Has the Falklands Referendum solved anything?
The people of the Falkland Islands will go the polls on 7 November to vote in their General Election. The year 2013 will best be remembered in this remote South Atlantic archipelago though for the referendum back in March which overwhelmingly endorsed the Falkland Islands' status as a British Overseas Territory.
The referendum was always going to give the British/Falkland Island position a bit of a bounce in the short term, but a most crucial point could be that the Obama Administration has resisted and will continue no doubt to resist any pressure to jump off the fence. So was there a point to a referendum in which the result was never in doubt?
If anything, it has merely demonstrated that there are other issues at stake other than self determination. With other issues such as mineral wealth potentially becoming more significant in the years ahead, all the 2013 referendum will serve to do is confirm a stand off between Britain and Argentina for some time to come!
I believe that the Falklanders do have a right to some form of Self Determination. However, there is also other British Territory in the South Atlantic in which the argument of Self Determination simply does not relate to. This does in my view suggest that something has got to give somewhere along the line. I have my own views as to how a potential compromise could develop. I may be proven right or I may be proven wrong. There is only one thing certain about the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, that being we have certainly not reached the end game at this point in time!
A potential long term solution
Should the time come for all parties to get to the negotiating table, there are a number of various solutions which have been previously suggested. One such proposal is Joint Sovereignty between Argentina and the United Kingdom. There is nowhere on the planet where Joint Sovereignty has ever worked! As with a Football Team with Joint Managers, who would ultimately have the final say if there was a point of disagreement between the two Sovereigns?
My own belief is that a long term solution could see the two main islands eventually split into separate British and Argentine territories. This would see West Falkland and the surrounding islands transferred to Argentine control. East Falkland (where the overwhelming majority reside) would remain a British Overseas Territory, which I believe on population density arguments would more than satisfy the Falkland Islanders' rights to self determination.
A handover period of the West could be agreed with a view to the territory remaining British for the remaining lifetimes of some West Falkland residents, whilst also restricting immigration to people who have good English language skills. This is something I believe could be useful to help the British Falklanders on East Falkland to build trading relations with a future neighbouring Argentine territory, and perhaps better trading relations with Argentina itself one day. An Anglo-Argentine Treaty could also address issues like mineral resources, military activity, and future territorial claims.
A partition of a chain of islands is not the same thing as the partition of one island such as Ireland. Whilst Joint Sovereignty has no positive form guide, there are working examples of island groups being split between different jurisdictions. One is the Virgin Islands which is split between the UK and USA. Another example is Samoa which is split between Samoa (previously Western Samoa) and American Samoa.
Why Should Britain one day be open to Compromise?
I am hopeful that another Falklands/Malvinas war will not happen in my lifetime. What I am less hopeful of is that this issue will disappear. Argentina may not currently account for a massive proportion of the UK's International Trade. But taking on board that we are talking about a fellow G20 Country, that could change in the future. The brief war in 1982 was tragic. But taking on board that Argentina has over 100,000 citizens of British descent, that war does not tell the full story of Britain's past relationship with Argentina. Let's also remember that Argentina at the time was under a dictatorship which had murdered it's own people! For over 30 years now, Argentina has been a democracy.
I do accept it will be difficult to see any movement on the Falklands/Malvinas issue for the remainder of the Kirchner Presidency. I would also suspect it to be nigh on impossible for the remainder of Mr Cameron's Premiership as well. But even if there is to be no sign of the Argentine claim on Las Malvinas being dropped, it is possible at some point in the future that relations between Britain and Argentina will improve. After all, Britain and the Falkland Islanders did enjoy better relations with Argentina during the Menem Presidency, even though the line from Buenos Aires was generally along the lines that we will agree to disagree on the Malvinas Sovereignty question for the timebeing.
