USS Iwo Jima to the Royal Navy

Wreford-Brown · 06-29-12, 02:17 PM

Marcantilin makes a good point, but Argentina never questioned the background of the population when it approached the UN. If Argentina uses the 'imposed population' argument then Texas should belong to Mexico (1836, three years after the Falklands). I think this is unlikely to be ratified by the United Nations Security Council!

UN Resolution 2065 (1965) listed the Falklands as a colony and reminded members that under Resolution 1514 (1960) they had undertaken to 'bring to an end everywhere colonialisation in all its forms' but caveated it with 'only in the interests of its population'.

In 1981 the Falkland Islanders refused full UK citizenship, preferring instead to remain a protectorate. If next years vote retains this view, the UK will continue to defend its protectorate regardless of Argentinean posturing.

Where I live there have been a series of radio articles about the war centred on Royal Naval officers view that when the Falklands war started they were shocked, because until that time the Argentinean Navy had been friendly with the UK sending many officers to train with them. When the Belgrano was sunk, many RN officers were surprised because their Argentinean naval friends could have been on board. Hopefully there is a way out of this particular incident pit...

Marcantilan · 06-29-12, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wreford-Brown

interests of its population.

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

In the other hand, Argentine Navy officers work together (even on early 1982!) with Royal Navy to solve certain problems with Sea Dart missiles. I have a pic showing ARA Santisima Trinidad and HMS Sheffield alongside, on 1981. Sadly, months later, war happened and people who work together died.

Regards!

Wreford-Brown · 06-30-12, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

I absolutely agree - the vagaries of UN political speak leave too much wriggle room if politicians want to misinterpret what was said, and sometimes this can lead to war.

There are Iraqi and Afghan officers training in the UK alongside their UK counterparts - hopefully one day we'll see Argentine officers here as well.

06-29-12, 02:17 PM	#1
Wreford-Brown Sea Lord Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In sight of Stonehenge Posts: 1,750 Downloads: 51 Uploads: 26	Marcantilin makes a good point, but Argentina never questioned the background of the population when it approached the UN. If Argentina uses the 'imposed population' argument then Texas should belong to Mexico (1836, three years after the Falklands). I think this is unlikely to be ratified by the United Nations Security Council! UN Resolution 2065 (1965) listed the Falklands as a colony and reminded members that under Resolution 1514 (1960) they had undertaken to 'bring to an end everywhere colonialisation in all its forms' but caveated it with 'only in the interests of its population'. In 1981 the Falkland Islanders refused full UK citizenship, preferring instead to remain a protectorate. If next years vote retains this view, the UK will continue to defend its protectorate regardless of Argentinean posturing. Where I live there have been a series of radio articles about the war centred on Royal Naval officers view that when the Falklands war started they were shocked, because until that time the Argentinean Navy had been friendly with the UK sending many officers to train with them. When the Belgrano was sunk, many RN officers were surprised because their Argentinean naval friends could have been on board. Hopefully there is a way out of this particular incident pit... __________________ All my mods are available at MediaFire: SH3 Mods Other modders SH3 mods SH4 Mods ...you can't please all of the people all of the time...