an easy question to answer, but one worth pondering.

Hi John, sorry for my vaguely vitriolic post (I just spent a week engaged in a disproportionately angry debate with a colleague on the subject) just ignore the angry/contemptuous parts

I do not think being poor gives any nation any more moral or legal right to the resources of others, especially when the land and resources of the Falkland Islanders was won far more fairly than how argentina won it's own land and resources.

If argentina were to have treated the falkland islanders with basic decency for the past few decades, and had dropped the racist nationalistic demands that they be stripped of their rights and resources, the islanders would be far more inclined to offer coorperation with them in oil exploitation. In fact such an agreement existed until Nestor Kirchner tore it up in another attempt to stoke up argentine nationalism

I judge argentina on it's actions, not on it's poverty.

Thanks for responding, and (again) ignore the annoyed snark in my 2 larger comments

First, I'm argentinian. Argentina isn"t poor because it has no resources. It is poor because of corrupt governments since 1810. No one , again, no one of those 60 bn barrels will go to the poor but again to the coffers of the political party or dictator in turn.

Falklands oil revenue must help develop Falklands not boost Argentine corruption.

"Paul Sussex - yes I was aware of the claim that all revenue will go to the islands but a) I find that hard to comprehend, the revenues will be vast and I would be v surprised if the UK doesn't benefit from them and b) the UK jurisidiction means UK companies and investors are more likely to benefit than other countries."

Jonathon - the most appropriate place to bring the oil ashore, should it be found, would be Argentina but Argentina has blocked all Falklands vessels from docking in Mercosur countries and tries to block supplies going to the Islands so I can't see them allowing it despite the economic benefits for Argentina.. There was also an tax income sharing agreement between FI and Argentina signed by Menem, ripped up by Nestor.

Argentina are playing an all or nothing zero sum game motivated by racial hatred for the Islanders.

The article is utter idealistic tosh without foundation.
The Falkland Islands are a self-governing territory with their own elected government, their motto is, appropriately, 'Desire the Right'. Leave the management of their resources to them, rather than the lying wolves governing their unfortunate neighbours. As mentioned, they already have far more than their fair share of resources to mismanage.

The author should get his facts right. This is the most ridiculous article I've ever read, and has resulted in my first ever comment being posted.

Very well put

Jonathon,

Firstly a factual correction: it's the 30th anniversary of the Falkland's conflict, not the 20th anniversary. It doesn't help your case if you get the basics like this wrong. In fact you've just proven that your cheap shot "that the British people know little of their history" appears to apply more to yourself than most of the people making a comment!

Would your argument change at all if the Falkland Islands were an independent country? Taking the obvious parallel: would you for example suggest that Kuwait should become part of Iraq to compensate for the disparities in GDP?

Do you just think that the Islanders' shouldn't benefit from the basic human right to self determination enshrined in the UN Charter simply because they wish to remain a British Overseas territory?

Are there any historic examples of what you are suggesting? Any basis in international law?

Do you not think that the first steps towards improving the living standards in Argentina may be improving the management of their own hydrocarbon resources and improving general economic governance? Do you think that Argentina is currently effectively making use of their own hydrocarbon resources? Are their any issues of corruption or mismanagement (for example YPF)?

A final observation: the article reads as though you've decided to take a controversial position and then looked for supporting arguments. By all means make a development argument that it would be just from the perspective of wealth distribution...but you've diluted this point with a one-sided take on colonialism and the fact that you should have made an argument about the effectiveness of use of national resources in Argentina. This article makes you look as if you are a trendy left-wing pseudo-intellectual who is having to live a life of self-loathing because of the country into which you were born rather than somebody with a genuine and informed point to make.

I am sorry Johnathon, but you really need to go and read a book. The Falklands war was 30 years ago, not 20 :s Also, the Argentine claim is based on la leyenda de las Malvinas (the Falklands legend) which is exactly that. The islands claimed by Britain had a small garrison from united provinces of the river plata (Argentina did not yet exist). All inhabitants except two and their spouses decided to stay under British sovereignty. They were not removed and replaced by a transplanted population.

