Whilst the rest of the world speculates about the likelihood of a U.S. war with Iran in 2012, in Britain the New Year has been accompanied by some ominous news from their tiny overseas territory of the Falklands Islands.
Led by Argentina, who continues to lay claim to the islands they know as “Islas Malvinas,” South American nations including Brazil and Uruguay have united to ban ships flying the Falklands flag from entering their ports. Yet whilst in review, a resumption of armed conflict over the islands seems remote, such steps are hardly good news for the stability of the region, and puts British policy on this issue under pressure.
The roots of this fresh round of diplomatic pressure are not hard to identify: 2011 saw some controversial exploration of oil fields within the disputed islands’ sovereign ocean shelf — a potentially lucrative economic development which drew sharp criticism from Buenos Aires.
The new ban also highlights the significance of 2012 — which will mark 30 years since the Argentine military’s previous unsuccessful invasion of the territory. Ever since the 1982 war — in which Argentina suffered over 1,700 casualties — successive governments have battled to impose anti-British sanctions both at home and at the UN, with varying success.
Yet as Argentine diplomacy against the UK is nothing new — and the ban itself will affect only a handful of Falklands fishing vessels — why has this latest effort roused such concern?
The main problem is the financial crisis, and subsequent defense cuts to the UK’s Royal Navy. With Britain now lacking a carrier task force until at least 2020, pundits have noted Britain’s increasing inability to robustly threaten retaliation to an Argentine military attack.
Moreover, comparisons are being drawn between the lead-up to the 1982 war, where British ambivalence to its navy, it is claimed by some, emboldened Argentinean aggression.
So, will the UK be forced to once again go to war over the Falklands? Under review, despite British defense spending woes, the Islands remain garrisoned heavily enough to repel most of what Argentina could bring to bear. It would be a costly exercise — especially for over-stretched fuel-tanker and fighter jet resources — but Buenos Aires probably lacks the equipment to dislodge Britain by force.
Yet whilst this balance of power might rule out a surprise war, it does not negate the risk of further conflict. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s Christmas Day pledge was that, “We will never negotiate on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless you, the Falkland Islanders, so wish.” Yet by ruling out all negotiation with Argentina, Britain is ignoring some genuinely deep running grievances.
Indeed, the support of Brazil in the latest ban is an ominous sign that Latin America as a whole does not really believe a population of 3,000 people in the South Atlantic has the right to claim UK citizenship. Accusations of colonial anachronism may be complicated by the fact Falklands Islanders legitimately want to stay British — but that does not mean the status quo is necessarily sustainable.
After all, in a world where, one by one, bad post-colonial borders are being un-done by a mixture of UN negotiation and bilateral diplomacy, British resistance to change may appear increasingly arrogant. So while Argentine threats to invade are probably far-fetched, the significance of this latest action may herald a difficult year for British diplomacy in the region.
A war of words, then, but one that could still hurt London in 2012.
Photo Credits: Mila Zinkova
The Discussion
A Falklands "round two" is unlikely. The UK faces austerity. Since 1982 the Royal Navy has been castrated, downsized, and now, as a result, lacks the firepower to repel an Argentine attack. The US would not permit a conflict, fearing it would destabilize the region. Any hint of war is pure rhetoric.
Im from Argentina and lived in London. A war is impossible Argentines wont support it Also Argentine willingness to recover the islands wont decrease. Argentina will keep insisting no matter what. On the contrary British wont support a big whole in their finances This may well change in case of oil
Fortunately, England is a member of NATO. I'm not sure why it didn't activate the self-defense clause in '82 (I'd appreciate an explanation if anyone happens to know) but it certainly could in the future should the Argentinians attack again. NATO countries may be overstretched, but between the US, UK, France, and Italy, someone should have a carrier or two available.
4 Replies
3 Replies
1 Replies
Good article. I guess my opinion on this is that, as you mentioned, Falklanders want to stay within the UK. They have been so in the past, they want to remain so, and minus borders on things such as oil exploration, there is not much conversation to be had on the Falklands between Argentina and the UK.
4 Replies
3 Replies
1 Replies
Thanks for more enlightenment, Jonathan.
I wondered in 1982 why the Falklands were such a big deal...it's oil isn't it?
6 Replies
4 Replies
3 Replies
The Falklands isn't much of a case of "post-colonial" borders. They are - to both sides - an "imperial" venture. They were uninhabited when visited by Europeans with only possible visitations by Patagonians - who were in turn wiped out by the Spanish.
The claim that the islands are Argentinean have as much validity as they are British. Merely being close to something does not connote sovereignty. Would, say, Bermuda be considered an integral part of the USA? Would Socotra be Somali? Corsica, Italy?
2 Replies
1 Replies
This is very interesting, yet most likely unknown except to those directly involved. If this escalates to either stronger language or armed conflict, what impact could it have on stability of the EU? Even though Great Britain does not use the Euro, could this further degrade the Euro and slow progress to stabalize it?