Although the amount of money which the UK spends is a very tiny fraction of the UK Defence Budget, it would be wrong to say cost is not an issue. This is particularly so if Britain continues to assert that they will retain a garrison forever! There are always different interest groups back in the UK lobbying for an increased share of the public purse. And besides, maintaining the garrison long term does not solve the issue. It merely continues to contribute to the stand off between Britain and Argentina. That also means the Falkland Islanders don't have a settled peace (even if it is something they have always lived with) and their scope to develop their economy is hindered by little or no trade with their closest neighbour. Considering all the regional trading blocks that now exist around the world, some form of strong trading relationship with Argentina would surely be desirable long term.
I have stated that I believe a split in the land to be my belief as a long term solution to the dispute. I have also stated this to be a means to satisfy the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination on population density grounds. I will now explain this point in more detail. It is my viewpoint that the Falklands are not sparsely populated, but in fact underpopulated. The Falkland Islands cover a land area which is roughly five times that of the combined land area of the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands. The two sparsely populated Scottish archipelagos have a combined population of a little over 42,000. Whereas there are just under 3,000 Falklanders! As for West Falkland and it's surrounding islands, we are still talking about an area of land that is still nearly double the total combined land area of Orkney and Shetland. We are in fact also talking about a population count of about 300 at best!
I mention Orkney and Shetland for two reasons. Firstly, they are widely regarded as a place not to live for many mainland Brits. Secondly, it is generally regarded that the weather is similar in the two Scottish archipelagos to that in the Falklands. Filling the Falklands' population gap in the future is surely going to be done more from South America than the UK, a fact backed up by the Chilean Community of about 200 people now residing on the islands. As a Brit myself, if I wanted to live in a Falklands/Shetlands climate, I would not wish to emigrate to the other side of the world thanks!
Whether you agree or disagree with my population density viewpoint, there is another simple angle to the very question of why Britain should one day compromise. That being Britain's position does not enjoy universal support in the international community. I am not saying Argentina is in a stronger position either. But more generally, if either side was that confident of it's position in International Law, this dispute would have been heard by the International Court of Justice long before now.
Could I be proven wrong?
Of course it is possible. I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball. But I would urge everyone who has been courteous to take the time to read this post to put my views into perspective. I am not saying I want David Cameron to enter into negotiations with CFK tomorrow, next week, or even next year. What I am saying is that if both nations at some point in the future show that bit of bravery, and don't look back into history, then there could be hope.
If Argentina were to repeat some of it's past mistakes, then I would be quick to say the dispute would probably have been set back by another two generations. That said my own country is far from perfect as well! Argentina has been a democratic nation now for over thirty years, and it is probably worth remembering that post war West Germany had been a new democracy for about half that period of time when Britain was trying very hard to join the Common Market in the 1960s. West Germany, unlike the United Kingdom had been one of the Common Market's founder members.
Before I became more informed on this subject, my views were previously more in line with recent successive British Governments. I still believe it to be true that there are some Argentines who are ignorant about those who live on the Malvinas. But it should also be stated that those Argentine citizens who have challenged President Kirchner's Malvinas policy, deserve special praise.
What I have come to realise is that there is also a British ignorance as well, and that I was previously ignorant to various geographical facts I have highlighted in this post. I did not previously realise that we were talking about an archipelago with a land area size of about 90% of the size of Northern Ireland. I feel that does go some way to explain why some countries will not give the UK full backing on the Self Determination argument.
I would also point out that I had never previously wondered how I would have felt had history worked out differently to give Argentina (or any other distant nation for that matter) control of an island or group of islands off the British coast. The fact that the Falklands is much further away from Argentina than Shetland is from the north coast of Scotland, is to me irrelevant. I don't consider the Falkland Islands' natural link to the outside world to be London via Ascension Island.
Once again, I could be proven wrong on my beliefs. But I would also repeat that I believe I am correct in stating there is much British ignorance on the subject as well. The Falklands/Malvinas issue is one at this moment in time that won't go away. But with a more favourable point in the cycle of relations between Britain and Argentina in the future, that could all change.
No comments:
Post a Comment