Naturally sharing a sea, and a seabed with all the resources that go with it, Argentina should get a look in within reason. But it is Argentina that will not cooperate and pursues its illegitimate claim. Your ignorance is inexcusable given all the people who laid down their lives.

I hope you do look in to this further and hopefully I help change your mind. Thank you for opening a debate though :)

I can't comment on the general level of knowledge in the UK with regard to imperial history, but I do suggest that the author has little knowledge of Argentinian history. Argentina can not be described as a post colonial country in the way that say Sierra Leonne would be. Argentina became independent in 1810, only slightly later than the United States, and similarly the independence movement was led by colonists rather than the colonised, who were either dead or indentured. Argentina playing the ex-colonial card is rather like the United States, Australia or Canada doing so, except they don't ,because to do so would be ridiculous.
It is true that in the 19th century Argentina formed a part of the British informal empire, in that Britain had massive infrastructure and trade investments there, however the same could be said for Russia or the US, .Neither of the latter claim to be damaged by their ' informal' colonial past.
I'm not belittling the trauma involved in the transfer of nations from colonial rule to independent nationhood. Many former colonies, particularly on the African continent deserve our help in debt reduction or write off, but including Argentina in this category is an insult to those genuinely struggling, one might as well include New Zealand. Argentina is not a resource poor country, she is governed by descendants of colonists, and the aggression witnessed 30yrs ago was to all intents and purposes itself colonial.
That aggression has resulted in an ongoing and expensive defence commitment to the islands by the British government . I would not think it unfair then that the British government alongside the islanders should benefit from any income generated by the oil exploration.
I am a liberal with a small l, and usually find myself in agreement with your columnists - I find them generally to be on the side of the oppressed, in favour of democracy and self determination and against the bullying tactics of nations or institutions -why the change ?!!

Sorry Jonathan, but the fact that oil revenue will go to Falkland Islanders is just that; a fact. Not a claim. The UK is not allowed to exploit the natural resources of its non- self- governing territories. Have a look at the proceedings of the UN Decolonisation Committee if you like.
As for Argentina being a 'developing country', that is exactly the kind of self- pitying nonsense I would expect from them. The Falkland Islands too is a developing country and any oil revenue would firstly go on much- needed infrastructure, you know, tarmac roads and a port, and ,... oh wait, Argentina has all those things already.
Argentina had a chance to share oil revenue; an agreement was in place, and they pulled out because they wanted it all. There is no middle ground here. As far as Falkland Islanders are concerned the door is still open to this and other forms of co-operation. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a country that ordered its fishing fleet to destroy its own squid fishery through overfishing just to hurt us.
I suggest you would be better saving your sympathy for those who better deserve it.

The oil was not discovered in 1998. They were drilling for it on the Argentine side of the shelf in the late 1970s and the prospect of oil has been known about at least since the early 1960s. Why do you think Argentina went on a "diplomatic" campaign resulting in UNGAR 2065 in 1965?

Argentina is exceedingly rich in resources and used to be the 4th largest economy on the planet and theres no reason why it should not be in a similar position today. What's more, less than 2% of the Argentine population is of pure indigenous American descent and at least 70% of Argentines are entirely of European or at least immigrant descent. So you can put away the colonialist/imperialist/exploitation violin.

Oh, and the Falkand Islands Government already collect oil-related revenues, not the UK. If you find that hard to accept, that's a matter for you. The facts remain the same.

I must add that I find being described as a 'thoroughly decent group of people' rather disturbing. Why wouldn't we be? Is anyone, apart from Argentina, suggesting otherwise? Is this the kind of language you would use to describe the inhabitants of ,,,,well, anywhere. I think that this says more about the author's post- colonial baggage than anything else.
I'm guessing that he didn't use the term 'Malvinas issue' when he met those thoroughly decent Islanders.

Those who claim that poverty and inequality in Latin America should be blamed on the elites mismanaging those countries for centuries as well as the UK and other colonial powers like the US are right. However, the probity and decision-making of present or past Argentine governments are not relevant to my case, nor would they be considered relevant in a tribunal on this issue. Otherwise we would enter into interminable wrangling about which governments were better than others, and whether there were pros to the UK/US imperialism that outweighs its cons.

