Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Wight

GET UPDATES FROM John Wight
 

Argentina's Claim Over the Falkland Islands Is Legitimate

Posted: 04/01/2013 09:14

The longstanding dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic between Britain and Argentina is once again in the news; this time as a result of an open letter to David Cameron from Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, published in the Guardian. In her letter, the Argentinian president accuses Britain of having taken possession of the islands - known in Argentina as Las Malvinas - in a "blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism."

Any objective rendering of the history of the Falklands reveals that she is right.

Located 300 miles from Argentina and over 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falkland Islands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th-century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, after which its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, when seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.

Britain's act of colonialism over its seizure of the islands has been admitted to in private by various British officials over time. For example, John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO's American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain's control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that "our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits."

In 1982 the war against the then Argentinian government's attempt to seize back the islands by force cost the lives of 258 British and over 600 Argentinian servicemen. It proved a turning point in the fortunes of the nascent and up to then deeply unpopular Tory government led by Margaret Thatcher. Jingoism swept the country, allowing Thatcher to press ahead with the structural adjustment of the UK economy, which in the process devastated working class communities and delivered a resounding defeat to the trade union movement over the course of a series of hard fought strikes and industrial disputes throughout the early and mid 1980s.

Yet what we know now, thanks to recently released government papers, is that Thatcher's projection of steely determination when it came to asserting Britain's right to the islands by force in truth belied a willingness to seek a diplomatic solution with the Argentinians prior to their military assault.

The argument against British sovereignty of the Falklands was harder to make in 1982. Back then Argentina was governed by a brutal military junta which had ruthlessly suppressed any and all dissent to its authority at home. Three decades on, however, the situation is markedly different. Argentina is now a centre-left democracy, one of a series of progressive governments that have swept the region over the past decade or so, and is pursuing its claim via diplomatic means. Moreover, her claim is supported by its neighbours and fellow members of Mercosur, the trading bloc of South American states.

Regardless, the current British government refuses to negotiate, citing the democratic rights of the 3,000 British citizens who currently inhabit them. It should be noted here that according to a census carried out on the Falkland Islands in 2006 only a third of its residents were born there. It should also be noted that the same rights were not granted to the inhabitants of another distant British colony, the islands of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The islanders in question, Chagossians, were forcibly repatriated to Mauritius, a thousand miles away from their home, to make way for a US airbase in the mid 1960s. Subsequently, the islanders and their dependants fought and won a historic High Court judgement in 2000, declaring their expulsion illegal.

However, in response the then Blair government promptly rejected any possibility of them being allowed to return to the island, citing Britain's treaty with the US which had handed the islands over for use as a military airbase. That the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia happen to have dark skin while the 3,000 residents of the Falkland Islands are white, English speaking colonists, is of course completely irrelevant.

The truth is that when it comes to the Falklands self determination is being used as a smokescreen. The real issue is the sizeable oil and gas deposits located in waters close to the islands, where drilling began by British oil companies in 2011. In 1995 both countries signed a joint declaration to cooperate on off shore oil explorations in the South Atlantic. In 2007 Argentina voided the declaration because Britain refused to view it as a step towards meaningful negotiations over sovereignty.

Any British government must be aware that it risks precipitating a South American trade embargo if it continues with an obdurate and intransigent stance of refusing to budge from the status quo. This is a region which has emerged from centuries of European and North American domination and is determined to assert its rights accordingly. Seen in this light the ability of 3000 people living on a tiny group of islands in the South Atlantic to dictate the foreign policy of a nation of 60 million over 8000 miles away, up to and including war, is surely absurd.

The Falkland Islands constitute one of the last remnants of British colonialism, part of a history of economic piracy stained with the blood of millions who suffered as a consequence. The sooner this history is brought to a close the better.

 

Follow John Wight on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnwight1

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
The longstanding dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic between Britain and Argentina is once again in the news; this time as a result of an open letter to David Ca...
The longstanding dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic between Britain and Argentina is once again in the news; this time as a result of an open letter to David Ca...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:38 PM on 02/26/2013
So basically Britain, the Evil Empire seized the "Malvines" from innocent Argentine penguin farmers whose families had lived in South America/The Falklands since stone age times? I think not.

Face it. The British Empire took the Falklands during a bun fight over the Americas. The Brits, Spanish etc... fought(?) over a group of rocks and the British won. Just as the Spanish fought the natives of South America and won - replacing the indigenous population. Argentina even continued the trend in Patagonia on gaining independence from Spain.

In this case it was one bunch of colonialists, kicking another bunch of colonialists out, perceiving the second bunch of colonialists as a bunch of squatters. You couldn't make it up.

