The Falkland Islands: It’s Really Quite Simple

To commemorate the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentina has decided to reassert its claims over the South Atlantic isles (which it calls Las Malvinas), taking its case to the United Nations and pushing through a series of trade restrictions via the regional bloc Mercosur (made up of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela too) targeting the islanders.  In response, the UK, which owns the islands, has kept relatively quiet and refuses to enter into talks.  The result so far has been disgruntlement all round and the frequent redefinition of the word ‘colonialism’, its meaning depending on which side of the debate last used it.

Yet the dispute over the Falkland Islands should not exist in the first place.  As the rightful owners of the land, the Falkland Islanders themselves should clearly be the ones deciding.  The Argentine government appears to prefer slinging insults at the UK rather than even mentioning the people at the heart of the dispute.  As a democracy it should acknowledge the rights of the Falkland Islanders – particularly their right to self-determination.  So too, should the UN and Mercosur.

When the Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner embarks on one of her frequent tirades against British policy, her real arguments are often hard to decipher amongst the nationalistic zeal. They appear to focus mainly on history and geography, both of which confer little grounds for sympathy.  History in the far-flung Falkland Islands is thin on the ground (perhaps reflected by the fact that a sheep emblazons their flag).  Wrangling over the originally uninhabited archipelago ended when British sovereignty was asserted back in 1833, at which point it appears that the US had in fact ousted the handful of settlers anyway.  Yet whether or not this was all ‘quite cricket’ is now happily irrelevant.  179 years of successive generations quietly and peacefully looking after themselves has given the current occupants a birthright to the islands.  There is certainly no one else looking to take their place.  Geography also matters little.  Though it may look pleasing on a map, claiming land because it is near is only logical for one seeking to expand their own power, not as a moral argument, which is how Kirchner has tried to frame it.  The idea that (comparative) geographical proximity can give a nation the right over a territory and trump the democratic rights of that area’s citizens should be left where it belongs in the dark days of the 20^th century.

Following Kirchner’s line of thought seems to unravel her own argument.  Supposedly, because the Falkland Islands are far away from Britain, they should not be British.  Yet they are 290 miles outside of Argentina – well outside its territorial waters.  No matter how ridiculous a nation of 3,000 or so people might seem, rather than claiming Argentine sovereignty over the islands, surely Kirchner should be fighting the Falkland’s corner in its battle for independence from British colonial oppression.  Whatever the case, islands do not simply belong to whichever large continent-based nation lies nearest to them.

There is also no reason why a referendum among the islanders should be disputed.  What makes a simple democratic solution so hard to reach, legitimise, or abide by in other territorial conflicts – for example the ‘right to return’ for previously displaced peoples, sectarian tensions, religious value in the land or disputed borders – is mercifully absent in the case of the Falkland islands.  To their credit, Argentina and the UK are both vibrant democracies.  As such, a vote among the current inhabitants on the topic of nationality should be sufficient to put an end to the issue once and for all.

Something tells me, however, that when such a referendum is held in the Falkland Islands next year, the Argentinians may not be the first to accept the likely answer of ‘no’ to Argentine nationality. In fact, the latest census on the island shows that almost six in 10 of the 2,563 residents classified their national identity as “Falkland Islander,” compared to almost three in 10 who feel British. It is thus up to the UN and Mercosur to stand up for the democratic principles which they stand for.  Not to do so would be a blow to the very values they espouse. Whatever the case, the UK should declare itself ready to discuss how best to share natural resources in the area, on the condition that Argentina finally accepts the Falkland Islanders’ decision.  Then and only then can a meaningful debate be had, from which both nations may emerge with their heads held high and their coffers perhaps that bit fuller.