Also, while I recognise that this is a very heated debate and that people’s futures depend on its outcome, I would urge people not to resort to caricatures and exaggerations about Argentina, its people or its govt. You should hear what is said about Britain on the other side! It is unhelpful and distracts from the issue.

The issue is simpler than that, and is about colonial geographic legacy and its impact on a modern day resource dispute. (I know that oil was assumed before, but the gamechanging find was in 1998.) I express my view on this issue and am not defending the Argentine govt, past or present. In fact, I am challenging the Argentine govt’s position as much as anyone else’s (by suggesting that the islanders should remain British).

It is untrue to say that the rest of Latin America doesn’t care about the Malvinas – it is seen as an important colonial issue across the continent and it would be wrong to underestimate it. However, it is true to say that most govts have more pressing issues to deal with. But the arrival of naval boats, including the presence of Prince William, was reported widely on the continent as slightly (not very) aggressive. It is a issue of colonialism and pride as much as money, which is why I describe it as such.

I rely on a thought experiment to make my case, so I think richfe’s question re whether the case would be similar were the Falklands and independent country deserves attention (despite his unfair accusations at the end of the piece which I won’t bother with  – I love my country!). I think that if the Falklands were independent a lot of things would be different. The head of state would go to UNASUR and OEA meetings for example, and much of the problem would already be dealt with via normal diplomacy. Perhaps it would already have been annexed by Argentina, not a nice thought, but one that implies the power issues at play – the lingering power of the UK in the South Atlantic remains a menace to normal diplomatic relations.

Finally, on the issue of money, no-one here has engaged with my argument that the islanders and UK citizens (whom I maintain will benefit from the present situation although I admit I have little more than my instinct to rely on) are four times richer than Argentineans on average, and that therefore there is a development case to answer (not to mention the multiplier effects throughout Latin America). Would the case be the same if Argentina was Sierra Leone (my case, JamesJLB, is based not on the fact that Sierra Leone is an ex colony, but that it is very poor)? Is there a cut off when countries should no longer benefit from development-focused policies, and if so what is it?

Jonathan

Jonathan - are you aware that Argentina withdrew from a bi-lateral agreement to share hydrocarbon revenues? Was this an oversight in your research, or something else you find "hard to comprehend"?

The average Falkland Islander may well be richer than the average Argentine. However, it is wrong to separate this from the actions of past and present governments. Falkland Islanders relative prosperity is due to the actions of the government in investing hugely in fisheries research to ensure sustainablity. We are relatively prosperous because we have our own government and a government that acts responsibly. Some governments are better than others, sadly. ( I'll overlook for now the fact that everything costs four times as much in the FI- we aren't as wealthy as you think).
You actually hid in your reply the real issue; if we were independent Argentina would have annexed us by now. You maintain that the colonial legacy is the hinderence to normal diplomatic relations. I say that annexing your smaller neighbours is not normal diplomacy. It is the threat from Argentina that determines our relationship with the rest of SA. The presence of British troops is just a sideshow.

Can anyone clarify what evidence there is of there being this vast trove of oil in the Falklands? I read that the Argentinians drilled in the same conditions as the ones found there, but they found gas, not oil. Also, isn't the evidence of oil in the south Falklands waters the same as that of the sites in the north, where it turned out there wasn't any oil? And if it's gas, and the Falklanders and UK want revenue from it, wouldn't there have to be a partnership with Argentina?

Hello richfe and JasonD85. Thanks for pointing out the 20th anniversary error. That has now been corrected. Best, Penny

I am a 5th generation Falkland Islander and I am disgusted that this kind of rubbish could come from a British publication. However, not surprised as it is the Guardian after all.

Firstly, it was 30 years ago we were invaded by a brutal Argentine military dictatorship. My family were incarcerated and locked up in Goose Green hall against the rules of the Geneva Convention. My 12 year old uncle was help at gun point in the snow with barely any clothes on in the dead of the night. Their lives were turned upside down by a brutal occupation force who were not invited and certainly not welcome.

