Imperialism

[Mandy Lifeboats]

28 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I live in Madrid and I've had some students go on about Gibraltar. I couldn't care less personally, but if you then say, 'What about Ceuta and Melilla, or even the Canary Islands' the one or two people I've had this conversation with do a really weird expression like their brains just short-circuited. True story. 

 

Spot on!  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

  to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  Intelligent conversation and conversation without bitterness or abuse.  

It's just a shame that @villakram hasn't contributed his viewpoint.

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

  to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  Intelligent conversation and conversation without bitterness or abuse.  

Look. We beat the Argies and sent them packing. 

End of. 

 

[KentVillan]

39 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Well ... here I think you have it exactly right.

While true, an argument from popularity might not be a valid claim so to speak ... philosophically. But it sort of boils down to I've got it at the moment so it's mine.

I currently live in British Columbia, most people here would argue most of the Crown land belongs to the government of Canada. Though there are treaties from a hundred years ago or so that have not been enacted that cede the land to indigenous peoples. So does a treaty (a piece of paper with signatures), whether here or say Utrecht have any weight with respect to a "claim"?

I just can't help thinking, deep down, there is something weird about the concept of ownership and rights in general.

I wasn't really arguing from popularity, more that the philosophical arguments are pretty obvious in the case of the French mainland - it's largely inhabited by the descendants of the same people who've lived there for millennia, it's a democratic republic, the borders have been similar for a long time, there are no serious competing claims for the territory (except in some border regions, Brittany), and so on. So it would seem to most observers to be self-evident that mainland France is the territory of the French people.

Of course you then run into arguments about what a nation-state is, what property rights are, and so on, and if you think all this stuff is invalid, you move on to ideas like anarchism or Marxist internationalism or whatever, which are philosophically valid.

I agree with you that there is something very weird about the concept of ownership and rights, but they do seem to emerge fairly spontaneously in unconnected human societies, so seem to be related to the human condition.

I also agree that just because a treaty exists, that only confers legitimacy insofar as the relevant people at the time accepted that treaty and understood its terms and weren't coerced or tricked into signing it. In practice most treaties were signed above the heads of the ordinary people, excluded many groups from the negotiations, and were heavily influenced by power dynamics.

But you can go down this line of argument forever. In the end there's an element of pragmatism to it? Tends to come down to whatever preserves the peace.

Park life.

Edited March 14, 2023 by KentVillan

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

the borders have been similar for a long time,

Have they?

 

[robby b]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

I thought it was the Dutch, in 1600 who first found them. Nothing there but birds. Then 90 odd years later, the Brits found them, again, and named them, or named the water 'Falkland sound", then another 70 years and the French found them and actually colonised the uninhabited rocks. But they got cold and wet and sold the Islands to the Spanish. Then Spain and Britain had a fight, and then settled their differences ( the Brits having lost), but we were allowed back to live there under a treaty. But then the Brits left, because of a fight with America, you may have heard of, but "we" left behind a plaque asserting our ownership, like a sign on shop door saying "back in 10" . Then the Spanish also left, cold and wet, also leaving a plaque asserting their ownership. In 1820 an American pirate settled there, and claimed the islands for the Union of South America (which later became Argentina). Then later still, a German arrived there, asked both Britain and [Argentina] if he could settle there, what with it being deserted n'all. [Argentina] gave him permission to kill the seals for food and fur, but Britain didn't like that, because we wanted the seal fur. So the German guy calmed us down by asking us to protect him and the islands. Next the Pirate man and his crew raided some American ships and looted them etc. The Americans got cross about that and attacked and destroyed his colony and carted off the pirates to the US for some light punishment beating.

Next again, Argentina went there to set up a settlement, but a squabble amongst themselves saw the leader killed and the intended penal colony wasn't set up. At this point Britain got cross again, and gave the remaining Argentines on the islands a letter informing them that the King wished to exercise his sovereignty over the islands and requesting they leave. So in 1833 some of them left, not wanting a fight, what with there being hardly any of them there, and some of those that were, were mercenaries not from Argentina anyway. Some of them decided to stay. A mix of various nationals from all over. 22 people in total.

Next, after another year, Charles Darwin went there and found a decrepit, ruined little settlement with a handful of rogues and ne'redowells living there. On reporting this, the Brits sent a naval ship and a commander to look after the place and restore order. Which is how it remained until the Argentines invaded  in the 1980s, as a distraction from uprisings and protests in their country. Britain turned up and repelled the Argentines.

The people there in free and fair votes, have said they want to remain "British". And they do.

Thank you for this great and funny summary of the islands' history, Blandy, with loads of info and I've learnt a few new things there (such as that American pirate fella and the German dude).

During my visits to Argentina in the last eight months I've learnt from conversations with a few Argentinians that Galtieri was an alcoholic. One of them told me he was "an irresponsible drunk". It seems to me that he didn't care about causing hundreds of soldiers to lose their lives (including teenagers). He should have just pursued a diplomatic line with some negotiation instead and I bet you're right about him invading the Falklands as a way to distract the Argentine public from their grievance(s) with him/his government. He seems to be unpopular with plenty of the Argentinian public, not just Brits.

In the last few years I've had a few ideas for solutions to the Falklands dispute, basically involving  a little compromise and diplomacy to some extent... but I'll leave it for today as I'm knackered!  I've been in Argentina several times since last August as well as being there for a month in 2007 and over the years have spent time reading about the Falklands now and then and above all a lot of time reflecting on them.

Edited March 15, 2023 by robby b

[KentVillan]

@bickster yes, it's identifiably the same country since about the 17th century. Similar doesn't mean identical, and I mentioned border regions in my post. That is a very cool video though.

[robby b]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

  to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  Intelligent conversation and conversation without bitterness or abuse.  

 Yes, this thread has been good-natured and very interesting, I'm glad sidcow set it up. I haven't yet read all you've posted in it but I pretty much agree with what I have read of yours so far. I think! :s The Falklands issue/debate and history is complex. Right, now I'll read this whole thread carefully from start to finish... 

[bickster]

21 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

@bickster yes, it's identifiably the same country since about the 17th century. Similar doesn't mean identical, and I mentioned border regions in my post. That is a very cool video though.

It really isn't. Napoleon conquered huge swathes of Europe, that became France after that time and a few of the Louis' conquered quite a lot too

Nice for example didn't really become part of France until the treaty of Turin in 1860 (it had a couple of French conquests before that for a sum total of about 10 years, prior to 1860 it was nearly always part of Savoy or Sardinia. Even now the locals speak Nicoise and the roadsigns are bilingual. Even after WWII they lost Saarland, which became an inependent country for 6 years and even played in the qualifiers for the World Cup in 1954, then it went back to Germany

France definitely hasn't been a remotely stable border since the 17th century, that is nonsense.

There's plenty more too, Alsace, Lorraine....

[foreveryoung]

Shit me, VT must be the only football forum with a thread on imperialism.

[robby b]

15 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Shit me, VT must be the only football forum with a thread on imperialism.

Yeah, and biscuits too !

[robby b]

3 hours ago, Rolta said:

I live in Madrid and I've had some students go on about Gibraltar. I couldn't care less personally, but if you then say, 'What about Ceuta and Melilla, or even the Canary Islands' the one or two people I've had this conversation with do a really weird expression like their brains just short-circuited. True story. 

 

I also taught in Madrid (EFL), I was there for a year. I vaguely remember a few of my students also mentioning Gibraltar but just briefly, phew! :s I just stayed diplomatic and more or less quiet till the conversation changed. 

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Bugger all - but a huge amount was invested in oil exploration over a long period of time. It was a big factor in the Falklands’ importance to the UK.

I’m not sure that’s correct .

Other than surveys in the 70’s the U.K. government doesn’t appear to have  invested any money in oil exploration in the Falklands?

 licenses were handed out by the Falklands government , to private companies ,but  best I can tell , The U.K. government hasn’t received a penny for these licenses, though it’s expected that HMRC would take a chunk of the oil revenue should it finally be realised. 

De-classified documents show that the U.K. government was aware of oil and were taking pains to ensure the potential leaseback to Argentina didn’t forgo this potential source of revenue, but I’m not finding anything on the web to suggest “huge amounts” have been invested by the UK government .. 

 

[robby b]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I’m not sure that’s correct .

Other than surveys in the 70’s the U.K. government doesn’t appear to have  invested any money in oil exploration in the Falklands?

 licenses were handed out by the Falklands government , to private companies ,but  best I can tell , The U.K. government hasn’t received a penny for these licenses, though it’s expected that HMRC would take a chunk of the oil revenue should it finally be realised. 

De-classified documents show that the U.K. government was aware of oil and were taking pains to ensure the potential leaseback to Argentina didn’t forgo this potential source of revenue, but I’m not finding anything on the web to suggest “huge amounts” have been invested by the UK government .. 

 

Interesting stuff  A few years ago I read about oil surveys in the 70s in the Falklands area and it got me wondering if it was partly behind both Galtieri's invasion and Thatcher's defence. For instance, if there was no oil in the region or if those 70s surveys hadn't taken place, would she still have sent that first warship as soon as she did (rather than go down a path of negotiations)? Well I suspect she may well still have done, with keeping the islands British for the Falklanders being genuinely her sole or main reason for authorising a swift military attack (i.e. protecting those approximately 1,800 people... protecting their living on British territory with a British way of life)??? 

Edited March 15, 2023 by robby b

[villakram]

The point I was making was related to various "not an inch" talk and directly to @bickster comment about how only the Ukrainian people had the say on the land (fullstop). I could have similarly replied anywhere else, but that was the most recent comment at the time. 

I was simply responding quite sharply, that while this is indeed a wonderful principle, the world does not work on principles. I could have used the US occupation of Syria too or blockade on Cuba or the legal status of Puerto Rico, but given the Brit audience, I thought a more local example would be appropriate. Apparently, I hit a sore spot.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, villakram said:

Apparently, I hit a sore spot.

Yes and no. 

You hold your views and you express them. That’s great. This is a football forum and the debate on football matters can get very emotive.  But off topic is full of people with differing views putting them forward in an informative and often humorous way.   

What does frustrate me is that you make statements and then fail to follow up polite requests to explain and expand upon your viewpoint.  

I’d still love to hear your answers to the questions I asked you at the very start of this thread.  

 

[KentVillan]

Where's Fiona Bruce when you need her

[KentVillan]

8 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I’m not sure that’s correct .

Other than surveys in the 70’s the U.K. government doesn’t appear to have  invested any money in oil exploration in the Falklands?

 licenses were handed out by the Falklands government , to private companies ,but  best I can tell , The U.K. government hasn’t received a penny for these licenses, though it’s expected that HMRC would take a chunk of the oil revenue should it finally be realised. 

De-classified documents show that the U.K. government was aware of oil and were taking pains to ensure the potential leaseback to Argentina didn’t forgo this potential source of revenue, but I’m not finding anything on the web to suggest “huge amounts” have been invested by the UK government .. 

I meant by the various oil exploration ventures, but I take your point that it's debatable exactly how central the possibility of oil was to the territorial claims.

I found this interesting piece which is more in line with your thinking

https://www.lawfareblog.com/exaggerated-threat-oil-wars

Quote

The Exaggerated Threat of Oil Wars

By Emily Meierding

 Sunday, August 2, 2020, 10:01 AM

Editor’s Note: That states go to war to seize natural resources, especially oil, seems like a truism. However, Emily Meierding of the Naval Postgraduate School argues that such wars for oil are in reality exceptionally rare. In this post, based on her new book, she explains that the costs and risks of such conflicts are almost always too high for would-be aggressors to pay.

Daniel Byman

***

Over the past year, Chinese seismic survey vessels and their paramilitary escorts have interfered repeatedly with Vietnamese and Malaysian oil and natural gas exploration in the South China Sea, harassing drilling rigs and support ships. These confrontations have prompted concerns that they could provoke a larger military conflict, especially as China exploits the unsteadiness created by the coronavirus to become more aggressive in its various international territorial disputes.

Happily, the historical record indicates that China and its neighbors are unlikely to escalate their energy sparring. Contrary to overheated rhetoric, countries do not actually “take the oil,” to use President Trump’s controversial and inaccurate phrase. Instead, my recent research demonstrates that countries avoid fighting for oil resources.

