Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Las Malvinas - the Falkland Island problem

Para el español, haga clic aquí: Las Malvinas - un análisis de la soberanía y el futuro y Las Malvinas son Argentinas


The Malvinas is the Spanish name for the Falkland Islands. These are a group of islands, the East of which were settled by the French in 1764 (East Falkland Island) and the west settled by the British in 1765 (West Falkland Island). The British claimed sovereignty over the entire island group. The Spanish purchased East Falkland Island from the French in 1766.  In 1770 the Spanish attacked West Falkland, taking control of the entire group but in 1771 they withdrew under threat from the British, recognising the right of the British to remain in West Falkland in 1775. The Islands are 460km away from the South American mainland, well beyond any normal territorial limits of any country. 

In 1823 The United Provinces of South America, which claimed ownership of any Spanish territories within reach, granted land on East Falkland to a man named Luis Vernet. The United Provinces of South America was a transient State consisting of Uruguay, much of Bolivia and a piece of northern Argentina.  He was proclaimed governor of the islands by The State of Buenos Aires (not the United Provinces or Argentine Confederation) in 1829.

United Provinces and Falkland Islands

"In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.[4] The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[5] and taken to Montevideo,[3] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[6]. The Lexington also removed the entire administration and most of the population of the Falklands [7].(Wikipedia)"

Report of the Lexington saying that the islands had been rendered free of any administration and of nearly all the people. Click on image to see full size.

In 1832 the State of Buenos Aires sent a military governor to the Islands to found a penal colony but the troops under his command mutinied. The British military arrived on 20 December 1832 and re-established British rule and imposed order. Vernet was invited to return to the Falklands but as the United Provinces disintegrated in 1831 was unable to do so. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands because the State of Buenos Aires was in control of the Islands from 1829 to 1832 and the Argentines conquered the later Republic of Buenos Aires, who could resume the claim, in the late 1850s.  The Argentine claim is a claim to "spoils of war".

So, except for a few weeks of dubiously legal rule the East Falklands has not been Argentine but successive "Argentine" governments have claimed sovereignty over the whole Falkland Islands for almost two hundred years. The West Falkland Islands have always been British.

.

The Argentine case for sovereignty over the Falklands is extraordinarily thin. It amounts to a declaration that the Falklands has always been a part of Argentina. The Argentines then argue that the Falklands is like Israeli settlements in Palestine or like Gibraltar, a foreign enclave in the heart of the nation put there by a foreign power that must be de-colonised. In reality the Falklands is the only de-colonisation case where a neighbour, almost 500 km away maintains that the natives of an island should be denied the right to self determination and simply absorbed: "We Argentines declare you are part of our territory so we will occupy you whatever you think". It is to the eternal shame of the UN that they are giving in to such outrageous arguments.

Who had de facto power over the Falklands and when - note that "Argentina" is used when United Provinces, State of Buenos Aires, Uruguay or Chile is meant and that the UK had legal possession of West Falkland throughout.

As can be seen from the above graphic, the East Falklands has been outside of what the Argentines claim was Argentine control for almost as long as Argentina has been a nation. Incidentally, it was the Republic of Buenos Aires, not the Argentine Confederation, that had de facto power in the 1830s and because East Falkland was administered by the Spanish from Montevideo and, in the 19th century, was nearest to Chile it is Uruguay or Chile that inherit any legal sovereignty claim.  Argentina has no legal claim at all.

During the twentieth century the British granted independence to almost all of the countries that once formed the British Empire and this included numerous small islands. Where people wanted to be independent the British agreed and even encouraged the less willing. The South Americans who accuse Britain of keeping the last remnant of Empire because of greed are mistaken because nearly all of the territories that were granted independence had substantial natural resources (see Note 2).  Britain will never recover the cost of defending the Islands. The Falkland Islands have not asked for independence because they are under perpetual threat from Argentina. Britain tried to persuade the Islanders to accept Argentine sovereignty in 1968 and again in 1980 but they refused because of Argentine belligerency - this sign of accommodation by the British was seen as weakness by the Argentines who promptly invaded in 1982, proving that the Islanders were right.

The communist bloc in the Cold War realised that the Falklands were of strategic significance and that transferring them to Argentina would be a blow against NATO. In 1965, under pressure from Argentina and the communist bloc, the UN passed a resolution declaring that Britain and Argentina should hold talks over the Falkland Islands (Resolution 2065). This resolution says little except that talks should be held. Some talks were held but Argentina descended into a fascist dictatorship that eventually invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. They were ejected by the British.

Bizarrely, and beyond all reason, the harassment of the Falklands is continuing. The trading bloc, Mercosur (BBC News) has just passed a resolution banning Falkland Islands shipping from their ports on the pretext that the British have not complied with resolution 2065.

As you can see, the resolution is not a demand that the Falklands are given to Argentina, it is no more than a request for discussion.  Notice that the resolution refers to resolution 1514 under which Argentina would be an offending colonial power, not Britain (see note below).  The British can comply with the resolution by either talking to the Argentines or making the Falklands independent.

The action by Mercosur is peculiar because it is "justified" on the grounds that Britain is not complying with Resolution 2605 but we all know that any talks would go nowhere whilst Argentina demands sovereignty. Indeed, the "..cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism.." in 2605 is incompatible with the Argentine demand that they should be the colonial power.  Britain can break the cycle by asking the Argentine Ambassador in London for talks. Britain can then declare that they have complied with 2605, ask Mercosur to end their action then announce that the Falklands must determine their own future as per Resolution 1514.  Indeed, the only possible solution to the Falkland Islands problem is to make the Falklands Independent with a guarantee of British protection. Argentina and Britain are two competing colonial powers, neither can fulfill the terms of Resolution 1514.  Once independent the Falklands' government would be able to ask the USA and Chileans for further protection and get the UK out of a delicate position that no-one in Britain desires.

