Falklands to hold referendum on sovereignty...

[Vec]

It's very divided because of such media. I'm preety sure I know what that people will answer if you ask them the name/s of the source where they got all that info they told you.

 

Returning to subject, just being curious, were there any UN members supervising/monitoring this votation?

[Tani Coyote]

Only thing I can find is this: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/12/12/falklands-referendum-results-will-be-public-and-presented-to-united-nations

 

Nothing much but just talk that the results would be presented to the UN, so I presume the UN had some hand in overseeing it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909

 

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum - on a turnout of more than 90% - 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.

 

As can be seen here, there really was no contest. Most Falklanders consider themselves British... there's no way Argentina will ever get the islands short of force. Were this a close issue, I could see the need for UN supervision, but I think we all knew how this was going to go; by now most are born and raised British. The locals are no more Argentine than I am Canadian due to being born in Michigan.

[Vec]

Well, the UN site has nothing of that, you only find the press releases talking about the different resolutions and stuff related to the Decolonization Comitee.

 

If there was someone overseeing this, then I don't see the necessity of bringing the results to UN, so that might be an indication that they didn't send anyone

[DarkOverord]

From UN Dispatch (AKA The News reported by Journalists employed by the UN)
 
http://www.undispatch.com/small-island-big-vote-falkland-island-votes-to-remain-british

John Hollins, the former Chief Electoral Officer of the Canadian province of Ontario and the current Chair of the Board of Directors of The Delian Project, acted as an election observer in the Falklands. Mr. Hollins told UN Dispatch that “Having witnessed multiple elections the world over, it is clear the referendum on political status held in the Falkland Islands was delivered in an exceedingly professional, transparent, free and fair manner.” He added that, “most impressive, was the detailed knowledge of the electorate regarding their choices. We are convinced this knowledge compelled many to vote, accounting for the 92% voter turn-out.”

Organised by the British and Falkland's government but overseen by a non-governmental organisation based around the principle of fair democracy.
 
Apparently so far only Sweden has ratified the results of the Referendum, Argentina is moving to a vote on the matter (Though I think we all know the result of that vote). And Canada last year reported they believed the Islanders had a right to self determination. Have to ask, what are people's opinions on this? Like, I'm assuming Vec supports that the Malvinas are Argentinian. But I'm kinda curious in genneral, because I'm not entirely sure what the British Joe public stance is on the Falklands other than they're British because they say they are. I certainly don't hold anything like Argentina does over the sovereignty other than the islands should have the right to self determination :V

[Tani Coyote]

Have to ask, what are people's opinions on this? Like, I'm assuming Vec supports that the Malvinas are Argentinian. But I'm kinda curious in genneral, because I'm not entirely sure what the British Joe public stance is on the Falklands other than they're British because they say they are. I certainly don't hold anything like Argentina does over the sovereignty other than the islands should have the right to self determination :V

 

Any other year you could ask people what ancestry they identify as. The vast majority will say they identify as British. That there's any concern at all that this isn't a legitimate result is just grasping at straws. Conquering territory isn't the in-thing anymore, so without democratic support for Argentine occupation, Argentina's just finished on the matter.

 

Any other election and this would be ludicrous. It would be like holding a referendum in all of the eastern US states... most are going to identify as American, not British or native. If Britain showed concerns about the results being illegitimate, we'd call that just being desperate. This is no different: irredentism is clouding the government's judgement.

 

Never mind let's be honest here. UN oversight is for elections that could very easily be rigged, such as those in developing nations. The Falklands are part of a country with a strong democratic tradition, with most people already being British by birth, so I don't think there's really any doubt as to where this election was going to go.

 

Land may be held in common, but when mixed with one's labor you get private property. I'm pretty sure most of the Falklands has been built and maintained by British citizens by this point, so it's decisively British.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Tornado]

Don't make me laugh they didn't step last time and they won't step in and help us next time. Not when the US needs constant stability to in order keep exploiting South America.

They tried to force a ceasefire because they were afraid of Soviet intervention but the Argentinian Junta made the mistake of refusing their peace plan. After that the US did provide us with submarine detectors and modern missile based weapons. However I wouldn't expect heavy intervention from them they probably only aided us because the Soviets were overseeing weapons deliveries to the Argentinians.

