I think the point about plebiscites being meaningless is correct where the occupier indeed strictly limits who can live in the territory. I don’t know the degree to which that’s true of the Falklands, but it is probably substantial (particularly since 1982!).
China invading Tibet, however, is a “another very poor example,” to use your terms, of why plebiscites aren’t a good measure. Tibet was inhabited when China invaded it. The Falklands were uninhabited when the British arrived; they didn’t kick out any “native Malivinians.”
Anyhoo, I’ve cluttered my main point with some bad examples, but it remains that Argentina’s claim on the Falklands is weak compared to that of the UK — unless we are going to revert to a standard of “if it’s closer to your continent, then your claim is better.”
Argentina’s claim on the Falklands is weak compared to that of the UK — unless we are going to revert to a standard of “if it’s closer to your continent, then your claim is better.”
Well put; I understand.
Like you say, “anyhoo”,
it makes for great theater as once again we may get a front row seat for another Argentine ass whoopin by the Britts.
I think it is simply a way or the Argentine leaders to take the peoples minds off their problems.