Falklands Dispute: Views from Argentina and Beyond

[Ryan_m_b]

In recent weeks the relationship between Argentina and Britain has gone sour again over the disputed Falkland Islands. Since the brief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War 30 years ago Britain has kept a constant military presence on the island (the reason Argentina managed to take the islands so easily in the first place was the near non-existent military presence Britain had in the region in 1982 after the removal of HMS Endurance leaving just a handful of marines to defend the islands).

The latest dispute is over the replacement of HMS Montrose (and old model frigate) with HMS Dauntless (a new model destroyer) which the Argentine government claims counts as militarisation of the South Atlantic. They've also claimed that a nuclear submarine has been deployed to the area, an accusation that has been described as "absurd" by UK officials (the deployment of nuclear submarines is a classified matter anyway).

I'd like to get some opinions of non-UK (as well as UK) citizens because from the perspective over here arguing over the Falklands seems bizzare. Interviews with the islanders reveal that they want to remain as they are and don't want to be governed by Argentina so I'm interested to know especially of any Argentinian/South American views on this. Why are the Falkland islands a big political issue? Why not leave the islanders as they are?

To stake my opinion if the Islanders wanted to be called the Malvinas and wanted to be under Argentine rule or self rule I would be whole-heartedly supporting that as well. Is this all just political sabre rattling or do the general populous of Argentina (and the other South American countries that refuse to trade with Falkland sailors) genuinely feel the islanders should be made to go under Argentine rule? Another question is what do Argentines and others think about the UK increasing its defence of the island? It wouldn't be needed if the threat of invasion wasn't there.

One last point; budget cuts to the UK's military over the last few years have significantly weakened its capability. It was in the process of replacing its aircraft carriers and the planes that operate on them with the goal of having a gradual switch over but controversially a few years ago this plan was accelerated so that all but one of our aircraft carriers has been decommissioned (with the new "super" carriers not coming online for a few years yet) and the planes that operate on them such as the harrier have been taken out of service (not to be replaced until the joint strike fighter is introduced, again some years yet). According to various analysts I've seen on the news this is why preventing the islands being taken by increasing the garrison makes more sense because retaking would be harder.

 

[MarcoD]

Only people in the UK really follow the Falklands debate, it is a largely unknown dispute to the rest of Europe except for the Falklands war. I have no idea if when you start playing military tactical games there is any real advantage for the UK to hold on to it. It always seemed to be about sovereignty, but now also is about oil, so the ante went considerably up since that last war.

(Also, I don't think a lot of people care about this conflict. In case of another war, most of Europe will just grab the nachos and watch it on television. Somehow, it's less interesting than a Middle East conflict.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Only people in the UK really follow the Falklands debate, it is a largely unknown dispute to the rest of Europe except for the Falklands war. I have no idea if when you start playing military tactical games there is any real advantage for the UK to hold on to it. It always seemed to be about sovereignty, but now also is about oil, so the ante went considerably up since that last war.

Perhaps you missed my main point; considering the islanders do not want to be taken over by Argentina why are so many countries supporting Argentina's claim? In fact why do people in Argentina even want to take over a series of islands who would rather not?

(Also, I don't think a lot of people care about this conflict. In case of another war, most of Europe will just grab the nachos and watch it on television. Somehow, it's less interesting than a Middle East conflict.)

That's a pretty sick comment to make. If that was an attempt at humour then you failed utterly.

 

[MarcoD]

Perhaps you missed my main point; considering the islanders do not want to be taken over by Argentina why are so many countries supporting Argentina's claim? In fact why do people in Argentina even want to take over a series of islands who would rather not?

As far as I know, the Falklands were somewhere in history forcibly taken from Argentina, conversely the UK thought it had a claim whereas Argentina disputed that.

Personally, I think it is mostly up to the islanders since I don't believe in historical claims.

That's a pretty sick comment to make. If that was an attempt at humour then you failed utterly.

The level of indifference varies between conflicts. Sometimes, the world is sick.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally, I think it is mostly up to the islanders since I don't believe in historical claims.

Agreed. Any kind of "people long dead who existed before anyone today was born who identified themselves as the same nationality as me were grievanced by people long dead who existed before anyone today was born who identified themselves as the same nationality as you" just strikes me as bonkers.