The Argentines do not understand that the British electorate truly and deeply do not want to be involved in South American wars but are damned if they will tolerate naked aggression against their kinsmen.  The British people would be happy to see an independent Falkland Islands that is guaranteed freedom from colonisation by Argentina, the guarantee being provided by the USA or other states.

The challenge for Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina is to behave like modern states and encourage security and prosperity in the Falkland Islands so that they can form closer ties with their neighbours. The resolution of the Falklands problem is a test of the maturity of these states and they are failing this test. The challenge is also for the United Nations to refuse to bow to South American pressure and guarantee a peaceful, long term resolution to this problem rather than giving in to Argentina's neo-colonial impulses.

The South Americans might reflect upon the fact that the Falklands was an essential naval station that helped to protect the world against domination by the fascists and anti-democrats of the past two centuries. The Argentines would still be ruled by a Junta and Brazil would still be a slaver state if these forces had triumphed.

If the Argentines would make a public declaration that they will never attack the Falklands and then embrace the Islands economically and culturally then federation becomes the obvious way forwards for the islanders. For goodness sake, if the Falkland Islanders were allowed free access to Argentina and felt secure that they would never be attacked, if a Milonga were opened in Stanley and the Argentines helped develop the country how long would the Falkland Islands want to stay isolated? The only obstacle is that the Argentines are using the Falklands to divert attention from their own problems and seem to be neo-colonialists who want to oppress others. The sad truth seems to be that there is scarcely a soul in Argentina who has rationally considered the problem of "Las Malvinas" and national advantage trumps any legal or moral considerations.

The USA may have exacerbated this problem by putting their trading interests with South America ahead of the moral and legal case but the real problem is the belligerent attitude of Argentina. 

In August 1968 the British Government agreed the following memorandum of understanding with Argentina:

" The Government of the United Kingdom, as part of such a final settlement, will recognise Argentina's sovereignty over the Islands from a date to be agreed. This date will be agreed as soon as possible after -

(i) the two governments have resolved the present divergence between them as to the criteria according to which the United Kingdom Government shall consider whether the interests of the Islanders would be secured by the safeguards and guarantees to be offered by the Argentine Government, and
(ii) the Government of the United Kingdom are then satisfied that those interests are so secured.”


The memorandum failed because the Falkland Islanders made strenuous representations to the UK Parliament.  The British cannot act without the agreement of the Islanders. Cannot do so under the terms of the UN Charter and through considerations of natural justice.  It is on these points that the British are hung out to dry, being unable to avoid their obligations yet reviled by the South Americans for acting with honour.  The British are not acting as the greedy imperialists portrayed by the South American press.


As a member of the United Nations Argentina and the UK have agreed that:

Article 73:
'Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to
the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
2. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
3. to further international peace and security;
4. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.'

Article 103
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”

Resolution 2065 uses resolution 1514 as its justification. However, UN resolution 1514 does not really apply to the Falklands which was unpopulated upon discovery, is largely populated by inhabitants of British descent and, being over 450 km from the mainland cannot be regarded as a natural part of Argentina. The declaration in resolution 1514 states:

"And to this end Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contraryto the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotionof world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educationalpreparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directedagainst dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercisepeacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and theintegrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without anyconditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed willand desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in orderto enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the nationalunity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with thepurposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions ofthe Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference inthe internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights ofall peoples and their territorial integrity."

In fact, if Argentina were to invade the Falklands again it would be a colonial power under resolution 1514, occupying a land that is well beyond any normal or legal territorial limits that is populated by people who have no natural cultural or linguistic affinity to Argentina.
The Argentines are unreconstructed colonialists, in the past they wiped out the indians to get resources. They tell themselves that there were not that many indians so it did not matter and use the same logic with the settlers in the Falklands.


The UN and the Argentines need to consider the fate of some of the small, distant islands that Britain inherited from the Empire. Take Tristan da Cunha for instance, it has 264 inhabitants, too few people to support even a hospital but Britain provides a reliable emergency lifeline. The entire population had to be evacuated when the volcano on the island became active, to be returned a year or so later. What of Montserrat, another island near South America, strangely no South American country is keen to claim it even though it lies off the coast of South America - why? - because it has a huge pyroclastic volcano and the greedy British provide emergency evacuation and relief facilities. What of Pitcairn? When the small population became warped, institutionalising paedophilia, Britain and its ally New Zealand were able to sort it out. Take the Falklands, a brutish neighbour actually invaded it! But Britain was there again as a mature ally and friend. When the islanders look around the world they are glad that they have a steady, reliable larger country to provide a lifeline. The big exception is the Chagos Archipelago where, at the height of the Cold War the British gave the Island to the American military for 50 years as a key base for intervening in the Middle East. The secrecy of the Chagos operations meant that the entire population was re-settled in Mauritius. World War III did not happen so we should now help any Chagosians who so wish to return. Perhaps the British should demand that the USA leave Chagos altogether if they will not step up on the Falklands, Britain did a terrible thing to help the US so perhaps the US can do the right thing in return.

As an afterthought, I noticed that numerous blogs in Spanish were talking down British military effectiveness.  This is dangerous talk, Britain is the leading second rank military power and has battle hardened forces, only the USA or Russia could consider a war with Britain as an 'easily' winnable option.  I remember in 1982 the loose talk by ordinary Brazilians, Americans, Argentines etc. about what an easy victory the Argentines would achieve against the UK and this misled the Argentines into folly.  No-one should even be considering war as a way out of this problem.

See also:

Threats and friends of the English

Further reading: Roger Lorton. The Falkland Islands History.