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”
JohnTar
One final point, Andres (sorry! But it comes again from Wikipedia, and I copy it):
“Falkland Islands”
(Main article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute)
“In the late 1820s, the United Provinces attempted to gain control over the Falkland Islands through the establishment of commercial interests in the islands.
In 1820, Colonel David Jewett while resting and repairing storm damage performed an act of possession of the islands stating he was acting on behalf of the Government of Buenos Aires. He made no mention of this in his report and it only became knowledge in Buenos Aires a year later as a foreign news story. Three years later, in 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing and feral livestock rights to Jorge Pacheco. In 1824, a short first expedition to the islands in association with Luis Vernet took place but failed shortly after landing due to supply problems and the harsh conditions. Pacheco disillusioned abandoned the enterprise leaving Vernet to proceed on his own.
In 1826, Vernet was aware of conflicting British claims to the islands and sought permission from the British consulate before departure. The departure to the islands was delayed by the Brazilian blockade and the expedition again failed to establish a permanent settlement. In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland including all its resources, and exempted him from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. he also asked the United Provinces for naval assets to protect his colony but they were unable to provide them.
The colony was eventually destroyed by conflict with the United States in the Lexington raid of 1832. Later that year Major Esteban Mestivier was commissioned by the Buenos Aires government to set up a penal colony. He arrived at his destination on 15 November 1832.”
Argentina became a sovereign state by a formal document of Constitution in 1826. Before that it was a conglomeration of various smaller states often in conflict with each other, generally operating together militarily against the interests of Spain and surrounding countries and territories still controlled by Spanish authority.
There are so many differing opinions in regard to who owned what and when, that I believe that virtually ANY opinion has be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t state that lightly either, as I love a discussion and will take it to the bitter end, OR apologise for my errors if proven that I have erred! I’ve enjoyed this discussion tremendously even though we both WILL continue to disagree about the various points in question. Thank you!
Andrés Djordjalian
Hi Johntar,
I’ll try to be brief, at the risk of leaving some points unanswered.
“Authoritative” is not an entirely relative term. Work editorialized by Oxbridge U. is more authoritative than average self-published webpages. A paper from a renowned author with credentials on the subject matter is more authoritative than commentary from an unknown. A book that contains out-of-context quotes and contradictory statements is, generally, not authoritative. Etc.
The articles at Wikipedia are not controlled by the U.S., who by the way are a very complex entity. They are controlled by those caring enough to edit it and, if necessary, to sustain “edit wars” if something they disbelieve is published.
Even though some of the history of the islands is hard to prove, and in other cases proof is not entirely conclusive, there is much to be sure of. Disputed historical statements are frequently disregarded by saying that other historians state the contrary or that those things happened so long ago that proof is insufficient. Even though it is healthy to be suspicious, only sometimes the claim is well grounded.
Argentina declared independence in 1816, in an assembly that gathered regularly until they prepared a constitution in 1819. 1826 marks its second constitution, yet it would be odd to date the birth of the country on that date. Moreover, in my 41 years as a history-loving Argentine, I never heard of such a thing. 🙂 These oddities happen often when discussing the dispute.
As I said before, Argentina had internal quarrels during its initial decades, but the factions agreed on its unity as a country. Britain recognized it as a sovereign state in 1823 and again in 1825. Even if you are to consider the sovereign state to be just Buenos Aires, it wouldn’t change things, as the rights acquired by Buenos Aires via its recognition by foreign powers and its sovereign actions would be inherited, later, by the larger union they supposedly formed.
It’s unfounded to claim that Vernet commanded just a military outpost, and it wasn’t a penal colony either. The colonists were not soldiers nor convicts, and carried forward civilian chores. Vernet had acquired those lands and acted as civilian commander, besides his military title given to him in 1829 to allow him to enforce fishing regulations. There are a number of accounts describing a civilian settlement. For example, this is from FitzRoy’s pen:
‘Mr. Brisbane told me, that some wool, sent by Mr. Vernet from East
Falkland to Liverpool, sold for nearly double the price of Buenos Ayres
wool; and this was the produce of sheep which had only been a few years
on the island, of the Buenos Ayrean stock, unmixed with any superior
breed. To show how well the little colony, established by Mr. Vernet,
was succeeding, prior to its harsh and unnecessary ruin by Captain Silas
Duncan, I will give an extract of a letter received from a brother
officer who visited Port Louis:
‘“The settlement is situated half round a small cove, which has a narrow
entrance from the sound; this entrance, in the time of the Spaniards,
was commanded by two forts, both now lying in ruins, the only use made
of one being to confine the wild cattle in its circular wall when newly
brought in from the interior. The governor, Louis Vernet, received me
with cordiality. He possesses much information, and speaks several
languages. His house is long and low, of one story, with very thick
walls of stone. I found in it a good library, of Spanish, German, and
English works. A lively conversation passed at dinner, the party
consisting of Mr. Vernet and his wife, Mr. Brisbane, and others; in the
evening we had music and dancing. In the room was a grand piano-forte;
Mrs. Vernet, a Buenos Ayrean lady, gave us some excellent singing, which
sounded not a little strange at the Falkland Isles, where we expected
to find only a few sealers.
