A curious case of a country 300 miles away claiming sovereignty over islands of no previous relationship in the middle of an ocean.
All over the world are islands populated by various peoples, some who’ve been there as long as time recalls, others who arrived and transplanted indiginous peoples, others who came to uninhabited almost unknown islands that no-one was interested in.
Of all these you might think the first and third would have fairly clear sovereignty. Of the second maybe there would be some dispute although in most cases it is resolved by election or just a shared long running disagreement.
Perhaps there is a case that geographic proximity to a larger country should make an island dependant. This would make many islands more disputable than the Falklands e.g. the Canary Islands, the Caribbean Islands, the Channel Islands.
Islands currently self governed and previously uninhabited and hardly known like the Falkland Islands seem a case of undisputed sovereignty.
This week the whole of South America and the Caribbean has resolved to support Argentina making a claim on the islands even though they have nothing to do with and are a long way from Argentina. Seems sticky ground really. The Caribbean Islands are closer to South America than the Falklands so who is most at risk in the long term. Often others look to take advantage or shield behind precedents.
There is a risk that when a country becomes unstable and struggling that it will seek a diversion. Some might argue that both countries are in this position to some degree. There is a test of maturity under way that might make a mutually beneficial agreement more difficult, although it might make it easier. I haven’t read any logical case to to support Argentina’s claim.