Frankly.. so what if the British were behaving like pirates, thieves and bandits at the time? i'm not arguing they were, but frankly in the historical context it hardly matters. The ancestors of modern day Argentinians were raping and pillaging their way through S. America before, after and during the whole process.
04:17 AM on 02/04/2013
If you are going to claim to be objective, then mentioning that the UK had a Falklands colony forcibly evicted by Spain in 1770, even though they were there first, might be a good place to start.
Or that the Argentine government recently admitted in the UN (by accident) that their Falklands claim only begins in1829, and the guy that made the claim was only on the Falklands with papers of residence from the British.
Or you might want to revisit your use of the term 'seized by force', because I don't know what force was used. No shots fired, no people killed, some workers were paid in silver and the soldiers (who had only been there 2 months) and sailors (of whom a fair proportion were British)were instructed to leave: which they did. The British wanted the colony (which already had British papers of residence) to stay, but didn't stop the to 2 couples that wanted to leave from doing so. The RN left a flag with the shopkeeper and then left themselves. Hardly the tightest of grips for seizing something, but the proto-Argentine military still didn't return once the coast was clear.
You also might have mentioned that Spain only relinquished its claim in 1836.
12:08 PM on 01/09/2013
"Any objective rendering of the history of the Falklands reveals that she is right." Quite simply, it doesn't. Apart from the fact that Britiain's sovereignty over the Islands dates back to the 18th Century, research into Argentina's own national archives, among other sources, has revealed that the claimed expulsion of an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 did not happen. In fact, those few civilian residents of Port Louis who could be considered Argentine (at a time when such a nation barely existed), chose to remain there.
07:21 AM on 01/16/2013
Dear John Fowler,
One should be more specific about the facts you bring in - for instance, you say 'Brit. sovereignty dates back to the 18th Century' - you are right that already around that time British were trying to expand their empire in the South Atlantic. There are traces everywhere, not only in early attempts to move on into the islands in that part of the world. There were at the very least, two British invasions in mainland Argentina - 1806 and 1807 - which were forcefully repelled. Similarly in todays Uruguay and other areas of the South America. But this only proves the point. What were they doing there around that early time? This is an important chapter of the history of colonialism, no doubt about it. But to acknowledge this obvious fact does not necessary imply one should quick out the settlers from the Islands. One should reasonable look for other solutions as were considered, for instance, in the early 1979 in consonance both by the UK and Argentina.
04:23 AM on 02/04/2013
Invading mainland (whatever that means) Argentina in 1806 and 1807 would have been difficult as the country didn't exist. If you want to know what the British were doing there, well they were fighting the Spanish (who they were at war with).
05:11 PM on 01/07/2013
The problem remains intractable whilst each side to the argument sticks to its position. The war has not determined as to who is right but simply those that are left. Shared sovereignity seems the only way to go but it has become some sort of political pawn which suits one side or another as the political mood shifts to and fro.
09:16 AM on 01/16/2013
Marcus, I agree on this, however, let us wait until Cameron and CFK are gone for a more reasonable exchange towards a solution!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OokMckook
01:19 PM on 01/07/2013
Thought so , a coward who attacks those of us who have lived on the island , and familys who have been on the island for generations , Yet refuses to use facts and stays strangely silent while kirchner continues to land grab and wipe out tribes unfortunate enough to be near argentina.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OokMckook
02:06 PM on 01/06/2013
ps i should add a fact , I am a kelper and can trace my ancestors in the graveyards back to the 1700's can you do the same? ........ Next attempt to justify the regular damage and assault we have to endure to stay in our homes?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OokMckook
02:04 PM on 01/06/2013
However your facts are not correct.

In your far left war hungry chase for an article you forget many many facts

Facts such as the dutch first settled the islands before the spanish/Pre-Argies were committing genocide , SO where your voice saying the remaining tribes deserve their land back , some as recent as 10 years ago.

You also NEGLECT the FACT that france AND britain were both on the island in the 1600's again before spain's arrival , And the island was taken by force (by spain) yet you note when britain decided to fight back.

The huffs really dredging the barrel with all these so called writers who actually avoid historical fact
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barrysturn
Ut Veniant Omnes
11:38 AM on 01/06/2013
The problem with this view is that the population of the Falklands do not want to be Argentinian. That leaves the proponents of Argentine sovereignty with a slight quandary. Should the population be forced against their will to change their nationality or would ethnic cleansing be a better idea?

The comparison with Diego Garcia is rather odd. That event happened after the colonial era and incidentally how did an island in the middle of the Indian Ocean have a Spanish name anyway?

The government of Argentina are by adopting this imperialist stance depriving its own people of the considerable wealth that will come out of the Falklands in the distant future when it becomes economically viable to extract oil from there. Any oil or gas exploration would require Argentine co-operation and tens of thousands of jobs would be created in Argentina if they acted in collaboration and abandoned this nationalistic claptrap about sovereignty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Wight
12:14 PM on 01/06/2013
The view that the existing population of the islands, all 3000 of them, is the primary concern is a chimera. In the piece I point to the fact that according to a census taken in 2006 only a third of them were actually born there. I also believe, though I would need to verify this, that 40 percent of the present population have only been on the island ten years or less.

The utter absurdity of 3000 colonists, living over 8000 miles away, being able to influence and/or poison relations between two nations with a combined population of over 100 million is unconscionable.

I also think it's a gross exaggeration to describe the possibility of them being repatriated, if they do not wish to live under a joint sovereignty arrangement with Argentina, as 'ethnic cleansing'. If they are so determined to be and remain British, what could be more British than living in Britain?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barrysturn
Ut Veniant Omnes
03:36 PM on 01/06/2013
Are you prepared to accept the outcome of a referendum on this? Is a spurious 'legal' technicality or discussions about early nineteenth century colonialism more important than the wishes of the present day residents of these islands.

It is rubbish that Britain expelled the Argentine settlers from the islands. The 'settlers' were soldiers making a territorial land grab, incidentally just before they made one on Patagonia where instead of 'repatriating' the indigenous population they exterminated them.

Has anyone done census to see how many Argentinian citizens actually want to live on these islands?
07:11 AM on 01/16/2013
According to my information, about 2850 people live in the Falklands, out of which a certain percentage are foreign workers - from Chile, Peru, China, etc. - And yes, 35 % have been around for 30 years aprox.