THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: TIME FOR BRITAIN TO DEPART
The Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic are once again the subject of a dispute between Britain and Argentina, with David Cameron’s statement that Argentina’s interest in the islands are ‘colonialist’ surely a contender for the annual ‘you must be having a laugh’ award.
Back in 1982 a military conflict over the islands lasting two months resulted in the deaths of over 600 Argentinian servicemen and over 200 British. It was a conflict that erupted when Argentina invaded in an attempt to seize control of the islands by force. It was a war that should never have been fought, as British control of the Falklands (known in Argentina by their Spanish name of Las Islas Malvinas) was and remains a part of a shameful history of British colonialism around the world.
Located 300 miles from Argentina and some 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falklands 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, when its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, after they were seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since.
The war against the then Argentinian government’s attempt to seize back the islands in 1982 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.
The argument against British sovereignty of the Falklands was harder to make in 1982, as back then Argentina was governed by a brutal military junta which had violently and savagely suppressed any and all dissent to its authority at home. Almost 30 years 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 up to this point has pursued its claim of sovereignty via attempts at direct diplomacy with the British government and even with the UN. However, with Downing Street refusing to discuss the issue of sovereignty, Argentina’s patience is unsurprisingly wearing thin.
This is reflected in its recent decision to implement a ban on any vessel flying the flag of the Falkland Islands from its ports. In this it has been joined by its neighbours and fellow members of Mercosur, the trading bloc of South American states.
Argentina’s claim to the islands received the support of neighbouring Latin American and Caribbean governments at last year’s Rio summit in Cancun, Mexico. In a statement of solidarity with her claim the summit declared: “The heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain.”
Regardless, the British government continues to refuse to negotiate sovereignty of the islands, citing the democratic rights of the 3,000 British citizens who currently inhabit them. It should be noted that the same rights were not granted to the inhabitants of another distant British colony, the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The islanders in question were forcibly repatriated to Mauritius, one thousand miles away from their home, to make way for a US airbase in the mid 1960s. However, the islanders and their dependents won a historic High Court judgement back in 2000, declaring their expulsion illegal. 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 handed the island over for use as a military airbase. It should not be forgotten, of course, 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.
Furthermore, the Falkland Island are not a state. They are governed as British territory. Moreover, the fact that 3,000 islanders are able to influence British foreign policy to the extent they are is madness. If they are intent on remaining British citizens surely they can be repatriated back to the UK.
The issue of proximity must also be taken into account when it comes to this dispute. The notion that Britain can feasibly continue to claim sovereignty over islands that are located 8000 miles away is a relic of the 19th century that should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Just imagine if the situation was in reverse and Argentina claimed and held sovereignty over the Isle of Wight.
The truth is that self determination is being used as a smokescreen, just as it was when Thatcher was in office in 1982. The real issue is the sizeable oil and gas deposits located in waters close to the islands, where last year drilling began by British oil companies.
It is entirely understandable that Argentina should find British oil companies drilling for oil so close to the shores of disputed territory off its own coast an unacceptable act of provocation, especially since Argentina maintains that Britain has continued to ignore attempts to renew dialogue on the sovereignty of the islands since the war in 1982. In 1995 both countries signed a joint declaration to cooperate on off shore oil explorations in the South Atlantic. However in 2007 Argentina voided the declaration because Britain refused to view it as a step towards meaningful negotiations over sovereignty.
If the sovereignty of Hong Kong can be returned to China without any undue controversy at the end of a lengthy period of leaseback, surely the sovereignty of a tiny group of islands in the South Atlantic, occupied by just a few thousand people can be placed under joint ownership or a similar leaseback arrangement made. This could follow an extended period of joint-sovereignty between both countries in order to effect a smooth transition.
Any British government must be aware that the economic drain of maintaining this distant colony will not be offset by revenue from oil if the vocal support for Argentina’s claim throughout the region turns to active support in the form of a trade embargo. Latin America has emerged from centuries of European and North American domination and is determined to assert its rights accordingly.
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.
So:
1. We’re holding on to them for economic reasons; yet at the same time economic reasons dictate that we stop defending them
2. we stuffed Diego Garcia so we should shaft the falkland islanders
3. the people who live there do not constitute a ‘state’ and therefore do not have a right to self-determination
4. they could be ‘repatriated’ against their wishes, like the NF would like to repatriate certain of our citizens
5. rights to self-determination are dependent on geographical location
All pisspoor arguments that are legally/logically nonsensical or both, repugnant to basic human rights, and nothing at all to do with left wing values.