The level of indifference varies between conflicts. Sometimes, the world is sick.

Depressingly agreed.

 

[MarcoD]

Depressingly agreed.

It was a very cynical remark. But then again, sometimes biting the bullet opens the road to positive action. Concretely, nothing has happened yet, only some remarks were made by politicians, so I am not worried.

 

[tiny-tim]

… Why are the Falkland islands a big political issue? Why not leave the islanders as they are?

it's not the land, it's the sea …

the argentinians think it's unfair that such a tiny island should make such a large hole in what would otherwise be argentina's exclusive and valuable fishing and mineral rights

 

[SHISHKABOB]

in my opinion: the Falklands belong to the UK because the UK currently owns them and can defend them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

it's not the land, it's the sea …

the argentinians think it's unfair that such a tiny island should make such a large hole in what would otherwise be argentina's exclusive and valuable fishing and mineral rights

Hmm a bit of googling reveals that the territorial waters of the Falklands are meant to be 12 nautical miles from the coast. However googling for pictures shows things like this that seem much larger. Unless I'm misunderstanding and the Maritime/Total Exclusion Zone set up during the war is still in effect?

 

[tiny-tim]

the dispute is over 460,000 square miles of seabed rights, see …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-rival-claims-to-seabed-around-Falklands.html

 

[Borek]

12 miles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

200 miles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

 

[MATLABdude]

The vast majority of the Islanders seem to want to remain British, so I'd say that's that. Even an attempt to buy them out wasn't received particularly well (or maybe the offer just wasn't high enough):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-could-be-offered-475000-pounds-1460603.html

Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

the dispute is over 460,000 square miles of seabed rights, see …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-rival-claims-to-seabed-around-Falklands.html

12 miles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

200 miles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Ahhh that makes sense. Looking at the UK section of that wiki it seems like the Falklands accounts for ~8% of the UK's EEZ. Naively I'd say that the obvious answer would be to simply draw the EEZ boundary precisely in the middle of the two lands.

The vast majority of the Islanders seem to want to remain British, so I'd say that's that. Even an attempt to buy them out wasn't received particularly well (or maybe the offer just wasn't high enough):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-could-be-offered-475000-pounds-1460603.html

Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.

I'm all for self determination.

 

[Ken Natton]

I have nothing but the deepest contempt for the suggestion that Britain’s preparadness to defend the Falkland Islands has anything whatever to do with the prospect of oil reserves being found in their proximity. Such a notion is not supported by any kind of understanding of actual events. The Falkland Islanders might well choose independence if such a thing were feasible with such predatory neighbours. As it is, the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and to fail to defend them would constitute a betrayal. In 1982 and today, the British government defends the Falkland Islands not because of its moral rights. It defends them because of its moral duty. There is nothing more to it than that.

 

[John61]

Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands

Apart from the oil wells in the sea territory that Britain claims. But I agree with you though. I'm interested and confused as to why anyone thinks that Argentina (who are now turning away cruise ships that have been suspected to have visited the Falklands) has a valid claim.

 

[Ken Natton]

The Falkland Islands are utterly devoid of financial or strategic benefit to anyone. And Argentinian claims to the territory have no basis whatever.

The bald reality is that, if significant retrievable oil reserves are found anywhere in their proximity, then the way of life of the Falkland Islanders is doomed whomsoever holds sovereignty. If the United Nations could do anything of service to the Falkland Islands, it would be to place a total exclusion zone around them specifically to exclude any and all activity related to exploration for or retrieval of oil and gas. And if that made the actual retrieval of any discovered oil reserves impractical, then so be it. It won’t happen of course, and that is why it is greatly to be hoped that either there are no oil reserves in their proximity, or, whatever reserves there are prove impractical to retrieve. That way the Falkland Islanders can continue their lives unmolested and the Argentinians can continue to call them whatever they like.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Whilst keeping abreast of the situation I've found this article by the BBC (good but possibly a bit bias) that summarises the competing claims for those still interested:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

 

[jim hardy]

What's in Antarctica ? Are not Britain's claims there based on Falklands?

or am i fifty years behind?

In 1981 a Englishman visited our office and I asked him about their interest in the islands. His reply was "A few thousand of our blokes who want to stay British."
Sounded logical enough. We wouldn't want to give away Hawaii.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What's in Antarctica ? Are not Britain's claims there based on Falklands?

or am i fifty years behind?

