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
John, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for history. The article about the islands was colonized (bad pun intended) by extreme supporters of the British version, just as the other side dominates the Spanish-language equivalent. For a controversial case as this, it is better to consult authoritative sources. Examples are Gustafson’s book cited above, which is published by Oxford U., or Reisman’s paper on the subject–W. Michael Reisman is an expert in international law from Yale U. and you can download his paper for free.
Argentine settling in the islands was instrumented through Vernet’s village. Authoritative literature such as the mentioned above does not say that he had asked for permission from Britain, neither does his wife’s diary or a paper he wrote for the US consul during negotiations around the Lexington incident. The first instance I found of that story is in Pepper and Pascoe’s “Getting it Right”, where they base the assertion on the fact that he supposedly had his land grant, awarded by Argentina, countersigned by the British consulate in Buenos Aires. But countersignment means validating a document, its authenticity basically. If true, such an act wouldn’t have meant that Vernet or the consulate understood that Britain had sovereign rights there, or was awarding permission of any sorts. Actually, quite the contrary could be interpreted. Vernet had reasons to ask for his document, emanated from a nascent nation in internal turmoil, to be “notarized” by Britain, as well as for luring British investment and sympathy. Pepper and Pascoe’s self-published paper has doubtful affirmations elsewhere, this seems to be simply one more.
That village was of a permanent, civilian nature and decent size given the circumstances. This can be read from modern sources such as the above, as well as original historical ones, like Fitz Roy’s papers. According to the law of nations, the fact that many settlers were foreign doesn’t diminish the effect of this settling on Argentine rights, given that they were responding to Argentine authority (see, e.g., Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, II.VII.87).
After the Lexington incident, few settlers remained. It is true that they were invited to stay, as the only ones forced to leave belonged to the military outpost sent with Pinedo and Mestivier, who left with their families. Their plan was not to build a penal settlement but a “presidio”, meaning a frontier military outpost that would support settling there. Including that of Vernet’s settlers who had stayed in the islands as well as others who were presumably in the mainland waiting for things to clear up. Mestivier was sent with the title of governor after Vernet had resigned to focus on obtaining material reparations from the Lexington episode. After Mestivier was killed, Pinedo took his responsibilities. He complied with Onslow only because he was threatened with a superior force, which means being removed by force (authoritative sources agree on this).
I’m saying this because what’s legally important is that Argentine authority was removed by force and that the true expression of the Argentine settling was not the population found by Onslow in 1833, but Vernet’s settlement prior to the Lexington incident plus the efforts to restore that village that took place shortly afterwards.
Argentina as a country exists since 1816 and was formally recognized as such by Britain in 1823 and again in 1825. What it didn’t have until well into the 19th century was internal union, as factions disputed power, frequently in aggressive ways, though they agreed on belonging to one nation. But there is no legal basis to disregard Argentina as one in the family of nations after it was recognized as such by Britain and other powers. This is not an issue at a learned level.
The history of settling in the islands is well documented. There were probably many temporary landings to resupply ships and such, but as permanent settlements go, the first one was at port Louis, founded by France in 1764, ceded to Spain in 1767, abandoned in 1811 and rebuilt by Vernet starting in 1826; and the one at port Egmont, founded by Britain in 1766 and evacuated in 1774. These settlements were most probably significant enough to serve sovereignty claims, as suggested by the diplomatic quarrels they provoked.
Capt. Duncan, of the USS Lexington, and US consul Slacum were just trying to aggressively defend US fishing in the area, thus their first claim was that Argentina had no authority there. But this was not endorsed by the US government, who instead stated that it was an open question (they said that after Duncan’s attack). For a learned contemporary US perspective, search Google Books for a memoir written by Greenhow, published in 1842. I provide other original US sources in a blogpost titled “Falklands or Malvinas? Louis Vernet’s Settlement”, including harsh criticism by president John Quincy Adams.
JohnTar
I have to argue with you on this one, Andres: “Authoritative” by whose standards? Each “authority” has his or her opinion just as long as there is little information, historically, in existence over which to argue or PROVE the point. That is the situation relating to the history of the Falklands Islands, whomsoever puts personal or national “bias” into the argument. There are SO many differences of opinion, and so little fact involved in this that it can only be the word or opinion of the relevant “experts”. Wikipedia I hasten to add IS written in the main by people who often have no axe to grind – particularly as it is mentored from the USA primarily and draws upon the “opinions” of people of many nationalities. The United States has little reason to side with the UK in reporting these historical matters, as at that time it was more often in dispute with the UK than writing history in support of it!
Documentation (factual and honest) in respect to this area, and in the era concerned, will be biased in favour of this or that country. A point of positive reference for the UK is that various groups seeking a controlling interest in the affairs of the emerging (or recently emerged) Argentina still requested or relied on support from the English – as I pointed out in my last comment. This “support” extended into the coastal areas of the country itself (the Republic of Buenos Aires and the United Provinces of the River Plate for instance) as I pointed out also. Argentina, as an actual entity, is “recorded” as having on more than one occasion agreed to cede the Falklands to the English (or the United Kingdom) – no agreement has ever been recorded where England (or the UK) gave sovereignity of the islands back!
One of my final points is also telling in regard to ALL of the commentary and information given by yourself, and others in support of this transfer of power that you would like to see, and that is the simple point that NO country can NOW claim land that is occupied by those citizens settled upon it – whatever generation of settler they may be – against the will of those people! This is particularly so when the original claimants of the land have either given up interest in its possession or only had taken it by military might. Further to that is my comment that De Kirchner and her Argentine government, so strongly opposed to the idea of “colonisation” and colonialism, would actuall BECOME colonisers IF they were to take the Falklands Islands away from the current population there, and re-settle it with their own controlling population, as there has been NO indigenous Argentine population there ever! And please – don’t give me the “Amerindian” argument: Spain, when in control of the mainland territory, drove the native Indian tribes into virtual non-existence just as it did throughout the length and breadth of the Americas, and other early settlers and Argentines more or less finished off the job…
JohnTar
I have to argue with you on this one, Andres: “Authoritative” by whose standards? Each “authority” has his or her opinion just as long as there is little information, historically, in existence over which to argue or PROVE the point. That is the situation relating to the history of the Falklands Islands, whomsoever puts personal or national “bias” into the argument. There are SO many differences of opinion, and so little fact involved in this that it can only be the word or opinion of the relevant “experts”, who have ultimately to rely on the words of people who themselves were biased or not even there when the issue arose! Wikipedia I hasten to add IS written in the main by people who often have no axe to grind – particularly as it is mentored from the USA primarily and draws upon the “opinions” of people of many nationalities. The United States has little reason to side with the UK in reporting these historical matters, as at that time it was more often in dispute with the UK than writing history in support of it! In regard to the law, international or otherwise: when has ANY law ever stopped one country stepping into a territory it wanted to annex EVER? Now that we have the UN some level of international authority might well be said to exist, and its laws more adhered to. But look around the world just now and note just how many internationally recognised “laws” are being flouted by even the most modern of countries.
Documentation (factual and honest) in respect to this area, and in the era concerned, will be biased in favour of this or that country. A point of positive reference for the UK is that various groups seeking a controlling interest in the affairs of the emerging (or recently emerged) Argentina still requested or relied on support from the English – as I pointed out in my last comment. This “support” extended into the coastal areas of the country itself (the Republic of Buenos Aires and the United Provinces of the River Plate for instance) as I pointed out also. Argentina, as an actual entity, is “recorded” as having on more than one occasion agreed to cede the Falklands to the English (or the United Kingdom) – no agreement has ever been recorded where England (or the UK) gave sovereignity of the islands back!
You quote the importance of “Vernet’s village” (which I also quoted). the “village” was in fact a military fortification primarily and a penal colony secondly, and military installations – as well as flags – mean nothing in regard to possession of territories – unless permanently defended, which this one wasn’t! Also, again, I quoted that Vernet actually requested assistance from the British in regard to the defence of the installation and its population. It may well have become a proper “settlement” in time, but required more than a population of soldiers and their employees and their families, and a group of itinerant criminals to become a permanent settlement. In any case it is stated that the “Gaucho murders” of the leaders of the group ended the exercise in 1833, when “…in 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.”
One of my final points is also telling in regard to ALL of the commentary and information given by yourself, and others in support of this transfer of power that you would like to see, and that is the simple point that NO country can NOW claim land that is occupied by those citizens settled upon it – whatever generation of settler they may be – against the will of those people! This is particularly so when the original claimants of the land have either given up interest in its possession or only had taken it by military might. Further to that is my comment that De Kirchner and her Argentine government, so strongly opposed to the idea of “colonisation” and colonialism, would actually BECOME colonisers IF they were to take the Falklands Islands away from the current population there, and re-settle it with their own controlling population, as there has been NO indigenous Argentine population there ever! And please – don’t give me the “Amerindian” argument: Spain, when in control of the mainland territory, drove the native Indian tribes into virtual non-existence just as it did throughout the length and breadth of the Americas, and other early settlers and Argentines more or less finished off the job…
JohnTar
I have to argue with you on this one, Andres: “Authoritative” by whose standards? Each “authority” has his or her opinion just as long as there is little information, historically, in existence over which to argue or PROVE the point. That is the situation relating to the history of the Falklands Islands, whomsoever puts personal or national “bias” into the argument. There are SO many differences of opinion, and so little fact involved in this that it can only be the word or opinion of the relevant “experts”, who have ultimately to rely on the words of people who themselves were biased or not even there when the issue arose! Wikipedia I hasten to add IS written in the main by people who often have no axe to grind – particularly as it is mentored from the USA primarily and draws upon the “opinions” of people of many nationalities. The United States has little reason to side with the UK in reporting these historical matters, as at that time it was more often in dispute with the UK than writing history in support of it! In regard to the law, international or otherwise: when has ANY law ever stopped one country stepping into a territory it wanted to annex EVER? Now that we have the UN some level of international authority might well be said to exist, and its laws more adhered to. But look around the world just now and note just how many internationally recognised “laws” are being flouted by even the most modern of countries.