#1 spot on John. #2,Jonny, you are all over the place,and though your points may sound principled and consistent to some,the logic is actually right wing,,confused and ultimately reactionary.
As Jonny points out just a rehash of previous rather weak arguments on the other thread.
‘If they are intent on remaining British citizens surely they can be repatriated back to the UK.’
Do you apply the same logic to Northern Ireland?
It is quite sinister how certain sections of the left express enthusiastic support for ethnic cleansing in order to support ancient territorial claims by powerful states.
John’s absolutely right here. The current situation is clearly unsustainable and a “lease-back” agreement in a similar vein to the agreement with China over Hong Kong would clearly be the best solution.
Such an accord could fully cater for the interests of the inhabitants, who could remain UK citizens, remain living on the islands and could keep all of their current UK citizenship rights, while also being offered the opportunity – along with a reasonalbe resettlement grant – to voluntarily relocate to the UK if they wish to.
Of course, let’s remember that such an agreement was on the table back in 1982 (and also
before that date) and could have been put in place back then without the bloody and brutal deaths of around a thousand young men, who were slaughtered so that Thatcher could win re-election.
Over time, I’ve met a few people who fought in that conflict and – although I’m not claiming that two or three conversations with people I haven’t known very well represents a scientific opinon poll – my impression is one of extreme bitterness about how they were cynically used at that time and the ongoing feelings of trauma and, illogically, an element of guilt too, at the horrific deaths of their friends and comrades.
The best and most fitting tribute to them – and to the Argentinian servicemen too – would be a peaceful, just and dignified settlement along the lines suggested by John above.
Of course such a settlement would disappoint the jingoistic Tories, for whom Thatcher’s slaughter represents some kind of virility symbol, or the rather pathetic keyboard warriors on this thread, but it would be the right thing to do.
Here’s one proposed model for a resolution:
THE ALAND ISLAND SOLUTION
May be the reason the Falklands/Malvinas are British is because the islands exercise an irresistible attraction to people from another island many thousands of miles away while, over the past couple of centuries, people on the nearby mainland were not similarly attracted.
Give the Falklands to the Chagos islanders.
@1 we stuffed Diego Garcia
Who’s “we” ?
I’m old enough to remember the jingoistic bullshit last time ’round, in particular a banner hung by troops from a ship returning to Portsmouth. It read, “Call off the rail strike or we’ll call in an air strike !”
The Argentinians are welcome to the Falklands and John’s proposals about an extended period of joint-sovereignty seem workable and principled.
Thank fuck for British piracy that destroyed the fucking Spanish navy and spread democracy, rule of law and freedom worldwide.
Thanks to the British pirates for ending a millenium of slavery to Islam in India. Thanks to the British (whose rise was under ‘pirates’ championed by Queen Elizabeth) for banning slavery worldwide later.
Why doesn’t John Wight repatriate himself somewhere like he advises the Faulkland Islanders to do?
#9 Are you a fan of the Somali pirates too then? At least unlike the British pirates they don’t have many other avenues for making a livelihood open…
Great article btw John =)
Leaving aside the rhetoric about colonialism and imperialism, the argument boils down to: there are few Falklands Islanders and they are far away so they should not be allowed to interrupt relations between the UK and South America. Moreover, there is precedent for this sort of behaviour in the treatment of the people of Diego Garcia.
Miserable real politik dressed up in anti-imperialist clothes.
….and Harsanyi Janos’s arguments – just like his arguments in favour of the NATO oil grab in Libya – can be boiled down to “don’t listen to anything anyone else says, just keep on making up arguments they’re not using and then arguing against this – it might make me look a complete idiot, but it’s loads easier.”
How was it a “NATO oil grab” when Gaddafy had already granted oil exploration licenses to western oil countries (including BP)?
Argentina won the Falklands War. Think about it – by invading Galtieri won Thatcher the 1983 election, thereby allowing her to destroy Britain. 30 years later this country still isn’t near to recovering.
Chris,
What a wild statement. Britain was already well on it’s way to destruction in the mid-70s. Like all global economies it has gone through several cycles of boom and bust since. Argentina imploded in 1999 and was rendered a bankrupt and impoverished country overnight. It has bounced back since…and so will the UK if the City can be restrained.
