Britain v Argentina: Falklands Issue

14 Feb

UK Prime Minister, David Cameron’s attitude and behaviour toward Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands (Guerra de las Malvinas) is clearly without a doubt meaningless and idle rhetoric. This is not least the case, because, if Argentina were to decide to invade the Islands, the British forces no long have the means to take back the Islands.

This inability to carry out its (the UK’s) threats has been confirmed countless times, by several high ranking former and serving officers, as well as Cameron’s own politicians. His comments, therefore, and references to Argentina’s neo-colonialism, are a further example of Cameron’s complete “lack of content” and, in this review, a feeble attempt at political grandstanding to court and galvanize public opinion for all the wrong reasons.

Despite any such claims to protect or defend the Falklands, Britain has no physical, sovereign, legitimate, or any other claim to these Islands. This would be the same as China’s contested claims to parts of Japan, Vietnam, or other territories near its borders. The difference here is that the Falklands has passed through many nations hand and is more than two and a half thousand miles from the British Isles.

Therefore, just as China’s claims to Tibet amount to nothing, so do Britain’s claims to the Falklands. Anything to the contrary is childish pish-posh, and unbecoming of a so-called forward-thinking and progressive nation. No longer are the days of plundering the world’s resources, enslavement of people, defensive outposts, imperialistic intentions, and flag planting. This era is now dead and gone. As an ancient and former connected land mass, Argentina has more claim to the ownership of the Falkland’s than any other nation.

That Britain colonized the Falklands in the 1800s in its efforts to expand the former British Empire and business interests has no relevance in any claim of ownership in a today’s modern landscape of geopolitics and increasing globalization, and scrambling for evermore scare natural resources. What is of importance, is the rights of the former settlers, who are now entitled to their own rights and freedoms to govern themselves independently of both Britain and Argentina respectively.

If, as well as staking its claim on a group of islands it has repeatedly claimed ownership of for over 200-years, Argentina’s intentions are now simply to make use of newly discovered oil deposits at the expense islanders, then, rightly so, it can only be described as a case of neo-colonialism for the purposes of sustaining national interests and resources.

This brings us to the key point in all considerations of the any notion of future determination for Falkland Islanders. If, as is being argued by the UK, Falklanders have a legal right to self-government and autonomy, then, in as much as Britain has no right to influence the use of natural resources for its own economic benefit, neither does Argentina, and the Falkland Islands should assert its independence from both nations.

What does not help, in any of this, is the facile threats of improbable British military maneuvers, the trade embargo being pursued by Argentina, and the utter petty political one-up-manship and wrangling of either. It does absolutely no good to anyone, and only serves to further agitate tensions.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Falkland Islands, Argentina, Guerra de las Malvinas, British Military, Cristina Fernandez


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: