Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Users may be interested in the talk page from when this was a work page, which is located at User talk:Pfainuk/Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. That page also lists the maps that I think would be useful here Pfainuk talk 10:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

This article should reflect that unlike the Falkland Islands, there is no democratic mandate, nor indeed permanent population to be consulted.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

I cited official webpage of an argentinian antarctic base. If you had opened the link, you would have seen the .aq internet domain. More info here (german) --201.253.136.129 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed, and I did notice the .aq domain name. My point is that that's a list of claims made by the Argentine government in pursuit of its claim to SGSSI. There is no evidence, as yet, that the Argentine government cites these facts in pursuit of its claim to SGSSI. Corbeta Uruguay is already addressed elsewhere in the article, as are the foundation of Grytviken in 1904 and the question as to the limits of the 1908 Letters Patent. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Argentinian Council for Foreign Relationship is enough? I cant get you an interview with the president. See here http://www.argentina-rree.com/7/7-104.htm (spanish) --201.253.136.129 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you can read Política Antártica Argentina --201.253.136.129 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The ideal would be a document from an Argentine government department such as the Ministry for Foreign Affairs ([1]). That's the standard used for both other sources in that section.
The first of your two sources appears to be an independent organisation. Generally speaking, I would suggest that organisations independent of the government aren't necessarily good sources for the government's position.
The second, I'm willing to accept as a government source. It's not ideal, but it'll do. But I can't find where it argues for Argentine sovereignty based on the founding of Grytviken and the existence of Corbeta Uruguay. It does back up the claim that the 1908 Letters Patent included the southernmost part of South America. While this does not belong in the section regarding claims made by the British government, I don't see why it can't go into the section regarding claims made by the Argentine government.
My Spanish isn't perfect, and I may have missed something. If you can demonstrate that what I've said is wrong - that the first source is a government source or is quoting the government position, or that the second does mention the Corbeta Uruguay on Thule island (as so far as I can tell, the Corbeta Uruguay it mentions is a ship) and the founding of Grytviken - then by all means quote sections of the text that back this up. Pfainuk talk 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newly inserted statement “The Argentine government refused to acknowledge this "attack"” is misleading and should be deleted. Indeed, “did not confirm” is not “refused to acknowledge”. They did not confirm consent (they did confirm receipt of the Letters Patent though), however they neither protested and that’s what matters because in diplomacy the lack of protest when notified constitutes acceptance. Indeed, the quoted Argentine source says: “Our country did not confirm receipt before this new aggression and solely the Dr. Estanislao Zeballos, through journalistic articles denounced this fact, since our Chancellery kept silence.” Apcbg (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that this section should reflect the claims currently made by governments in pursuit of their claims, regardless of whether they are strictly accurate or not. We already state the facts of the case higher up in the article - perhaps this could be made clearer, mind. That said, as I say, my Spanish is hardly perfect and it's entirely plausible that I may have misunderstood the source or the intentions of the site concerned - in this case I don't object to that bullet point's being removed. Pfainuk talk 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have also modified the other bullet point to reflect the fact that there are no recorded Argentine protests before 1927 (no claim indeed); source is needed for post-1927 though, for the former one (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores - The Malvinas Islands etc.) is not specific but puts together this case and the Falklands’ one. Apcbg (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First of all, according to wikipedia policy "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources" ... "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
I cant see why it has to be an argentine official source, since it clearly says an university level textbook is enough.
"The fist appears to be an independent organization". It is, however, an internet version of the most aknowledged book on the subject. It says: "Historia general de las relaciones exteriores de la República Argentina es una obra de 14 tomos, disponible en las principales librerías argentinas, que asume el desafío de examinar, sin mitologías chauvinistas, las relaciones externas de este país desde las invasiones inglesas de 1806 hasta el final del gobierno de Alfonsín en 1989." [2]
The book was written by a team of 12 experts. The two directors were Andrés Cisneros (minister of foreign affairs 1992-1996) and Carlos Escudé, PhD, worked in foreign affairs, conicet and cema.
If you want offcial (.gov) websites citing these events in grytviken:
The latter describes the most: "La segunda estación meteorológica permanente en los mares australes también fue establecida por nuestro país en enero de 1905, en las proximidades de la Compañía Argentina de Pesca en Grytviken. Cabe destacar que durante 40 años la Argentina fue el único ocupante permanente del Antártico."
On the south sandwich islands we have:
  • Conicet (Centro nacional de investigaciones científicas y téctnicas [3]
"Las islas más australes del archipiélago de las Sandwich del Sur fueron avistadas en 1775 por el navegante inglés James Cook, quien las designó con ese nombre en homenaje J. Montagú, 4º conde de Sandwich. Las más septentrionales fueron descubiertas en 1819 por la expedición rusa de Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen.
La primera ocupación se inició el 14 de diciembre de 1955 por representantes de nuestro país, cuando tres científicos de la Armada Argentina instalaron un refugio en una de las islas, al que bautizaron "Teniente Esquivel", y que, tras permanecer durante un mes en el lugar después debieron ser evacuados con apresuradamente por causa de la violenta erupción de un volcán cercano.
El 7 de noviembre de 1976, en la isla Morrell, comenzó a operar la Estación Científica Corbeta Uruguay, esta base argentina de comunicaciones y científica fue la primera y única que se construyó en las Sandwich del Sur, llegando a contar con 50 científicos de distintas especialidades que conformaron el asentamiento más oriental de la República Argentina.
Dicha estación operó hasta el 20 de junio de 1982, en que fue desalojada por un acto de fuerza ejecutado por tropas militares británicas; que tiempo después destruyeron totalmente la base, incluyendo las antenas de la famosa estación argentina de radioaficionados "LU3ZY".
A partir de esa fecha, el archipiélago de las Sandwich del Sur se encuentra totalmente deshabitado."
There are more but i think this should be enough?--201.252.28.245 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that the factual accuracy of the points is unsourced. On the contrary, all three points are made in the article already, and all three are already sufficiently sourced. What I suggest is unsourced is the notion that the Argentine government argues these points as justification for its claim to SGSSI.
This is why I say that a government source is preferable. That a university textbook - however reliable and accurate - says something does not imply that it's the government-accepted position.
There are good reasons why a government might not use all the facts at its disposal to argue a case. In a sovereignty dispute such as this, the object of the exercise is to persuade, and anyone wanting to persuade someone of something is likely to highlight the more convenient facts and ignore the less convenient ones. For example, in the dispute between Canada and the United States over their maritime border in the Beaufort Sea, Canada highlights the fact that the Alaska-Yukon border is a straight line (arguing that the straight line should continue through the Beaufort Sea) whereas the US highlights the fact that the coast runs roughly north-west to south-east in that area (arguing that the straight line should be perpendicular to the coast).
Whereas the fact that the CAP established the settlement on Grytviken is true, it is mildly inconvenient to the Argentines because the CAP worked under a British whaling licence with a lease from the Falkland Islands government. While the fact that the 1908 Letters Patent could be read to include parts of South America is true, it is inconvenient to the Argentines because they didn't object at the time. While the fact that Corbeta Uruguay was the first settlement on the South Sandwich Islands is true, highlighting could appear to suggest support for the 1982 invasion - they'd rather not do that because it raises the spectre of its happening again.
That's not to say that the Argentine government don't argue these points - it's just that there are good reasons why they might choose not to, and that the fact that these things are true does not imply that they are argued by the Argentine government. The documents you cite - so far as I can tell - are not arguing that SGSSI are Argentine, they merely give the facts.
Just to note, these facts are mentioned in the article already - cited to the Universidad del CEMA. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1908 Letters Patent[edit]

It's simply not possible to interpret the 1908 Letters Patent as covering parts of Chile and Argentina (unless a person had serious reading comprehension problems) because it specifically names the territories it refers to. The preamble of the Letters Patent reads:

Westminster, July 21st 1908. EDWARD the Seventh, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominons beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting. Whereas the group of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham’s Land, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying betweeen the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude, are part of our Dominions, and it is expedient that provision should be made for their government as Dependencies of our Colony of the Falklands: Now WE do hereby declare that from and after the publication of these our Letters Patent in the Government ‘Gazette’ of our Colony of the Falkland Islands the said group of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands and the Sandwich Islands, and the said territory of Graham’s Land shall become Dependencies of our said Colony of the Falkland Islands…

It's true that part of south of Argentina and Chile is situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying between the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude but so are the Falklands. To interpret it as covering all the territories within the area would have made the Falklands one of its own dependencies. Dab14763 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably correct but wikipedia has this policy of verifiability not truth. Argentina didn't object at the time and contrived an argument later but that isn't what we report. We don't do original research. Justin talk 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I've added a 'by whom' tag. If anyone has any evidence of someone between 1908 and 1917 noticing a problem with the wording of the 1908 Letters Patent and that this was the reason for the change in wording in the 1917 Letters Patent, could they please provide a source. Dab14763 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's already in the source provided. I quote reference 5, page 19:

The British claim, as announced in 1908, was to the "South Orkney, South Georgia and South Shetland islands, and Graham Land situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying betweeen the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude". Clarifying letters patent were issued on March 28, 1917, defining the claim more precisely to exclude anything north of the 58th parallel and west of 50°W., since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego.

This rather strongly implies that it was the British, not the Argentines, who noticed a potential problem. If it had been the Argentines, then one would have thought that a book entitled National Interests and Claims in the Antarctic would have said so.
That said, I notice that the quote from the book is different from your quote, and I can't explain the difference. I agree that it is difficult to infer the South American Mainland and Tierra del Fuego from the text you quote, but as it's a primary source I don't think we can assume anything. Pfainuk talk 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add: could it be that this book is quoting somewhere in the middle of the letters patent and you're quoting the preamble? Not sure. In any case, I'm not sure it's that important - as I say, the original is a primary source, and per WP:PSTS we can't interpret primary sources. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego. Observed by whom? the pdf provides no more evidence that this was the motivation for the change in wording than this article does. Any evidence would have to be from the period 1908 - 1917.

Re the Letters Patent, I'm not sure if preamble is the right term. I got the text from the getting it right pdf note 1 on page 35. The differences between the two are that the pdf changes the order of South Georgia and South Orkneys and omits the 's' of Orkneys, and omits the 'territory known as' and the 's of Graham. It's difficult if not impossible to interpret either wording as covering the southern part of South America. Dab14763 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could remember where I read it but I recall reading that it was an Argentine protest delivered later that asserted the Letters Patent claimed part of Patagonia. Apcbg is probably a good person to ask the question where it came from. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

partialism[edit]

when the uk ddecided to take the matter unilaterally Argentina DECIDED TO COOPERATE? isnt this kind of partial, to say the least? were speaking about a sovereigny dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.223.229 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&oldid=1207007089"