If any Unionists do not wish to become citizens of a future united Ireland, as UK citizens they have the right to relocate to Britain. What’s your point?
In fact according to Wikipedia, “their right [that is all peoples of NI] to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland”. My central point remains unaltered: Unionists have the right to relocate to Britain if they don’t wish to live in a united Ireland.
Argentina should send three thousand and one of its people to claim ‘political asylum’ in the Falkand Islands. As the British Government has failed to remove a single asylum seeker from British soil in fifty years Argentinians would become an instant majority population in the Falklands. They then arrange a referendum to break away from the United Kingdom and become an independant sovereign state which the majority
Argentinian-Falkland Islanders would win. Then arrange a second referedum to abolish the Falkland Islands as an independant sovereign state and become part of a Greater Argentina. Job done! You left wing pricks!
# 17 The point is that you, and your tankie mates, are completely hypocritical when it comes to issues of self-determination and human rights.
You are perfectly happy to support the ethnic cleansing of a population from its homeland, if you do not approve of said population.
And you are completely happy to ignore the wishes of a territory’s population, in relation to their governance, as expressed through their own democratic structures.
Whether a population deserves self-determination, in your eyes, is completely arbitary.
You agree with bizarre territorial claims inherited from 15th century Papal bulls, as in the case of Falkands. We would rightly not accept justifications from the Torah for Israeli territorial claims, so why accept the territorial claims of the Hapsburgs?
You also apply a rule that an entire population, approaching a million, can be denied its right to self-determination if you deem them unsavoury (as in the case of Ulster).
The point is that population’s have a moral right to express who they wish to be governed by and also have a moral right not to be deported from their homeland.
There is also the issue of you supporting the barbarity of powerful states trading territories with the only response to the local population’s wishes being ‘if you don’t like, it f*@k off somewhere else’.
Seeing the right to self-determination is so crucial in the Palestinian’s struggle, why do you seek to undermine it?
Chris at 15 is right though. Argentina, or, rather, its people, did win the war. The right-wing government of whichever side lost militarily was going to fall. Argentina “lost”, and got rid of Galtieri – noted for his fondness for chucking trade unionists and socialists out of helicopters into the Atlantic, if memory serves. Britain “won”, and got to keep Thatcher, who was bad, but not that bad. She didn’t chuck us out of helicopters, at least. It is impossible to say how far the Argentinian junta’s “defeat” in the Falklands helped discredit right-wing military rule across Latin America, but it probably contributed.
Gawd, you don’t half chat some shit. Northern Ireland isn’t a sovereign state, it’s an artificially created entity with a deliberately constructed and privileged Unionist majority, carved out of the island of Ireland. It’s the Irish who have been denied self-determination by the British, and only an ahistorical jackass could claim otherwise.
As the rigged Unionist majority erodes because of demographics, a united Ireland becomes almost inevitable. When that happens, those Unionists who don’t like it can leave and be British in Britain – they hold British citizenship after all. As well as enjoying full rights, the (no doubt large majority) that choose to stay in Ireland will almost certainly be offered comprehensive political, cultural and social guarantees, AND RIGHTLY SO. It may have escaped you that that is a damn site more than the Nationalists ever received under British rule, although they did get gerrymandering, discrimination, internment, Bloody Sunday, and targeted assassinations.
It’s surely not beyond the wit of the British government to negotiate similar guarantees for the Falkland Islanders in the event that the islands are transferred to Argentina. They might even find that being ruled by Cristina rather than Dave isn’t so bad after all – for one thing, she’s only next door so she’s bound to visit more often.
The rest of your post is just incoherent abuse and noise, and doesn’t relate to anything I’ve said.
#19
Is that EDL-style comment going to be allowed to stay?
# 23 It is a a rather dodgy comment.
#22 ‘It’s the Irish who have been denied self-determination by the British, and only an ahistorical jackass could claim otherwise.’
It was the Good Friday Agreement that recognised that arguments over whether Northern Ireland deserved to exist, or did not, were rather a waste of time in finding a solution to the issue.
Northern Ireland exists.
Progress was made by giving parity of esteem to the two communities and their self-understandings.
‘It’s surely not beyond the wit of the British government to negotiate similar guarantees for the Falkland Islanders in the event that the islands are transferred to Argentina.’
