0
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

Worth noting that the Chinese ambassador also called it the Malvinas throughout, not the Falklands.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

You can't simultaneously support British balkanization and think the UK should have an imperialist outpost in South America lmao. There's a reason why the Global South as a whole supports Argentina's claims to the Malvinas no matter how many times Anglos, including the ones here, cry about "the Falklanders' sovereignty." How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK where the UK has access to its oil and territorial waters. They couldn't even ask to be a Commonwealth state like Jamaica. At least Taiwanese, Uighur, and Tibetan separatists have the decency to pretend their respective republics would be an independent country and not just some US proxy state when the Falklanders couldn't even do that.

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

"imperialist outpost"

Literally just people living there, who are entitled to the same international legal considerations.

[-] geikei@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

There people living in Taiwan. Should we protect and cherish their right to riddle their island with US bases if they want to?

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I do kind of think Taiwan is basically a settled issue. There was a war 70 years ago and it resulted in this split. Yes the people there would be better off if the PRC had control of the island but no one would be better off if they started fighting back up again. It isn't a pressing issue though

China has a legal and moral claim on Taiwan but making an issue of it would just be bad for everyone involved

[-] NotKrause@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK

This really hits the nail in the head: if the issue here is "sovereignty" then shouldn't they reject both Argentina AND the UK?

[-] GorbinOutOverHere@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

It's 4000 shepherds on a rock, you understand that autarky has consequences right

[-] NotKrause@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's 4000 shepherds on a rock

It's "4000 shepherds on a rock" who give the United Kingdom territory in South America, if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm

[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region

Right, Argentina never invaded it before and started displacing the people who live there. That definitely did not happen.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

That's fair. I have no argument to that.

Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.

I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.

With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:

  1. The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.

  2. The UK could demilitarize the island.

  3. The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.

  4. The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.

  5. The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.

  6. The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.

  7. The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).

Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
  1. Why, fair is fair?
  2. I wonder why they had to militarize it.
  3. Argentina argues those rights aren't the UK's to grant, and it will prosecute companies bidding for rights.
  4. Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
  5. Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
  6. Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
  7. The people living there have no interest in being administered by Argentina.

Last time the Argentinians invaded, they immediately started rounding up people to be deported.

this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

news

24560 readers
549 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS