Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-determination

"All peoples have the right to self-determination"Certainly, the UN has outlined self determination as a right given to "all peoples". However, "peoples" in this situation has not been defined, neither by the UN nor by the international community itself. Do we group "people" based off of ethnicity? Religion? Heritage? The truth is, there is no way to define what a "people" constitutes. On the Falkland Islands, 29% identify themselves as British, however, 24.8% were neither born on the Islands nor born in the UK(1). By the UN's loose definition, these people have just as much right to self-determination as anyone else, as do those on the Falkland Islands who identify as Argentine.These people all have different backgrounds and heritage. Without a proper definition for what differentiates different "peoples", I argue that you can't really apply these UN declarations to this case. Self-Determination is not an unconditional rightThough my opponent would like to paint self-determination as an unconditional and unalienable right, the truth is it is not, and the politics regarding self-determination are full of hypocrisy. Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia joined the UN in 1945. Pakistan in 1947. Yet, the US has constantly interfered with politics in that region for many years. Hypothetically, if citizens of Saudi Arabia had unanimously voted to be ruled by dictatorship, and then selected Osama bin Laden as their leader, is there any doubt the US would have intervened? Self-determination is a good narrative, but an unrealistic one. Citizens don't always decide what's best for their country, and other countries will occasionally be forced to intervene. Until this is no longer the case, and countries can make decisions leading to their own demise without outsiders acting out of goodwill, self-determination is not and will never be an unconditional right. Therefore, the UN's claims that "the interests of the inhabitants are paramount" are laughable at best."The will of the people" means very little during conflictsWhen the US decided to separate from Britain, it sparked the Revolutionary War, and 25,000 Americans died fighting for their country. Likewise, when the South seceded from the Union, the conflict sparked the Civil War and 625,000 Americans died(2). When a country is serious about it's political freedom, the citizens should be willing to put their lives on the live for their cause and create change. Announcing self-determination means very little during a conflict. If words solved conflicts, America would've gained independence after the first draft of the Declaration of Rights and GrievancesHowever, the Falkland Islands do not have a military, as they rely on British Forces to protect them. Therefore if a conflict were to arise regarding their decisions, they will be reliant on British forces to die in their stead. And let's say the Islands decide to side with neither the UK nor Argentina, and decide to become an independent country. Who will chase out the British and Argentine forces stationed there? Not the military-less Falkland Islands. The UN would have to intervene and again, the Falklands would be relying on others to die for their decisions. Do they have a right to offer up the lives on non-native Islanders? I argue that they do not. If they are unable to attain their political statehood which they seek with their own hands, self-determination is little more than a theory on paper. The UN does not exist to be the personal army of every country with a minor dispute. And it is not the Falkland Islands' right for them to be reliant on the UN in a potential battle that the Islanders themselves won't be fighting in. History has shown us what happens when nations hastily grant legitimacy to self-deterministic claims. Especially ones which are ill-equipped to handle the outcome. The hasty recognition of Croatia and Slovenia by the EC lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia, and 9 years of subsequent warfare. But most importantly, having a right to self-determination ignores greater common sense. If the will of the people was paramount, Quebec would have already seceded from Canada(3). But when you hastily giving utmost importance to the will of the people does not always lead to the best results. If the trials of George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony had been left up to public opinion, both would have been deemed guilty the first day. However, due process allowed logic and reasoning to shine through. Self-determination leaves no room from compromise and negotiation, making it by itself, inherently dangerous.I argue that not only do the Falkland Islanders not have a right to self-determination, but that self-determination by itself is an absurd, ideological notion1. http://en.mercopress.com...2. http://www.militaryfactory.com... 3. http://www.businessinsider.com...