Will New Falklands Dispute With Latin America Lead Britain to War in 2012?

23
Falklands War, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Britain, David Cameron, Royal Navy, 1982,

Remains of a helicopter shot down during Falklands War.

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

23

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Jonathan Dowdall

I am a defence and security affairs journalist based in Brussels, Belgium. I write articles for PolicyMic covering European defence and security ...

Most Mic'd Response

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Aaron Wee

The Argentinean government was very unpopular and gambled that Britain wouldn't care too much about a few sheep inhabited islands, and, even if they did, couldn't do much about it. Spoiler alert: they were wrong. Thatcher was one strong-willed PM who also needed a big boost in popularity (after shutting down many government industries and sending thousands into unemployment).

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

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.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

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

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

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.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Jonathan Dowdall 4 months ago Nope. I'm afraid the simple an...

Nope. I'm afraid the simple answer is that the Falklands falls outside of the North Atlantic Treaty. It explicitly rules out the use of Article 5 collective defence for any territory outside of the Euro-Atlantic area, and even references specificlly "colonial possessions" - to stop France invoking the clause over Algeria, which was within that area during that war.

It is not protected.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Aaron Wee 4 months ago Even if the clause was magically in...

  • Zachary Taylor 4 months ago Thanks for the explanation. I wonde...

Even if the clause was magically invoked, a carrier group operating so far from home, without adequate refuelling bases (St Helena's barely counts; there's enough there for maybe a megayacht), with their every movement tracked and relayed back to Argentina - thanks to, assuming, Brazilian coastal monitoring - would be caught in an Exocet envelope.

Even as Britain learned how to, once again, operate far from home during the Falklands War, so did Argentina. They won't make the same mistakes twice.

Britain, on the other hand, far exceeded their game and it is unlikely, without some stellar diplomacy, for them to even operate that far out again.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Thanks for the explanation. I wonder, though, how does Afghanistan classify as the "Euro-Atlantic area?"

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Jonathan Dowdall 4 months ago It does not, but Afghanistan is not...

It does not, but Afghanistan is not a territorial self-defence mission. (Article 5) It is a so-called Article 7 operation - a mutually agreed intervention to achieve a noted stability or humanitarian goal.

Libya, Ocean Shield (anti-piracy) and Kosovo were all Article 7 operations. But the key detail is, Article 5 is an obligation, Article 7 a "coalition of the willing" style deployment.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

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.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Jonathan Dowdall 4 months ago That is certainly how I feel - the ...

That is certainly how I feel - the "principle of thing", if you will.

But this latest dispute has shaken those foundations for me. If Brazil, a serious international economy and the regions largest military power is willing to buy in to these cheap Argentinian shots, then maybe it's time we conceded that "the principle" is not popular in the region, and could lead us down a road where we are forced to fight, once again, at great cost, for these islands.

Just because Argentinas position is unpallatable does not mean we can't have a conversation. I've personally been baffled at London's reticence to forward the case to the UN for formal adjudication - what are they afraid of, that it will vote in favour of kicking off the natives?

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Andrew Pasternak 4 months ago I just do not know what level of su...

  • Nicolas Genovese 4 months ago Brazil accounts for 35% of Argentin...

I just do not know what level of support (and importance) the Brazilian government actually gives to this issue. As you mention they have shown support for Argentina, but as you mentioned in the end what they've done has a very small effect (perhaps an easy way to gain favor with a neighbor?). As for the UN, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I could how the UK may think it will not change the situation between Argentina and the UK, or how it might not change it in favor of the UK (and by relation the Falklanders).

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Nicolas Genovese 4 months ago Andrew, at this point South America...

Andrew, at this point South America is in a process of integration, even the most pro American governments as Colombia and Chile. The Islands are a primary issue in Argentine politics so the integration necessarily requires strong support from the rest. Arg is for SA a more important economy than GB

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Brazil accounts for 35% of Argentina imports and 22% of arg exports. Brazil is the first trade partner of Arg and Arg is the second trade partner of Brazil. This tideness is constantly growing, specially with both economies growing very fast. It is natural that Brazil support increases in the future

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Thanks for more enlightenment, Jonathan.

I wondered in 1982 why the Falklands were such a big deal...it's oil isn't it?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Aaron Wee 4 months ago The Argentinean government was very...

  • Zachary Taylor 4 months ago Actually the oil wasn't discov...

The Argentinean government was very unpopular and gambled that Britain wouldn't care too much about a few sheep inhabited islands, and, even if they did, couldn't do much about it.

Spoiler alert: they were wrong. Thatcher was one strong-willed PM who also needed a big boost in popularity (after shutting down many government industries and sending thousands into unemployment).

  • Mic this! 6
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Actually the oil wasn't discovered until after the '82 war. The Argentinian government used the islands as a nationalist symbol of resistance to imperialism for decades, indoctrinating children in school through textbooks and even forcing them to sing songs about the islands. The Junta launched the '82 war during a period of intense domestic unrest, and the British response was a matter of principle, not economics. (For the same cost as the war, they could have relocated everyone on the island and bought them each a million-pound house.) The subsequent discovery of oil only complicated matters, but they were pretty screwed up previously.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Susan Kraykowski 4 months ago Thank you Aaron and Zachary, both. ...

Thank you Aaron and Zachary, both. So, both sides were using the Falklands in 1982 as a nationalistic symbol to shore up morale at home and NOW we have oil as a complication.

Time to relocate the sheep and the British Falklandians and work on renewable energy sources, say I. Barren little rocks in the ocean are NOT worth fighting over and we can do much better things with the money, as Zachary points out. I hear the weather is terrible out there, too.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Jonathan Dowdall 4 months ago I think Britain would be pleased as...

  • Susan Kraykowski 4 months ago I don't have any real argument...

  • Zachary Taylor 4 months ago That's a good point, Susan, bu...

I think Britain would be pleased as punch if the islanders decided they'd all like to move out. Would be a lot cheaper in the long run, as oil or not, the military presence there costs millions a year.

However, as it is, the islanders really are super commited to being British. Just like that other British population threatened with seperation from London - Northern Irish protestants - their displays of nationalist fervour, Union jack waving and dedication to the Queen appear almost quant to modern cosmopolitan British eyes.

So I would say, in defence of UK actions in '82, that whilst the war did "score well" at home, the defence of British citizens that had been invaded and conquered does, on the whole, seem legitimate.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't have any real argument with the UKs position, Jonathan. It IS legitimate to defend one's citizens wherever they are located around the world; what sort of a nation wouldn't do it?

But, for the sake of the hypothetical - IF you evacuated the Falklands and reimbursed its inhabitants to the full extent of their property losses; brought home your troops and left the little rocks out there in the ocean to whomever wanted to occupy them and drill for the oil in those appalling conditions, what would be the outcome? A few hundred folks moving to the Channel Islands? Some extra funds for the NHS? Not that I'm being cavalier about this, but who gets hurt and who is going to really get upset?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

That's a good point, Susan, but in addition to the oil there's always the harm of precedent. If countries refuse to defend vulnerable populations from attack and instead retreat, that may incentivize aggression elsewhere.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

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?

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Jonathan Dowdall 4 months ago Aaaron, I certainly agree, and I th...

Aaaron, I certainly agree, and I think self-determination of the territories inhabitants should be our guiding principle when faced with such disputes.

However, as I've noted above, this principle is not actually gaining support in the region. We have to be honest and realise that the British case has not been "sold" well to Latin America, as evidenced by the latest ban.

The islands are, whatever our high intellectual ideals, being viewed as a colonial anachronism by the largest nations in the region. If this view cannot be changed, then Britain will face Falkands crisis somewhere down the line. We need to address this now.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Aaron Wee 4 months ago But do you honestly think it will t...

But do you honestly think it will turn into a military conflict again?

And more importantly, would both states agree to binding arbitration if the ICJ or UNDC proclaims on the issue one way or the other?

---

I'm pretty sure that the UK, should it want to keep them, would have strong backing from France (who still have a collection of islands all across the world) and Turkey (who face their own territorial challenges). The EU, and the US by default, would probably hedge its bets with the UK as well.

What I was most intrigued by was China's support of Argentina in this issue. China's growing network of alliances in S America makes for some potentially exciting times.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

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?

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic

What is PolicyMic?