Documentation (factual and honest) in respect to this area, and in the era concerned, will be biased in favour of this or that country. A point of positive reference for the UK is that various groups seeking a controlling interest in the affairs of the emerging (or recently emerged) Argentina still requested or relied on support from the English – as I pointed out in my last comment. This “support” extended into the coastal areas of the country itself (the Republic of Buenos Aires and the United Provinces of the River Plate for instance) as I pointed out also. Argentina, as an actual entity, is “recorded” as having on more than one occasion agreed to cede the Falklands to the English (or the United Kingdom) – no agreement has ever been recorded where England (or the UK) gave sovereignity of the islands back!
You quote the importance of “Vernet’s village” (which I also quoted). the “village” was in fact a military fortification primarily and a penal colony secondly, and military installations – as well as flags – mean nothing in regard to possession of territories – unless permanently defended, which this one wasn’t! Also, again, I quoted that Vernet actually requested assistance from the British in regard to the defence of the installation and its population. It may well have become a proper “settlement” in time, but required more than a population of soldiers and their employees and their families, and a group of itinerant criminals to become a permanent settlement. In any case it is stated that the “Gaucho murders” of the leaders of the group ended the exercise in 1833, when “…in 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.”
One of my final points is also telling in regard to ALL of the commentary and information given by yourself, and others in support of this transfer of power that you would like to see, and that is the simple point that NO country can NOW claim land that is occupied by those citizens settled upon it – whatever generation of settler they may be – against the will of those people! This is particularly so when the original claimants of the land have either given up interest in its possession or only had taken it by military might. Further to that is my comment that De Kirchner and her Argentine government, so strongly opposed to the idea of “colonisation” and colonialism, would actually BECOME colonisers IF they were to take the Falklands Islands away from the current population there, and re-settle it with their own controlling population, as there has been NO indigenous Argentine population there ever! And please – don’t give me the “Amerindian” argument: Spain, when in control of the mainland territory, drove the native Indian tribes into virtual non-existence just as it did throughout the length and breadth of the Americas, and other early settlers and Argentines more or less finished off the job…
JohnTar
I have to argue with you on this one, Andres: “Authoritative” by whose standards? Each “authority” has his or her opinion just as long as there is little information, historically, in existence over which to argue or PROVE the point. That is the situation relating to the history of the Falklands Islands, whomsoever puts personal or national “bias” into the argument. There are SO many differences of opinion, and so little fact involved in this that it can only be the word or opinion of the relevant “experts”, who have ultimately to rely on the words of people who themselves were biased or not even there when the issue arose! Wikipedia I hasten to add IS written in the main by people who often have no axe to grind – particularly as it is mentored from the USA primarily and draws upon the “opinions” of people of many nationalities. The United States has little reason to side with the UK in reporting these historical matters, as at that time it was more often in dispute with the UK than writing history in support of it! In regard to the law, international or otherwise: when has ANY law ever stopped one country stepping into a territory it wanted to annex EVER? Now that we have the UN some level of international authority might well be said to exist, and its laws more adhered to. But look around the world just now and note just how many internationally recognised “laws” are being flouted by even the most modern of countries.
Documentation (factual and honest) in respect to this area, and in the era concerned, will be biased in favour of this or that country. A point of positive reference for the UK is that various groups seeking a controlling interest in the affairs of the emerging (or recently emerged) Argentina still requested or relied on support from the English – as I pointed out in my last comment. This “support” extended into the coastal areas of the country itself (the Republic of Buenos Aires and the United Provinces of the River Plate for instance) as I pointed out also. Argentina, as an actual entity, is “recorded” as having on more than one occasion agreed to cede the Falklands to the English (or the United Kingdom) – no agreement has ever been recorded where England (or the UK) gave sovereignity of the islands back!
You quote the importance of “Vernet’s village” (which I also quoted). the “village” was in fact a military fortification primarily and a penal colony secondly, and military installations – as well as flags – mean nothing in regard to possession of territories – unless permanently defended, which this one wasn’t! Also, again, I quoted that Vernet actually requested assistance from the British in regard to the defence of the installation and its population. It may well have become a proper “settlement” in time, but required more than a population of soldiers and their employees and their families, and a group of itinerant criminals to become a permanent settlement. In any case it is stated that the “Gaucho murders” of the leaders of the group ended the exercise in 1833, when “…in 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.”
One of my final points is also telling in regard to ALL of the commentary and information given by yourself, and others in support of this transfer of power that you would like to see, and that is the simple point that NO country can NOW claim land that is occupied by those citizens settled upon it – whatever generation of settler they may be – against the will of those people! This is particularly so when the original claimants of the land have either given up interest in its possession or only had taken it by military might. Further to that is my comment that De Kirchner and her Argentine government, so strongly opposed to the idea of “colonisation” and colonialism, would actually BECOME colonisers IF they were to take the Falklands Islands away from the current population there, and re-settle it with their own controlling population, as there has been NO indigenous Argentine population there ever! And please – don’t give me the “Amerindian” argument: Spain, when in control of the mainland territory, drove the native Indian tribes into virtual non-existence just as it did throughout the length and breadth of the Americas, and other early settlers and Argentines more or less finished off the job…