Since then, Argentina, despite being a so called 'democracy', has continued its aggressive actions towards a small, peaceful island population of 3000 Brits. They have done everything possible to strangle our economy and to wage their economic war against us. This is nothing short of economic terrorism. All we want to do is peacefully develop our resources to maintain our way of life for future generations. They have never once apologised for the atrocities committed in 1982 and the fact they invaded us causing the death of over 900 people. Still they have a national holiday to celebrate April 2nd, the commencement of 2 months of killing. We islanders celebrate the 14th June, the date we were liberated and given our freedom back by the British, the end of the war.

Now, I ask anyone, why would we give a single penny to this fickle country that has done everything it can to try and destroy our way of life and ruin our economy?

Argentina is a huge country with rich, vast resources. It is down to their own mis-management and corruption that their economy is so poor. We Falkland Islanders have carefully developed our fisheries and other industries to enjoy a a very good standard of living, despite the Argentines trying to hamper this. Any Argentine would be jealous of what we have achieved.

They had a chance to share a piece of the wealth when we signed a joint oil agreement with them in 1995. They tore this up along with every other agreement where there was a chance of cooperation on areas of mutual interest.

Just to clarify, Argentina have NO legal right to our resources. They will not have any share of our wealth and quite rightly so. We will continue to develop our industries for the benefit of the Falkland Islanders and the British. This is not an issue of colonialism, we are a self-governing British Overseas Territory with every right to develop our islands.

No problem - good to see these things are corrected.

The people who occupied Latin America aren't my Ancestors they are their Ancestors! they should refer their issues to their Parents, Grand Parents & Great Grand Parents etc Argentina is under the same old management just a slight step up in quality from the management running Rhodesia which was the breadbasket of the African continent under the previous incumbents to Mugabe. The South Americans run their own affairs all their problems are of their own making we don't go whinging to the Romans/Italians Danish/Vikings about our brutal treatment do we? how many Latinos did we throw to the lions for a good laugh on a Saturday afternoon? none so get over it & grow up, you have left school now you live in the real world, chose your route in life & read my lips THE FALKLANDS RESOURCES BELONG TO THE FALKLANDERS & NO ONE ELSE!!!

Plus we (Great Britain) more than paid back any perceived dues to the world when we fought for world freedom in two world wars far from us owing others I'd say they owe us for standing alone for so many years while we waited for John Wayne to come to the rescue after he had milked us dry & left us in debts we would be paying back for many many more decades with no help from those we defended from the brutalities of the Germans & Japanese who behaved like savages to achieve their aims

Thanks for the comments. Regarding the 1995 agreement and comments re Argentina’s past or present policy, I deliberately avoided getting into discussion about the merits of particular agreements and policy directions of various administrations, whether British or Argentinean. My view that the islanders should be British will be just as challenging to most Argentines as is my view that most of the resource wealth should be accorded to Argentina is to the British/islander side of the argument. I am in danger of getting stick from both sides but I think it is important to avoid either anti-British or anti-Argentine rhetoric. I know that this is a painful and worrying issue for Falkland Islanders, and I very much respect what is written here and wish them every success. In my view, it is possible to balance the rights of the islanders with a sovereignty/resources deal more appropriate for the 21st century, as I say in my piece. I may be proved wrong in the short term but I would be surprised if some such deal weren’t struck in the longer term.

Jonathon,

Thanks for coming back. Good to see a genuine conversation.

I think you may want to re-read my final comment again in the cold light of day, rather than late at night. If it wasn't clear let me restate it: by using language in your article & comments which COMES ACROSS as controversy-seeking, a bit biased, and a bit patronising, you have allowed yourself to be characterised in a way which detracts from any merits that your argument may have. Based on your subsequent comments I don't think this was the intention. More than happy that you aren't a self loathing ideologue and have a genuine and informed point to make, even if it takes a bit of clarification!

Straw-men thought experiments are fine: but this wasn't clear from the original article (or title), and you have caused some offence, probably unintentionally. In quoting Timerman, who is part of an administration pushing for annexation and denying the rights of the Falklander's to self determination, and making statements about "UK/US imperialism", "menace to normal diplomatic relations" and featuring colonialism at the core of the argument you've accidentally ( I think) set up a polar discussion with everybody commenting on the other side.

