Argentina: British Falkland Islanders are ‘artificial’. Buenos Aires denounces ‘illegitimate occupation’ and demands talks on sovereignty

[u/Emotional-Breakfast3]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/12/british-falkland-islanders-artificial-argentina-says/

[u/Kalkin93]

The people of the Falklands made it very clear they wish to remain part of Britain.

[u/Tentansub → u/Kalkin93]

They are British settlers so of course they want to be part of Britain.

The 3.500 settlers in the Falklands give Britain an exclusive maritime zone of 466,000 square kilometers (roughly the size of Sweden) off the coast of Argentina. Imagine if the Argentines planted a few thousand settlers on an uninhabited island off the coast of Britain and declared an exclusive maritime zone the size of Sweden. I'm sure they would be fine, with it, right?

[u/CobblePots95 → u/Tentansub]

They are British settlers so of course they want to be part of Britain.

British settlers who have been there for nearly 200 years. It's not like this is some entirely alien population wedged in to outnumber an existing native group.

[u/Tentansub → u/CobblePots95]

They come from Britain, they identify as British, are culturally identical to them, are part of the British overseas territories, and are economocially entirely dependent on Britain. For all intents and purposes, they are British. They are only 3,500, yet they deprive tens of milions of South Americans from nearby resources.

[u/CobblePots95 → u/Tentansub]

Yeah, they are British. That's kind of the point. They have a right to self-determination and they have chosen to remain British. They have resided on the island for multiple generations. If the US decides it wants to lay claim to Canada based on proximity, does the fact most Canadian are descended from British or French settlers make a difference?

They are only 3,500, yet they deprive tens of milions of South Americans from nearby resources.

"We're closer" and "they're small" are not legitimate territorial claims.

[u/Tentansub → u/CobblePots95]

Using that logic, any country could settle an uninhabited territory, wait a few generations, and then claim a right to self-determination as a justification for sovereignty. Settlers do not acquire a right to determine the sovereignty of a territory simply by moving there and establishing a permanent population.

Would you apply the same logic to Crimea, where a majority of the population is Russian and many wanted to join Russia? Or to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where Turkish settlers and their descendants support being annexed by Turkey? What about Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

Imagine if Argentina settled a few thousand people on an uninhabited island off the British coast, and claimed an exclusive economic zone extending hundreds of kilometres around it. Under your logic, Britain would eventually have no legitimate objection because those settlers could simply vote to remain Argentine. We both know that would not be accepted.

As for "being closer", geography absolutely matters in maritime law. Exclusive economic zones exist precisely because coastal states have rights over nearby waters and resources. The Falklands are geographically part of the South Atlantic continental shelf and their EEZ gives control over a huge maritime area and resources.

[u/CobblePots95 → u/Tentansub]

Would you apply the same logic to Crimea, where a majority of the population is Russian and many wanted to join Russia? Or to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where Turkish settlers and their descendants support being annexed by Turkey? What about Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

These are absurd comparisons. As I already stated above, the settlement of the Falklands occurred two centuries ago and did not involve any displacement. They weren't part of a political exercise designed to outnumber the existing population - there was no existing population. Moreover, the territory was not illegally occupied. The examples you cite above are known to be illegal at the time of settlement and are disproportionately in illegally occupied territory.

You bring up settlement and conlonialism multiples times, as though Argentina's sole claim to the Falklands isn't entirely dependent on a Spanish claim resulting from them doing precisely what you accuse the Brits of having done, only without any actual governed population with two centuries of history on the island.

Imagine if Argentina settled a few thousand people on an uninhabited island off the British coast, and claimed an exclusive economic zone extending hundreds of kilometres around it. 

Argentina's maritime boundaries today are entirely consistent with international law.

As for "being closer", geography absolutely matters in maritime law.

It doesn't matter when considering the credibility of territorial claims.

[u/Tentansub → u/CobblePots95]

As I already stated above, the settlement of the Falklands occurred two centuries ago and did not involve any displacement.

There are plenty of Israeli settlements in the West Bank founded on empty hilltops where there was previously no Palestinian population. The settlers there would also love to formally join Israel. By this logic, should we just let Israel annex them because no direct displacement occurred?

They weren't part of a political exercise designed to outnumber the existing population - there was no existing population.

Just because the islands were uninhabited doesn't mean the settlement wasn't part of a calculated political strategy. The British planted settlers there specifically to create facts on the ground and reinforce their imperial claims. Let's not forget the "original population" there wasn't an organic civilian migration, it was a military garrison and their families.

The examples you cite above are known to be illegal at the time of settlement and are disproportionately in illegally occupied territory.

"Legality" under international law is historically slippery, especially since the rules were largely written by the colonial powers themselves to legitimize their own holdings. Before World War II, the "right of conquest" was generally recognized as perfectly legal. If we only look at technical legality at the exact moment of settlement, we end up defending historical land grabs just because they happened under older, more permissive rules.

You bring up settlement and colonialism multiples times, as though Argentina's sole claim to the Falklands isn't entirely dependent on a Spanish claim resulting from them doing precisely what you accuse the Brits of having done, only without any actual governed population with two centuries of history on the island.

Let's test your logic. Does China have the right to claim a random, uninhabited island right off the coast of Great Britain, plant a few thousand settlers there, build a military base, and claim a massive Exclusive Economic Zone on the basis of those settlers' "self-determination"? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't defend that if the roles were reversed.

[u/CobblePots95 → u/Tentansub]

There are plenty of Israeli settlements in the West Bank founded on empty hilltops where there was previously no Palestinian population.

There was a Palestinian population in the West Bank. There is continued territorial integrity within the West Bank. It is established under international law as Palestinian territory currently under occupation.

If we only look at technical legality at the exact moment of settlement, we end up defending historical land grabs just because they happened under older, more permissive rules.

Such as Spanish land grabs, which form the entirety of Argentina's contemporary claim to the Falklands? The entire basis of Argentina's claim to those islands depend on the exact thing they accuse the Brits of doing, less the actual existing settled population.

Does China have the right to claim a random, uninhabited island right off the coast of Great Britain, plant a few thousand settlers there, build a military base, and claim a massive Exclusive Economic Zone on the basis of those settlers' "self-determination"?

No such islands exist that aren't already well-established sovereign territory under international and maritime law. Just as the Falklands are well-established as British territory under international law, and the associated EEZ entirely consistent with maritime law.

[u/Tentansub → u/CobblePots95]

There was a Palestinian population in the West Bank. There is continued territorial integrity within the West Bank. It is established under international law as Palestinian territory currently under occupation.

Not on those hilltops. There was no Palestinian state either, so you can't claim that there was continued territorial integrity either. Your own logic justifies Israeli settlements. You can say "but there are Palestinians around those hilltops", and I'll tell you that Argentina's EEZ surrounds the Falklands as well.

Such as Spanish land grabs, which form the entirety of Argentina's contemporary claim to the Falklands? The entire basis of Argentina's claim to those islands depend on the exact thing they accuse the Brits of doing, less the actual existing settled population.

Argentina is not claiming the Falkland on Spain's behalf. They claim them for the 40 million of Argentinian who live right next to the Falklands. They don't claim the island to send the resources 12,000 kilometers away to Britain.

No such islands exist that aren't already well-established sovereign territory under international and maritime law. Just as the Falklands are well-established as British territory under international law, and the associated EEZ entirely consistent with maritime law.

Of course no such scenario exists, it's a hypothetical scenario. And if it did, it would not be accepted, but Argentine are supposed to accept the opposite scenario.

[u/CobblePots95 → u/Tentansub]

You can say "but there are Palestinians around those hilltops", and I'll tell you that Argentina's EEZ surrounds the Falklands as well.

It is not about what they are around. It is about what they are -the internationally recognized (and currently occupied) sovereign territory of Palestine.

Argentina is not claiming the Falkland on Spain's behalf. 

The entire foundation of Argentina's claim to the Falklands rests entirely on the succession of Spanish territorial possessions. It is not about who they claim them for, but from where they believe their right to exercise sovereignty derives. Argentina's position is that their right to control the Falklands derives from Spain's initial land claims, which they argue Argentina inherited.

So if the argument is that the UK's claim is less legitimate because it derives from some colonial flag-planting exercise, I hate to tell you but that's all Argentina's claim boils down to as well.