‘”Mr. Vernet’s establishment consisted of about fifteen slaves, bought by
him from the Buenos Ayrean Government, on the condition of teaching
them some useful employment, and having their services for a certain
number of years, after which they were to be freed. They seemed
generally to be from fifteen to twenty years of age, and appeared
contented and happy.
‘“The total number of persons on the island consisted of about one
hundred, including twenty-five gauchos and &c.. There were two Dutch
families (the women of which milked the cows and made butter); two or
three Englishmen; a German family; and the remainder were Spaniards and
Portuguese, pretending to follow some trade, but doing little or
nothing. The gauchos were chiefly Buenos Ayreans; but their capataz or
leader was a Frenchman.”
‘”Such was the state of Vernet’s settlement a few months before the
Lexington’s visit; and there was then every reason for the settlers to
anticipate success, as they, poor deluded people, never dreamed of
having no business there without having obtained the permission of the
British Government. They thought, naturally enough, that the Buenos
Ayrean Government could not have sold the islands to Mr. Vernet, unless
the state of La Plata had a right to them; they believed that the
purchase-money had been paid; but they were not aware that the British
Government had protested formally against the pretended claim of Buenos
Ayres, so quiet was that fact kept by the Argentine Government, although
the solemn protest was made by Mr. Parish, the British consul-general,
in November 1829.’
FitzRoy was a an officer of the British Navy. As such, he supported Parish’s statement and denied Argentine sovereign rights there. Curiously, and although it’s not important, you can see that he also denied Vernet having obtained permission from Britain.
Anyway, you’re right that we could go on forever. 🙂 Thanks for the debate!
JohnTar
Good points all, Andres, and thank you for the informative response. It is, as you so rightly say, good to debate these things without the sabre-rattling going on between us as so sadly goes on between our governments. But THAT’S government for you anywhere in the world, I suspect! As far as the “rights of possession” are concerned it seems that there was just as much confusion over who owned what, where and why as there is now! You, as an obviously well educated and well read person take an entirely different view to these things than many a man, on both sides, that would choose not to see the other point of view. I like to think that I am capable of being able to think along more lateral lines also, and see – and understand – the other point of view. However, as I pointed out earlier on during our discussions: I DO love an argument!
May I congratulate you on your excellent command of the English language? Debating with you has been a pleasure – oh, that I had command of languages other than my own (and often not too much command of that)… Adios y buena suerte, my friend
mariobatacchio
again, someone calling someone else’s opinion ridiculous just to boost his own ego. I am very concerned about the future of this planet.
Anyway, having skimmed through this unnecessarily long reply, and I before leaving this unnecessarily hostile debate, I’ll just quote wikipedia regarding the Isle of Man: “Although the United Kingdom does not usually intervene in the island’s domestic matters, its “good government” is ultimately the responsibility of the Crown”. And as we know if wikipedia says it, it must be the truth.
Since I live in the UK, I really would not like Argentina to be responsible for the “good government” of the Isle of Man and have a military base there. And my very humble opinion is that history is never irrelevant: it is just very very complex.
JohnTar
@ marioantoniazzi:
During the last Labour government there was a moment when a particular PR person stated in the midst of a national emergency that, “It is a good day to bury bad news”. You may remember it – the end result was that there was a hue-and-cry about it in Parliament and the national press, and the PR person was sacked. Common opinion, amongst those that are far more expert in international matters than I, is that De Kirchner is having a bad time politically in Argentina just now, and so is playing out the role of national heroine over the Falklands Isles – burying the “bad news” about her presidency (or trying to) in the process. Margaret Thatcher, trailing in all the polls in the UK in 1982, was also able to “bury” that “bad news” during the Falklands war, becoming a national “heroine” in the process and winning the upcoming general election – but Britain won the war… So, though generations of Argentinians may well desperately want Las Malvinas “back”, perhaps the reality that their president faces is that being a national heroine will win you the next national election but you have to be a Margaret Thatcher to win the war… In THIS way you are right: history IS important – but in the case of the 1982 war it is way too recent, and the somewhat ancient history of Argentina “owning” the Falklands can be discredited. Incidentally, my “ridiculous reply” comment was not meant to infer that YOU are ridiculous in any way, just that I think that the Argentine philosophy is ridiculous.