No Blood for Oil

Between 1912 and 2010, countries fought 180 times over territories that contained—or were believed to contain—oil or natural gas resources. These conflicts ranged from brief, nonfatal border violations, like Turkish jets entering Greek airspace, to the two world wars. Many of these clashes—including World War II, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990), the U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the Falklands War (1982), and the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay (1932-1935)—have been described as classic oil wars: that is, severe international conflicts in which countries fight to obtain petroleum resources.

However, a closer look at these conflicts reveals that none merits the classic “oil war” label. Although countries did fight over oil-endowed territories, they usually fought for other reasons, including aspirations to regional hegemony, domestic politics, national pride, or contested territories’ other strategic, economic, or symbolic assets. Oil was an uncommon trigger for international confrontations and never caused major conflicts.

On approximately 20 occasions, over almost a century, countries engaged in minor conflicts to obtain oil resources. However, these “oil spats” were brief, mild, mostly nonfatal, and generally involved countries whose hostility predated their resource competition. Greece and Turkey have prosecuted oil spats. So have China and Vietnam, Guyana and Venezuela, and a dozen other pairs of countries. These confrontations inspired aggressive rhetoric while they were underway, but none of them ever escalated into a larger armed conflict.

Oil has periodically influenced the trajectories of major conflicts that were launched for other reasons. At the end of World War I, British troops seized Mosul province in order to secure its oil resources. Oil aspirations also motivated Germany’s invasion of the Russian Caucasus (1941-1942) and Japan’s invasion of the Dutch East Indies (1941-1942). While the latter attack precipitated U.S. involvement in World War II, it was also a continuation of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). All of these “oil campaigns” were inspired by aggressors’ wartime resource needs. Absent the ongoing conflicts, these countries would not have fought for oil.

A Question of Value

 

The absence of oil wars is surprising and counterintuitive. Petroleum is an exceptionally valuable resource. It fuels all countries’ economies and militaries. Oil sales are also a crucial revenue source for producer states. Surely, countries are willing to fight to obtain petroleum resources.

In fact, classic oil wars are extraordinarily costly. A country that aims to seize foreign oil faces, first, the costs of invading another country. International aggression is destructive and expensive under the best of circumstances. It may also damage the oil infrastructure that a conqueror hopes to acquire. Next, if a conqueror plans to exploit oil resources over the long term, it faces the costs of occupying seized territory. As the United States has learned from its “endless wars,” foreign occupation is extremely challenging, even for the world’s most powerful country.

Additionally, a conqueror faces international approbation for oil grabs. As censorious responses to Trump’s proposition that the United States “take the oil” from Syria, Iraq and Libya have indicated, seizing another country’s oil is considered reprobate behavior. It violates international laws against plunder and materially threatens to consolidate control over global oil resources. As Iraq learned in 1990, other countries and international institutions respond to oil grabs with diplomatic censure, economic sanctions and even military force. Finally, if a conqueror manages to maintain control over foreign oil resources, it may not be able to exploit them. Conquest scares off the foreign oil companies that many countries rely on to finance and manage oil production.

Because of the high costs of invasion, occupation, and international opprobrium, classic oil wars are simply not worth the effort, regardless of petroleum’s value. Countries may occasionally decide that it is worth initiating an oil spat to obtain desired resources, especially when targeted territories are contested and other issues are at stake. However, fighting major conflicts for oil does not pay.

But on the broader subject of imperialism, surely one of the attractions of empire building has always been access to natural resources - or to strategically valuable ports, shipping lanes, whatever. Things that increase the economic and political influence of the colonising power.

[Risso]

I don't think Spain are in any hurry to hand back the territories of Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco are they? A point they would do well to remember when banging on about Gibraltar.

[villakram]

10 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Yes and no. 

You hold your views and you express them. That’s great. This is a football forum and the debate on football matters can get very emotive.  But off topic is full of people with differing views putting them forward in an informative and often humorous way.   

What does frustrate me is that you make statements and then fail to follow up polite requests to explain and expand upon your viewpoint.  

I’d still love to hear your answers to the questions I asked you at the very start of this thread.  

 

... regarding Kings and Queens trading this and that for honor, riches, sons or daughters and other thoroughly egalitarian principles.

Yup, all above board Guv!