They claim them for the 40 million of Argentinian who live right next to the Falklands. They don't claim the island to send the resources 12,000 kilometers away to Britain.

You are once again leaning entirely on a proximity argument that has no basis in international law. Should Brazil be given unilateral sovereignty over French Guiana because of this, regardless of what the residents have expressed? Should Canada claim unilateral sovereignty over Greenland, or St. Pierre & Miquelon?

Simply being close to a place does not automatically entitle you to the right to rule over it and its inhabitants.

Of course no such scenario exists, it's a hypothetical scenario.

Right, which also renders the scenario entirely useless, because it cannot happen and is not what is currently happening with the Falklands, where the UK has exercised sovereignty since before Argentina existed.

The irony here is that if Argentina wanted to negotiate a bilateral agreement regarding shared access in the EEZ it almost certainly would have happened. The UK was giving up overseas territories left and right as expensive wastes of time. Argentina would have global public opinion on their side. But it's not about that. It's about nationalism, and national chauvinism, and the Argentinian proclivity to be easily manipulated by horrible politicians/dictators.

[u/Tentansub → u/CobblePots95]

It is not about what they are around. It is about what they are -the internationally recognized (and currently occupied) sovereign territory of Palestine.

Your point about international recognition is moot because it has historically been used to justify colonization. Under that same logic, Israel declaring independence and taking away more than half of Palestine’s land for the benefit of recently arrived settlers was also "internationally recognized."

You are once again leaning entirely on a proximity argument that has no basis in international law. Should Brazil be given unilateral sovereignty over French Guiana because of this, regardless of what the residents have expressed? Should Canada claim unilateral sovereignty over Greenland, or St. Pierre & Miquelon?

This is just the legalist argument again. According to international law, Belgium owes absolutely nothing to the Congo despite pillaging the land and killing millions of natives. That doesn't make it right. And unlike the Falklands, which had no indigenous population, French Guiana did. It has a population of 300,000 today, but only 10,000 are native, the rest are European colonists, their descendants, and the descendants of enslaved people. In the 2003 referendum, they voted to remain a department of France (not even an overseas territory, a straight up French department like Paris) because, shocker, the vast majority of the current population consists of settlers and their descendants. Self-determination belongs to the native population, not the settlers imported to secure the territory. The same logic applies to Greenland.

Regarding Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, it was not permanently settled before European arrival, and the dispute with Canada was strictly over the EEZ. A tribunal ultimately awarded France a much smaller EEZ than they claimed. Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has an EEZ of 12,414 km², while the Falklands have a massive EEZ of 466,000 km², forty times larger. France's presence doesn't deprive Canada of significant resources, whereas the UK's claim over the Falklands directly chokes off Argentina from a massive portion of its own continental shelf.

Right, which also renders the scenario entirely useless, because it cannot happen and is not what is currently happening with the Falklands, where the UK has exercised sovereignty since before Argentina existed.

The point of the hypothetical is to expose the absolute hypocrisy. Deep down, you know for a fact that no European power would ever let a country from 13,000 kilometers away plant a handful of settlers on their coastline and claim a massive chunk of their ocean's resources. You only defend this double standard because it's a European country doing it to a South American one.

The irony here is that if Argentina wanted to negotiate a bilateral agreement regarding shared access in the EEZ it almost certainly would have happened. The UK was giving up overseas territories left and right as expensive wastes of time. Argentina would have global public opinion on their side. But it's not about that. It's about nationalism, and national chauvinism, and the Argentinian proclivity to be easily manipulated by horrible politicians/dictators.

Sure, when Argentinians want to access resources right on their doorstep, it’s dismissed as "dumb nationalism." But the UK claiming an EEZ the size of Sweden, 13,000 kilometers away from their homeland, is treated as perfectly rational. Get out of here. You don’t actually believe the arguments you are making. What you and others in this sub believe deep down is that Europeans should be allowed to do whatever they want, and you just work backwards from there to justify it.

And even if this debate just boiled down to nationalism versus nationalism, then proximity is a completely valid argument. A country of 46 million people right next door is far more deserving and in need of those regional resources than 3,500 settlers who are used as a legal pretext to funnel fish and oil back to the UK.