30 Years Ago
So 30 years after the end of the Falklands War and yet again, the thorny issue of the sovereignty of the Malvinas is in our midst. As in the early 1980's, both the UK and Argentina could do with a passionate distraction from home affairs but unlike that time, Argentina is now voicing its position through democracy rather than dictatorship. What has made the current furore even more interesting, has been the input from Hollywood actor Sean Penn. After his meeting with the Argentinian leadership, he has castigated the 'colonionist Brits' and questioned why Prince William is being based there. In response, Falklands veteran and proud Welshman Simon Weston described his criticisms as 'disgusting'.
So where do I start with this one? I have very clear memories of this conflict as a schoolboy, coming home every lunchtime to see if any more ships had been sunk or planes shot down. It was all very exciting at such an age, yet the shocking loss of life really struck home after two incidents; the bombing of the Welsh Guards on Sir Galahad and the sinking of General Belgrano.
Considering the history of conflict and general stroppiness over these windswept islands, I was under the impression that the likely discovery of oil and gas off these islands could lead to a joint exploration for both States, sharing the profits and defusing the dispute. If the UK position is about the rights of the locals and not resources, then why is this a problem for them? I do not for one moment want to belittle the sacrifices made 30 years ago in the name of our state, but have to question the current legitimacy of defending this colonial outpost.
Can you imagine if the tables were turned and say Argentina claimed the Shetlands and all the oil that went with them and the locals were happy with this? How long do you think it would take Daily Mail to declare war? Then of course, there is the argument about the opinion of the Islanders being above everything else, yet I do not remember such principles when Hong Kong was taken over by the Chinese (lease or no lease).
In reality, it has nothing to do with the Islanders but everything to do with the slice of the Antarctic that the UK claims, on the back of owning these islands. However, it is one hell of a risk to annoy some of the rising economic powers such as Brazil; a state that has far more sympathy for their neighbours than the UK. I believe that the UK would be wise to build bridges with such nations; particularly when they no longer have the military ability to defend such outposts. Let's hope that Argentina has seen the last of its military juntas!
It's obviously ludicrous that the Islands were ever considered British. However it's hard to get around the democratic reality that the Falklanders want to stay British at the moment. The current spat is probably hardening attitudes again, which doesn't get us anywhere.
ReplyDeleteInstead of it being seen as a state v. state dispute, Argentina should adopt a long-term strategy of a slow-burn charm offensive towards the Islanders themselves. The UK should be relaxed and open-minded about that and see where it leads.
What you seem to fail to see is that the Shetlands is populated by British people. Falklands has been populated by British people for nearly 200 years. If Argentina had claimed the Shetlands 200 years ago, when no-one was living there, then that would be fair enougfh. We would be used to them living there, just as France is used to those living on Jersey and Gurnsey.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the investment and infrastructure the British have put on the Falklands in the last 200 years? Are we supposed to give that all up to Argentina?
What efforts have Argentina made to search for oil in their own region?
The exclusion zone around the Islands is where the oil has been found and the technology for developing deeper sea exploration is a fairly recent achievement. Before the conflict 30 years ago, the UK had not made much investment in the Islands.
ReplyDeleteThis outpost is 8000 miles from the UK mainland and almost on the other side of the Planet. It is a remnant of Britain's colonial era, although by no means the only one. By working with Argentina instead of winding them up, the UK could actually gain by making use of the nearest mainland. If there had not been a conflict, then I very much doubt that the UK would be so awkward. However, I recognise that what happened a generation ago cannot be ignored, but nor can the reality that it is simply not sustainable to ignore Argentina and its neighbours over this issue.
"However it's hard to get around the democratic reality that the Falklanders want to stay British at the moment."
ReplyDeleteThe islanders desire to be British has no relevance whatsoever to the resources in the waters around the islands. It flies in the face of international norms for Britain to be able to take natural resources from territory claimed by Argentina, territory that is geographically next to Argentina. It is not about the islanders citizenship. They can remain British and an agreement still be reached over the resources between the Argentine and UK governments. The islanders as a colonial population do not have self-determination and do not have a right to claim the resources for Britain. They should be allowed to stay and retain their British citizenship if that is their wish, but there must be international talks where the issue of resources can be resolved. We live in the 'belly of the beast' as it were but if we lived in the American continent it would be obvious that Argentina's claim is stronger.
The Falkland Islanders have been there longer than the families of most people who live in Argentina, who are themselves descended from colonialists, have been in Argentina. Argentina's claim to the islands is not internationally recognised. I don't know what "international norms" you are talking about, and neither, I suspect, do you.
Delete