Effects of a Treaty over Falkland sovereignty

Hey Guys,

Let's say that some time after the reestablishment of British control in the Falklands that Britain and Argentina actually made a Treaty about the Falklands, confirming British rule over them.

What would the butterflies of this be? I mean globally it probably won't have any major effects until around the time IOTL when Argentina invaded the Falklands. However would this invasion be butterflied away? If not what would other nations feelings be towards British control over the Falklands? Currently the main argument against British control is that the British are mere 'squatters' on the islands.

However would more/all nations recognize British sovereignty if there was a treaty? Would it simply be Spain not recognizing British control (as a trade-off for Argentina not recognizing British control in Gibraltar).
 
Would it simply be Spain not recognizing British control (as a trade-off for Argentina not recognizing British control in Gibraltar).

I like that idea. A diplomatic gesture that costs nothing. What's not to like (for Spain)?:)

I doubt it would change much. IIRC (and I was only 12 at the time) that Argentina never formally accepted British control was merely a minor legal point. Argentine irredentism isn't likely to be much affected. It's a point of pride, after all.
 
Nothing. The next goverment would care a shit


As Petete123123 says the problem is that the islands have been built into Argentinian mythology as being owned by them. You would have to totally change their educational system for a generation or two to get them to accept that the inhabitance have the right to govern themselves. Any government that agreed to a democratic solution and not to press the Argentinian claim would suffer continued snipping from the extremists as to it's alleged weakness.

I'm not saying that another war would occur. Just that without major changes you are unlikely to change the attitude of much of Argentinian opinion.

Steve
 
You know what I don't understand? For all that the Falkland's are in close proximity to Argentina, it's an English speaking colony inhabited by very English people. What reasons did the Argentinians have for making such an irredentist claim?
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
You know what I don't understand? For all that the Falkland's are in close proximity to Argentina, it's an English speaking colony inhabited by very English people. What reasons did the Argentinians have for making such an irredentist claim?

its complicated...

There is a UK version and an Argentine version

At times it was claimed by France, Spain, UK and Argentina.

Since 1833 it has been British but that is considered to be an ilegal occupation by the Argentines.
 
While I fully understand why the views towards the Falklands will change little in Argentina, what about internationally?

I mean America is neutral on the matter, however if there was some legal treaty might they be forced to recognize it fully as British?
 
While I fully understand why the views towards the Falklands will change little in Argentina, what about internationally?

I mean America is neutral on the matter, however if there was some legal treaty might they be forced to recognize it fully as British?

I don't think it will change much, on an international level. There's a reason why this kinds of treaties aren't signed after wars as they were in the pasts. According to modern International Law, treaties obtained through any form of cohersion aren't considered valid.

According to article 52 of the Viena Convention on the Law of the treaties (1969), "A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations." A treaty obtained through the threath of a renewal or continuation of military actions might violate this norm.

That's probably why wars don't "end" any question nowadays. A ceasefire is obtain, the status quo is reafirmed, but no permanent solution is attained. The parties are supposed to continue negotiationg, and are encouraged to obtain a treaty through peacefull negotiations. However, this rarely happens, and conflicts are kept "frozen", as one or both of the parties aren't satisfied with the status quo.

That's also why international forces patrolling borders almost never leave. If not, look at Cyprus, Bosnia, or other places.

EDIT: I think I misunderstood the original post. I thought you were referring to a treaty obtained after 1982, not about one obtained shortly after 1833. Argentina might sill protest, arguieng that such a treeaty was illegal, unfair, and a legacy of colonialism. But her claim would be weaker. If, let's say, Rosas had signed a Treaty with the british according to which he would recognize British soveraignty over the islands in exchange for a cancelation of Argentina's foreign debts, it would be harder to protest.

I mean, it would still be possible, of course. I heard there's a Russsian nationalistic politician, who reclaims Alaska back (!) But such a claim would be taken less seriously...
 
Last edited:
Excellent points all, Almirante...

...Rosas is a key individual...What debts did he have? I was thinking of BTdF in this connection.
 

Lonewolf

Banned
As time goes by

Hello,

IRONY ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just wait a few years. Then the Malvinas will be territory of Argentina.
Why?
The RN is scrapped and only Nuclear armed subs are left. And the Argentina can take over the Falklands and as nukes are a definite no-no the british cannot do a thing about it.
And if the government of Argentina is not nice they will throw out all the british and say, that they did the same as the poles and czech and yugoslavians and... did after World War 2. And this was considered a thing for peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. Just read the comments by Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt.

IRONY OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
...Rosas is a key individual...What debts did he have? I was thinking of BTdF in this connection.

Well, in 1824 (before Rosas came to power, when a different party governed), Argentina contracted a debt of 1.000.000 pounds with the Baring Brothers (a British Bank). Apparently, once the British occupied the islands in 1833, and seeing there was no way of getting them back, Rosas offered to cede all Argentinian claims in exchange for a cancellation of our debt.

I wanted a more serious and unbiased link to confirm this, but this is all I found:

http://www.enriquearenz.com.ar/Articulo19.html


Rosas y las Malvinas
Publicado en La Prensa el 6 de mayo de 1982

Muchas veces hemos oído hablar de la "entrega" de nuestro patrimonio nacional a las multinacionales o potencias extranjeras, acusaciones casi todas ellas falsas y malintencionadas, producto una veces del infantilismo, y otras de la deshonestidad intelectual de muchos de nuestros políticos que han usado y siguen usando esa fácil calumnia como principal arma de barricada.

