The Left has to raise its voice on the Falklands

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”

  1. Dresmond

    This claim has reared its head again: great piece, James. What it neglects, however, is the fact that Madame President’s occasional outbursts probably far less to do with any serious desire to have the islands ‘back’ (whatever that means) and more to do with the domestic politics. The likelihood of this January 2013 outburst – much like the 2012 one (anniversary excepted) – is her focus on courting the youth vote in Argentina ahead of the mid-terms later this year. They’ve recently lowered the discretionary voting age to 16 from 18 in Argentina and having taught out there in 2010-11, the young like her a lot – messages like this will go a long way to prop up her and her party’s ailing support by appealing to young people who have neither lived under the dictatorship or have been fully educated about the Falklands/Malvinas.

  2. mario

    1) I’m no fan of Kirchner 2) Kirchner asked for -negotiations-, not for the islands to be given back willy-nilly. 3) Over a national dispute with the United Kingdom and involving British subjects, she addressed the prime minister of the United Kingdom: how does that go against the principle of self-determination? 4) The issue of the islands has been felt by the entire Argentine population very strongly for generations. Imagine having an Argentine military contingent on the Isle of Man: how would that feel, whatever the circumstances? So, whatever the merit, to call the claim ludicrous is insulting, and such tone is typical of a certain type of people.

  3. JohnTar

    @ mario:

    Which, sadly, is a ridiculous reply: many islands around the world are controlled or “protected” by other nations far away from them – a good example being Hawaii which, although being a State of the USA, was originally a colony, protectorate or dependency of the United Kingdom (indeed the national flag still contains a small Union Flag inset, there with the consent of the nation). Other islands around the world choose to remain close to what are often considered to be “mother countries”: The U.K., the USA and France all have various island dependencies scattered around the world. So, what is the point of the UK and Argentina negotiating? There is NOTHING to negotiate IF the islanders do NOT want to negotiate, whatever Kirchner and/or the Argentines want!

    You choose to quote the Isle of Man – though you could have chosen the Channel Islands (which could have been French) just as well to demonstrate your point of view. They are both self-governing, like most of the island territories allied to one major country or another scattered around the world, but both of them are physically very close to the UK – much closer than the Falklands Islands are to Argentina. The Falklands are not inside Argentina’s territorial limits, and are therefore able to choose independence from ANY mainland country that they choose, ergo, they have the right to self-determination. For Argentina to step in and “colonise” the Falklands would be for them to become a colonialist country – the thing that Argentinians most despise about the United Kingdom (they say!) – because it is NOT the land that is relevant, whatever its potential wealth through its mineral riches to the modern-day world, but the PEOPLE who live there, and their choice. What occurred two or three hundred years ago is totally irrelevant in ANY event!

  4. JohnTar

    @ mario:

    Which, sadly, is a ridiculous reply: many islands around the world are controlled or “protected” by other nations far away from them – a good example being Hawaii which, although being a State of the USA, was originally a colony, protectorate or dependency of the United Kingdom (indeed the national flag still contains a small Union Flag inset, there with the consent of the nation). Other islands around the world choose to remain close to what are often considered to be “mother countries”: The U.K., the USA and France all have various island dependencies scattered around the world. So, what is the point of the UK and Argentina negotiating? There is NOTHING to negotiate IF the islanders do NOT want to negotiate, whatever Kirchner and/or the Argentines want!

    You choose to quote the Isle of Man – though you could have chosen the Channel Islands (which could have been French) just as well to demonstrate your point of view. They are both self-governing, like most of the island territories allied to one major country or another scattered around the world, but both of them are physically very close to the UK – much closer than the Falklands Islands are to Argentina. The Falklands are not inside Argentina’s territorial limits, and are therefore able to choose independence from ANY mainland country that they choose, ergo, they have the right to self-determination. For Argentina to step in and “colonise” the Falklands would be for them to become a colonialist country – the thing that Argentinians most despise about the United Kingdom (they say!) – because it is NOT the land that is relevant, whatever its potential wealth through its mineral riches to the modern-day world, but the PEOPLE who live there, and their choice. What occurred two or three hundred years ago is totally irrelevant in ANY event!

  5. JohnTar

    Argentine “settlers” were not removed by force: the simple historical fact is that they were not settlers but a military detachment based, and controlling, one section of the Falklands Islands (Port Louis, Berkeley Sound, East Falkland) – which I believe is reported in some of the documents that you quote from, and in Wikipedia on the Internet. Many of the early “settlements” were in fact military establishments, French, British and Argentine, but few – if any – were permanent settlements occupied primarily by real settlers, other than those employed by the military or their families. Bear in mind that this was occurring 200 to 300 years ago and earlier, when military detachments overseas existed literally at the whim of the Admiralty and naval supply ships!

    Comings and goings, minor battles for some level of supremacy and then military abandonment of territories ALL around the world were common place. Canada, Australia, India and Africa were major territories fought over by roving naval and military detachments from many European countries – but NONE of the areas within those massive territories became permanent settlements until settled permanently by groups of civilians – whatever national flag might have flown over those territories prior to that. Much of the history quoted on here – and elsewhere – indicates that the islands were often completely abandoned for considerable periods of time, and Argentina, as a country, did NOT exist until well into the 19th Century.

    The following paragraphs are quoted from the current edition of Wikipedia, and indicate the later comings and goings to and from the islands (My quotation marks):

    “In 1820, storm damage forced the privateer Heroína to take shelter in the islands. Her captain David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and read a proclamation claiming the islands. This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later after the proclamation was published in the Salem Gazette. After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and from Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for help from Buenos Aires, he was instead proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands. Additionally, Vernet asked the British to protect his settlement if they returned.

    A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, but Vernet made a claim for compensation from the US Government stating that the settlement was destroyed. (Compensation was rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885.) Lexington’s Captain declared the islands “free from all government”, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.

    In November 1832, Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after four days. The following January, British forces returned and requested the Argentine garrison leave. Don Pinedo, captain of the ARA Sarandi and senior officer present, protested but ultimately complied. Vernet’s settlement continued, with the Irishman William Dickson tasked with raising the British flag for passing ships. Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned and was encouraged by the British to continue the enterprise. The settlement continued until August 1833, when the leaders were killed in the so-called Gaucho murders. Subsequently, from 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.”

    Note also that even when the “Republic of Buenos Aires” and the “United Provinces of the River Plate” are mentioned, the names given are primarily those of men of English descent and/or that England was requested to support the various factions in one way or another, and ultimately control the islands. The United State of America figured strongly in this period of time also it seems. Note also that the Argentine “garrison” was requested to leave, so my point made earlier regarding a permanent “settlement” is valid. No doubt a contradictory account of the history of the Falklands will be posted shortly – but I’ll go with this one…

Comments are closed.