Argentina continues to push for international attention on the issue of the Falklands Islands, but in the face of Syria, Iran and North Korea, it’s not difficult to see why The UN has more important issues on their plate and would rather the UK and Argentina, two grown-up democracies, sort this out themselves.

Having had a bit of time to review the sticking points, the most shocking aspect of this dispute is that two western nations have different versions of history. Unsurprisingly, both versions of history support their respective nations claims, but there can’t be two versions of the truth and it means that one side is deliberately manipulating the facts to support their position. For example, the British claim that Argentina signed ‘The Convention Of Settlement’ in 1850 which settled the dispute, but Argentina claims it was never finalised. The British claim that for 90 years after the treaty Argentina only raised the issue of The Falklands once and only resurrected their claim after WW2, Argentina says this is not the case. Argentina claims the British evicted an Argentine colony in 1833 to gain control of the islands, the British say the Argentines never established a successful colony. The list goes on, so how can this be resolved if there is no agreed common historical record to work from, it’s unlikely that either side is about to admit falsification or alter their record if it undermines their claims. In a weird paradox, the historical record is holding up a resolution, but the issue won’t be resolved until we have matching histories.

Archaic Democracy

In one of the more eyebrow raising moments of recent weeks, Sean Penn turned up in Buenos Aires to lend his support to the Argentine cause. In the press panel he labelled Britain as old colonials and accused them of perpetuating archaic ideologies, but the definition of colonialism is to impose your rule on those who don’t want it, which is something that doesn’t apply to the Falklands as they have repeatedly voted to remain part of Britain. When it comes to colonialism, especially involving old world colonial powers and the victims of colonialism, there is an attitude involved that stems from the desire to right the wrongs of history, clouding the mind, resulting in the need to ‘stick it’ to an old master as a satisfying act of retribution, and it perverts the course of rational thought. I’m not sure Mr Penn has taken the time bring himself up to speed on the issue, instead having a rather reactionary response, as many activist do, to the word colonialism. Colonialism is quite a sensitive issue for many activists and apologist and will stir people to action easily, but as words like ‘communism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ will easily rouse the Tea Party, it doesn’t suddenly make it true no matter how many people you get to support you. There is only a certain amount you can do to apologise for the past before you slip into a situation where you are committing new wrongs to make up for earlier mistakes.

It is often the case that governments that have disputes with the British will often refer to them as a declining colonial power, but Britain hasn’t been a colonial power since 1971, when what shamefully remained of the British Empire; Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, gained their independence, nor are they a declining economic power, in spite of recent years events,  given the great leaps made from its lowest economic ebb in the 70’s. All of the old empire was given independence and voted on whether to join the Commonwealth or not, what is left are 14 overseas territories which were determined by the UN to have populations too small to be able to independently govern themselves. These territories have all been given the vote to remain a protectorate of the UK or seek help elsewhere, and all voted to remain British. Britain is no longer a colonial power, and the overseas territories are protectorates not colonies. Argentina doesn’t agree and once again we find ourselves without common ground to work from to arrive at a resolution. History only seems to get us into a perpetual deadlock, leaving us in the position where we need to ignore history and work from whatever common truths we can find.

It appears that the only common truth we can agree on is what exists now, that the inhabitants of the islands have voted on being part of Britain. Buenos Aires maintains that because the islanders are British Immigrants, and that an Argentine colony was evicted to create the British colony, then the islanders have no right to the vote because, naturally, they would vote to remain British. Though the consequences of such reasoning would, theoretically, cause dramatic changes to the Americas. In any democracy the weight and validity of any individual’s vote is not determined by how long they have been a citizen. Whether you have been a citizen for just a year, 50 years, or are a ninth generation descendant, your vote counts just as much as anyone descended from a native. Nor does the fact, depending on whose history you read, that a country’s forefathers evicted your colony almost 200 years ago, invalidate the vote of the modern population. The UN charter on decolonisation means that each territory must be given the right to self-determination, which the UK has fulfilled, what decolonisation does not mean is mass decamping and further eviction. Given that all of the Americas are established by European immigration, colonisation and eviction of native tribes, to say that another population established on those principles has no right to self-determination is rather like throwing stones in glass houses.

Another argument for the Argentine claim is that because the Falklands are closer to the shores of Argentina than the UK, they then have a greater claim than the UK. But there are many examples of territory closer to another country rather than the sovereign state. Alaska, Greenland, French Guiana, as well as most islands in the Atlantic and Pacific, are all closer to other countries, yet there is no confusion over who holds sovereignty and no disputes on the matter. Sovereignty via proximity is not legitimate reasoning, which is why it’s not a principle written the UN charter.

Like Sean Penn’s right to freedom of speech, and his right to use his power to support the causes that matter to him, democracy is a fundamental principle of a 21st century western country rather than a symbol of an ‘archaic ideology’. Argentina says that Britain is hiding behind the vote of the islanders, however, this is akin to someone saying that you are hiding behind the truth because the truth makes you wrong. Democracy and truth are not something you hide behind, and they aren’t things to be derided when they don’t suit your agenda. We must accept them even when we don’t personally agree with the result because history tells us that to do anything else leads to bad places.

Strange Behaviour

This leads us to another strange paradox, Argentina is a country that has recently been a victim of a military dictatorship and has a population many of whom will vividly remember having their democratic rights ignored by a more powerful entity that routinely used intimidation to get what it wanted. So how do we deal with the fact that this same population wants to inflict that same hell on someone else?

There is a well known observation that people who have a strong enough emotional need for their ideas to be right will begin to only listen to evidence that supports their argument and find ways to ignore contrary views, and this may well go some way to explaining the paradoxes involved in this dispute. Argentina has found a way to justify its annulling of democratic rights by saying that Britain is hiding behind democracy, and makes claims that Britain is being aggressive towards them all whilst continuing its intimidation of the islanders. On the face of it these arguments appear ludicrous, but put it to an Argentine that they are wrong and you would be promptly dismissed.

Argentine intimidation is also not something to be ignored or taken lightly. President Christine Fernandez de Kirchner has made statements that the Falkland Islands are a made up nation with a made up flag and the population have no right to be there. She has made irrational claims about the UK sending a nuclear armed submarine to the area, a claim that must be a blatant lie because the whole point of nuclear submarines is that they remain secret and if China and Russia don’t know their whereabouts it is unlikely that Argentina has happened upon this information conveniently at a time when they are seeking international support at the UN. She also authorises the aggressive use of blockades on the islands cutting the islanders off from one of their only lifelines to the mainland. The UK, EU and USA had to go to the UN to impose sanctions on Iran over a nuclear threat, but Argentina has unilaterally decided to impose those same measures on an island of just 3000 inhabitants. Argentina claims to want to resolve this dispute peacefully, but these are not peaceful actions, and yet they seem completely confused when the UK adopts a defensive posture. However, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is not the only politician in the world to use this play book. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has similar attitudes towards Israel, has threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, and makes claims about how the US is a threat to Iran to gain sympathy, internally at least.

President de Kirchner also made an appearance on Argentine television to announce her plans to make a formal complaint to the UN about the UK’s conduct, arguing that the UK is a threat to global security by militarising the South Atlantic. In her speech she made much of the UK’s decision to send an ultra modern Type-45 Destroyer, HMS Dauntless, to the Falklands, a decision the UK claims was a routine deployment to replace an old Destroyer which has patrolled the area since the end of the Falklands War, finding the name ‘Destroyer’ to be too aggressive. The naming of a navy vessel is designed to instil fear in the enemy, but ultimately it is just a name, and any leader either civilian or military would know this and not let it affect them. This leaves us with two possible conclusions, either the President has herself descending into the public hysteria, or she is stoking it to manipulate public opinion. The effects of this panic can be seen in the public reaction who are angry that the UK is ‘always talking about war and they (the Argentines) just want peace’, all the while completely oblivious to their own governments aggressive actions in this matter. The Argentine government appears to be stoking the fire whilst playing the victim which are not the actions of sound minds, something which is unlikely to lead us to a peaceful conclusion.

Another common truth in this situation is that since the end of WW2, the disputed historical record is pre war, Argentina has consistently maintained a claim to the Falklands. In the 1960’s Britain did begin negotiations to hand over control against the wishes of the islanders, but talks failed. The UK has also offered to let the issue go to the international courts four times before 1982, only to be rejected by Argentina, and just eight years after the Falklands War, Britain offered to settle the dispute by offering a cut of any resources in return for sovereignty only to be denied by the president at the time, Nestor Kirchner, the current presidents deceased husband. The reaction of the Argentine government to this offer was to then alter its constitution to make reclaiming the islands a national cause for future generations, trapping all involved in a perpetual state of conflict. What we can glean from this is that Argentina is not interested in talks or negotiations, it is only interested in getting its way.

It is a dangerous situation to be in. If Argentina is so emotionally connected to this issue that it can perform the necessary mental back flips to justify ignoring the right to self-determination of the islanders, as established by article 1 of the UN charter, and is able to keep a straight face when accusing the UK of being aggressive whilst simultaneously imposing a blockade on the islanders, then how long is it before they do a u-turn on their attitude of war. Current attitude towards the war in 1982 is that it was a mistake, but had Argentina come out on top, or Britain chosen not to answer the calls of the islanders to be liberated, then can we really say that the Argentine people would still view it as a mistake? Argentina has a growing economy, and a growing political influence in South America, with a strong ally in Brazil, and Britain is currently without an aircraft carrier until 2020 because of the defence cuts. If it ever got into public opinion that Argentina could win a new war and hold it with the assistance of its allies, would the public continue to reject the idea of another military excursion? It is a dangerous concoction of anger and hysteria from a nation that has deliberately trapped itself into endlessly pursuing a cause, the likely result of which is further confrontation. It is more likely that Argentine delusion is of greater threat to Global security than the UK defending its territory.

 The aggression of Argentine rhetoric, a country of millions, and attempts to annex the islands, a country of thousands, to force the islanders into a situation against their will, is, by definition, Argentine imperialism.

Oil

What is truly embarrassing about this clash is that the renewed claims of Argentina and the renewed commitment from Great Britain are all because of the discovery of oil in Falklands territorial waters. The political elites in London know how important the islands are, especially in a time of austerity, but make no mistake, the political elites in Buenos Aires are making the same decisions for the same reasons. Although this cynical approach from both governments probably cancels each other out and leaves us where we started, it shows this problem is unlikely to ever be resolved. This quarrel has raged for many years and will likely continue for many more, and should it ever reach a conclusion I fear further bloodshed, and the one and only group of people whose opinions actually matter, the islanders, will be ignored. Neither London or Buenos Aires has any legitimate claim to the islands over the inhabitants themselves, which is why self-determination is enshrined in the first article of the UN charter. It might help diffuse the situation if Argentina spent time focussing on developing the oil potential of its own vast Atlantic territory rather than obsessing over the resources of another tiny country.

There is a strange mix of influences forging opinion in London. Some look at the possibility of oil and the convenience of having it under a British territory who is loyal to the UK, others think it is politically inconvenient to be at odds with Brazil who the UK values as an important future trading partner, and others says that sending a £1bn Destroyer to protect an island of 3000 people just isn’t cost effective. However, making decisions that involves people’s lives from the position of potential resources, political convenience or cost analysis, is appalling, but the principle of abandoning your citizens to imperialism is even more reprehensible and downright dishonourable.

Conclusion

British colonial history is shameful, as is the history of just about every European country, Japan, the USA, Egypt, Persia etc. etc., but past mistakes are to be learned from, not repeated. As Britain is not handing power over to native inhabitants, as with every other colony of the British Empire, but to another colonial power, then the phrase ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is applicable. The islands were uninhabited when originally colonised by the French, and anyone who subsequently held dominion over them were themselves colonials. Argentine colonialism does not have a moral high ground on British colonialism. What this boils down to is the continuation of a generational grudge by a losing side in one insignificant battle in a mutual colonial past. One cannot keep unpicking history just because one side doesn’t like the result of the game that both parties played.

There are many phrases and philosophies about forgiveness, most of which are interpreted as “never forget, but laud it over them for the rest of time”. This attitude of passing down grudges from parent to child means the world will always find it difficult to achieve peace, perhaps we need a new philosophy of “never forget, but get over it”.

As for Sean Penn maybe he should ask himself, in a blind taste test of anonymous countries, with one country that accepts the outcome of a democratic process and another country that doesn’t, which one resembles the perpetuation of an archaic ideology?

Previously