Why should a population’s homeland be given to an another power, that has no reasonable claim at all, against the wishes of the native population?
The democratic structures of Falklands should decide on their status.
A sensible course would be a generous bilateral agreement with Argentina on oil exploitation, in exchange for a recognition that the status of the Falklands should be decided by the island’s democratic structures.
“just imagine if the situation was in reverse and Argentina claimed and held sovereignty over the Isle of Wight.”
In that case I’ll also have to imagine that the Isle of Wight is 250 miles off Portsmouth, say just by the Asturian coast, or in the Med near Marseilles.
PS – bring back the old layout.
PPS – the island of Ireland is much closer to Great Britain than the Falklands are to Argentina, the historic Norman/English claim to the island goes back at least 600 years …
I have to agree with #12 (Harsanyi Janos). Jonh’s solution to the Falklands is basically to do the same thing to them that has been done to the Chagossians.
I am concerned about the inferred affirmation that both of these are OK. The Chagossians were “repatriated” to Mauritius, despite almost all of the Chagossians having been born in – and having multiple generations of their ancestors born in – the Chagos Islands. By definition the removal of these people to Mauritius (as well as the Seychelles and UK mainland) could not possibly be a “repatriation”, but can only possibly be an “expulsion” or “exile”.
Similarly, most Falkland Islanders were not born in the UK, but in the Falklands, as in many cases were their ancestors. Thus, sending them to the mainland UK could likewise never be “repatriation” but only “expulsion” or “exile”.
This brings up a larger underlying issue – the way that the population of many of British Overseas Territories are treated as 2nd class citizens – of which the Chagossians are notable only for having the unfortunate distinction of suffering the worst degradation. However, the rights of citizens on St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension, Montserrat and the Pitcairn Islands are also restricted, whilst the OTs and Crown Dependencies as a whole suffer from the fact that they have no representation in the UK parliament and that a huge section of the population in many territories is kept in perpetual limbo and insecurity by the “belonger” system. Furthermore, territorial and dependency governments are either forced to fight a perpetual battle for scraps from table of the government in Westminster, or are utterly beholden to the interests of off-shore financial services.
It is for this reason that I personally feel very, very strongly that a federal model for the UK needs to be adopted, incorporating all regions (including the current nations of the UK “proper”, as well as the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories) that choose to join as completely equal partners with the same rights and status for all citizens, regardless of whether they are in London, Edinburgh, Stanley, St. Helena, Diego Garcia, or Adamstown.
#27
There’s a massive difference between the situation vis-a-vis the Falklands and Diego Garcia when it comes to the rights of the inhabitants.
The Chagossians were given no choice in the matter. They were forced out to make way for a US military base, whereas the Falkland Islanders could stay under any proposed joint sovereignty or leaseback arrangement with Argentina. What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is direct the foreign policy of an entire nation under the rubric of self determination and expect young men from housing schemes in Glasgow, Manchester, London et al to be sent to an island 8000 miles away to risk their lives for 3000 colonists.
#27 Its a frankly offensive straw man argument to say anyone serious is advocating the expulsion of the Islanders!
However you are right to point out that actually all the inhabitants of the scattered remnants of the British Empire are second class citizens. All these anomolous territories should be given the choice of full independence or incorporation into Britain with full citizenship rights; to be a non-self-governing territory in the present day is surely an undignified position. And we should definately do something about the tax havens still under British control!
Given you think Britain has badly treated its territories, don’t you think all the stuff about “self-determination” in this case may also be humbug?!
#25 “A sensible course would be a generous bilateral agreement with Argentina on oil exploitation, in exchange for a recognition that the status of the Falklands should be decided by the island’s democratic structures.”
Maybe, maybe not; butsurely it would take negotiations to reach that or any other resolution. Which government is currently calling for them?
A very good article.
Krys #27: “most Falkland Islanders were not born in the UK, but in the Falklands, as in many cases were their ancestors. Thus, sending them to the mainland UK could likewise never be “repatriation” but only “expulsion” or “exile”.”
OK, but that’s hardly consistent with the claim that the Falkland inhabitants are British. If they are British, then moving to the mainland- if that is what they would choose- is merely moving from one part of their country to another. As occurs, eg, when going to college, changing jobs, etc.
You say “sending” them to the UK. Is Argentina demanding the expulsion of the Falklanders?
Ken Livingstone for
London Mayor 2012
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture