This post is also available in: Português Español
Q: Tensions between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands have been escalating ahead of the 30th anniversary the Falklands War in 1982, which resulted in nearly 1,000 British and Argentine deaths. In December, the Mercosur trade bloc, in solidarity with Argentina, closed its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag. Demonstrators outside British embassy in Buenos Aires have also burned the Union Jack. Britain, for its part, announced last month it is sending a warship to the area, and on Feb. 2 Prince William arrived in the Falklands for a high-profile, six-week deployment. What is driving the heightened rhetoric? What is at stake for both countries, and their allies?
A: John Hughes, former ambassador to Argentina from the United Kingdom and senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics: “Regarding the heightened rhetoric, it’s partly the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Events that might otherwise have passed with little publicity, like the routine yearly deployment of a patrol ship in the South Atlantic, now become newsworthy. Throw in a concerted diplomatic campaign by the Argentine government over a number of years to gain regional support and measures seemingly designed to affect the Falklands economy. Add in the clear British policy that the people who live on the Islands have the right to develop their natural resources, including oil and gas, and the mix becomes somewhat combustible. The coalition government in the United Kingdom has also indicated that it will respond robustly to Argentine claims. At stake for both countries is a fundamental principle. For the United Kingdom, the Falkland Islanders have the right of self-determination enshrined in the U.N. Charter. This means no negotiations over sovereignty unless and until the Islanders themselves so wish. Co-operation in the South Atlantic has also ended. Gone are the 1990s, when co-operation on fish resources proceeded without prejudice to the positions of either Argentina or the United Kingdom over sovereignty. For Argentina, such co-operation now would only be acceptable within the context of moving towards negotiations over sovereignty; that won’t happen unless the Islanders so wish it. For allies, the question is how to accommodate competing pressures if this dispute moves up the diplomatic agenda, without it needlessly complicating bilateral relations, and avoiding the risk of making permanent the current lack of co-operation in the South Atlantic, which serves no-one’s long-term interest.”
A: Graciela C. Römer, director of Graciela Römer & Asociados in Buenos Aires: “Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced that the Argentine government would denounce Great Britain’s ‘militarization’ of the Malvinas and accused the U.K. of risking global security, asking Prime Minister Cameron to ‘give peace a chance.’ This short and precise message had a clear objective: rejecting any kind of association between the current Argentine position and the military logic used by the dictatorship in the resolution of the conflict. It was perhaps the president’s most significant part of the speech. The large convocation generated strong expectations as much on the national level as, on the other side of the Atlantic, in the media and foreign office, given the trading of accusations in the previous days. But beyond the bombastic rhetoric, it would seem that Kirchner’s message was far from increasing the concern of the British government, which had expected an escalation of hostilities and probably the announcement of more drastic measures, like the suspension of weekly flights to the Malvinas over Argentine territory or other measures aimed at damaging the interests of British businesses that operate in the country. Nothing like this occurred. What became clear through the president’s discourse is a splitting of the strategy regarding the Malvinas. On one side, continuing with the claim for sovereignty before the General Assembly of the United Nations, as it had been doing, while at the same time denouncing before the Security Council Great Britain’s militarization of the South Atlantic. All this is in the context of an international campaign to create a critical mass to reclaim sovereignty of the islands both internationally from a multilateral point of view and to unify forces on an internal level. This is happening at a moment when the so-called ‘fine tuning’ of the beginning of Kirchner’s second term could be impacted by important sectors of the population that are accustomed to the boom of consumerism of the past few years.”
A: Rosendo Fraga, director of the Centro de Estudios Union para la Nueva Mayoria in Buenos Aires: “Every ten years, Argentines think that the Malvinas are Argentine and they should be reclaimed. But the priorities today are other issues such as insecurity, inflation, the economy, etc. By escalating the conflict, it could supersede the others, as it did thirty years ago with the war, and this has happened in the United Kingdom. The great long-term issue in the South Atlantic is Antarctica’s natural resources, although it is internationalized. It can’t be forgotten that the treaty is only signed by 48 countries, and two thirds of the world hasn’t signed it, including main powers. The United Kingdom claims territorial sovereignty over Antarctica from its presence in the Malvinas and other islands like South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which clashes with Argentine and Chilean claims. Going forward, the Argentine president will preside over an event at Ushuaia to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Argentine military’s landing on the islands that began the war won by Great Britain. The Argentine government seeks to have its message combating colonialism read at the same time in the world’s main cities in events convened at a global level. One week after, they will take the matter to the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, where it will be supported by the majority of Latin American countries, especially those of ALBA. In June, it will be presented at a meeting of the U.N.’s Special Committee on Decolonization, which addresses the issue annually. It will be the first time that an Argentine president attends this meeting.”
A: Mark P. Jones, chair in Latin American Studies and fellow in Political Science at Rice University: “The heightened tensions between Argentina and Great Britain over the Falklands/Malvinas are being driven principally by domestic factors in both countries, especially in Argentina. President Cristina Fernández presently faces a series of domestic challenges (the reduction of government subsidies, high inflation, a dollar shortage, labor unrest). By raising the banner of Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas, she distracts public attention from these problematic issues while simultaneously bolstering her popular support via a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Perhaps the two things which Argentines of all political stripes agree upon most are their support for the national side in soccer and the Argentine claim to the Malvinas. This nationalist gambit is also part of the president’s strategy to reform the constitution to allow her to seek a third term in 2015, something currently prohibited. Prime Minister David Cameron’s replacement of an aging frigate with a modern destroyer and dispatch of Prince William to the Falklands also appear driven somewhat by domestic politics. These two decisions, along with recent statements made by Cameron, have exacerbated the already strained bilateral relationship, and may be met by some type of Argentine escalation (e.g., convincing either Chile or LAN to end flights between Chile and the Malvinas). There is no possibility Argentina will attempt to retake the islands by force. This is due primarily to President Fernández’s abhorrence of violence but also to the Argentine military’s highly degraded operational status which has rendered it incapable of confronting British forces on anything approaching even moderately equal terms.”
A: Juan Cruz Díaz, managing director of Cefeidas Group in Buenos Aires: “For Argentina, the Malvinas issue is a matter of national interest that transcends political positions. A recent poll by Ibarometro showed that seven out of ten Argentines believe that the sovereignty of the Malvinas is a very important issue. The same poll showed that 74.5 percent of the population finds offensive Prime Minister David Cameron’s accusation that Argentina is being ‘colonialist’. Sending Prince William in military uniform and a state-of-the-art warship to the islands as the 30-year anniversary of the war approaches does not help calm such sentiments. For almost two centuries, Argentina has consistently claimed sovereignty over the islands. The Malvinas are situated just 300 miles from Argentina’s coast and were occupied by Great Britain in 1833 when the British forces expelled the local Argentine authorities. The 1982 invasion led by Argentina’s decadent military dictatorship was a major setback for the country’s long-term diplomatic strategy. Since the restoration of democracy, each president has pursued a diplomatically negotiated solution to the Malvinas dispute, albeit each in its own particular style. While domestic pressures and a desire for natural resources might explain in part the current rhetoric, I believe that Argentina is simply maintaining its historical position. The underlying cause is sovereignty and territorial integrity. Tensions will probably diminish and it is clear that this will not result in a military confrontation. However, the current escalation might present some risks for both Argentina and the United Kingdom. Prof. Juan Tokatlian warns that by rushing to take the issue to the Security Council, Argentina exposes itself to the risk of an unnecessary political defeat at the U.N. For the U.K., the Latin American support of Argentina’s claim hints at the risk of losing access and influence in a region that is becoming increasingly relevant in geopolitical and economic terms.”
