The Falklands

With Tensions between Britain and Argentina running at the highest in decades and the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands War approaching the Falklands is being given a lot of media attention.

The Falklands first came to the attention of the British public in 1982 when Argentina invaded the small island group, ever since they have remained one of Britain’s best known overseas territories.

The Argentinians have no real claim to own the Falkland Islands other than proximity, they are closer to Argentina than to us, but then again Alaska is closer to Canada than it is to the rest of the USA. Does that mean Alaska should be Canadian? No. The closest that the Argentinians have to a legitimate claim is that the Spanish, the old colonial owners of Argentina, also controlled the islands (although only for a very brief period). Ever since 1833 the Falklands have remained under British control.

The most important issue is what do the Falkland Islanders want, if they want to be part of Argentina then the British government should let them be. But that is not the case, the Falkland Islanders (the vast majority being of British descent) want to remain an overseas territory of the UK and not part of Argentina. People often accuse the British of refusing to enter negotiations with Argentina over the Falkands, and although this is true of the past few years it was the Argentinians that refused negotiations in the decades preceding the Falklands War. In reality the only way in which the UK will ever hand the Falklands to Argentina is if the Falkland islanders want to become part of Argentina. A referendum might seem like a good idea, as it could show Argentina the strength of the Falkland Islanders’ resolve. This is very similar to what happened in Gibraltar, the British dependency attached to Spain. There has twice been a referendum on whether to become Spanish or not, and in both referendums the Gibraltans rejected the idea by 99+% and still the Spanish want to force the issue with the UK. A referendum in the Falklands would probably be a waste of time and money.

Some people have suggested that the Falklands should become independent; this is something that the Islanders also reject and would probably be a bad idea for the island group who benefit greatly from having Britain on side against Argentina. Another idea I heard was suggested by one of the panellists on Question Time. She suggested that the UK should bring the Falklands into the Union, thereby making the UK’s full title “The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands”, despite the length of the name it wouldn’t make much sense. The electorate would be tiny (the island has a population of around 3,000) and getting from Westminster to the Falklands would be expensive and very exhausting for the MP. And this is something else that the Islanders do not want.

The anniversary of the Falklands War is not the only reason why tensions are rising in the region, the discovery of oil in the area surrounding the Falklands will bring significant economic benefits to whichever country control the islands. The government in Argentina is weakening, taking a tough stance over the Falkland Islands is a vote winner in the country. It doesn’t help that Mercosur, the South American economic bloc, has banned ships flying the Falklands flag from entering their ports (a grand total of around 20 ships), even though the ships can use the Union Flag if they wish and enter the ports. The British government doesn’t help the situation by sending down Prince William and a war ship, it’s not the best thing to do since nobody honestly expects Argentina to invade again.

In this debate I’m not necessarily on the “British side”, I believe in self-determination and that the people of the Falklands should decide who governs them.  The current situation is the way they want and the arrangement will remain until the Falkland Islanders want something different.

The Falkland Islands' proximity to Argentina is the only claim that Argentina have.