Letter: Falklands' fate
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: With the greatest respect to Ambassador Pfirter (letter, 27 March), he introduces a red herring into the Falklands debate by comparing the relative distances of the Islands from Argentina and Britain. As he will know, geographical proximity has never been a valid reason for claiming sovereignty; if it were, many of today's international boundaries would have to be redrawn.
Mr Pfirter bases the Argentine case on the primacy of territorial integrity which, it is claimed, takes precedence over the right of self-determination. He assumes that the Falkland Islands are an integral part of Argentina, despite the facts that Argentina did not exist when the British landed there and that the only indigenous population on the Islands consisted of seals, seabirds and penguins, all of which have thrived under British occupation and administration.
We had a squabble with the Spanish over the sovereignty of the islands in 1771, but the Spanish monarch climbed down, disavowed the action taken by his Governor of La Plata and made restitution of the British settlement.
Looking ahead, Mr Pfirter disappointed me by sticking to the traditional Argentine line that it is in everyone's "best interest" to resolve the sovereignty issue through direct negotiations between Britain and Argentina. I fail to see how it can be in the islanders' "best interest" to be excluded from negotiations on their own future.
Sir REX HUNT
Chairman, The Falkland Islands Association
Sunningdale, Berkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments