With the Falklanders' right to self-determination at stake, the time has come for the Left to raise its voice.
Almost 30 years after the invasion of the Falkland Islands it is simply laughable that Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has accused the UK of ‘militarisation’ of the South Atlantic.
Argentina must realise that the right to self-determination of those that live on the Falklands (many for nine generations) is the overriding principle in deciding their future.
It also continues to disappoint me that, for the most part, this important factor is neglected by some on the left.
Defending the islanders’ freedom from interference and invasion should not be seen as rightwing; it was the same important principles that underpinned opposition to the Iraq War.
It is clear that Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is tenuous at best. The Falklands were discovered and rediscovered by Portugal, the Netherlands, France, Great Britain and Spain at various points and it was only from 1833 that continuous occupation of the originally uninhabited islands began by the British.
Having never fully inhabited the islands the Argentine claim is based almost solely on its own colonial history –much of it on the basis of Spain’s ostensible imperial ownership.
Our own colonial history is hardly glowing, but Argentina is in no position to lecture us on imperialism, particularly given their continued suppression of indigenous rights at the very time they invaded the Falklands.
Their own 100 peso bill commemorates the ‘Conquest of the Desert’ – a bloody campaign that seized Patagonia from the native population, a milestone in their history of repression of the indigenous population.
With 86 per cent of Argentines being of colonialist European origin it seems odd that they are so keen to play the ‘coloniser’ card against us. The closest thing the originally empty Falkland Islands has to a native population is the current inhabitants, a people whose rights Argentina is happy to ignore.
While international and historical lawyers can legalistically nitpick on the competing claims, surely the most important issue, and the one that the left should identify with the most, is the right to self-determination.
The United Nations was founded on the principle of self-determination and should rightly throw Argentina’s claim to the wayside.
An article in the Guardian recently highlighted the huge cultural gulf between Argentina and the Falkland Islands and this is compounded by the fact that consistently the islanders have voiced their desire to remain British.
Pre-war negotiations failed because the inhabitants had no desire for joint-sovereignty. Nonetheless in 1971 an airlink was set up and Argentina’s YPF was granted a monopoly over the energy needs of the Falklands.
A peaceful and mutually beneficial outcome was scuppered by a dictatorial junta’s invasion of free islands while it waged its own ‘dirty war’ of repression at home.
Like Michael Foot, I too am grateful for the sacrifice of our forces in securing the liberty of the Falklands. Thatcher revelled in the militarism despite the fact her own defence incompetence had lain the islands open to invasion.
Her association with the war and its tactics go a long way to explaining why many see a pro-Falklands position as rightwing but one cannot brush over the rights of a people simply out of dislike for Thatcher. The regrettable sinking of the Belgrano cannot justify ignoring the obvious need to let the Falklands decide their own fate.
Given that, to this day, the Islanders overwhelmingly desire to remain British, how can anyone (particularly those on the left) overrule this most basic right in favour of Argentina’s dodgy historical claims and history of militarism?
The idea that their distance from the UK makes the island more Argentine than British is an infantile one and is easily refuted by meeting anyone from the Falklands or comparing Stanley to Buenos Aires.
Just as the left can stand up for Kosovo and the Kurds so too must we be consistent in affirming the right of the Falkland Islands to remain British.
As we approach the war’s 30th anniversary and with the memory of the illegal invasion refreshed, I implore all on the left to stand with the Falkland Islanders. How can Argentina ignore their voices and claim that we are the imperialists?
The Falkland Islanders desire only peace and the right to remain British. Who is Argentina to deny this, and how can we?
See also:
• Is Francois Hollande the next President of France? – Jack Storry, February 9th 2012
• As order breaks down in Syria, its Christians suffer the consequences – Ed Jacobs, February 7th 2012
• Alexander: All Cameron’s ‘phantom veto’ did was undermine British influence – Shamik Das , January 31st 2012
• Occupy and its Indian sister movement are fighting the same battles – Kailash Chand OBE, January 20th 2012
101 Responses to “The Left has to raise its voice on the Falklands”
Andrés Djordjalian
James, contrary to what you have written, the islands were inhabited before 1833. The first settlements were a French colony founded in 1764 and a British one founded in 1766 that coexisted with the former. Spain purchased the French colony and negotiated with the British for them to abandon theirs, which they did voluntarily in 1774. During the following 55 years there were no sovereignty claims from the UK, not even a mention (e.g., a reserve of rights) in the various agreements she signed with Spain and Argentina. The Spanish abandoned their colony in 1811, colonization was resumed in 1820 by Argentina through the ‘uti possidetis’ principle derived from its war (for independence) with Spain. Besides, the islands were unoccupied at the time and unclaimed by other nations.
This history can be read in various good studies from British, Argentine and third sources. For example, Gustafon’s “The Sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands”, published by Oxford University Press, of which Google offers the historical chapter (one) in its entirety.
In 1833, the Argentine settlers were removed by force by the British. Argentina has been regularly claiming at international forums since. If there is support for a British claim, it doesn’t come from historical rights (e.g., Gustafson asserts that Argentina has a superior historical claim in page 37 of his book) but from the self-determination principle. Nevertheless, this principle is severely challenged by the fact that the alleged ‘self’ is a population that has been imported in the midst of claims, as you can read in Gustafson’s and other studies.
Regarding imperialism, I regret the rhetoric of the current Argentine government in that respect and sad episodes from this country’s past like those that you cite, but I believe you are misrepresenting the Argentine society when, in that context, you say that a vast majority have European ancestors. Even though you are right on that, it may be misinterpreted if you fail to mention that a majority also descends from indigenous peoples. A recent genetic study by Corach et al., from the University of Buenos Aires, concludes that around 60% of the Argentinians descends from amerindians. A glimpse at the culture and features of the Argentine population reveals that this heritage is visibly important, particularly in the provinces of the north-west. Argentina is hardly a country where the original demography was wiped out by European settlers, as it might be interpreted from your article. Yet, I agree with you on lectures on imperialism being a pointless exercise.
David Waddell
@bernardmccabe @allianceyouthni Supporting the Falkland Islanders isn't a right-wing idea: http://t.co/9LzKVng5
Newsbot9
You mean like you’ll never accept French Guiana? On the mainland? Just a BIT larger? Oh wait, no issues there.
You have no interest in the people, you’re after the oil rights.
Newsbot9
Ah yes, citizenship is then conditional. Well then…why should I consider you a citizen? What have you done to earn it?
Newsbot9
Well no, because the Tories have ensured we’d lose it.