Sunday 13 April 2014

No turning back for US Falklands/Malvinas Neutrality!

An inquiry by British MPs into the health of the so-called special relationship has declared it's disappointment that the United States will not back Britain's stance of self-determination for the remote Falklands/Malvinas archipeleago in the South Atlantic Ocean.  Argentina's firebrand President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner may well have been more than a little annoying to many in the international community, not just for the British.  But that said, she will no longer Argentine President in 18 months time.

Whilst America may have reluctantly backed Britain during the brief war of 1982, any change in their consistent neutrality on this issue would only serve a short term purpose. I believe the reality is that the US considers the long term positions of both Governments involved in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute to be unsustainable in the long term.

Noises have been made throughout the presidencies of both Kirchner presidents (Nestor and Cristina) suggesting the wishes of those who inhabit the islands are irrelevant.  Although we may be talking about a tiny population, many amongst that tiny population have had descendents on the islands that can be traced back to an earlier time before some descendents of the current Argentine population first arrived in Argentina!

Surely if Argentina is serious about trying to resolve this issue in the long term, the penny will drop that it's attitude to the Falklanders will need to moderate.  After all, in a world in which regional trading blocks are becoming the norm, Argentina can offer obvious trading advantages which Britain cannot due to geographical proximity.

It is on the point though of just how tiny that population is that the British case is also unsustainable.  The tiny population is often explained in a lazy way by suggestions the weather is so unbearable that not many people would wish to live there.

How do you define "not many people?"  The Falklands/Malvinas has a population of around the 3,000 mark.  Pick any British village of a similar population size, and then ask if we are talking about an archipelago of a similar area size to that small British village?  No, we are in fact talking about an area of land comparable in size to Northern Ireland!

On the point of how you define "not many people," lets examine the population of an archipelago in the North Atlantic with what is acknowledged to have a similar climate to the Falklands/Malvinas.  The Faroe Islands have a population of about 50,000 on a land area size which is a fraction to that of the Falklands/Malvinas land area size.  If the Falklands/Malvinas had a similar population density to the Faroes, the South Atlantic archipelago would have a population closer to the 400,000 mark!

The Falklands/Malvinas being underpopulated as opposed to sparsely populated is not the sole reason which undermines Britain's argument of self-determination.  How many Brits have even heard of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?  Well I have asked a few intelligent people regarding the territory which is situated about 900 miles east of the Falklands/Malvinas, and can confirm there are indeed few Brits aware of this territory's existence.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is also claimed by Argentina as a part of it's national territory.  Unlike the Falklands/Malvinas, this territory has no native population at all.  In fact it has a rotational population of 30, who are based in a scientific research centre.  Whilst the geographical proximity of this territory is not that close to Argentina, one fact which cannot be ignored is that Argentina is the closest sovereign state.

The Falkland Islands Government held a referendum just over a year ago in an attempt to demonstrate their self-determination to the world.  Just how successful that message has been with a 99.8% yes vote, time will no doubt tell.  What the referendum did no doubt achieve was to highlight other issues such as potential mineral wealth which may well become more significant in the years that lie ahead.

If the Falklands/Malvinas does indeed become a magnet for wealth, immigration trends will no doubt follow to possibly start to reverse the archipelago's under-population.  One reality Britain will need to accept is that if there is a significant influx of further immigration from the British mainland, it will only further play into an argument used by Argentina from time to time.

Argentina has argued that the Falklands/Malvinas is an implanted population.  I don't believe a potential future scenario with only a minority of the Falklands/Malvinas population as non-immigrants, would win support for the Self-Determination argument in the wider world at all.

The current British Prime Minister David Cameron has consistently taken an uncompromising line with Argentina in terms of suggesting there can never be any negotiations with Argentina, unless it is the wishes of the Falklanders.  If Cameron wins next year's general election and then goes on to serve a full second term as PM, I would believe the current British policy to be sustainable probably for as long as Cameron remains in office.

After Cameron though, nothing is impossible.  Many UK political observers would say any talk of a Falklands compromise would be electoral suicide for any governing party.  But that said, an opinion poll taken two years ago for the Guardian newspaper predictably showing most Brits in support of defending British Sovereignty, also detected a potential shift in opinion amongst younger generations.  Any impetus towards compromise will of course also require a more concilatory tone from future Argentine governments towards the Falklanders.

Taking on board all the factors that are relevant to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, it seems more logical to me that the US will indeed be sensible to remain on the fence.

No comments:

Post a Comment