Argentina opens up second front in Falklands Kerfuffle

[Coito ergo sum]

Somehow, the descendants of Spanish conquerors int he new world are given a pass. I don't understand that. Anglo-Saxons in the New World have no right to live here and "stole the land," and the "Mexicans" have every right to rule not only Mexico but the western half of the US. And, apparently, the Argentinians think they're indigenous peoples. LOL

[Rum]

There is an element of hypocrisy in the UK's position however. The majority of the Hong Kong population had no wish to be part of China in 1997. They weren't given a choice. The situations are not dissimilar.

I wouldn't agree there. It's perfectly obvious that Hong Kong is part of mainland China. It was on a legal lease which both parties honoured, and the lease expired. That's how I remember it anyway.

The Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina. If proximity means you have a right to territory, we still have a right to Ireland. And half of France. And Argentina can claim most of Chile.

As far as I'm concerned, 300 miles of ocean might as well be 3,000. It's historical claims that count, and Argentina has never had a population on the Falklands, Britain has, for nearly 200 years.

The historical valid objection to empire has been the subjugation of the indigenous population, and the taking of their homeland.
That simply doesn't apply to the Falklands. In fact the exact opposite applies.

If Argentina got their hands on it, that WOULD be subjugation of the indigenous people, and taking over their land.

And that's how Argentina was born in the first place.

Having lived there for almost 20 years I know the history and the people well. The Island of Hong Kong is separated from the mainland by the harbour. It was granted to the UK in perpetuity as was a bit of the peninsula on the mainland (Kowloon) up to where an area called the New Territories (then) begins. That bit, by far the larger, was granted to the UK for 99 years and that lease expired in 1997. It would not have been realistic or viable in my view to hold onto HK island and Kowloon or for that matter the island alone as the infrastructure would not have been able to support that sort of arrangement, especially in the face of Chinese opposition. Technically and legally we could have however. Politically perhaps not.

The point is the principle really. The majority of HK people didn't want to live under Chinese rule, just as the majority of Falkland Islanders have no wish to be part of Argentina.

[MrJonno]

I've known and worked with a few people from Hong Kong but I doubt if the people westerner's interact with are going to be a good sample of the population (I worked with bankers!)

[mistermack]

Having lived there for almost 20 years I know the history and the people well. The Island of Hong Kong is separated from the mainland by the harbour. It was granted to the UK in perpetuity as was a bit of the peninsula on the mainland (Kowloon) up to where an area called the New Territories (then) begins. That bit, by far the larger, was granted to the UK for 99 years and that lease expired in 1997. It would not have been realistic or viable in my view to hold onto HK island and Kowloon or for that matter the island alone as the infrastructure would not have been able to support that sort of arrangement, especially in the face of Chinese opposition. Technically and legally we could have however. Politically perhaps not.

The point is the principle really. The majority of HK people didn't want to live under Chinese rule, just as the majority of Falkland Islanders have no wish to be part of Argentina.

Fair enough, you know the local history. It would be nice if everybody could get what they want in this world, but you can't please everybody. They all want something different.
China has historically been extremely vigorous in pushing it's territorial claims, so it was pretty surprising that it didn't want Hong Kong back earlier. It was probably making good money out of it, and had the lease getting shorter all the time, so was happy to wait it out.
I don't think it was double standards by the British, I don't think they had a legal or practical option.

Am I right in saying that the people who stayed, stayed out of choice? I don't know what choices they had. The Falklanders have a different status, because there is no lease due to expire, and their numbers are small, so it's practical for them to have British citizenship.

But anyway, it all went off peacefully, and it seems that the transition was managed ok.
I haven't heard that it was disastrous anyway.

[Clinton Huxley]

I remember there being some talk at the time about all of Hong Kong's inhabitants being given British passports, so they could leave and come to the UK if Chinese rule didn't suit them. Don't think those discssions went very far though. As has been noted, we didn't have a leg to stand on, really

[Rum]

To answer Mistermac, during the Maoist and beyond years, say up until modernization really took of in the late 80s it was estimated that over 50% of China's foreign trade went in financial terms through Hong Kong.

Clinton: Patten did try to negotiate British Passports for all HK Chinese who wanted them, but given there were something like 6 million of them the opposition to that proposal won pretty easily. A pity. Hong Kong Chinese taking over London would have been something to see!

[Ian]

1/2 page ads in the papers today, featuring a personal plea from President Kirchener of Argentina calling for an end to the "anachronistic" colonial administration of the Falkland Islands. She is also pushing this at some meeting at the UN today as well.

Quite ironic, the leader of a S. American country calling for the end of colonialism but hey ho.

There's to be a referendum in the Falklands asking the people if they prefer British rule, Argentine rule or independence, with the Argentines allowed to advertise, etc. Can't see there being many takers, though.

And the Spanish are moaning about Gibraltar again. Damned opportunists.

The British Ambassador should issue a statement at the UN, something along the lines of "Oh do bugger off"

Better shore up the Royal Navy post haste. The empire is coming under siege.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Stow the mizzen mast! Hoist the mainsail! Batten down the hatches!"
'But the hatches already are battened down!'
"Well, bat 'em down again! We'll teach those hatches!"

[redunderthebed]

I was reading somewhere that the "falklanders" are a elite that own the land etc and most of the population is transient chileans etc that do all the jobs that the elite dont want to do.

So the UK is defending essentially a landed gentry and went to war to do so.

The whole thing is fucking stupid.

[mistermack]

I was reading somewhere that the "falklanders" are a elite that own the land etc and most of the population is transient chileans etc that do all the jobs that the elite dont want to do.

So the UK is defending essentially a landed gentry and went to war to do so.

The whole thing is fucking stupid.

Might be. But land is worth fuck-all in the Falklands. Having land doesn't make you gentry there.
And Chileans are a tiny minority :

The population of the Falkland Islands is primarily of British descent (about 70 percent of the population), mainly as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands.[124] In the 2006 census, some Islanders identified themselves as of French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian descent.[125] Other minorities include South Americans (mainly of Chilean origin) and, in more recent times, people from Saint Helena.

[redunderthebed]

I was reading somewhere that the "falklanders" are a elite that own the land etc and most of the population is transient chileans etc that do all the jobs that the elite dont want to do.

So the UK is defending essentially a landed gentry and went to war to do so.

The whole thing is fucking stupid.

Might be. But land is worth fuck-all in the Falklands. Having land doesn't make you gentry there.
And Chileans are a tiny minority :

The population of the Falkland Islands is primarily of British descent (about 70 percent of the population), mainly as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands.[124] In the 2006 census, some Islanders identified themselves as of French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian descent.[125] Other minorities include South Americans (mainly of Chilean origin) and, in more recent times, people from Saint Helena.

6.5% of the population isnt a tiny minority by anyones standard and are the grunt force for the elite in the country as are most of the new immigrants into the country admittedly.

[mistermack]

6.5% of the population isnt a tiny minority by anyones standard and are the grunt force for the elite in the country as are most of the new immigrants into the country admittedly.

I don't think that's fair comment.
Immigration is virtually always of low-skilled labour.
I'm sure the Falklands would love highly-skilled people to go there, but it would be a struggle to recruit them.
I'm surprised by the 6.5 figure though. Where did you read that?

[Rum]

Let's keep this in perspective shall we. The population is a bit over 3000.

[mistermack]

Let's keep this in perspective shall we. The population is a bit over 3000.

That makes about 200 of Chilean origin, at that rate.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of those were sub-contracts maintaining the RAF installations.
There are 477 of those, according to wiki.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am sure Sean Penn is siding against the Brits....

In the name of opposition to colonialism, Penn supports Argentine colonialism.