There is, of course, a case for using resources from within a region to support development: after all this is effectively what we do within nation states and within the EU. On top of addressing poverty it also improves regional stability by increasing the cost of conflict.

It would have been really nice to see you focussing on the policy options available to achieve this...and a discussion of the political feasibility and likelihood of success of each. For example my lunchtime thoughts would be:
a. Argentina develop complementary resources and close trade relationships with the Falkland Islands, in the case of hydrocarbons refining capacity, extraction expertise etc.
b. Joint development of the opportunity, with a sharing of revenues.
c. Invitation of the Islands to regional groupings to participate in joint development initiatives.
d. Creation of development programmes in Argentina based upon excess revenue generated by exploitation of resources by the islands.
Addressing recent history as applied to the above would risk controversy. But then you hit controversy anyway...

The thing is...there would have been a clear trend. The political feasibility of all the above options has been damaged by the Argentine administration over recent months and years, in fact since 2003. Blockades of shipping involved in hydrocarbon exploration, tearing up agreements on sharing hydrocarbon revenues...not to mention bullying of the Falkland Islanders destroying any remaining good will.

There is a conclusion: that the current policies of popular nationalism in Argentina are potentially hurting the cause of poverty reduction and development. Walking away from the revenue share agreement (50% west of islands, 33% east of islands within Falklands economic zone I think...quite a bit more than your 25%) really was a case of cutting off a nose to spite a face. As you imply...this is driven by pride, a legacy of colonialism...but still unfortunate.

So the question is ... what to do with a noisy neighbour, who has genuine development issues that need to be addressed, who won't accept generous offers, but who literally wants the ground from beneath your feet? This is more of an international relations question than a development question.

I think you may be right in saying that there will eventually be some negotiated form of compromise, in the area of the 1995 agreement. As it is, sadly, it isn't possible to see this coming until at least a change in administration, unfortunately the current administration has left both itself and the UK/Falkland Islanders no room to negotiate.

Also, while I recognise that this is a very heated debate and that people’s futures depend on its outcome, I would urge people not to resort to caricatures and exaggerations about Argentina, its people or its govt. You should hear what is said about Britain on the other side! It is unhelpful and distracts from the issue.

At this point we do not need to make caricatures of argentina's government seeing the unrelenting stream of rather hilarious idiocy that emanates from them. Yesterday their ambassador started screaming Cristina Kirchner's speeches at William Hague during a human rights conference which had zero relation to the Falklands, while demanding in no uncertain terms that the Islanders were subhuman, and that Britain was being xenophobic by not allowing the islanders to be subjugated.

When you make north korea look like a rational and dignified member of the international community in terms of shrieking nationalism, you know your government is doing something very wrong

The issue is simpler than that, and is about colonial geographic legacy and its impact on a modern day resource dispute. (I know that oil was assumed before, but the gamechanging find was in 1998.)

argentina IS a colonial geographic legacy, every piece of land and every single resource it possesses, it gained through violent and often genocidal conquest. For it to think that it alone is morally entitled to keep violently stealing land shows just how little respect should be afforded the past 60 years of argentine governments

I express my view on this issue and am not defending the Argentine govt, past or present. In fact, I am challenging the Argentine govt’s position as much as anyone else’s (by suggesting that the islanders should remain British).

The fact you stated that the islanders were morally required to give argentina the vast majority of their resources just because argentina has failed to grow out of it's racist expansionist fantasies show that even if you are not supporting every facet of argentina's truly pathetic claim over the Falklands, you still happily demand that the islanders be arbitrarily stripped of their resources to appease argentina, which itself is near equally contemptible

It is untrue to say that the rest of Latin America doesn’t care about the Malvinas – it is seen as an important colonial issue across the continent and it would be wrong to underestimate it.

Care to back that up with facts? any serious physical, economic, military or diplomatic pressure exerted on the UK or the Islanders? anything at all other than disinterested "anti imperialist" rhetoric?

anything?