I don't think based on, about a century ago when Britain was reafirming claims over the Falklands it did so over some Antarctic Territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory

Considering no claims of Antarctic Territory by any country are really respected it's a bit of a pointless thing anyway. Ideally I'd love to see the antarctic treaty extended but I'm skeptical.

In 1981 a Englishman visited our office and I asked him about their interest in the islands. His reply was "A few thousand of our blokes who want to stay British."
Sounded logical enough. We wouldn't want to give away Hawaii.

That's pretty much the size of it. The majority of the population of the islands who are the descendants of some settlers hundreds of years ago identify as British and want to remain that way. If they wanted to become Argentinian I would be shaking their hand and saying goodbye, I really think it should be down to them.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

In 1982 and today, the British government defends the Falkland Islands not because of its moral rights. It defends them because of its moral duty. There is nothing more to it than that.

You may be well be right in this case, but it's worth remembering that Britain certainly does not have an unblemished record when it comes to safeguarding people's rights to live where they want. Only a decade or so before the Falklands War, the inhabitants of UK-owned Diego Garcia were given short shrift and told to clear off so that the UK could offer the US military a population-free island as a base.

Depressingly cynical this view may be, but if the UK government were routinely in the business of doing the morally right thing they'd have done very many things very differently. This doesn't preclude them from ever acting out of morality, but its more likely they're acting out of self-interest. Imagine the media damage that could be done to a UK government that didn't act tough. The original war is viewed by many to have come at a wonderfully convenient time for the government, which was enjoying some of the lowest poularity ratings on record.

One thing did puzzle me at the time, though. It was clear that being part of NATO, and therefore being theoretically able to invoke full NATO support if your territory were theatened, did not offer any 'protection'. The US was particularly sensitive about concealing the support it was giving to a NATO democracy against a dictatorship. Perhaps everybody was embarrassed.

 

[Ken Natton]

You may be well be right in this case, but it's worth remembering that Britain certainly does not have an unblemished record when it comes to safeguarding people's rights to live where they want.

I was not seeking to suggest that Britain's record on foreign policy matters was unquestionable. The prevailing suggestion on the thread before I posted was that Britain's only interest in the Falkland Isdlands was because of the prospect of finding oil reserves over which Britain could thus lay claim. I felt it necessary to offer a different viewpoint. I am certain that such was no part of the motivation in 1982 and I see little reason to believe that it is what is driving the current British government's stance. Doubtless that draws a big raspberry from the cycnics, but the truth is that there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is founded entirely on cynicism.

 

[TheMadMonk]

Given that Scotland and Wales are looking at independence, I don't see where the Brits are being hypocritical on the issue of self-determination.

It will be a long time before Welsh independence would become a serious prospect. Even here in Scotland there isn't exactly overwhelming support for it and there isn't anything like that level of support in Wales.

Without Sea Harriers Britain would have had far less ability to retake the Falklands in 1982, and since the Government is in the process of scrapping Sea Harriers they will have to maintain a strong force in the Islands to prevent another takeover by Argentina, The Islanders wish to remain British and that is the main consideration, Britain does not benefit in any financial way by holding on to the Islands

What would the Sea Harriers have to shoot down? We could slash the garrison the Falklands and the Argentines still wouldn't be able to take the place, their military simply does not have the capability it did in 1982. The crowing in the British press about our inability to retake the Falklands completely ignores the fact that Argentina could not occupy them in the first place.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

I was not seeking to suggest that Britain's record on foreign policy matters was unquestionable. The prevailing suggestion on the thread before I posted was that Britain's only interest in the Falkland Isdlands was because of the prospect of finding oil reserves over which Britain could thus lay claim. I felt it necessary to offer a different viewpoint. I am certain that such was no part of the motivation in 1982 and I see little reason to believe that it is what is driving the current British government's stance. Doubtless that draws a big raspberry from the cycnics, but the truth is that there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is founded entirely on cynicism.

Fair point, and I, too, don't think mineral reserves are the reason. I think in '82 it was a combination of outrage at Argentinian nerve plus good old fashioned opportunism that led to war. I'm sure many politicians did feel a moral duty to defend the islanders against the invasion, but after public outrage had been whipped up over a place that most people at the time thought was somewhere near the Shetlands, the rest, as they say, is history. I'm pretty sure that the present government could not generate consent for anything like a similar campaign, and I'm even more sure that they haven't got the resources to mount one anyway. However, it seems that the Argentinian miltary has been run down even more than the UK's, so it's a problem that won't arise.

This time, I think the UK, politically, has no option but to counter the public noises from Buenos Aires. But I do feel that political reasons are at least as important as any sense of moral duty.

In defence of we cynics, though, I'd say much cynicism is well-founded on pretty impressive heapings of precedent. However, in fairness to politicians, the electorate makes them that way - politicians, more than ever before, are acutely conscious of how any utterance could be presented to the public by the media. We voters don't always cover ourselves in glory, either.

 

[mheslep]

At least this time the UK will not have to suffer the advice of then US Secretary of State Al "Im in control here" Haig, who told the UK to just give up the islands, to heck with the people there.

The release is the result of a 2002 request by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, ... These records are an as-it-happened chronicle of decision-making in the White House. ...

The most striking revelation from the meeting is the degree to which Haig's compromise favored the Argentines. The minutes are quite clear on this point: Haig "then described the elements of the American plan which in effect would give ultimate sovereignty to Argentina but under evolutionary conditions which the Islanders could ultimately accept."

It's far from clear, however, that the islanders could or would accept Argentine sovereignty, nor that Haig was really solicitous of their interests. He had recently told U.S. congressmen that the principle of "self-determination" did not really apply to them.

.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html

 

[Ryan_m_b]

At least this time the UK will not have to suffer the advice of then US Secretary of State Al "Im in control here" Haig, who told the UK to just give up the islands, to heck with the people there.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html

To be honest there are far too many people with that attitude today. George Galloway recently argued that the people weren't natives but settlers (just how many generations you have to spend somewhere to become a native I have no idea) and should be paid to be relocated. An even more annoying attitude is when one sees actors voicing their uninformed opinions and people listening...because they're actors...

 

[mheslep]

To be honest there are far too many people with that attitude today. George Galloway recently argued that the people weren't natives but settlers (just how many generations you have to spend somewhere to become a native I have no idea) and should be paid to be relocated. An even more annoying attitude is when one sees actors voicing their uninformed opinions and people listening...because they're actors...

Galloway? I thought he'd be in jail by now, or at least widely recognized as a vulgar marxist, oil-for-food, Saddam hugging, clown.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

Galloway? I thought he'd be in jail by now, or at least widely recognized as a vulgar marxist, oil-for-food.[/URL]

I don't agree with Galloway on this particular point, either. But, since you mention the oil-for-food allegations, he was very good at the US Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations. I cheered.

Having been accused of giving false or misleading testimony under oath, he challenged them to charge him with perjury. Which they didn't. He did, though, win £150,000 damages from The Daily Telegraph in a related libel case. (The idea that the US Senate accused him of grubby deals with dicatators! Oh, the irony!)

So it's a pity he's well off-beam on this one - but generally his instincts are right.

On the territorial claim issue, the UK still faces a claim from Spain over Gibraltar (and the Spanish are in dispute with Morocco over various pieces of land). The legacies of Empire. Heaven knows how many territorial disputes there are in total, but many of them will simply rumble on unresolved for decades until one side gets bored.

The appetite of western democracies for miltary interventions of any sort, let alone defending remote appendages, has so diminished over the last decade or so that it would take something pretty seismic to generate enough public consent for any new conflict where our own forces were in danger from a well-armed modern miltary.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The appetite of western democracies for miltary interventions of any sort, let alone defending remote appendages,

The downturn in acceptance for warfare has generally been over the fact that the public is not clear on whether the military action has any defensive value. I don't think it's obvious that a direct threat to a part of the UK would engender a response like 'what and get into another Iraq?' or anything similar.

 

[mheslep]

but generally his instincts are right.

I have the opposite opinion. Some Galloway gems:

“Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability.’’

— Spoken to Saddam Hussein, 1994

“Democracy in Cuba is more free than in the U.K.’’

— 2006 speech to the Oxford Students Union

“Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. ...’’

— 2002 interview with The Guardianhttp://www.thestar.com/news/article...e-galloway-not-a-terrorist-just-a-holy-terror