A re-emerging sovereignty debate
The Falklands are back. Facing economic hardship and political unpopularity, Argentina’s president, Crisina Fernandez de Kirchner has brought attention back to Argentina’s claim to sovereignty over las Maldinas, also known as the Falkland Islands. The sovereignty stand-off flared this month as Ocean Guardian, a rig to drill offshore for oil and gas, began work in the Southern Atlantic archipelago on behalf of Desire Petroleum, a British company. The exploitation of this natural resource has huge potential. Many speculate on the quantities of oil which would transform the way of life on the Islands and deliver the UK firm huge profits. The prospects of this outcome are good and Phyl Rendell, the Islands’ minister for minerals and agriculture is ‘cautiously optimistic’, with the extraction of oil and gas being a real possibility ‘in the next ten years.’ Resources have certainly catalysed the renewed vigour in the sovereignty dispute, but in the substantive debate, economics is a secondary issue.
In Argentina, disgruntlement over the Falklands is a component of national identity. The injustice of the present situation is drilled into young Argentinians in classrooms and homes across the country. A British presence in the South Atlantic is seen as an imperial hangover and an anachronism. The grievance is part of a Latin American mindset that sees imperial and later American intervention in the area as the source of a number of its problems. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in a call for a UN debate on the competing claims to the islands asked ‘What is the geographic, the political or economic explanation for England to be in Las Malvinas? Could it be because England is a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council [where] they can do everything and the others nothing?’ To many in the area, the islands are representative of a systematic injustice that needs correcting. It would, however, be easy to overstate the intensity of the Argentinian outrage. Whilst 80 per cent of the population see the Falklands as an important concern, just 3 per cent think they are worth fighting for.
What of the their place in Britain’s political psyche? The Falklands War is the most popular of any war fought since 1945. The received wisdom in the UK sees the war as an efficient defence of our people and assertion of our sovereignty in the face of an unprovoked act of aggression by an illegitimate and amoral military Junta. Whilst this analysis is not without value, the conflict revealed an outdated jingoism in the British understanding of foreign affairs. The red top reaction included profound insights such as the Sun’s ‘up your Junta’, showing the sense of perspective and reason one has come to expect from them. This included the sponsorship of a missile to be used against Argentina, emblazoning it with the words ‘up yours Galtieri’ and including a photograph of the projectile in the paper with the caption ‘here it comes senors.’ For too long, the Falklands has served as an opportunity for orgies of imperialistic chauvinism, an excuse to relive a bygone era of dominance.
Jorge Luis Borges, the Argentinian writer and essayist, compared the squabble between the nations to ‘a fight between two bald men over a comb.’ The Argentinian claim surrounds past injustice. The relevant history began in 1713 when the Treaty of Utrecht asserted Spanish sovereignty over the islands. The concord, an agreement between European powers that arranged ownership of far-flung parts of the world, lacks any kind of moral legitimacy. Nonetheless, the strength of Spain’s title to the land was reaffirmed in 1823 when the Spanish kept the Falklands despite Argentinian independence. Ten years later, Britain took the Islands by force and colonized the windswept archipelago. Ever since there have been persistent Argentinian complaints to the international community calling for a discussion over sovereignty and it is easy to understand why. It is barely more complicated that one set of well-armed foreigners taking their land followed by another doing exactly the same. But history doesn’t always matter.
It is indisputable that British rule of the islands is an anachronism and an imperial hangover, but to jump from this fact to a conclusion that the islands must be returned to Argentina ignores a number of crucial steps. Falklanders are unmistakably British and want to remain part of Britain. For a community of Land Rover driving sheep farmers to come under Argentinian rule would be a nonsensical outcome demonstrating the disconnect between diplomacy and reality. As has been demonstrated, the anti-colonialist rationale for Argentinian dominion is far from vacuous, but in a clash between the hurt feelings stemming from events long-passed and the right to self-determination of the people of the Falklands, it has no place.
Empire is little more than the denial of a people’s right to self-determination. Thankfully, the days of Britain’s worldwide abuse of this right are no more, and to prioritise apology over equivalent abuses today is misguided. Correcting the wrongs of imperialism would lead to instability and conflict, the criminality of which might surpass those of colonialism itself. In a move to mollify awkward neighbours in Latin America and a respect for post-colonial discontent, Obama has encouraged compromise and understanding. Understanding here is nothing more than platitudinous. America should concentrate on the principle of self-determination, the right they themselves fought for against the British.
‘Who’s colonizing who?’ is the question that all those involved need to ask. The answer is not found in history books.
No related posts.