But the arrival of naval boats, including the presence of Prince William, was reported widely on the continent as slightly (not very) aggressive. It is a issue of colonialism and pride as much as money, which is why I describe it as such.

Any nation that finds one guy being posted to man a search and rescue helicopter scary or "aggressive" is in serious need of a spine transplant. Same can be said for replacing one routine patrol boat with a somewhat newer routine patrol boat.

It is a issue of colonialism and pride as much as money, which is why I describe it as such.

And as I said before, every post independence nation in the americas was built with violent colonialism against those less able to defend themselves. And as for pride, I see no reason why anyone who things the racist victimization of a peaceful island community should be treated with anything but contempt

Finally, on the issue of money, no-one here has engaged with my argument that the islanders and UK citizens (whom I maintain will benefit from the present situation although I admit I have little more than my instinct to rely on) are four times richer than Argentineans on average, and that therefore there is a development case to answer

I believe whomever compared it to you demanding Kuwait surrender 90% of it's oil profits to Iraq because they are poorer addressed that issue rather well.

In the case of argentina and the falklands, had argentina spent the past 60 years treating the islanders with respect, dignity, and recognition of their basic human rights, then you could indeed argue that the islanders have a moral imperative to offer argentina joint exploitation deal, but even then giving them 90% of the profits would be out the question

argentina has proven through it's sickening conduct towards the islanders that it deserves nothing. argentina has it's own resources it can exploit if it chooses to, but after so much pitiless aggression towards the islanders for so many decades, they have managed to remove any chance the islanders will give them anything.

In short, argentina is currently reaping what it has been sewing for the past 60 years

In my view, it is possible to balance the rights of the islanders with a sovereignty/resources deal more appropriate for the 21st century, as I say in my piece. I may be proved wrong in the short term but I would be surprised if some such deal weren’t struck in the longer term.

The problem is you still have yet to provide any moral or legal reasons why the islanders should be made to surrender their rights and resources to argentina (in perpetuity). The islanders owe argentina nothing, and argentina owes the islanders an apology for the past 60 years of unending hostility, victimization, armed attacks and racism, not to mention the war they still proclaim to be a "glorious defence of sovereignty" in official celebrations.

Racist and sickeningly hypocritical and violent nationalism has no place in the 21st century, neither do self pitying national myths, nor aggressive attempts to conquer more territory, and the sooner argentina learns this, the sooner it can pull itself out of the vicious cycle of demagoguery and nationalist idiocy.

It is evident that all these respectable comments are comming exclusivle from an liberal-imperialistic position I would like to finde out if any body who stampted a comment here would know something about the Chagos Island? If anybody of these of these “democrats” fighting for the principle of self determination would be able to explained the British government political behaviour in relation to the Chagos Islands and their local population. Slow down guys this rethoric doesn’t work anymore. The world knows very well who is who here. There is no way how can the British formulate a convincing argument about the Malvinas. However, please, go and take a look on the Chagos Islands saga. It will help to understand how the British (still today) operate world-wide. Good luck and have “fun”

It is evident that all these respectable comments are comming exclusivle from an liberal-imperialistic position I would like to finde out if any body who stampted a comment here would know something about the Chagos Island?

Yes, just about all the people with knowledge of the Falklands are aware of the Chagos islands situation, and fully support the rights of those inhabitants which were illegally removed by the British government.

Thing is, no one has explained how the Falkland Islanders had anything to do with this, let alone why argentina things screeching about the Chagos islanders being illegally removed will somehow allow argentina to do the same to the Falkland islanders.

If anybody of these of these “democrats” fighting for the principle of self determination would be able to explained the British government political behaviour in relation to the Chagos Islands and their local population.

They did, and it was taken to court with wide intellectual and public support (to the point where there was zero actual opposition to their rights). The fact the british government, like EVERY government on earth (especially argentina's) acts illegally and immorally does not remove the rights of innocent people living under British protection

Slow down guys this rethoric doesn’t work anymore.

Then kindly tell the argentine government to stop screaming the same propaganda phrases it has been using for the past 40 years about how the islanders have no human rights, how the British are all evil pirates, and how argentina is an innocent "victim of colonialism" because it is unable to do to the Falkland islanders what it did to the countless native tribes who lived in lands argentina violently conquered.

And while your at it, tell them to take the celebration of the genocide of the desert off their money.

There is no way how can the British formulate a convincing argument about the Malvinas.

Easily

- We have unanimous support of the Islanders, and the principle of human rights is legally enshrined in the UN charter and International Declaration of human rights, and given multiple legal precedents in the ICJ

- We have administered the islands for 200 years, and despite the ICJ existing for the best part of a century now, argentina has refused to ever take it's pathetic claim to court, thus allowing Britain to also have full rights over the islands on the legal basis of prescription

- argentina's claim was is utterly fallacious and untrue, from it's claim to having "inherited" the Falklands from Spain (despite Spain having not even recognized argentine independence until years after Britain took the Falklands), to argentina's claim that the Falklands are "an integral part of argentine territory", despite having never been even a territory of argentina, let alone integral to argentina's existence. Besides this, argentina gave up any pretenses of a claim in the 1850 convention of settlement

- argentina's own history of violently conquering land from both neighbors and natives in the decades after Britain took the Falklands, and it's continued retention of them show argentina has zero right to whine about the Falklands being "stolen"

All in all, argentina's claim over the Falklands is rather less convincing than if america claiming sovereignty over canada

Gusserg,

Yes...we all know about the Chagos. It hasn't been mentioned because it is about as relevant to the discussion here as Guernsey...not very. Let me cut any discussion short with a string of unrelated facts...

Was the relocation 40 years ago wrong: I would say yes. Was it "as wrong" as the behaviour of the Argentinian Junta 30 years ago: by all reasonable comparison no. Should the Ilois receive further compensation: probably. Was it the UK's finest hour: no. Was it the worst thing that the UK state has ever done in 1000 years of history: no. Has the Argentinian state done worse: yes. Was it daft of the Argentinian ambassador to the US to bring Chagos up recently in a letter to the Washington Post: yes, I'll let you work out why. Would the UK government do the same thing in 2012 as it did in 1971: don't think there is any evidence of that at all...besides if it tried most of the people reading this blog would be hopping on board the outrage bus for the first demonstration in London. If Argentina were to go to the ICJ over Falklands would Chagos have any bearing: no. Do two wrongs make a right: no.

Moving on topic:
Do you have an opinion as to whether Argentina needs/deserves development funding?

A long Anglo jingoist statament, and still to be wrong, its shameful mate

A long Anglo jingoist statament, and still to be wrong, its shameful mate

If it is wrong then prove it is wrong.

Besides, how exactly does criticizing argentina's violently racist obsession with victimizing the islanders, as well as it's own hypocrisy to demand the islanders be stripped of their human rights for being the descendants of european immigrants (like over 95% of argentines) translate to "shameful anglo jingoism"?

Or are you just another spineless pretend progressive who cant face basic realities?

Moreover, the multiplier effect of Argentina's wealth would mean benefits for its regional neighbours as well, most of which are poorer.......

.........The difference between this hypothetical situation and the actual one is of scale, not principle. Argentina and its neighbours still require development support.

Do you similarly feel that Argentina should share the profits of its huge oil and gas resources with its poorer neighbours?

For example: "The US Energy Information Administration this year ranked Argentina third globally in terms of technically recoverable shale gas resources."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/feaf971e-14f4-11e1-b9b8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1tdo7dAT9

What the British Government is still doing to the people of the Chagos Island is useful because it shows a principle, a conception, an ideological drive behind the mask of democracy and the self-determination discourse.
In addition, it is really interesting how in this forum Argentinians are stigmitised as corrupt, aggressive and incompetent. Of course, we all know that the UK government a "model" of transparency, peace and efficiency. Iraq (just to mentioned the most recent one) could be an evidence for that, or the recent scandals in Parliament maybe?, etc, etc.
But yes, the tactic is the stigmatisation followed by discrediting the argentinians. That is the typical formula of rethorics and turning things the other way around with which liberal regimes persuade alienated masses which repeat, repeat and repeat. . . go and have a cuppa