The US didn't step in last time because there wasn't any real need to. The war was over in two months, and indeed much of Argentina's war strategy hinged entirely on them not thinking the UK would come at them with everything if they took the islands. Don't confuse "didn't do something" with "didn't have the will to do something;" and don't overstate how much the US' interests in the region amount to compared to other interests. You don't secretly promise to lend out flagships of your navy with staffs running them on a whim after already pledging massive material support publicly for it to not be obvious who you will back if things get real heated.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Tornado

[Tani Coyote]

The US didn't step in last time because there wasn't any real need to. The war was over in two months, and indeed much of Argentina's war strategy hinged entirely on them not thinking the UK would come at them with everything if they took the islands. Don't confuse "didn't do something" with "didn't have the will to do something;" and don't overstate how much the US' interests in the region amount to compared to other interests. You don't secretly promise to lend out flagships of your navy with staffs running them on a whim after already pledging massive material support publicly for it to not be obvious who you will back if things get real heated.

 

Yeah, the UK had it in the bag. There was no real reason for us to get involved.

 

Granted NATO obligations make one kind of wonder... but hey, in retrospect, it helps British pride that they did it entirely on their own.

 

My knowledge is a bit fuzzy but did the UK even ask for any help to begin with?

[Stacy]

The US didn't step in last time because there wasn't any real need to. The war was over in two months, and indeed much of Argentina's war strategy hinged entirely on them not thinking the UK would come at them with everything if they took the islands. Don't confuse "didn't do something" with "didn't have the will to do something;" and don't overstate how much the US' interests in the region amount to compared to other interests. You don't secretly promise to lend out flagships of your navy with staffs running them on a whim after already pledging massive material support publicly for it to not be obvious who you will back if things get real heated.

 

Like I said before when they found out the Soviets were overseeing weapons deliveries to the Argentinians.  The US then saw this as fair game.  America will probably do the same if it happens again I don't blame them. Also Regan was always keen to one up the Soviets every chance he got . There is a phase "Never do something for free". I bet those hand outs from the US weren't for free. Had we needed to some to use your ships trust me we would had to pay for it. 

 

So the "tiny" US support was merely to the benefit of US interests. Though I am sure Thatcher appreciated the purchase of those missiles and equipment. 

 

EDIT: To be fair the US didn't have offer us anything especially after not supporting you Vietnam however I am what was done was for US's benefit not the UK's.

Edited March 15, 2013 by BW199148

[Tornado]

Were the Soviet arms supplies the reason that the US pledged what essentially amounted to complete support for the UK (and there are diminishing returns to that much support when you keep the support a complete secret), or the justification for the actual reasons?

 

 

It comes down to this: The US is hardly going to support Argentina if the war restarts. And the US isn't going to stay out of it when the UK probably wouldn't be able to display the same power that it did in 1982.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Tornado

[Azzy]

Were the Soviet arms supplies the reason that the US pledged what essentially amounted to complete support for the UK (and there are diminishing returns to that much support when you keep the support a complete secret), or the justification for the actual reasons?

 

 

It comes down to this: The US is hardly going to support Argentina if the war restarts. And the US isn't going to stay out of it when the UK probably wouldn't be able to display the same power that it did in 1982.

 

At the time, the USSR was neutral to the affair (from an official standpoint).  Apparently it was after the US backed the UK (after peace talks with Argentina failed) that the Soviet Union began supplying Argentina with weapons.

[Stacy]

It comes down to this: The US is hardly going to support Argentina if the war restarts. And the US isn't going to stay out of it when the UK probably wouldn't be able to display the same power that it did in 1982.

 

That is a bit unfair. While yes our military budget and size is smaller than it was in the late Cold War (so is America's but not so much compared to ours) and it doesn't help with Cameron cutting it right down to the roots. The Argentinian army isn't that more advanced than it was in the last war not only that the island is better defended than it was before the first conflict.

 

Would the US get fully evolved in a conflict with an South American country that has the backing of other South America countries?  If the US got phsyically involved it could lead to a wider conflict damaging the US businesses and diplomatic interests in South America it could create a domino effect. It doesn't help that the US is seen as exploiter of South America by its people. I don't think the US government would risk that even for us old limey bastards.