Any "acceptable settlement" (The Falklands: 30 years on, 31 March) will recognise that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possidetis juris.
Following the British appropriation of Port Egmont in 1765, a Spanish military governor was appointed in 1767 to administer the islands. In 1776, by royal charter, the Spanish crown made the islands a commandery under the jurisdiction of the naval base at Montevideo, which reported to the government of Buenos Aires. Upon the May revolution in 1810, the latter took over all the territories of the viceroyalty of the Rio Plata, including the islands. Spanish administration of the islands was interrupted in 1811 and resumed in 1820. On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio.
The above principle, as applied to territorial ownership and as affirmed repeatedly by the international court of justice, accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty.
So the islanders have the security of Mount Pleasant defence but not of international law.
Peter Hamilton
Much Marcle, Herefordshire
• About the article published by Roger Edwards saying that "no one listen to the islanders" (Will no one listen to us Falkland Islanders?, 6 March), I wanted to talk about some of your statements.
After our independence from Spain, which until then exercised legal dominion over the islands, the country inherited and maintained that domain with a small military garrison since 1820, as mentioned by Edwards.
The expulsion of the Argentine authorities in 1833 was a use of force by a dominant power, Britain, against a recently formed country, as Argentina was. This display of power, which was immediately protested by the Argentine government, is the cause of the whole problem, and the reason why British people have been living in the island for more than 180 years. The British occupation resulted in a colony that prevented the development of Argentina's population, unlike what happened in Patagonia.
Argentina does not have anything against the islanders, just that there is a long dispute over the territory in which they live, which began before their arrival. The reaffirmation of Argentina's position has its origin in the lack of British willingness to begin negotiations, and the subsequent consolidation of a status quo that only benefits Britain. All the steps taken by our democratic governments are contemplated as peaceful means, under international law and the United Nations Charter, and have the support of the international community, particularly in our region, which considers the Malvinas issue a remnant of colonialism.
It is time for the islanders to understand that Argentina feels attacked when Britain declares that sovereignty over the islands is not open to discussion. Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world denies is under legal dispute, not even the US.
It is clear that the world is heading towards the creation of integrated spaces, and the viability of states is directly related to their insertion into these spaces. We are therefore convinced that the future of the islands is objectively linked to South America.
The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.
Carlos Raimundi
Member of Argentina's parliament
• As with Afghanistan, the great problem is that so many faultless servicemen and women and their families have lost their lives and loved ones fighting senseless wars, at the behest of bellicose politicians, that it is very hard to admit that such sacrifice has essentially been wasted. But just as we should clearly pull out and stay out of Afghanistan, we should equally take a hard-headed approach to the future of the Falklands. Imagine if, as a result of past colonial exploits, Argentina "owned" the Isle of Wight or the Isle of Man – what would we think then? It would be ridiculous, just as us "owning" the Falklands is.
Yes, currently, it appears that a majority of the islanders want to remain "British" but this is not a realistic proposition. Instead we should do as we did with Hong Kong, set a date, say 30 years hence, when the islands would revert to Argentina and work constructively with all parties in the meantime to bring this about. Of course any Falkland Islanders and their families who wanted before – or at – that point to "return" to Britain should be enabled to do so. Thereafter, residents of the islands would be Argentinian citizens.
John Strongman
Manchester
Argentina may well have "provoked" war 30 years ago but it takes two to tango, and the worry is that, now that the Tories have finally been recognised for what they are, they could well be the willing partner again, repeating the Thatcher ploy of resorting to war to avoid humiliation at the polls. What are the odds on a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident in the South Atlantic in the next 12 months? Failing that, one in the Strait of Hormuz might serve the same purpose.
Bernie Evans
Liverpool