Malvinas or Falklands: Britain or Argentina?

The first buildings on Las Malvinas (as the British called the South Atlantic Islands) were stone houses, built by the Argentines.

In 1831, forty men settled in the Malvinas Islands, led by Luis Vernet, the first Argentine commander. He was joined by his wife, Maria, who gave birth to a daughter whom she named Malvinas. However, the Argentine settlement in this unforgiving land did not last long.

In 1833, British colonists invaded Las Mavinas and the events that followed became known as “ethnic cleansing” – hundreds of British settlers were artificially brought in, while all Argentines were expelled.

On April 2, the 30th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1982 war between Argentina and Britain, the debate over the British invasion and the status of the Falkland Islands was reignited with unprecedented passion. Tensions between Buenos Aires and London further escalated.

The 1982 war was a folly by Argentine dictator General Leopoldo Galtieri, who had no better option than to retake the islands by force. The 74-day conflict left 649 Argentine soldiers, 255 British troops, and three civilians dead. His military actions—more of a diversion from his crumbling dictatorship—had nothing to do with Argentina’s real desire to retake the Falklands.

Argentina’s efforts to retake the Falkland Islands are now not only real but also legal, thanks to a diplomatic offensive driven by President Cristina Kirchner, who describes the recovery of the Falkland Islands as a “struggle against colonization.”

Kirchner has made the reclaiming of the Malvinas Islands a central part of her political re-mandate; she was recently re-elected with an overwhelming majority. Contrary to her military adventurism in 1982, President Kirchner’s re-claiming of the Malvinas Islands is not a political “strategy,” despite attempts by the British media and commentators to discredit it.

President Kirchner expressed genuine national aspirations, and she followed the rules. Her Foreign Minister, Hector Timermann, worked tirelessly around the United Nations, trying to get the British government to sit down and discuss a peaceful solution to the conflict. He sought mediation from all levels of the United Nations, including the Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and the Security Council. They all pledged to help.

But London has blatantly ignored Buenos Aires’ diplomatic efforts and said it would not negotiate on sovereignty unless the islanders wanted it.

Likewise, the UK has never recognised UN Resolution 1514 – the Declaration of Independence of States and Colonial Peoples – which states that any attempt to undermine the unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.

London’s reluctance to cooperate was further exacerbated by Britain’s UN ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, “warning” Argentina that any attempt to use the April 2 anniversary to launch a “military adventure” would be “vigorously defended.” The Argentine government appears to be planning to do just that.

Lyall Grant’s unhelpful statement reflected an aggressive approach taken by London, which coincided with the British government’s rush to militarize the Falklands and the South Atlantic.

In the past few months, this remote region has seen the arrival of several Typhoon IIs (latest generation fighters, used in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq), the HMS Dreadnought (the most advanced warship in the British Navy) and the HMS Vanguard (a nuclear submarine) in violation of the 1967 Treaty of Tlale Lolco, which bans nuclear weapons in Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

“Britain has turned the Malvinas Islands into an important military base for controlling the South Atlantic, transoceanic passages and extending to Antarctica, ensuring that the Argentine people can exploit the natural resources that belong to the South Atlantic,” the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a communiqué.

Buenos Aires has no doubt that the militarization of the region — which is by all accounts a bit anachronistic — has nothing to do with protecting the 2,500 British citizens who live in the Malvinas Islands. But it has everything to do with controlling the region’s rich natural resources.

The British government has announced an ambitious plan to drill in the area, which some experts say appears to hold the equivalent of 60 million barrels of crude oil.

The UK’s actions violated a UN ban on unilateral development and use of disputed territories, and one has to agree with Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman that the UK government’s actions “transcend the international judicial order.”

The militarization of the South Atlantic and British colonial rule in the region were not popular in Latin America. After all, the region still suffers from the devastating effects of imperialism and colonialism; first from Spanish colonization and then from American imperialism.

No wonder sovereignty over the Malvinas is no longer just an Argentine desire. It has become a Latin American claim. The vast majority of Latin American countries have united behind Argentina’s legitimate claims, including Chile, a traditionally pro-British country that, under General Pinochet’s military dictatorship, provided logistical support to Britain in the 1982 war. Last December, several Latin American countries announced that they would block any ship flying the “Falkland Islands” flag.

In addition, several Latin American leaders have expressed support for Argentina’s claims. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa made an impassioned statement on Twitter: “The Malvinas Islands are a Latin American cause, dear Argentina, do not back down!”

Given the overwhelming domestic and regional support, President Cristina Kirchner is unlikely to back down. Instead, she will harden her position around the postcolonial ideal of legitimacy sharply expressed by Cuban leader Fidel Castro: “The British have nothing to do here, they must negotiate and leave.”