De los posibles casos genuinos de entrega de nuestra soberanía, la historia recoge solamente dos: el primero de ellos fue protagonizado por Juan Manuel de Rosas cuando intentó vender nada menos que nuestras islas Malvinas a su Majestad británica; y el segundo caso (al cual no me referiré por ser bastante conocido) lo constituyó el famoso convenio de la "California" por el que Perón se proponía entregar nuestro petróleo y ceder vastos sectores del territorio nacional a la jurisdicción de tribunales de justicia norteamericanos. Afortunadamente para el país, ambos intentos —repito, los únicos que la historia registra inequívocamente— resultaron providencialmente frustrados. Los ingleses cometieron el error de desdeñar esa bicoca, y la Revolución Libertadora impidió la consumación del ignominioso convenio.

El tirano Rosas había hecho algunas formales reclamaciones ante el gobierno de Gran Bretaña para obtener la devolución de las Malvinas, pero viendo que los ingleses desoían sus peticiones, y pensando que al fin y al cabo esas lejanas islas no eran tan importantes para su régimen, ya que su posesión no le agregaba ni le quitaba nada a su poder y a su "estancia", se le ocurrió la idea de ofrecerlas en venta en la suma de 9.500.000 pesos fuertes, y dar así por terminado aquel enojoso asunto. Rosas pretendía saldar de esa manera la deuda contraída por el país con la Baring Brothers.

El ministro Manuel Moreno (hermano de Mariano) hizo la oferta ante la Cancillería británica, oferta que fue desdeñosamente rechazada por los usurpadores de las islas. La transacción comercial era sumamente ventajosa para Inglaterra y parece increíble que el gobierno británico la haya desdeñado. Su razonamiento era, sin embargo, lógico: ellos habían tomado las Malvinas por la fuerza, ¿para qué pagar por algo de lo que ya se habían adueñado?

Rosas hizo una nueva oferta el 23 de diciembre de 1843, esta vez por intermedio de su ministro Arana, recibiendo de los ingleses la misma humillante negativa, el mismo desinterés por el negocio. ¡Suerte para la Argentina! Si los ingleses hubieran aceptado tan generosa oferta, las islas habrían pasado a ser legítima propiedad de Gran Bretaña (como Alaska lo es hoy de Estados Unidos) y ningún derecho legal ni moral asistiría hoy a la Argentina.
 
Rosas and the debt...

...Fascinating - I understood enough of the post (thanks to obscure loan-words between English and Spanish) to get the gist of the text.

...Would Argentina accept 300 million English pounds (my assessment of the debt, in terms of inflation) in settlement of the Falklands Question?

Or would they hold out for half a billion?

Has to be a better deal all round, than bailing out the damned banks!
 
Oil & gas from Falkland Bank...

Given the probability of rich oil & gas deposits around the Falklands, £ 300 million is pocket change...

Another reason the Argentinians are not likely to let go-- Ever.
 
Well, in 1824 (before Rosas came to power, when a different party governed), Argentina contracted a debt of 1.000.000 pounds with the Baring Brothers (a British Bank). Apparently, once the British occupied the islands in 1833, and seeing there was no way of getting them back, Rosas offered to cede all Argentinian claims in exchange for a cancellation of our debt.

Interesting.

Anyway, As stated before it wouldn't have a big effect in Brittain as the status quo would continue and I don't know enough of Argentina to estimate how big the impact would actually mean.

But, I think the biggest changes could be in our future.
In our timeline both countries have claims, so both countries have claims for the exploitation of the waters. As there is oil and gas to be found in the contested waters this will undoubtedly cause tension in the future. If Argentina would have renounced her claims, there would probably still be future disagreement about where the border actually is, but they will be far smaller.
 
I was hoping you'd ignore the oil and gas...

...A little dispute is like being a little bit pregnant - it won't go away. In my ASB Upside Downside 2 scenario, Britain and Eire were dumped on top of the Falklands/Malvinas continental shelf and the Falklands was dumped roughly where Cheshire is now. Lots of butterflies...

...And the French were livid!:D:D

...But the USA (Obama) moved in a base to the Falklands and essentially got oil from the UK in the South Atlantic in return for writing off War Debts, i.e. the UK got little but its survival out of the deal. The Argentines were rather disgusted about it. They got UK oil platforms translocated from the North Sea and a lot of oil and gas offshore from Patagonia...:eek:
 
Well since the Falkland Islands was originally a US whaling colony everyone should just get the Hell off our island! Or not, its kind of far away and not really near anything interesting. yeah I'm already getting kind of boring just thinking about. And not worth the travel time, The Limeys and Tina's can keep it:p
 
It's better for the Argies to accept the reality that the Falkland Islands is British and the residents wants to remain British and will not accept Argentine rule in exchange of economic concessions of exploiting the oil resources in the Falkland seashore worth US$600 million to Argentine economy. Recognizing British rule in Falkland in exchange of economic aid would be better for Argentina in a long-run. Money is more powerful than Nationalism.:rolleyes:
 
Top